5 Dead In School Shooting in Canada

SLCPUNK · January 27, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.

Nobody said anything about removing all guns. However making guns much more difficult to access, keeping them out of the hands of those (mentally incapacitated or not) who should not have them in the first place, would = less people getting shot with guns.

PappyTron · January 27, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.
Sorry, but I disagree. You can do both; it's not the binary proposition you're making it out to be.
The argument that the U.S. is too far gone with respect to guns is absurd. Sure, there are always going to be people who get around whatever laws you pass, but there are many who won't. Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.
You can pass laws that target those who are most likely to use guns for the purpose of targeting others. That doesn't mean that the laws are full-proof, but it's ridiculous to argue that lives wouldn't be saved by limiting or preventing access of guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse, mental illness, or criminal records.

Nobody is saying that it is a binary option, just that those who commit gun crimes, such as those in gangs, will be unaffected by any laws enacted, and those who shouldn't have guns in the first place, such as those who end up going to be spree killers, can still obtain weapons all the same. America has hundreds of millions of weapons; you simply cannot click your fingers and remove them so it is better to target the social areas that you can have a direct effect on which themselves are the underlying causes of gun violence in the first place.

People who are convicted of domestic violence have felony records, given that domestic violence is a felony; felons cannot own firearms. Misdemeanor domestic violence is not a felony, but then again some domestic violence is just that; a misdemeanor and felony charges are not warranted.

Again, nobody is arguing that all people should have access to firearms and indeed some people have forfeited their rights to own firearms (though all should have the ability to earn back that right), and others should not have firearms for general safety reasons (some mental health issues etc). However, people's desires to outright blanket ban weapons such as AR-15s, AK-74s and other things that they erroneously call "assault weapons" is missing the point entirely.

Nobody said anything about removing all guns. However making guns much more difficult to access, keeping them out of the hands of those (mentally incapacitated or not) who should not have them in the first place, would = less people getting shot with guns.

You said just that. You said:

Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot

That's pretty clear. Nowhere did you suggest that particular types of guns should be removed, nor did you state that guns for certain people should be limited. You simply said "Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot" which is self-evident.

Edited January 27, 2016 by PappyTron

**downzy** · January 27, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.
Sorry, but I disagree. You can do both; it's not the binary proposition you're making it out to be.
The argument that the U.S. is too far gone with respect to guns is absurd. Sure, there are always going to be people who get around whatever laws you pass, but there are many who won't. Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.
You can pass laws that target those who are most likely to use guns for the purpose of targeting others. That doesn't mean that the laws are full-proof, but it's ridiculous to argue that lives wouldn't be saved by limiting or preventing access of guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse, mental illness, or criminal records.
Nobody is saying that it is a binary option, just that those who commit gun crimes, such as those in gangs, will be unaffected by any laws enacted, and those who shouldn't have guns in the first place, such as those who end up going to be spree killers, can still obtain weapons all the same. America has hundreds of millions of weapons; you simply cannot click your fingers and remove them so it is better to target the social areas that you can have a direct effect on which themselves are the underlying causes of gun violence in the first place.
People who are convicted of domestic violence have felony records, given that domestic violence is a felony; felons cannot own firearms. Misdemeanor domestic violence is not a felony, but then again some domestic violence is just that; a misdemeanor and felony charges are not warranted.
Again, nobody is arguing that all people should have access to firearms and indeed some people have forfeited their rights to own firearms (though all should have the ability to earn back that right), and others should not have firearms for general safety reasons (some mental health issues etc). However, people's desires to outright blanket ban weapons such as AR-15s, AK-74s and other things that they erroneously call "assault weapons" is missing the point entirely.

I never argued for an outright blanket ban. My issue was with your assertion that plague of gun violence that affects only the United States amongst developed nations can only be addressed through socio-economic policy (welfare, poverty prevention, mental illness).

Examine the difference in murder rates following policy changes in Connecticut and Missouri. One state, Connecticut, decided to enact gun control laws that required background checks and safety training courses before someone could purchase and own a gun. Missouri did the opposite, repealing a law that required a permit to own a gun. Connecticut saw a 40 percent reduction in gun-related murders based on projections since change its laws, Missouri saw a 23 percent increase in firearm related homicides (while also increasing crime relates for nearby states, as local police began to find more Missouri sourced guns).

There are gun policies and laws that can have positive change regardless of how many guns litter the American landscape. Every other developed nation has figured this out. It doesn't mean gun violence doesn't occur in other counties, as evident in Saskatchewan last week. But most developed nations made the decision a long time ago to diminish gun violence by limiting access to guns. It has worked elsewhere. Your contention is that there are just too many guns in the US for that to happen. The evidence says otherwise.

PappyTron · January 27, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.
Sorry, but I disagree. You can do both; it's not the binary proposition you're making it out to be.
The argument that the U.S. is too far gone with respect to guns is absurd. Sure, there are always going to be people who get around whatever laws you pass, but there are many who won't. Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.
You can pass laws that target those who are most likely to use guns for the purpose of targeting others. That doesn't mean that the laws are full-proof, but it's ridiculous to argue that lives wouldn't be saved by limiting or preventing access of guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse, mental illness, or criminal records.
Nobody is saying that it is a binary option, just that those who commit gun crimes, such as those in gangs, will be unaffected by any laws enacted, and those who shouldn't have guns in the first place, such as those who end up going to be spree killers, can still obtain weapons all the same. America has hundreds of millions of weapons; you simply cannot click your fingers and remove them so it is better to target the social areas that you can have a direct effect on which themselves are the underlying causes of gun violence in the first place.
People who are convicted of domestic violence have felony records, given that domestic violence is a felony; felons cannot own firearms. Misdemeanor domestic violence is not a felony, but then again some domestic violence is just that; a misdemeanor and felony charges are not warranted.
Again, nobody is arguing that all people should have access to firearms and indeed some people have forfeited their rights to own firearms (though all should have the ability to earn back that right), and others should not have firearms for general safety reasons (some mental health issues etc). However, people's desires to outright blanket ban weapons such as AR-15s, AK-74s and other things that they erroneously call "assault weapons" is missing the point entirely.
I never argued for an outright blanket ban. My issue was with your assertion that plague of gun violence that affects only the United States amongst developed nations can only be addressed through socio-economic policy (welfare, poverty prevention, mental illness).
Examine the difference in murder rates following policy changes in Connecticut and Missouri. One state, Connecticut, decided to enact gun control laws that required background checks and safety training courses before someone could purchase and own a gun. Missouri did the opposite, repealing a law that required a permit to own a gun. Connecticut saw a 40 percent reduction in gun-related murders based on projections since change its laws, Missouri saw a 23 percent increase in firearm related homicides (while also increasing crime relates for nearby states, as local police began to find more Missouri sourced guns).

There are gun policies and laws that can have positive change regardless of how many guns litter the American landscape. Every other developed nation has figured this out. It doesn't mean gun violence doesn't occur in other counties, as evident in Saskatchewan last week. But most developed nations made the decision a long time ago to diminish gun violence by limiting access to guns. It has worked elsewhere. Your contention is that there are just too many guns in the US for that to happen. The evidence says otherwise.

CT has always had a mandatory training class in order to have a CCW (well, since the mid 90s). Indeed, in CT you cannot even own a pistol unless you have had a full training class and been signed off by an instructor (unless you move in from outer state and bring one with you) yet CT has two of the most violent cities in America in New Haven and Hartford. In fact, in New Haven it is extremely hard to get a pistol as the relevant authorities are extremely slow to sign off on the paperwork, despite the fact that the State is nominally Shall Issue and the permit is meant to come through in less than 90 days; some people have waited near a year after their classes. Despite that there are drivebys, murders and nightly shootouts across the city. Almost always in the same areas and almost always by the same people. Now, if those people didn't exist, or at least not in the form that they currently are, would the crimes in new Haven be the same? I think not.

As for your 40% figure, there are two issues with that. A; the author admits that there is no way of knowing whether the two factors are related and B; almost all states have had a reduction in murder rates since the mid 90s. Moreover, since the 1970s there has been a steady decline in gun ownership across the country, yet there has not been a corresponding decline in the problem areas such as poor inner cities and there has been an increase in spree killings, both in number and intensity.

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.
Sorry, but I disagree. You can do both; it's not the binary proposition you're making it out to be.
The argument that the U.S. is too far gone with respect to guns is absurd. Sure, there are always going to be people who get around whatever laws you pass, but there are many who won't. Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.
You can pass laws that target those who are most likely to use guns for the purpose of targeting others. That doesn't mean that the laws are full-proof, but it's ridiculous to argue that lives wouldn't be saved by limiting or preventing access of guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse, mental illness, or criminal records.
Nobody is saying that it is a binary option, just that those who commit gun crimes, such as those in gangs, will be unaffected by any laws enacted, and those who shouldn't have guns in the first place, such as those who end up going to be spree killers, can still obtain weapons all the same. America has hundreds of millions of weapons; you simply cannot click your fingers and remove them so it is better to target the social areas that you can have a direct effect on which themselves are the underlying causes of gun violence in the first place.
People who are convicted of domestic violence have felony records, given that domestic violence is a felony; felons cannot own firearms. Misdemeanor domestic violence is not a felony, but then again some domestic violence is just that; a misdemeanor and felony charges are not warranted.
Again, nobody is arguing that all people should have access to firearms and indeed some people have forfeited their rights to own firearms (though all should have the ability to earn back that right), and others should not have firearms for general safety reasons (some mental health issues etc). However, people's desires to outright blanket ban weapons such as AR-15s, AK-74s and other things that they erroneously call "assault weapons" is missing the point entirely.
I never argued for an outright blanket ban. My issue was with your assertion that plague of gun violence that affects only the United States amongst developed nations can only be addressed through socio-economic policy (welfare, poverty prevention, mental illness).
Examine the difference in murder rates following policy changes in Connecticut and Missouri. One state, Connecticut, decided to enact gun control laws that required background checks and safety training courses before someone could purchase and own a gun. Missouri did the opposite, repealing a law that required a permit to own a gun. Connecticut saw a 40 percent reduction in gun-related murders based on projections since change its laws, Missouri saw a 23 percent increase in firearm related homicides (while also increasing crime relates for nearby states, as local police began to find more Missouri sourced guns).

There are gun policies and laws that can have positive change regardless of how many guns litter the American landscape. Every other developed nation has figured this out. It doesn't mean gun violence doesn't occur in other counties, as evident in Saskatchewan last week. But most developed nations made the decision a long time ago to diminish gun violence by limiting access to guns. It has worked elsewhere. Your contention is that there are just too many guns in the US for that to happen. The evidence says otherwise.
CT has always had a mandatory training class in order to have a CCW (well, since the mid 90s). Indeed, in CT you cannot even own a pistol unless you have had a full training class and been signed off by an instructor (unless you move in from outer state and bring one with you) yet CT has two of the most violent cities in America in New Haven and Hartford. In fact, in New Haven it is extremely hard to get a pistol as the relevant authorities are extremely slow to sign off on the paperwork, despite the fact that the State is nominally Shall Issue and the permit is meant to come through in less than 90 days; some people have waited near a year after their classes. Despite that there are drivebys, murders and nightly shootouts across the city. Almost always in the same areas and almost always by the same people. Now, if those people didn't exist, or at least not in the form that they currently are, would the crimes in new Haven be the same? I think not.
As for your 40% figure, there are two issues with that. A; the author admits that there is no way of knowing whether the two factors are related and B; almost all states have had a reduction in murder rates since the mid 90s. Moreover, since the 1970s there has been a steady decline in gun ownership across the country, yet there has not been a corresponding decline in the problem areas such as poor inner cities and there has been an increase in spree killings, both in number and intensity.

Mandatory training classes became mandatory in 1995, when the law was passed. It's the law I'm talking about. And yes and no to your point about no direct causal relationship. Yes, we can't measure an alternate universal where the law in Connecticut was never passed, but researchers did compare Connecticut against the 39 states that didn't have similar laws at the time. Gun-related homicides dropped nationwide, but in Connecticut, the homicide rate dropped even faster and lower, even after controlling for other factors like policing and income levels. And you failed to address what occurred in Missouri, where gun-related homicides did increase after they dropped the requirement for gun permits.

The other problem you're making is that you're assuming that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. That's just not the case. First, non-gun related deaths have also dropped precipitously. The rate of non-fatal gunshot injuries has actually risen by 20 percent since 2001. And if you look at gunshot victims that require hospitalization, the rate has actually jumped 50 percent.

It's not that less people are getting shot, but that doctors are getting better at treating gunshot victims. Trauma care has dramatically improved over the past 15 to 20 years. So pointing to a long-term trend of less gun-related deaths is missing the point. The rate of gun-related injuries are still present and in some cases getting worse.

The argument isn't that more rigid gun control laws will rid the plight of inner cities. The death of innocent Americans as a result of lax gun laws isn't just hurting inner cities.

SLCPUNK · January 28, 2016

That's pretty clear. Nowhere did you suggest that particular types of guns should be removed, nor did you state that guns for certain people should be limited. You simply said "Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot" which is self-evident.

You may not define my silence and then attack that (false) premise. Furthermore it was made crystal clear for you in my follow up post, which you simply ignored.

At that point, why discuss this with anybody at all? You're speaking on my behalf now...might as well just argue with yourself, which is essentially what you're trying to do.

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.
Sorry, but I disagree. You can do both; it's not the binary proposition you're making it out to be.
The argument that the U.S. is too far gone with respect to guns is absurd. Sure, there are always going to be people who get around whatever laws you pass, but there are many who won't. Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.
You can pass laws that target those who are most likely to use guns for the purpose of targeting others. That doesn't mean that the laws are full-proof, but it's ridiculous to argue that lives wouldn't be saved by limiting or preventing access of guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse, mental illness, or criminal records.
Nobody is saying that it is a binary option, just that those who commit gun crimes, such as those in gangs, will be unaffected by any laws enacted, and those who shouldn't have guns in the first place, such as those who end up going to be spree killers, can still obtain weapons all the same. America has hundreds of millions of weapons; you simply cannot click your fingers and remove them so it is better to target the social areas that you can have a direct effect on which themselves are the underlying causes of gun violence in the first place.
People who are convicted of domestic violence have felony records, given that domestic violence is a felony; felons cannot own firearms. Misdemeanor domestic violence is not a felony, but then again some domestic violence is just that; a misdemeanor and felony charges are not warranted.
Again, nobody is arguing that all people should have access to firearms and indeed some people have forfeited their rights to own firearms (though all should have the ability to earn back that right), and others should not have firearms for general safety reasons (some mental health issues etc). However, people's desires to outright blanket ban weapons such as AR-15s, AK-74s and other things that they erroneously call "assault weapons" is missing the point entirely.
I never argued for an outright blanket ban. My issue was with your assertion that plague of gun violence that affects only the United States amongst developed nations can only be addressed through socio-economic policy (welfare, poverty prevention, mental illness).
Examine the difference in murder rates following policy changes in Connecticut and Missouri. One state, Connecticut, decided to enact gun control laws that required background checks and safety training courses before someone could purchase and own a gun. Missouri did the opposite, repealing a law that required a permit to own a gun. Connecticut saw a 40 percent reduction in gun-related murders based on projections since change its laws, Missouri saw a 23 percent increase in firearm related homicides (while also increasing crime relates for nearby states, as local police began to find more Missouri sourced guns).

There are gun policies and laws that can have positive change regardless of how many guns litter the American landscape. Every other developed nation has figured this out. It doesn't mean gun violence doesn't occur in other counties, as evident in Saskatchewan last week. But most developed nations made the decision a long time ago to diminish gun violence by limiting access to guns. It has worked elsewhere. Your contention is that there are just too many guns in the US for that to happen. The evidence says otherwise.
CT has always had a mandatory training class in order to have a CCW (well, since the mid 90s). Indeed, in CT you cannot even own a pistol unless you have had a full training class and been signed off by an instructor (unless you move in from outer state and bring one with you) yet CT has two of the most violent cities in America in New Haven and Hartford. In fact, in New Haven it is extremely hard to get a pistol as the relevant authorities are extremely slow to sign off on the paperwork, despite the fact that the State is nominally Shall Issue and the permit is meant to come through in less than 90 days; some people have waited near a year after their classes. Despite that there are drivebys, murders and nightly shootouts across the city. Almost always in the same areas and almost always by the same people. Now, if those people didn't exist, or at least not in the form that they currently are, would the crimes in new Haven be the same? I think not.
As for your 40% figure, there are two issues with that. A; the author admits that there is no way of knowing whether the two factors are related and B; almost all states have had a reduction in murder rates since the mid 90s. Moreover, since the 1970s there has been a steady decline in gun ownership across the country, yet there has not been a corresponding decline in the problem areas such as poor inner cities and there has been an increase in spree killings, both in number and intensity.
Mandatory training classes became mandatory in 1995, when the law was passed. It's the law I'm talking about. And yes and no to your point about no direct causal relationship. Yes, we can't measure an alternate universal where the law in Connecticut was never passed, but researchers did compare Connecticut against the 39 states that didn't have similar laws at the time. Gun-related homicides dropped nationwide, but in Connecticut, the homicide rate dropped even faster and lower, even after controlling for other factors like policing and income levels. And you failed to address what occurred in Missouri, where gun-related homicides did increase after they dropped the requirement for gun permits.
The other problem you're making is that you're assuming that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. That's just not the case. First, non-gun related deaths have also dropped precipitously. The rate of non-fatal gunshot injuries has actually risen by 20 percent since 2001. And if you look at gunshot victims that require hospitalization, the rate has actually jumped 50 percent.
It's not that less people are getting shot, but that doctors are getting better at treating gunshot victims. Trauma care has dramatically improved over the past 15 to 20 years. So pointing to a long-term trend of less gun-related deaths is missing the point. The rate of gun-related injuries are still present and in some cases getting worse.
The argument isn't that more rigid gun control laws will rid the plight of inner cities. The death of innocent Americans as a result of lax gun laws isn't just hurting inner cities.

Given that we cannot measure an alternative universe where something else may or not have happened it is egregious to say that X or Y must have been the cause. We can only go by what we do know; that the rates dropped in CT but that they also dropped across the nation as a whole. CT also had a huge crack epidemic in the 90s and 2000s; perhaps the fall in gun murders can also be attributed to the war on drugs in the state. Again, we cannot be sure and the truth is almost certainly a combination of reasons and factors.

What about Missouri? It has broadly followed the nation's rates since the 1960s right through until the tail end of the 2000s where it experienced a spike in relation to the rest of the nation. Was that due to the changes in the laws or due to some other factor? If it was due to the changes in the state's gun laws why did it take more than half a year for the firearms related homicide rate to increase?

Yes, all deaths have fallen over the last few decades. That is a good thing, is it not? However, given that "firearms related injuries" include everything from the people that the police shoot to failed gun suicides to muggers being shot in self defense to accidental discharges it is hard to clearly peg a trend either way; if more would-be muggers are being shot, as an example, that is a good thing, broadly speaking. As an addendum, I am not "assuming" that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. However, what I am doing is discussing the original point which was gun murders, not gun crimes.

The argument that is being made, at least on my end, is that crime in America is high and needs to be tackled. How we tackle that is the question. One solution is to control firearms, but the wider issue, that relates to a much broader and frankly more important point of import and discussion, is how we have a positive effect on the societal conditions that provide a breeding ground for the high criminality in the first place. My belief is that we need to look at how society is structured so that there are less people living in poverty with no education, no social moorings, no real career prospects, easy entry into gangs and a belief that life is cheap, all of which are the underlying causes of crime of all stripes.

Jackie Moon · January 28, 2016

there is next to no hope in those communities, they are stuck in no mans land.

Not quite traditional [aboriginal] living, not quite modern living.

Not trying to be funny/controversial here, but I'm not surprised they're huffing gas, killing themselves.

It's fucking dark up there, literally and figuratively.

I don't judge that kid. There is no judgement here. Only sadness.

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

That's pretty clear. Nowhere did you suggest that particular types of guns should be removed, nor did you state that guns for certain people should be limited. You simply said "Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot" which is self-evident.
You may not define my silence and then attack that (false) premise. Furthermore it was made crystal clear for you in my follow up post, which you simply ignored.
At that point, why discuss this with anybody at all? You're speaking on my behalf now...might as well just argue with yourself, which is essentially what you're trying to do.

I ignored the follow up clarification for the obvious reason that I was highlighting to you what you said in your original post not what you then clarified. You said "Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot" not "Remove certain types of guns from the equation and less people will get shot" which is why I questioned it. Don't get your knickers in a twist and if you want people to counterpoint what you have said then state what you intend rather than having to clarify in a second post and then get in a huff in a third post.

bran · January 28, 2016

Given that we cannot measure an alternative universe where something else may or not have happened it is egregious to say that X or Y must have been the cause. We can only go by what we do know; that the rates dropped in CT but that they also dropped across the nation as a whole. CT also had a huge crack epidemic in the 90s and 2000s; perhaps the fall in gun murders can also be attributed to the war on drugs in the state. Again, we cannot be sure and the truth is almost certainly a combination of reasons and factors.
What about Missouri? It has broadly followed the nation's rates since the 1960s right through until the tail end of the 2000s where it experienced a spike in relation to the rest of the nation. Was that due to the changes in the laws or due to some other factor? If it was due to the changes in the state's gun laws why did it take more than half a year for the firearms related homicide rate to increase?
Yes, all deaths have fallen over the last few decades. That is a good thing, is it not? However, given that "firearms related injuries" include everything from the people that the police shoot to failed gun suicides to muggers being shot in self defense to accidental discharges it is hard to clearly peg a trend either way; if more would-be muggers are being shot, as an example, that is a good thing, broadly speaking. As an addendum, I am not "assuming" that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. However, what I am doing is discussing the original point which was gun murders, not gun crimes.
The argument that is being made, at least on my end, is that crime in America is high and needs to be tackled. How we tackle that is the question. One solution is to control firearms, but the wider issue, that relates to a much broader and frankly more important point of import and discussion, is how we have a positive effect on the societal conditions that provide a breeding ground for the high criminality in the first place. My belief is that we need to look at how society is structured so that there are less people living in poverty with no education, no social moorings, no real career prospects, easy entry into gangs and a belief that life is cheap, all of which are the underlying causes of crime of all stripes.

well said pappy

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

I never argued for an outright blanket ban. My issue was with your assertion that plague of gun violence that affects only the United States amongst developed nations can only be addressed through socio-economic policy (welfare, poverty prevention, mental illness).
Examine the difference in murder rates following policy changes in Connecticut and Missouri. One state, Connecticut, decided to enact gun control laws that required background checks and safety training courses before someone could purchase and own a gun. Missouri did the opposite, repealing a law that required a permit to own a gun. Connecticut saw a 40 percent reduction in gun-related murders based on projections since change its laws, Missouri saw a 23 percent increase in firearm related homicides (while also increasing crime relates for nearby states, as local police began to find more Missouri sourced guns).

There are gun policies and laws that can have positive change regardless of how many guns litter the American landscape. Every other developed nation has figured this out. It doesn't mean gun violence doesn't occur in other counties, as evident in Saskatchewan last week. But most developed nations made the decision a long time ago to diminish gun violence by limiting access to guns. It has worked elsewhere. Your contention is that there are just too many guns in the US for that to happen. The evidence says otherwise.
CT has always had a mandatory training class in order to have a CCW (well, since the mid 90s). Indeed, in CT you cannot even own a pistol unless you have had a full training class and been signed off by an instructor (unless you move in from outer state and bring one with you) yet CT has two of the most violent cities in America in New Haven and Hartford. In fact, in New Haven it is extremely hard to get a pistol as the relevant authorities are extremely slow to sign off on the paperwork, despite the fact that the State is nominally Shall Issue and the permit is meant to come through in less than 90 days; some people have waited near a year after their classes. Despite that there are drivebys, murders and nightly shootouts across the city. Almost always in the same areas and almost always by the same people. Now, if those people didn't exist, or at least not in the form that they currently are, would the crimes in new Haven be the same? I think not.
As for your 40% figure, there are two issues with that. A; the author admits that there is no way of knowing whether the two factors are related and B; almost all states have had a reduction in murder rates since the mid 90s. Moreover, since the 1970s there has been a steady decline in gun ownership across the country, yet there has not been a corresponding decline in the problem areas such as poor inner cities and there has been an increase in spree killings, both in number and intensity.
Mandatory training classes became mandatory in 1995, when the law was passed. It's the law I'm talking about. And yes and no to your point about no direct causal relationship. Yes, we can't measure an alternate universal where the law in Connecticut was never passed, but researchers did compare Connecticut against the 39 states that didn't have similar laws at the time. Gun-related homicides dropped nationwide, but in Connecticut, the homicide rate dropped even faster and lower, even after controlling for other factors like policing and income levels. And you failed to address what occurred in Missouri, where gun-related homicides did increase after they dropped the requirement for gun permits.
The other problem you're making is that you're assuming that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. That's just not the case. First, non-gun related deaths have also dropped precipitously. The rate of non-fatal gunshot injuries has actually risen by 20 percent since 2001. And if you look at gunshot victims that require hospitalization, the rate has actually jumped 50 percent.
It's not that less people are getting shot, but that doctors are getting better at treating gunshot victims. Trauma care has dramatically improved over the past 15 to 20 years. So pointing to a long-term trend of less gun-related deaths is missing the point. The rate of gun-related injuries are still present and in some cases getting worse.
The argument isn't that more rigid gun control laws will rid the plight of inner cities. The death of innocent Americans as a result of lax gun laws isn't just hurting inner cities.
Given that we cannot measure an alternative universe where something else may or not have happened it is egregious to say that X or Y must have been the cause. We can only go by what we do know; that the rates dropped in CT but that they also dropped across the nation as a whole. CT also had a huge crack epidemic in the 90s and 2000s; perhaps the fall in gun murders can also be attributed to the war on drugs in the state. Again, we cannot be sure and the truth is almost certainly a combination of reasons and factors.
What about Missouri? It has broadly followed the nation's rates since the 1960s right through until the tail end of the 2000s where it experienced a spike in relation to the rest of the nation. Was that due to the changes in the laws or due to some other factor? If it was due to the changes in the state's gun laws why did it take more than half a year for the firearms related homicide rate to increase?
Yes, all deaths have fallen over the last few decades. That is a good thing, is it not? However, given that "firearms related injuries" include everything from the people that the police shoot to failed gun suicides to muggers being shot in self defense to accidental discharges it is hard to clearly peg a trend either way; if more would-be muggers are being shot, as an example, that is a good thing, broadly speaking. As an addendum, I am not "assuming" that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. However, what I am doing is discussing the original point which was gun murders, not gun crimes.
The argument that is being made, at least on my end, is that crime in America is high and needs to be tackled. How we tackle that is the question. One solution is to control firearms, but the wider issue, that relates to a much broader and frankly more important point of import and discussion, is how we have a positive effect on the societal conditions that provide a breeding ground for the high criminality in the first place. My belief is that we need to look at how society is structured so that there are less people living in poverty with no education, no social moorings, no real career prospects, easy entry into gangs and a belief that life is cheap, all of which are the underlying causes of crime of all stripes.

So essentially any instance that contradicts your assertions are just mere coincidence, and should never be the basis of policy. Connecticut passes more stringent gun restrictions and they see a 40 percent drop in gun-related homicides relative to other states that do not and that's a coincidence. Missouri eases gun regulations, sees a 23 percent hike in gun-related homicides, and that's a coincidence. Really...

Speaking of Missouri, I'm not sure where you got your stats, but they don't follow anything I've read on the state's gun violence patterns. Prior to the repeal of the law, Missouri went from 13.8 percent higher than the national average to 47 percent higher than the national average for homicide rates. But I'm sure this is just another coincidence.

So you're suggesting that the increase in firearm related injuries is a result of suicides gone wrong or increase police shootings? Really? It has nothing to do with the increased prevalence of guns? It was your contention that the long-term trend of lower murder rates makes advocating for additional gun control moot. Except gun violence hasn't dropped, it's increased. Are more muggers getting shot at a high enough rate to explain this? You're going to have to find proof that's the case. Simply throwing out the suggestion doesn't prove your case.

I have no issue with many of the reasons you list for gun violence (or violence in genera). What I take issue is that gun policy doesn't play a significant role in curbing gun violence. Gun rights advocates often use mental illness as a smokescreen and distract from very basic policies that can have a measurable effect.

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

I never argued for an outright blanket ban. My issue was with your assertion that plague of gun violence that affects only the United States amongst developed nations can only be addressed through socio-economic policy (welfare, poverty prevention, mental illness).
Examine the difference in murder rates following policy changes in Connecticut and Missouri. One state, Connecticut, decided to enact gun control laws that required background checks and safety training courses before someone could purchase and own a gun. Missouri did the opposite, repealing a law that required a permit to own a gun. Connecticut saw a 40 percent reduction in gun-related murders based on projections since change its laws, Missouri saw a 23 percent increase in firearm related homicides (while also increasing crime relates for nearby states, as local police began to find more Missouri sourced guns).

There are gun policies and laws that can have positive change regardless of how many guns litter the American landscape. Every other developed nation has figured this out. It doesn't mean gun violence doesn't occur in other counties, as evident in Saskatchewan last week. But most developed nations made the decision a long time ago to diminish gun violence by limiting access to guns. It has worked elsewhere. Your contention is that there are just too many guns in the US for that to happen. The evidence says otherwise.
CT has always had a mandatory training class in order to have a CCW (well, since the mid 90s). Indeed, in CT you cannot even own a pistol unless you have had a full training class and been signed off by an instructor (unless you move in from outer state and bring one with you) yet CT has two of the most violent cities in America in New Haven and Hartford. In fact, in New Haven it is extremely hard to get a pistol as the relevant authorities are extremely slow to sign off on the paperwork, despite the fact that the State is nominally Shall Issue and the permit is meant to come through in less than 90 days; some people have waited near a year after their classes. Despite that there are drivebys, murders and nightly shootouts across the city. Almost always in the same areas and almost always by the same people. Now, if those people didn't exist, or at least not in the form that they currently are, would the crimes in new Haven be the same? I think not.
As for your 40% figure, there are two issues with that. A; the author admits that there is no way of knowing whether the two factors are related and B; almost all states have had a reduction in murder rates since the mid 90s. Moreover, since the 1970s there has been a steady decline in gun ownership across the country, yet there has not been a corresponding decline in the problem areas such as poor inner cities and there has been an increase in spree killings, both in number and intensity.
Mandatory training classes became mandatory in 1995, when the law was passed. It's the law I'm talking about. And yes and no to your point about no direct causal relationship. Yes, we can't measure an alternate universal where the law in Connecticut was never passed, but researchers did compare Connecticut against the 39 states that didn't have similar laws at the time. Gun-related homicides dropped nationwide, but in Connecticut, the homicide rate dropped even faster and lower, even after controlling for other factors like policing and income levels. And you failed to address what occurred in Missouri, where gun-related homicides did increase after they dropped the requirement for gun permits.
The other problem you're making is that you're assuming that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. That's just not the case. First, non-gun related deaths have also dropped precipitously. The rate of non-fatal gunshot injuries has actually risen by 20 percent since 2001. And if you look at gunshot victims that require hospitalization, the rate has actually jumped 50 percent.
It's not that less people are getting shot, but that doctors are getting better at treating gunshot victims. Trauma care has dramatically improved over the past 15 to 20 years. So pointing to a long-term trend of less gun-related deaths is missing the point. The rate of gun-related injuries are still present and in some cases getting worse.
The argument isn't that more rigid gun control laws will rid the plight of inner cities. The death of innocent Americans as a result of lax gun laws isn't just hurting inner cities.
Given that we cannot measure an alternative universe where something else may or not have happened it is egregious to say that X or Y must have been the cause. We can only go by what we do know; that the rates dropped in CT but that they also dropped across the nation as a whole. CT also had a huge crack epidemic in the 90s and 2000s; perhaps the fall in gun murders can also be attributed to the war on drugs in the state. Again, we cannot be sure and the truth is almost certainly a combination of reasons and factors.
What about Missouri? It has broadly followed the nation's rates since the 1960s right through until the tail end of the 2000s where it experienced a spike in relation to the rest of the nation. Was that due to the changes in the laws or due to some other factor? If it was due to the changes in the state's gun laws why did it take more than half a year for the firearms related homicide rate to increase?
Yes, all deaths have fallen over the last few decades. That is a good thing, is it not? However, given that "firearms related injuries" include everything from the people that the police shoot to failed gun suicides to muggers being shot in self defense to accidental discharges it is hard to clearly peg a trend either way; if more would-be muggers are being shot, as an example, that is a good thing, broadly speaking. As an addendum, I am not "assuming" that less gun-related homicides means less gun violence. However, what I am doing is discussing the original point which was gun murders, not gun crimes.
The argument that is being made, at least on my end, is that crime in America is high and needs to be tackled. How we tackle that is the question. One solution is to control firearms, but the wider issue, that relates to a much broader and frankly more important point of import and discussion, is how we have a positive effect on the societal conditions that provide a breeding ground for the high criminality in the first place. My belief is that we need to look at how society is structured so that there are less people living in poverty with no education, no social moorings, no real career prospects, easy entry into gangs and a belief that life is cheap, all of which are the underlying causes of crime of all stripes.
So essentially any instance that contradicts your assertions are just mere coincidence, and should never be the basis of policy. Connecticut passes more stringent gun restrictions and they see a 40 percent drop in gun-related homicides relative to other states that do not and that's a coincidence. Missouri eases gun regulations, sees a 23 percent hike in gun-related homicides, and that's a coincidence. Really...
Speaking of Missouri, I'm not sure where you got your stats, but they don't follow anything I've read on the state's gun violence patterns. Prior to the repeal of the law, Missouri went from 13.8 percent higher than the national average to 47 percent higher than the national average for homicide rates. But I'm sure this is just another coincidence.
So you're suggesting that the increase in firearm related injuries is a result of suicides gone wrong or increase police shootings? Really? It has nothing to do with the increased prevalence of guns? It was your contention that the long-term trend of lower murder rates makes advocating for additional gun control moot. Except gun violence hasn't dropped, it's increased. Are more muggers getting shot at a high enough rate to explain this? You're going to have to find proof that's the case. Simply throwing out the suggestion doesn't prove your case.
I have no issue with many of the reasons you list for gun violence (or violence in genera). What I take issue is that gun policy doesn't play a significant role in curbing gun violence. Gun rights advocates often use mental illness as a smokescreen and distract from very basic policies that can have a measurable effect.

So essentially any instance that contradicts your assertions are just mere coincidence

Is that what I said? What I did say is that it is egregious to state that because gun crime went up in Missouri it must have been due to the change in gun policy and that there may be other factors in play. I am sure that you are familiar with the maxim that correlation does not equal causation?

Speaking of Missouri, I'm not sure where you got your stats, but they don't follow anything I've read on the state's gun violence patterns

From the official statistics. As I said, they broadly followed national patterns for increases and decreases in gun related homicides for the last half century. That they may have been higher than average at any given point is irrelevant to the fact that they followed the same general trends. I can't believe that that is hard to grasp.

It was your contention that the long-term trend of lower murder rates makes advocating for additional gun control moot

Quote please, because that is not what I said. Can you point me to a quote of me saying that the continued trend of falling murder rates means that gun control advocacy is moot? I can point you to where I said that certain people (who currently can own guns) should not have the ability to own guns (additional gun control).

It (firearms related injuries)has nothing to do with the increased prevalence of guns?

What increased prevalence of guns? Gun ownership has been falling and is massively lower than it was in yesteryear.

So, given that there is an increase in gun related violence, as you state, yet there has been a massive decrease in gun ownership it seems that your point is off point. After all, you are of the position that less guns = less gun violence, yet the fact of the matter is that gun violence is up (as you say) and gun ownership is down, so your argument has a problem.

I have no issue with many of the reasons you list for gun violence

So you have issue with some of the reasons I list for gun violence? Which?

Edited January 28, 2016 by PappyTron

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

So essentially any instance that contradicts your assertions are just mere coincidence
Is that what I said? What I did say is that it is egregious to state that because gun crime went up in Missouri it must have been due to the change in gun policy and that there may be other factors in play. I am sure that you are familiar with the maxim that correlation does not equal causation?

I'm well aware of that, but I'm also aware of occam's razor. This isn't rocket science. Your response related to what happened in Connecticut and Missouri are nothing more then trivial extenuations. By your standards, we can't point to environmental laws for cleaner rivers or less pollution in the air since there might be other mitigating factors. You can always point to extenuating circumstances, but I much prefer to speak to what's likely and probable. When one state relaxes its gun laws and sees a rise in its gun-related homicide rate above and beyond what other states experience, it's not a leap of faith to suggest that absence of gun laws explain the difference.

Speaking of Missouri, I'm not sure where you got your stats, but they don't follow anything I've read on the state's gun violence patterns
From the official statistics. As I said, they broadly followed national patterns for increases and decreases in gun related homicides for the last half century. That they may have been higher than average at any given point is irrelevant to the fact that they followed the same general trends. I can't believe that that is hard to grasp.

When the homicide rate for Missouri jumps from 13 percent above the national average to 47 percent above the national average, that's not following the national average. That's called a deviation (and in this case, a significant deviation). Something can't follow something if one finds deviation. They're inverse reactions. If the rest of the country spiked as well or at the same rate as Missouri, the deviation from the national average wouldn't have changed. I really don't think I'm the one with problems grasping the issue.

It was your contention that the long-term trend of lower murder rates makes advocating for additional gun control moot
please, because that is not what I said. Can you point me to a quote of me saying that the continued trend of falling murder rates means that gun control advocacy is moot? I can point you to where I said that certain people (who currently can own guns) should not have the ability to own guns (additional gun control).

If you disagreed with this premise, why we arguing about it? Why are you so dismissive about the viability of gun regulations passed in one state that saw a drop in homicides and another state that repealed gun laws that saw a rise in homicide?

It (firearms related injuries)has nothing to do with the increased prevalence of guns?
What increased prevalence of guns? Gun ownership has been falling and is massively lower than it was in yesteryear.
So, given that there is an increase in gun related violence, as you state, yet there has been a massive decrease in gun ownership it seems that your point is off point. After all, you are of the position that less guns = less gun violence, yet the fact of the matter is that gun violence is up (as you say) and gun ownership is down, so your argument has a problem.

You said yourself, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States right now. In fact, there are 1.12 guns per person in the United States. Yes, gun ownership has decreased, but only because it has concentrated. Gun ownership has no bearing on the aggregate number of guns. On that front, there's been a vast increase in the amount of guns in the country. Total gun output by gun manufacturers has skyrocketed since 2010. In 2013 there were nearly as many handguns produced as all guns produced in any other year prior to 2008 (save for 1993 and 1994, which was the result of the federal AWB passed in 1994). Supply has never been higher.

I have no issue with many of the reasons you list for gun violence
So you have issue with some of the reasons I list for gun violence? Which?

I was speaking facetiously. All of the reasons you list play a factor. But the fact that you argue so rigorously against the reasonable findings indicated in the Missouri and Connecticut cases indicates you seem unable or unwilling to admit the basic proposition that gun policy can have a large role in affecting gun violence. Other developed nations have poor, drug-infested, and gang prevalent areas without the same rate of gun violence we find in the U.S. There are a myriad of reasons why gun violence is significantly higher than countries like Canada, but when you control for factors like poverty, opportunity, mental health, safety nets, it still doesn't account for the divergence. The divergence in gun policy must be acknowledged. Unless you don't care that the U.S. suffers from greater gun-violence; that you accept this is just a way of life in America. But understand that's a choice; it's not an unavoidable situation.

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

I'm well aware of that, but I'm also aware of occam's razor. This isn't rocket science. Your positions are nothing more then trivial extenuations. By your standards, we can't point to environmental laws for cleaner rivers or less pollution in the air since there might be other mitigating factors. You can always point to extenuating circumstances, but I much prefer to speak to what's likely and probable. When one state relaxes its gun laws and sees a rise in its gun-related homicide rate above and beyond what other states experience, it's not a leap of faith to suggest that absence of gun laws explain the difference.

Hitchens' Razor waves hello. You are making the claim, with no variance, that the reduction in gun crime in CT and the increase in gun crime in MO are undoubtedly due to changes in gun policy. My position is that it is far too simplistic to make such a claim without looking at other potential factors. So, prove your point; what irrefutable evidence do you have of your position that alterations in gun policy, and nothing else, are 100% behind the changes in reported gun crimes in these two states?

When the homicide rate for Missouri jumps from 13 percent above the national average to 47 percent above the national average, that's not following the national average. That's called a deviation (and in this case, a significant deviation). Something can't follow something if one finds deviation. They're mutually exclusive principles. If the rest of the country spiked as well or at the same rate as Missouri, the deviation from the national average wouldn't have changed. I really don't think I'm the one with problems grasping the issue.

Now I know that you know how to read so you are either trying to be funny or are simply being stupid. I said that MO followed the broad national trends for gun violence for the last 50 years, even though they were on average higher, and then they jumped. That you seem to know what a deviation is yet cannot grasp what "through until the tail end of the 2000s where it experienced a spike in relation to the rest of the nation" means is interesting; that you follow it up with a "I really don't think I'm the one with problems grasping the issue" is laughable. Perhaps you need to spend less time looking at graphs and more time reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

If you disagreed with this premise(that the long-term trend of lower murder rates makes advocating for additional gun control moot), why we arguing about it? Why are you so dismissive about the viability of gun regulations passed in one state that saw a drop in homicides and another state that repealed gun laws that saw a rise in homicide?

We are discussing it because you have a very nasty habit of believing that you know what a person is thinking more than they do and of claiming that they said things which they did not. So, I'll ask you again, because you didn't take the opportunity to retract your statement; where did I say that the continued trend of falling murder rates means that gun control advocacy is moot?

Supply has never been higher (...)In fact, there are 1.12 guns per person in the United States

Moving past the fact that given there is no official number it is impossible to say whether it is 1.12 or anywhere close, the average person who owns at least one gun owns more guns than they did in the past, but the percentage of individuals who own guns has drastically fallen. What is important though is the number of individuals who commit gun related crimes and what the breakdown of those crimes are; if they are convicted felons than additional gun laws would have made no difference to them, and indeed it is "potential new criminals" that we are trying to dissuade through regulation, not hardened gangbangers.

I was speaking facetiously.

That's one word for it.

But the fact that you argue so rigorously against the reasonable findings indicated in the Missouri and Connecticut cases indicates you seem unable or unwilling to admit the basic proposition that gun policy can have a large role in affecting gun violence.

Pointing out that correlation does not equal causation is not "arguing rigorously" but rather pointing out basic facts of life. Likewise, I'd like you to point out where I have said that gun policy does not have a role in affecting gun violence. You seem so cock-sure that your position is correct, and indeed the only possible position, that you happily make wild accusations. Nowhere have I said that gun policy has no effect on gun violence; I simply said that it is far too simplistic to look at two states over a brief period of time and draw hard conclusions. Moreover, I have stated quite clearly that I feel that there should be a core change in law over who can and can not own firearms.

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

if some nut job wants a gun they'll get one
True but how do you explain no mass shootings since 1996? Crikey that's 20yrs in April, most illegal guns are in the hands of bikies & drug dealers who don't go out to shoot the general public. They use them against each other.
I've said it a hundred times before, but America doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has problems with mental health, inner cities, poverty and social isolation.
Perhaps, but it's still irrelevant in regards to guns. Remove guns from the equation and less people will get shot.
It's entirely relevant because you simply cannot remove the guns from America, either through law or through practical ability, but you can work on the problems of mental health, inner cities and gangs.
Sorry, but I disagree. You can do both; it's not the binary proposition you're making it out to be.
The argument that the U.S. is too far gone with respect to guns is absurd. Sure, there are always going to be people who get around whatever laws you pass, but there are many who won't. Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.
You can pass laws that target those who are most likely to use guns for the purpose of targeting others. That doesn't mean that the laws are full-proof, but it's ridiculous to argue that lives wouldn't be saved by limiting or preventing access of guns to individuals with a history of domestic abuse, mental illness, or criminal records.
Nobody is saying that it is a binary option, just that those who commit gun crimes, such as those in gangs, will be unaffected by any laws enacted, and those who shouldn't have guns in the first place, such as those who end up going to be spree killers, can still obtain weapons all the same.

Perhaps I misunderstand your statement that I highlighted. When you say that laws won't affect those who commit gun crimes and won't prevent those go on killing sprees, you'll excuse me if I take issue with your position that you've never argued about the futility of gun laws. How do you now argue that you never made claims that gun laws are pointless?

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

I'm well aware of that, but I'm also aware of occam's razor. This isn't rocket science. Your positions are nothing more then trivial extenuations. By your standards, we can't point to environmental laws for cleaner rivers or less pollution in the air since there might be other mitigating factors. You can always point to extenuating circumstances, but I much prefer to speak to what's likely and probable. When one state relaxes its gun laws and sees a rise in its gun-related homicide rate above and beyond what other states experience, it's not a leap of faith to suggest that absence of gun laws explain the difference.
Hitchens' Razor waves hello. You are making the claim, with no variance, that the reduction in gun crime in CT and the increase in gun crime in MO are undoubtedly due to changes in gun policy. My position is that it is far too simplistic to make such a claim without looking at other potential factors. So, prove your point; what irrefutable evidence do you have of your position that alterations in gun policy, and nothing else, are 100% behind the changes in reported gun crimes in these two states?

But in the case of Connecticut, other factors were considered. They did control for income levels, policing, and other factors. Moreover, you're the person arguing that other factors were at play. You're the one arguing that gun policy isn't the determinative factor. So what evidence do you have to suggest otherwise? The onus is on you to refute the evidence I have provided. Not just suggestions or insinuations, but hard proof that Connecticut saw a reduction in gun-related homicide because of other mitigating factors.

When the homicide rate for Missouri jumps from 13 percent above the national average to 47 percent above the national average, that's not following the national average. That's called a deviation (and in this case, a significant deviation). Something can't follow something if one finds deviation. They're mutually exclusive principles. If the rest of the country spiked as well or at the same rate as Missouri, the deviation from the national average wouldn't have changed. I really don't think I'm the one with problems grasping the issue.
Now I know that you know how to read so you are either trying to be funny or are simply being stupid. I said that MO followed the broad national trends for gun violence for the last 50 years, even though they were on average higher, and then they jumped. That you seem to know what a deviation is yet cannot grasp what "through until the tail end of the 2000s where it experienced a spike in relation to the rest of the nation" means is interesting; that you follow it up with a "I really don't think I'm the one with problems grasping the issue" is laughable. Perhaps you need to spend less time looking at graphs and more time reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

Fine. You acknowledge the deviation. But what's the point of arguing that MO follows the national average/trend when what we're discussing is that deviation and why it happened. Why did it follow the national average with respect to homicide by firearms for years on end and then all of sudden deviate? Nothing to do with the change in the law? Or is that just a coincidence? You can argue that it's not causation all you want, and there for we shouldn't base policy on what we learn from Missouri or Connecticut, but that's an incredibly wooden approach to policy design.

If you disagreed with this premise(that the long-term trend of lower murder rates makes advocating for additional gun control moot), why we arguing about it? Why are you so dismissive about the viability of gun regulations passed in one state that saw a drop in homicides and another state that repealed gun laws that saw a rise in homicide?
We are discussing it because you have a very nasty habit of believing that you know what a person is thinking more than they do and of claiming that they said things which they did not. So, I'll ask you again, because you didn't take the opportunity to retract your statement; where did I say that the continued trend of falling murder rates means that gun control advocacy is moot?

See post above. It wasn't something I made up.

Supply has never been higher (...)In fact, there are 1.12 guns per person in the United States

Moving past the fact that given there is no official number it is impossible to say whether it is 1.12 or anywhere close, the average person who owns at least one gun owns more guns than they did in the past, but the percentage of individuals who own guns has drastically fallen. What is important though is the number of individuals who commit gun related crimes and what the breakdown of those crimes are; if they are convicted felons than additional gun laws would have made no difference to them, and indeed it is "potential new criminals" that we are trying to dissuade through regulation, not hardened gangbangers.

So you disagree that there are more guns in the country now than there were, say, twenty years ago? We know for a fact that gun manufacturers are producing more guns in the last eight years than they ever have. That's not debatable. Where do you think those guns are going? Do you assume manufacturers are making guns for the purpose of holding on to them?

You're going to have to produce your own evidence to support your theory that a majority of gun crimes are committed by people with a criminal record. I don't see any statistics that depict such a disparity in gun crimes.

But the fact that you argue so rigorously against the reasonable findings indicated in the Missouri and Connecticut cases indicates you seem unable or unwilling to admit the basic proposition that gun policy can have a large role in affecting gun violence.

Pointing out that correlation does not equal causation is not "arguing rigorously" but rather pointing out basic facts of life. Likewise, I'd like you to point out where I have said that gun policy does not have a role in affecting gun violence. You seem so cock-sure that your position is correct, and indeed the only possible position, that you happily make wild accusations. Nowhere have I said that gun policy has no effect on gun violence; I simply said that it is far too simplistic to look at two states over a brief period of time and draw hard conclusions. Moreover, I have stated quite clearly that I feel that there should be a core change in law over who can and can not own firearms.

Like I said, I get correlation does not equal causation, but as I've pointed out, it's nearly impossible to prove causation with almost all policy or laws. Gun violence, like many other issues, is complicated. But we do a disservice to the reality of the situation by ignoring what's probable and reasonable. When we see studies showing that firearm related homicides dropped after stricter gun control laws were passed (and said studies controls for other factors), why question their validity like you're doing? That isn't to suggest that all forms of gun control are equal or effective. I'm sure efforts to restrict and minimize gun violence have failed. But when you spend this amount of time and energy belabouring the same point ("correlation does not equal causation") just to dismiss or undermine the effectiveness and call for certain forms of gun control, you're not making much sense.

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

You're the one arguing that gun policy isn't the determinative factor. So what evidence do you have to suggest otherwise? The onus is on you to refute the evidence I have provided. Not just suggestions or insinuations, but hard proof that Connecticut saw a reduction in gun-related homicide because of other mitigating factors

No, the onus is not on me to provide anything; sorry if that disappoints your self-righteousness that you don't get to make blanket statements and then have the other person run around digging up research to prove you wrong. At the end of the day, the FACT is that we do not know whether MO and CT's changes in gun laws had a 100% effect on their respective changes in gun crime. You are stating that the simplest explanation is that they must have; I'm pointing out to you the folly of the ignorance to make such an unsupported claim. I am entirely open to the possibility that the changes in gun laws are behind the changes in gun crime, but that is not the same as it being the case; you simply cannot support your position, and if turnips were bayonets...

So you disagree that there are more guns in the country now than there were, say, twenty years ago?

I'll bite my tongue here and simply say that you know full well that I do not disagree. What I do disagree with is your assertion that we have an exact number of firearms in the country, given that there is no centralised registry. The FBI do not know, the White House do not know, individual states do not know, individual counties and cities do not know and downzy does not know either.

You're going to have to produce your own evidence to support your theory that a majority of gun crimes are committed by people with a criminal record

Are you arguing that 51%+ of gun crimes are committed each year by criminal virgins or virgin criminals?

But when you spend this amount of time and energy belabouring the same point

What you really mean is "I've stated what I believe is true and I expect you to agree with me. That you do not agree with me does not make any sense because I am always correct and people eventually agree with me or they go away".

Edited January 28, 2016 by PappyTron

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

Perhaps I misunderstand your statement that I highlighted. When you say that laws won't affect those who commit gun crimes and won't prevent those go on killing sprees, you'll excuse me if I take issue with your position that you've never argued about the futility of gun laws. How do you now argue that you never made claims that gun laws are pointless?

I'll point out, for the record, that I answered this point but you deleted the post.

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

You're the one arguing that gun policy isn't the determinative factor. So what evidence do you have to suggest otherwise? The onus is on you to refute the evidence I have provided. Not just suggestions or insinuations, but hard proof that Connecticut saw a reduction in gun-related homicide because of other mitigating factors
No, the onus is not on me to provide anything; sorry if that disappoints your self-righteousness that you don't get to make blanket statements and then have the other person run around digging up research to prove you wrong. At the end of the day, the FACT is that we do not know whether MO and CT's changes in gun laws had a 100% effect on their respective changes in gun crime. You are stating that the simplest explanation is that they must have; I'm pointing out to you the folly of the ignorance to make such an unsupported claim. I am entirely open to the possibility that the changes in gun laws are behind the changes in gun crime, but that is not the same as it being the case; you simply cannot support your position, and if turnips were bayonets...
So you disagree that there are more guns in the country now than there were, say, twenty years ago?
I'll bite my tongue here and simply say that you know full well that I do not disagree. What I do disagree with is your assertion that we have an exact number of firearms in the country, given that there is no centralised registry. The FBI do not know, the White House do not know, individual states do not know, individual counties and cities do not know and downzy does not know either.
You're going to have to produce your own evidence to support your theory that a majority of gun crimes are committed by people with a criminal record
Are you arguing that 51%+ of gun crimes are committed each year by criminal virgins or virgin criminals?

I'm not going to waste half my day looking at various other factors for explaining the drop in homicide related murders in the state of Connecticut when the authors of the study already controlled for other factors. It's not my responsibility to disprove other factors. If you say that the change in gun policy didn't have a determinative effect on gun violence in Connecticut, it's on you to suggest and provide evidence that would support other factors. I provided a study that stated gun policy was responsible for a drop in gun-related homicides in Connecticut. You're saying it's not conclusive, that other factors are at play. Fine, show me what factors are at play and provide evidence for them. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Sure, it's not absolutely certain how many guns exist in the United States. But we do have a fairly good estimates, and almost all estimates suggest that the total number of guns within the country has increased, particularly dramatically since Obama took office.

I have no idea what the percentage of gun-related crimes are committed by first time offenders. But neither do you. And yet your certain that it's a majority of instances. Maybe. But maybe not. And what's the magic number where we say gun laws don't matter? Does it have to be 51 percent for us to say gun laws are ineffective? They have proven effective in other countries where criminals still have access to guns, but they have to work much harder to get them.

Perhaps I misunderstand your statement that I highlighted. When you say that laws won't affect those who commit gun crimes and won't prevent those go on killing sprees, you'll excuse me if I take issue with your position that you've never argued about the futility of gun laws. How do you now argue that you never made claims that gun laws are pointless?
I'll point out, for the record, that I answered this point but you deleted the post.

Make your point without resorting to personal attacks and it won't be deleted.

PappyTron · January 28, 2016

I'm not going to waste half my day looking at various other factors for explaining the drop in homicide related murders in the state of Connecticut

Well, there you go then. Why waste time checking what you are saying for accuracy and truth when you can simply say anything, claim that you are correct and tell the other person that it is their job to gather studies to prove you wrong?

It's not my responsibility to disprove other factors

Is it your responsibility to check whether what you are claiming is true is true? Is that my job too?

I provided a study that stated gun policy was responsible for a drop in gun-related homicides in Connecticut

That's great and all, only the authors of said study (I'm assuming you mean the Johns Hopkins and Berkley study) disagree with what you just said. They said, and I quote "Of course, there’s no way to measure the true impact of Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law."

Sure, it's not absolutely certain how many guns exist in the United States. But we do have a fairly good estimates, and almost all estimates suggest that the total number of guns within the country has increased, particularly dramatically since Obama took office.

Only you gave a very specific number: 1.12 per person. That's a very specific number. If you know that we don't know what the actual number is then why did you post 1.12? I know why.

I have no idea what the percentage of gun-related crimes are committed by first time offenders. But neither do you. And yet your(sic) certain that it's a majority of instances

I am not certain that it is more than 50%. I would check exactly what I wrote but the post no longer exists. I believe that I asked whether it was reasonable to conclude that the majority of gun crimes are committed by people who already have felony criminal records and therefore shouldn't legally own guns anyway, or whether it is more likely that all of these gun crimes are being committed by criminal virgins.

shades · January 28, 2016

Studies have shown that laws that prohibit gun ownership to those convicted of domestic abuse have resulted in fewer murders of domestic abuse victims.

It's not that less people are getting shot, but that doctors are getting better at treating gunshot victims. Trauma care has dramatically improved over the past 15 to 20 years.

I've seen some doozy's from you but these two are classic spaceman stuff

We should have a doozy's from Downzy's section

The shooting's are a real shame though

sorry to hear it happening anywhere

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

I'm not going to waste half my day looking at various other factors for explaining the drop in homicide related murders in the state of Connecticut
Well, there you go then. Why waste time checking what you are saying for accuracy and truth when you can simply say anything, claim that you are correct and tell the other person that it is their job to gather studies to prove you wrong?
It's not my responsibility to disprove other factors
Is it your responsibility to check whether what you are claiming is true is true? Is that my job too?
I provided a study that stated gun policy was responsible for a drop in gun-related homicides in Connecticut
That's great and all, only the authors of said study (I'm assuming you mean the Johns Hopkins and Berkley study) disagree with what you just said. They said, and I quote "Of course, there’s no way to measure the true impact of Connecticut’s “permit-to-purchase” law."
Sure, it's not absolutely certain how many guns exist in the United States. But we do have a fairly good estimates, and almost all estimates suggest that the total number of guns within the country has increased, particularly dramatically since Obama took office.
Only you gave a very specific number: 1.12 per person. That's a very specific number. If you know that we don't know what the actual number is then why did you post 1.12? I know why.
I have no idea what the percentage of gun-related crimes are committed by first time offenders. But neither do you. And yet your(sic) certain that it's a majority of instances
I am not certain that it is more than 50%. I would check exactly what I wrote but the post no longer exists. I believe that I asked whether it was reasonable to conclude that the majority of gun crimes are committed by people who already have felony criminal records and therefore shouldn't legally own guns anyway, or whether it is more likely that all of these gun crimes are being committed by criminal virgins.

You do understand the concept of burden of proof, right? In a criminal murder case, it's not the prosecutor's job to prove that every possible name the defense brings up is innocent of the crime. It's the defense that must provide evidence as to why someone else other than their client is guilty.

Take this back to the beginning. I said that there is strong evidence that gun policy can affect gun violence. I provided the contrasting cases of Missouri and Connecticut. Your argument, as I understand it, is that other factors might be at play for explaining the change in gun-related homicides in both states. The the burden of proof is therefore on you to provide evidence for these other factors. It's not enough to simply state that the cases of Connecticut and Missouri are insufficient because of other factors. You actually have to name those factors and provide your own evidence of them. It is not on me to prove a negative. This is how the legal system works and how anyone with any experience or knowledge on how formal debates are conducted. If you don't want to produce evidence to the contrary, that's fine. But the act of omission on your part doesn't invalidate what I have put forward.

Regression-based analysis can never be 100 percent definitive. But it doesn't mean they don't produce tangible lessons relating to strong associations. Almost all policy works on this manner. Political and social sciences, by their very nature, work on correlative associations, with precedence given to findings with the strongest associations. Causal relationships are almost never found but that doesn't render lessons and information garnered from the research any less valid. Again, I began this conversation stating that there is strong evidence that gun policy can affect gun violence. Simply pointing out the obvious with respect to the correlative nature of what was discovered in Missouri and Connecticut doesn't make the evidence any less strong.

Your post with your question over whether 51 percent of gun-related crimes are committed by repeat offenders still exists:

Are you arguing that 51%+ of gun crimes are committed each year by criminal virgins or virgin criminals?

What I find interesting is that you won't accept the reasonable nature of the Missouri and Connecticut cases but appeal for a reasonable take with respect to gun-related crimes by individuals with criminal records. Yes, I find that to be a reasonable assumption. The problem with the logic you're employing is that there really is no way to measure how many criminals were stopped by background checks or permit requirements. Even if 100 percent of gun-related crimes were committed by people with guns, there is still a high likelihood that many individuals with background checks were stopped by background checks and/or permit requirements.

I would like to add that I'm not advocating for every and all gun law to be passed federally or in each state. I acknowledge that certain gun laws are less effective (or don't do anything), but I do think we can draw on the research that illustrates when and where certain forms of gun restrictions do have a positive effect on reducing and minimizing gun violence in the U.S. We have far more restrictive gun laws in Canada but it still doesn't prevent the odd multiple murder shooting event. However, the frequency and and severity of those incidents are far fewer and less profound than what we see south of the border. You can say it's because of other factors (income, poverty, social safety nets, opportunity, etc.), and that would all be true, except it doesn't account for all of it. We have some very poor and gang-infested areas in Toronto, and yet the number of deaths due to firearms for every 100k people is 2.0. That's less than any other state in the U.S. (lowest is Hawaii, 2.6).

Ultimately my disagreement with yourself is how you prioritize other factors over gun policy in affecting gun violence. To me, making it harder to obtain a gun for everyone, particularly those who shouldn't have them, is low hanging fruit in efforts to curb gun violence down. And it would be the easiest actions to take, considering changing poverty and employment levels or undoing the damage of decades of racial disparity would take an enormous amount of time, money and effort. The feasibility of tackling gun violence based on your policy prescriptions is extremely low. There is little to no real collective initiative to do anything about poverty or help people in inner cities. So long as subsidies keep flowing to farmers and the military keeps providing jobs by hiring predominantly white areas of the country to make their weapons, why would middle America care about how its stance on guns affect the lives of those living in inner cities? They won't. Far easier would be to stop arguing over the effectiveness of things like universal background checks, safety training and permit programs, laws relating to gun ownership for individuals with restraining orders against them, etc. Those should be automatic as the evidence suggests that they do effect the level of gun violence when and where they are implemented.

SoulMonster · January 28, 2016

"Bazookas shouldn't be illegal, the problems lies with how US treats its mentally ill".

**downzy** · January 28, 2016

This conversation has run its course and I refuse to allow any more posts that continue to side step the issue. I don't care anymore. There's been zero effort to for genuine discussion and I'm ending this. Call me a dictator, I don't care. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to post.

Sign In

5 Dead In School Shooting in Canada

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members