The Pacific Standard on gun policy

1
While perusing some articles in the Pacific Standard (including the There's No Magic Bullet... piece that whoever posts stuff to Facebook on behalf of the LGC posted) I checked out the "gun policy" category of articles, and found some interesting--and not so interesting--stuff.

Starting with the not so interesting, The Correlation Between Gun Ownership and Homicide Rate. The sub-header tells you why this article is "shite unseen" (my term for anything you don't need to actually read or watch to know it's shit):
"If you control for developing countries and South Africa [...] there is a strong link between the number of guns per capita and gun-related homicides in a country."
If you think this sentence translates all too readily to "if we come up with some rationalizations to hand-wave away the data that doesn't support the hypothesis (and especially the data that contradicts the hypothesis), the (remaining) data will support the hypothesis," you're absolutely right; that is exactly what the article does. And that's before you even point out that "firearm homicide" does not equal "overall homicide."

Rather more convincing is the follow-up piece, Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate. This piece looks not only at overall homicide rates, rather than just firearm homicide rates, but also looks at other violent crimes. Money quote:
There is no reasonable way to cherry-pick any sample of countries to arrive at a significant correlation, or even a hint that reduced gun ownership lowers overall homicide rate.
The piece goes on to explain why the same applies to other violent crimes such as assault and robbery.

Perhaps most interesting is a piece that appeared before the others listed, The Truth About Violence and Gun Policy in the United States. The author argues a lot of the points we, as left-leaning gun lovers, are well familiar with: that mass shootings get a disproportionate amount of attention for what constitutes (in terms of victims) less than a percent of gun violence in the U.S.; that the role of mental illness in gun violence is severely overestimated; and that policy measures that focus on preventing mass shootings will, at best, make a tiny dent in the amount of gun violence overall. Were I (predictably) disagree with the author is his assertion that "no-brainer controls" such as "such as 'turning off the faucet' on high capacity assault weapons, tightening up background checks, and closely monitoring sales at gun shows" would produce "a modest but meaningful effect"; that is, I agree with the "modest" part but I'm not so sure about the "meaningful" part. After all, prior to Aurora and Sandy Hook, the mass shootings that racked up the highest number of victims (such as Virginia Tech, Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX, and the Edmond, OK post office--the original "going postal") were each committed using a pair of handguns. You don't need a so-called "assault weapon" to inflict mass carnage (in fact, you don't even need a firearm, but I digress).

Anyway, I thought these were worth sharing.
Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me. -- Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

4
gendoikari wrote:
"If you control for developing countries and South Africa [...] there is a strong link between the number of guns per capita and gun-related homicides in a country."
even if you take those countries out, there is still no correlation, the article is talking out it's ass.
Statistic and studies all depend on how you limit your study and how you phrase your results. There is of course a strong relationship between gun violence and gun availability. They would like you to not notice that gun violence is a subset of violence, and that while removing all guns(if possible) would remove all gun violence, there are other forms of violence that humans used before and after guns came available. Murder rates in Australia did not change any due to lack of guns. And if all else fails, people will use pressure cookers. We are an adaptive race of killers.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

7
cmd wrote:Speaking of removing outliers. If you remove the US from the initial data set, that correlation falls apart.
I agree with you about the US being an outlier, but I don't think that completely negates the correlation. The US is the only nation with the equivalent of a Second Amendment. That's enough right there to at least rate an asterisk. Though we alone have the right, in other heavily armed countries there is little enforcement except in big cities. So, I'll agree to an asterisk stating that the US has an RKBA idea.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

8
dougb wrote:
gendoikari wrote:
"If you control for developing countries and South Africa [...] there is a strong link between the number of guns per capita and gun-related homicides in a country."
even if you take those countries out, there is still no correlation, the article is talking out it's ass.
Statistic and studies all depend on how you limit your study and how you phrase your results. There is of course a strong relationship between gun violence and gun availability. They would like you to not notice that gun violence is a subset of violence, and that while removing all guns(if possible) would remove all gun violence, there are other forms of violence that humans used before and after guns came available. Murder rates in Australia did not change any due to lack of guns. And if all else fails, people will use pressure cookers. We are an adaptive race of killers.
I ignore gun control proponents when they start talking about "gun" violence and "gun" homicides and tell them flat to their face, we're going to be talking about Homicide and violence, you don't get to manipulate data by cherry picking statistics just to make your fallacious arguments seem rational.
Check out my blog Equilibrium State

Socialism is economic suffrage
Communism is the antiquation of currency

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

9
There seems to be a difference in the culture not between the Eastern or Western states as much as between the rural and urban centers. What seems pretty innocuous here around Camano Island, Washington such as open carry, would cause stress and panic in downtown Seattle, only 50 miles away. And rightfully so as our crime rate is so low, we have to share law enforcement officers or do with just one for the whole island. That being said, stricter control of weapons in the inner cities isn't necessarily a bad thing. :eh:

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

10
410Judge wrote:There seems to be a difference in the culture not between the Eastern or Western states as much as between the rural and urban centers. What seems pretty innocuous here around Camano Island, Washington such as open carry, would cause stress and panic in downtown Seattle, only 50 miles away. And rightfully so as our crime rate is so low, we have to share law enforcement officers or do with just one for the whole island. That being said, stricter control of weapons in the inner cities isn't necessarily a bad thing. :eh:
Hello and welcome, and I look forward to your intro post in the New Members forum!

And yes, the urban-rural divide is something we discuss from time to time here.
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

11
1) The US is an inherently higher liberty higher post harm penalty country.

We also have less regulation generally but more recourse to civil courts - after harm has been done.
(This makes the GOP hypocrites on banging on civil action caps)

That is the essential point. We believe less in circumscribing and limiting rights of the general population based on behaviors of specific rule breakers/criminals.

We prefer to levy sanction on the rule breaker alone and after a harm by that individual has been show. This is why we have a an unlimited pre harm first amendment too. With the exception of certain consensual contractual agreements (NDAs, etc) we accept we cannot limit free speech.

The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" quote is not from a theater case, actually from a bad case where SCOTUS evoked such a theory in 1919 to muzzle criticism of the draft (thankfully overturned by subsequent SCOTUS)

2) I think the studies showing that about 90% of our murders are criminals killing criminals mean that for persons not engaged in crime, selling drugs or gang membership the risk of murder in the US maybe less than many developed countries. In my area 91% of the murdered persons had multiple arrests, gang affiliation or were in commission fo a crime when murdered.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

12
When talking about America as the "most violent industrialized country" (which it isn't), anti2a folks point to America having more guns than any industrialized country (which we do).

What they fail to point out is that we also have one of the largest income inequalities of any major country and a run-amok drug war.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

13
senorgrand wrote:When talking about America as the "most violent industrialized country" (which it isn't), anti2a folks point to America having more guns than any industrialized country (which we do).

What they fail to point out is that we also have one of the largest income inequalities of any major country and a run-amok drug war.
...and don't forget the highest rate of imprisonment and the creation/maintenance of a permanent criminal underclass.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

16
The most interesting comment I've recently heard on this topic involves Mexico. When I pointed out that private firearm ownership in Mexico is very heavily regulated and, despite such fact, the number of gun related homicides is pretty much off the chart the response I received is that Mexico is NOT a developed country. Who knew?

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

17
Rac wrote:1) The US is an inherently higher liberty higher post harm penalty country.

We also have less regulation generally but more recourse to civil courts - after harm has been done.
(This makes the GOP hypocrites on banging on civil action caps)

That is the essential point. We believe less in circumscribing and limiting rights of the general population based on behaviors of specific rule breakers/criminals.

We prefer to levy sanction on the rule breaker alone and after a harm by that individual has been show. This is why we have a an unlimited pre harm first amendment too. With the exception of certain consensual contractual agreements (NDAs, etc) we accept we cannot limit free speech.

The old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" quote is not from a theater case, actually from a bad case where SCOTUS evoked such a theory in 1919 to muzzle criticism of the draft (thankfully overturned by subsequent SCOTUS)

2) I think the studies showing that about 90% of our murders are criminals killing criminals mean that for persons not engaged in crime, selling drugs or gang membership the risk of murder in the US maybe less than many developed countries. In my area 91% of the murdered persons had multiple arrests, gang affiliation or were in commission fo a crime when murdered.
It all boils down to education, income inequality, and the legacy of 400 years of institutionalized racism, probably.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

18
Kingbreaker wrote:
Rac wrote:
It all boils down to education, income inequality, and the legacy of 400 years of institutionalized racism, probably.
I think violence, regardless of its mechanism, may very well be a result, in part, of that profound statement. It is easy to focus on firearms because of their stage presence in this country; but as soon as you do, you begin to lose sight of the root causes of the problem.

These three root-ills mentioned by Kingbreaker will take generations to fix. In fact, they will fix themselves or we will cease to be as a nation in time. Please realize that 150 years after Appomattox Court House, the Civil War is still being fought. However, those who would eradicate private gun ownership as a solution sidestep the real problems. And they choose to take on a very American passion jealously guarded by those who enjoy it. I believe attacking gun ownership and any reasonable access to firearms in this country is divisive at best. Using Australia, or England, or other locales in Europe as an example of what "we could be" is erroneous. We are not those people. We have a different culture. And we have to solve our violence problems in our own, unique ways. In fact, such suggestions have created two camps who are at war with each other with no possibility of a middle ground - and that dialogue is exactly what we need at this point. The two opposing forces will not admit any faults in any of their research, whether pro- or con-2A.

I would like to see a shift in the focus on violence in America. In my dream world, I would like to see programs to increase mass-education; I'd like to see incomes and expectations addressed constructively; and I would like to see the miracle of time and interaction erase the evils of racism. But we have to work at these goals slowly and continuously, and realize they come in increments and over a lot of time. And stripping 100,000,000 people of something they consider a basic right may be revolutionary, but it simply will not work.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

22
RobertS wrote:
Euromutt wrote:You don't need a so-called "assault weapon" to inflict mass carnage (in fact, you don't even need a firearm, but I digress).

Anyway, I thought these were worth sharing.
No, you don't. All you need is one angry person with a hand gun or two and a lot of unarmed, unaware people all around.
Last year I stopped in a grocery store with police cars and ambulances all over. One pissed off man had come in swinging and decked a dozen people with his bare hands before he stopped. No props were involved but people were banged up good.
Image
Image
Image

Puffing up is no substitute for smarts but it's a common home remedy

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

23
IED is the weapon of choice among terrorists in the know. Kitchen pots and pans, household chemicals, or just a can of gasoline. Poles used bottles of gas to destroy soviet tanks.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

24
RobertS wrote:
Euromutt wrote:You don't need a so-called "assault weapon" to inflict mass carnage (in fact, you don't even need a firearm, but I digress).
No, you don't. All you need is one angry person with a hand gun or two and a lot of unarmed, unaware people all around.
I think his digression was to point out that all you need is a motor vehicle -- larger ones being more dangerous.

Re: The Pacific Standard on gun policy

25
Oh man. Misread the title. I thought it said a Pacifist Standard on gun policy.

Lol

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
This is just my opinion, yours may vary and is no less valid.
- Me -

"I will never claim to be an expert, and it has been my experience that self proclaimed experts are usually self proclaimed."
-Me-

I must proof read more

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests