JFrank
Member
I think that’s called -cancel culture.
Gun owners in WA have given up
- Thread starter Old Dog
- Start date
- Status
redcon1
member
I wasn't sure. Seems like I have drawn some fire in this thread for suggesting that gun control isn't as effective as gun control advocates frequently suggest. I found that interesting given that this is THR and all. Regardless, if you go by statewide homicide rates, and use this source, it looks like Texas is #23 and California is #27 at least in 2019. If you go by actual dead bodies, according to this source, Texas is #2 and California is #1. Interesting that these two sources disagree on the statewide per 100,000 murder/homicide rates showing yet another way in which statistics can be manipulated as murder and homicide aren't technically the same thing even though they're kind of the same thing.
redcon1
member
It was a circular argument btw. It's called not wasting another minute with that nonsense.
Mayberry is not relatively crime free. You apparently didn’t click on the graphic I posted. Let me try again so you can see it without clicking anything.
redcon1
member
Mayberry doesn't have a homicide problem or a murder problem. In the last 5 years, many places have seen an increase in violent crime. if Mayberry has one fight per year, it looks like they have 10 assaults per 100,000 people because their population is 10,000. The worst crime in their history was in 2009 when some illegal immigrant that had already been deported once for violent crime murdered 4 people. But I don't know, maybe Andy should have let Barney load his gun all those years and let him clean up the town. Your point is taken. Mayberry ain't what it used to be.
Yes really. You, yourself have pointed out that other factors affect the stats more than gun control does. You just claim that gun control has no effect--I'm pointing out that you can't really go that far precisely because the other factors are having such a strong effect that gun control could be having an effect that is being masked by the other effects. This is not a complicated concept and I've repeated it enough times and enough different ways that if you don't understand it, then that would mean that this topic is to complex for you to understand and you would probably be better off moving along to a topic that you can understand. I don't really think that's the issue, I think you do understand it but you are, for some reason, unwilling to acknowledge reality.
Then you should not try to use homicide rates to prove or disprove anything. If you aren't willing to put in the effort to understand those other factors and compensate for them, then you will never be able to isolate the effect from gun control (assuming there is any such effect) and you will just be spinning your wheels.
Maybe it is. It is entirely possible that gun control is actually reducing the number of homicides by a very small amount--and therefore doing exactly what it was intended to do. But because other factors are overwhelming that small effect, it is not detectable without compensating for the other factors.
Going back to the water tower example, the hole I put in the side of it IS having the intended effect. It is letting water out. But the pump is simply having a much larger effect and so if you just try to track the amount of water being lost through the hole by looking at the water level statistic inside the tank, you won't be able to see the effect from the small hole I put in it. I don't know how to make this any simpler. If you really don't understand it, then you would probably be happier if you just dropped it and moved on to something that clicks better for you.
You can stop that. If you want to discontinue this discussion all you need to do is stop posting on the thread. There's no need to tell people you're done with them, whatever that means. It serves no purpose.
WRONG!
That is not the source of the problem at all. It is obvious from the statistics that gun control isn't nearly as effective as gun control advocates frequently suggest. If you read my posts and understand them, you will see that nearly every one of them makes that very clear.
One issue, as you have been told repeatedly and in many different ways, is that you want to go a step further and use those statistics to prove that gun control has NO effect. The fact is, for reasons that you yourself have acknowledged, it is not possible to use homicide statistics to prove that gun control has NO effect without compensating for other factors. It is only possible to use them to show that gun control has an effect that is so small that it can't be detected in the presence of the other factors.
Another issue is that you incorrectly focused on attempting to discredit per capita statistics using bogus arguments based on a lack of understanding of statistics and based on the fact that gun control advocates misuse them.
Another issue is that you incorrectly focused on attempting to discredit state level statistics using bogus arguments based on a lack of understanding of statistics and based on the fact that gun control advocates misuse them.
Another issue was that you tried to prove your point by cherry-picking city data that reinforced your confirmation bias which is a useless endeavor as I showed plainly by picking another set of city data using your exact technique that showed exactly opposite results that you found.
Please explain the difference between "Age-adjusted homicide rates per 100,000 persons" (the information provided in the second source) and the unadjusted "homicides per 100,000 persons" in the first source. I think that will be illuminating for all of us.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Its hardly a "lie." That homicides might have some relation to arms is a perfectly rational hypothesis, and one that needs to be thoroughly tested to either prove or disprove it. Declaring it a lie, without evidence to substantiate that, is not going to convince anyone.
Pretty sure that murder and crime stats were nowhere in the discussion during the codification of the 2A in the Bill of Rights.
Are those stats related to “arms”? Sure. Just like hammers and knives and swords and bats and sticks and bricks and fists and feet and cars and vans and bombs and yadda yadda ad nauseam, are also related to murder and crime. They are the tools with which those crimes can be committed.
But that stuff is irrelevant to the 2A.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Exactly! As I said before, the linkage of gun control to crime statistics is a red herring. The debate about guns would exist regardless of crime. What this is all about is the disarming of segments of society. (The segments, in each case, that would be opposed to those doing the disarming.) Crime is a convenient justification directed toward the naive.
ETA: To expound on this a little: The key demographic pushing for gun restrictions is suburban soccer moms and other do-gooders. They are motivated by highly publicized incidents like mass school shootings. But such mass shootings are a mere statistical blip. The vast bulk of "gun crime" consists of inner city small-time robberies, shootouts between drug gangs, etc. But those generate hardly a yawn from the middle class. If it wasn't for a handful of school shootings, gun control would gain no traction in this country.
The real dynamic here is that the Left wants to disarm the Right, and vice versa.
Last edited:
redcon1
member
Homicides should be going down in cities that are in states with strict gun control. They aren't. They're going up. True, they have increased pretty much everywhere but, nevertheless, the fact that they are increasing in these areas is hardly evidence that gun control is working. What's more, they go up and down and back up and back down in all cities where homicide is known to be a persistent problem without regard for the state's gun control severity. There is; therefore, no pattern of increasing safety that can be associated with more gun control. You argue that there may be a small, undetectable effect. I say there isn't. I say that if there is any effect, it is in the opposite direction. The good innocent people of these areas are made less safe by laws that severely diminish their ability to acquire a firearm and use it for self defense. For every homicide that is prevented by strict gun control laws that stopped a criminal from obtaining a firearm to use criminally, at least 1.1 homicides are committed as a result of strict gun control laws that prevented a law abiding citizen from obtaining a firearm to use lawfully/defensively.
That's my hypothesis and regardless of whether it's true or not, I think it's still abundantly clear that, at the very least, the statewide homicide statistics often touted by gun control advocates as prima facie evidence that strict gun control laws reduce homicides is not actually prima facie evidence of such as evidenced by persistently high homicide rates in places where homicides are historically known to be a persistent problem. It seems like they really ought to have more to show for their measures than they do. I think if we were to weigh out the evidence that has been presented, it would be clear that the gun control advocate's hypothesis/conclusion doesn't have a lot of weight and that nobody has actually been made more safe by their interventions. The evidence just isn't there.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,132
According to the substitution bill dated Jan 29, 2021. Yes it does ban possession of "high capacity magazines."
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5078-S.pdf?q=20220217131811
All docs here
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=false#documentSection
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate Bills/5078-S.pdf?q=20220217131811
All docs here
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=false#documentSection
AlexanderA
Member
Read the "engrossed substitute" bill. It would ban the manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale of hi-cap magazines, but not ban their possession. All language about possession had been removed by the time it passed the Senate.
AJC1
Member
I wonder if they will be like California and say you have to register them....
AlexanderA
Member
There's nothing in the current bill about registration. The approach right now seems to be unlimited grandfathering.
AJC1
Member
How will they know or track old vs new.... it gets ugly fast.
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 18,069
YET! give them time
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 18,069
by the honesty and integrity of law abiding citizens not willing to break the law. A wise man one told me, the truth is for those who deserve it!
CoalTrain49
Member
Public hearing in the house yesterday. Scheduled for executive session tomorrow. Nothing has passed the house yet. Eastern WA dems are fools if they pass this bill with the the metro county dems. That won't wash over there even if you're a dem.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=fals
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5078&Year=2021&Initiative=fals
Last edited:
Mark_Mark
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2021
- Messages
- 18,069
I hope so! Washington should not be controlled by Seattle!
Homicide rates go up and down based on factors that have nothing to do with gun control. That doesn't mean that gun control has no effect on homicide statistics, it only means that IF they have an effect, it is a much smaller effect than the effects caused by other factors.
It's not evidence of anything other than that IF gun control is having an effect, it's having a much smaller effect than the effects caused by other factors.
I know exactly what you are saying--the problem is that what you are saying is incorrect.
Not exactly, I am asserting that there could be a small effect that can't be detected UNLESS the effects from other factors are compensated for/understood.
Sounds familiar.
JohnKSa said:
JohnKSa said:
JohnKSa said:
So that's why it's familiar.JohnKSa said:
Definitely. The statistics make it plain that if there is an effect it is so small as to be essentially meaningless given the effects from other factors.
That is actually a very good point. All else being equal, homicide rates will be lower where high quality medical care is available promptly compared to areas where it is not. Not because there's less violence in those areas but because people are more likely to survive an injury if they get good medical care quickly.
That's one factor that people don't talk about very often.
AlexanderA
Member
Exactly. After analyzing the bill as it stands now, the conclusion is that it's toothless. Further, the legislators have to know this. There must be some pro-gun friends there working quietly behind the scenes. Without a ban on possession -- or at least a way to separate post-ban from pre-ban magazines -- people can just go across to Idaho and stock up. Are the WA state authorities going to set up checkpoints on every highway coming into the state? Hardly possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
