Gun owners in WA have given up

[kwguy]

I don’t understand why so many people argue about “provable statistics” as it pertains to whether or not gun laws reduce “gun crime”. That’s not seeing the forest for the trees. Who cares whether it does or not? That’s the argument they use to curtail our rights. Arguing about whether these laws work or not plays right into their hands.

We can reduce deaths by completely banning vehicles as well, but the cry from the populace would be overwhelming. We can reduce all kinds of crime and “unnecessary” deaths, if we just trample on everyone’s rights.

But that’s not the point. It’s like arguing about the efficiency of the trains that take us to the gulag. Or choosing the kind of newspaper we use to line our gilded cages.

Don’t play into it.

 

[redcon1]

I don’t understand why so many people argue about “provable statistics” as it pertains to whether or not gun laws reduce “gun crime”. That’s not seeing the forest for the trees. Who cares whether it does or not? That’s the argument they use to curtail our rights. Arguing about whether these laws work or not plays right into their hands.

We can reduce deaths by completely banning vehicles as well, but the cry from the populace would be overwhelming. We can reduce all kinds of crime and “unnecessary” deaths, if we just trample on everyone’s rights.

But that’s not the point. It’s like arguing about the efficiency of the trains that take us to the gulag. Or choosing the kind of newspaper we use to line our gilded cages.

Don’t play into it.

We should never allow a lie to persist IMO and their entire argument is based on a lie-the lie that gun control laws decrease murders. It's fair to argue that we have this civil right and, therefore, your arguments are invalid but, as perception is reality, it's pragmatic to also point out the inherent lack of veracity of their arguments and justifications.

 

[Will Munny]

when assessing the effectiveness of gun control laws, it is not necessary to evaluate any other variable beyond the gun control laws themselves. In fact, doing so only confuses any conclusion.

Nothing else needs to be controlled for. We are not assessing the effect of gun control laws on blacks versus hispanics, we are assessing the effect of gun control period. You're attempting to obfuscate the study by adding unnecessary controls.
Again, you are obfuscating the study and the conclusion. I am not trying to attribute anything to anything, I am only trying to determine if strict gun control laws decreased homicides. Based on the evidence of this study, you can not say that California's strictest in the nation gun control laws resulted in fewer homicides.

when assessing the effectiveness of gun control laws, it is not necessary to evaluate any other variable beyond the gun control laws themselves. In fact, doing so only confuses any conclusion.
What? This is complete and utter statistical nonsense. When you are trying to evaluate the correlation or causation of a variable to another the standard is to exclude as many confounds as possible, not ignore everything else because it would be "confusing." Please provide examples of peer reviewed journal articles where anything close to that approach is being used.

Nothing else needs to be controlled for. We are not assessing the effect of gun control laws on blacks versus hispanics, we are assessing the effect of gun control period. You're attempting to obfuscate the study by adding unnecessary controls.
No, I am trying to de-obfuscate the issue by removing other factors that might influence the "baseline" homicide rate in each city. Go back in the thread and read my example of an unknown W factor more closely.
Your ostrich in the sand approach when it comes to confounding variables is statistically invalid. You must remove confounding variables in order to draw the conclusions you are attempting to draw. For example, I could come along and say that the only reason Oakland has more murders is because it has a significantly younger population, and that gun laws, if anything, keep it from being higher. You cannot refute such an assertion without doing a more careful analysis that controls for confounding variables.

Again, you are obfuscating the study and the conclusion. I am not trying to attribute anything to anything, I am only trying to determine if strict gun control laws decreased homicides. Based on the evidence of this study, you can not say that California's strictest in the nation gun control laws resulted in fewer homicides.
What "study" are you referring to?

 

[kwguy]

We should never allow a lie to persist IMO and their entire argument is based on a lie-the lie that gun control laws decrease murders. It's fair to argue that we have this civil right and, therefore, your arguments are invalid but, as perception is reality, it's pragmatic to also point out the inherent lack of veracity of their arguments and justifications.

I guess I can see that. It just seems that during some of these discussions, if it were proven that these laws actually did work, then many of “us” would actually be ok with them. I can see shining the light on their lies. I guess I’m just trying to say that even if their laws did work, that’s still no reason to destroy our rights.

 

[Will Munny]

I don’t understand why so many people argue about “provable statistics” as it pertains to whether or not gun laws reduce “gun crime”. That’s not seeing the forest for the trees. Who cares whether it does or not? That’s the argument they use to curtail our rights. Arguing about whether these laws work or not plays right into their hands.

We can reduce deaths by completely banning vehicles as well, but the cry from the populace would be overwhelming. We can reduce all kinds of crime and “unnecessary” deaths, if we just trample on everyone’s rights.

But that’s not the point. It’s like arguing about the efficiency of the trains that take us to the gulag. Or choosing the kind of newspaper we use to line our gilded cages.

Don’t play into it.

To some extent you are correct, but the problem with that approach is most of the American populace does not view the 2nd Amendment as an unlimited right. Indeed, the supreme court has long recognized that there are limits to every right in the constitution, and the debate has long been about where those limits should be drawn, rather than that there are any.

Who cares whether it does or not?
The average middle American voter that decides the outcome of our elections and saddles us with the consequences like we see in WA.

That’s the argument they use to curtail our rights.
Yes, mainly because the pro-2A side usually does a very poor job of countering those arguments. No one is going to be impressed by bad statistics or an argument that they don't matter when the other side has its act together.

We can reduce deaths by completely banning vehicles as well, but the cry from the populace would be overwhelming. We can reduce all kinds of crime and “unnecessary” deaths, if we just trample on everyone’s rights.
This is what might be called a false choice fallacy, or a binary fallacy. The reality is there are never only 2 extreme policy options.
To use your example, we can reduce deaths by banning vehicles yes, but we can also reduce deaths by less extreme measures, such as mandating safety equipment like seat belts and air bags, requiring occupants to use seat belts, banning impaired driving, instituting GDL programmes for new drivers, etc. Notice we have done all of those things, because they all have a marginal benefit that we decided outweighed their marginal cost.
Much of the point of statistics is to show what marginal benefit a policy provides, and at what marginal cost.

We are free to make a rights based argument as well, it is not mutually exclusive with a well founded, statistically valid argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[kwguy]

To some extent you are correct, but the problem with that approach is most of the American populace does not view the 2nd Amendment as an unlimited right. Indeed, the supreme court has long recognized that there are limits to every right in the constitution, and the debate has long been about where those limits should be drawn, rather than that there are any.

Who cares whether it does or not?
The average middle American voter that decides the outcome of our elections and saddles us with the consequences like we see in WA.

That’s the argument they use to curtail our rights.
Yes, mainly because the pro-2A side usually does a very poor job of countering those arguments. No one is going to be impressed by bad statistics or an argument that they don't matter when the other side has its act together.

We can reduce deaths by completely banning vehicles as well, but the cry from the populace would be overwhelming. We can reduce all kinds of crime and “unnecessary” deaths, if we just trample on everyone’s rights.
This is what might be called a false choice fallacy, or a binary fallacy. The reality is there are never only 2 extreme policy options.
To use your example, we can reduce deaths by banning vehicles yes, but we can also reduce deaths by less extreme measures, such as mandating safety equipment like seat belts and air bags, requiring occupants to use seat belts, banning impaired driving, instituting GDL programmes for new drivers, etc. Notice we have done all of those things, because they all have a marginal benefit that we decided outweighed their marginal cost.
Much of the point of statistics is to show what marginal benefit a policy provides, and at what marginal cost.

We are free to make a rights based argument as well, it is not mutually exclusive with a well founded, statistically valid argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment.

That’s only because it’s the “hated” 2nd Amendment. It’d be absolutely hilarious watching anyone try to make those arguments as it relates to the 13th Amendment.

 

[Will Munny]

That’s only because it’s the “hated” 2nd Amendment. It’d be absolutely hilarious watching anyone try to make those arguments as it relates to the 13th Amendment.

Actually the 13th Amendment has been subject to some litigation over the time since it was ratified, particularly around what is, and is not, involuntary servitude. So yes, those arguments have happened as well.
But a more realistic comparison would be the 1st Amendment, as it is more comparable to the 2nd in age, scope, and authors, and has seen a great deal of deliberation and evolution over the years.

 

[The Glockodile]

I are Engineer.

I be knowing Multivariate Analysis for Quality Control.

Here be none

 

[kwguy]

Actually the 13th Amendment has been subject to some litigation over the time since it was ratified, particularly around what is, and is not, involuntary servitude. So yes, those arguments have happened as well.
But a more realistic comparison would be the 1st Amendment, as it is more comparable to the 2nd in age, scope, and authors, and has seen a great deal of deliberation and evolution over the years.

Maybe Washington will also put a ban on those dangerous “high capacity smartphones”, and those insanely thick college ruled notebooks .

 

[Will Munny]

Maybe Washington will also put a ban on those dangerous “high capacity smartphones”, and those insanely thick college ruled notebooks .

The attack on the 1st Amendment is also real, but taking a somewhat different form. The main thrust seems to be around social media, with various proposals to force companies to remove material on the basis of ambiguous criteria. That is part of what the showdown between Facebook and Europe is about right now. And there are plenty of ideologues in the US that would be interested in applying the same here if they could.

 

[kwguy]

The attack on the 1st Amendment is also real, but taking a somewhat different form. The main thrust seems to be around social media, with various proposals to force companies to remove material on the basis of ambiguous criteria. That is part of what the showdown between Facebook and Europe is about right now. And there are plenty of ideologues in the US that would be interested in applying the same here if they could.

Tribalism, fear, and agendas. Eroding rights a little bit at a time.

I feel for the minority who are getting their rights smashed by the majority in Washington. We can say, from our supposed “safe states”, that’s what they voted for. But not all of them did.

“We’re meddlesome”.

 

[Howland937]

we're running out of states to move to

It ain't for everyone, but the folks I know are always glad to see more 2A supporters and gun enthusiasts move to Ohio. Might have been late to the CCW party compared to our neighbors, but there's been a push toward more rights for gun owners in the last few years. Could be just a pendulum swing, but the momentum is in our favor currently. Just make sure you're equipped for all 3 seasons we have here. Summer, winter, and road construction.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

Tribalism, fear, and agendas. Eroding rights a little bit at a time.

I feel for the minority who are getting their rights smashed by the majority in Washington. We can say, from our supposed “safe states”, that’s what they voted for. But not all of them did.

“We’re meddlesome”.

Good points and nice to see the "Serenity" quote too. Heck,as I think about it, the whole speech by River fits into the argument as well.

 

[danez71]

I are Engineer.

I be knowing Multivariate Analysis for Quality Control.

Here be none

Agreed. What's the opposite of "Multivariate Analysis for Quality Control"?

I think Will said it well but maybe there's a technical term for it.

This is complete and utter statistical nonsense.

 

[daverich4]

No, they don't care about the truth in places where they have a monopoly on power and therefore don't have to debate anyone to get their way. But here in Ohio, I'm happy to point out to anyone that cares (or doesn't) that despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the country, California still has more gun murders than any other state. One might expect that given their population but one might also expect that they'd at least be ranked #2 (if not lower) given all their onerous gun laws that were passed to reduce gun crime... allegedly. But they're not, they're #1.




View attachment 1058759

When you take their population into consideration in 2020 they were 29th. You might take a look at some of the states that were much higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate#:~:text=Intentional Homicide Rates (2011 - 2020) , 11.2 26 more rows

 

[redcon1]

This is complete and utter statistical nonsense. When you are trying to evaluate the correlation or causation of a variable to another the standard is to exclude as many confounds as possible

We aren't trying to evaluate correlation or causation. We are simply determining if the hypothesis that "California's strict gun control laws decreased California's homicides" is or is not a true statement. just as if we were trying to determine if our hypothetical blood pressure pill lowers blood pressure. It either does or it doesn't. Furthermore, we don't give one single fart if it decreases blood pressure in populations that don't have high blood pressure to begin with which is what you're looking at when you compare statewide per 100,000 homicide rates. Homicide and gun violence are not problems in rural areas. Including the entire statewide population in your analysis is like including white people in your sickle cell anemia prevention medical trial. There's no point. It only leads to a bad conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. I don't care what your degree is in, you're wrong here.

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

It won't help in blue places like California but it will help in purplish places like Ohio and Michigan IMO. It never hurts to have rock solid truth supporting you position and that's all I'm saying. Look at Florida for example. After the Stoneman Douglas school shooting in February, 2018, Florida passed a red flag law in March, 2018 and then used it to infringe on the 2A rights of thousands of Floridians. What was the result? Murders increased by 14.7% between 2019 and 2020. This kind of evidence certainly doesn't hurt our position and the gun grabbers really don't have a good counter argument for this.

They have the media. They don't report facts so the average moron doesn't hear.

 

[redcon1]

They have the media. They don't report facts so the average moron doesn't hear.

There's an old saying that Mark Twain frequently gets credit for: "a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets its shoes on". In the age of disinformation, that is more true than it has ever been. It's always better to have the truth as your ally rather than your enemy but these days, even a weapon as powerful as the truth isn't always a match for the disinformation machine. Sometimes the truth isn't enough and the lie wins.

 

[Atavar]

We should stop making more anti gun laws and start making anti gun crime laws.
Make a mandatory 10 year additional consecutive sentence with no possibility of parole or reduction for any use of a deadly weapon in any felony. Forget the three strike rule, one strike and you’re out.

 

[kwguy]

Good points and nice to see the "Serenity" quote too. Heck,as I think about it, the whole speech by River fits into the argument as well.

It does indeed, I just couldn’t get the whole quote in there. Glad someone recognized the point.

 

[redcon1]

Forget the three strike rule, one strike and you’re out.

Sorry but that's racist.

 

[Atavar]

Sorry but that's racist.

He that commits the crime does the time, I don’t care if he’s purple. No parole, no time off for behavior, no credit for completing therapy or finding Jesus.

 

[danez71]

We aren't trying to evaluate correlation or causation. We are simply determining if the hypothesis that "California's strict gun control laws decreased California's homicides

That would be causation.

 

[JohnKSa]

when assessing the effectiveness of gun control laws, it is not necessary to evaluate any other variable beyond the gun control laws themselves. In fact, doing so only confuses any conclusion.

That's absolutely incorrect. In order to know for certain that the effect is due to gun control laws, the effects of other variables must be eliminated.

For example, let's say one is assessing the safety of two vehicles by looking at how many fatalities occur in people riding/driving in one. One vehicle is sold primarily in one country with excellent emergency response and medical care and the other is sold primarily in a country where emergency response is poor as is medical care.

So if one looks just at the number of persons who die and nothing else, the figures are going to favor the "safety" of the car sold in the country were medical care is prompt and of good quality. One must eliminate the effects of other variables that can change the statistic in question before one can assume that the statistics are being affected by the particular effect in question.

It's not only necessary, it is absolutely critical to evaluate ALL variables that can have an effect on homicides, not just gun control laws to be sure that the homicide statistic is not being affected by some other variable that isn't being taken into account.

Based on the evidence of this study, you can not say that California's strictest in the nation gun control laws resulted in fewer homicides.

Based on the per capita homicide figures, it is clear that there are other variables affecting the outcome--not just gun control laws. We see some states that are very gun friendly (MO) near the top of the list of per capita homicides and others that are gun friendly (ID) almost at the very bottom. Clearly there's more to this than just the effect of gun control laws.

That’s not seeing the forest for the trees. Who cares whether it does or not? That’s the argument they use to curtail our rights.

Which is PRECISELY why it's important to not only care but to have an answer for the argument.

...and their entire argument is based on a lie-the lie that gun control laws decrease murders.

Correct. And the per capita homicide figures that you are trying to discount prove it conclusively. The point is that homicide rates are not closely linked to gun control laws and it's easy to show that is true using the per capita homicide rates.

We are simply determining if the hypothesis that "California's strict gun control laws decreased California's homicides" is or is not a true statement.

Right. And if you look at the per capita homicide rates for each state it is absolutely clear that there is no correlation between the two. There are states with strong gun control at both the top and bottom of the list. There are very gun friendly states at both the top and bottom of the list.

The point is that using state homicide figures to assess the value of gun control laws doesn't work. You can't prove that gun control laws work with such a simple argument AND, just as importantly you can't prove that they don't work. There are other variables that are affecting the homicide figures more strongly than gun control laws which means that it's possible that gun control laws are affecting the homicides positively but the effect is being swamped by other variable--or it's also possible that they have no effect at all--or maybe that they actually increase homicides but the effect is being hidden by the effects of other variables.

 

[redcon1]

When you take their population into consideration in 2020 they were 29th. You might take a look at some of the states that were much higher.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate#:~:text=Intentional Homicide Rates (2011 - 2020) , 11.2 26 more rows

As I have suggested throughout this thread, there's no reason to take population into consideration. It's nothing but statistical manipulation. It's nothing but a curtain that politicians and partisans hide behind when forced to talk about the rampant crime in their cities.
But for the sake of argument, the aforereferenced Gifford's law Center gives the state of California a grade of "A" and concludes that it has the strongest gun laws in the country. By comparison, it gives Maine a grade of "F" and ranks them as 33rd. Looking strictly at population based statistics, California has a homicide rate of 5.6 per 100,000 in 2020 and Maine has a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000 in 2020. According to Giffords, California is more safe because they have more gun laws and yet, they clearly aren't. So, from this, we can further deduce that A) per 100,000 homicide rates are obfuscatory and B) strict gun control laws do not lead to a decrease in homicide or, if you would prefer, we can more accurately state that California's experiment in strict gun control does not prove that strict gun control laws result in reduced homicides as compared to states with lax gun laws. This is, of course, further supported by the Oakland and Miami comparison made earlier.