Gun owners in WA have given up

[Insignificant bill]

The danger is that the Democrats are starting to make the case -- Mr. Biden is starting to say this -- that what we need to combat the crime wave is to infringe further on the 2A.

The crime wave is the product of a lot of things, but principally the rebelliousness and anti-police sentiment incited by progressives; increases in drugs and thefts to pay for drugs; economic rack and ruin and hopelessness in densely populated, poorly governed urban areas; and probably foremost, the anti-jail, low bail policies put forth by Soros-funded progressive DAs. Guns figure in many of the crimes but there has been an almost endless supply of guns in this country (an estimated 400+ million) for quite some time; this issue is not the availability of guns, and certainly not the availability of guns to law-abiding citizens, but the increasing willingness of criminals to use violence. Do you know what the knockout game is? Driven by social media, it is the popular urban "game" of cold-cocking people on the street, usually older people, frequently Asian people. A variant is pushing innocent people in front of a subway train. Violence for fun.

Is the answer to this societal breakdown and leadership failure to cut the number of rounds in newly purchased magazines from 15 down to 10? None of us thinks so.

The statistical issues being discussed above illustrate how hard it is to determine from crime stats the impact of specific laws and their relationship to either fostering or deterring violence. The real reasons are broadly demographic, cultural, societal, etc., and hard to isolate and assign to specific outcomes. But deep down, people understand the real cause of criminal violence involving guns usually is... the violent and immoral people committing crimes. We just need to keep saying it.

The problem has nothing to do with guns because we know the tool is irelevent. So what is the real agenda behind more and more gun control

So, if it were proven, irrefutably, that strict gun control, let’s say, of the Australian type, or worse, would result in a 40 to 50 percent decrease in “gun violence”, how many people would be willing to make that trade?

Or, taken to the extreme, let’s say a
total ban on semi-autos of all types would
equate to a 99 percent decrease in “gun deaths”, but in both cases, the .gov, police, etc, get to keep theirs, who’d make that trade?

So, if it were proven, irrefutably, that strict gun control, let’s say, of the Australian type, or worse, would result in a 40 to 50 percent decrease in “gun violence”, how many people would be willing to make that trade?

Or, taken to the extreme, let’s say a
total ban on semi-autos of all types would
equate to a 99 percent decrease in “gun deaths”, but in both cases, the .gov, police, etc, get to keep theirs, who’d make that trade?

Not me, we have this right to protect ourselves from the government.

 

[JohnKSa]

So, if it were proven, irrefutably, that strict gun control, let’s say, of the Australian type, or worse, would result in a 40 to 50 percent decrease in “gun violence”, how many people would be willing to make that trade?

I think there would be a lot of people who would think that was a good trade. That's precisely why the Constitution exists. It is supposed to provide a sort of an outside bound of what the government is allowed to do that can't be broken even if the voters think that would be a good idea. Changing the Constitution was intentionally set up to be difficult so that it would be difficult to change the boundaries and give the government more power over the people.

In other words, there are some rights that are so critically important that they are reserved to the people even with the full knowledge that some of them would misuse it to the harm of others and perhaps even more generally to society.

Basically, even if people did think that it was a good trade, the country was initially set up to prevent them from making the trade--at least as long as the Constitution is still in place in more or less its original form and not "interpreted" into non-viability.

 

[redcon1]

This makes absolutely no sense. If there are no homicides then the rate must be identically zero. Giving a rate per population does not remove the fact that homicides occurred, it simply accounts for the fact that with more people you would expect more total homicides.

It makes perfect sense that comparing two equal sized cities from two different states is more apples to apples than including large and highly disparate numbers of statistically irrelevant rural demographic groups which would "buffer" out abnormal values in the homicide prone urban areas.
We have compared Oakland and Miami. Let's pick two different "apples" and compare them and see what it reveals.

Vallejo, California: -------------------------------------- Lafayette, Louisiana
Population: 121,267 -------------------------------------Population: 121,374
Total homicides in 2020: 27 ---------------------------Total homicides in 2020: 14
Rate per 100,000: 22.1 ---------------------------------Rate per 100,000: 11.1
California's gun control ranking: #1 -----------------Louisiana's gun control ranking: 33


We again have two equal sized populations with vastly different gun control laws, one from California and one from Louisiana and, here again, we see that the hypothesis that more gun control results in fewer murders is not supported. This is especially noteworthy because Louisiana is frequently cited as being especially dangerous because of their lax gun laws and evidence of why we should all adopt strict gun control laws like California has but here again, we see that the California city is actually twice as dangerous as the Louisiana city despite California's 1st place ranking in gun control and Louisiana's 33rd place. Again, if we lived in the small town and rural areas of either of these states, the total homicides would likely be zero or possibly 1. If we include those numbers in our analysis, California appears safer because California has a population of 39 million people and Louisiana has a population of 4.7 million people so California's larger rural population has a more significant buffering effect on their urban homicide rates. And again, we don't give a fart what the homicide rate is in rural areas and small towns because it isn't any kind of problematic. It is virtually non-existent. It does not require rigorous evaluation.
I'm trying to avoid responding with excessively wordy replies in the typical internet fighting fashion (any more than I already have) so I'm just not going to respond to every other point you made.

 

[redcon1]

Actually, in reality, you're the only one missing all the points that everyone else is making.

No, I'm right and they're wrong actually but their egos won't let them see it.

 

[JohnKSa]

We again have two equal sized populations with vastly different gun control laws, one from California and one from Louisiana and, here again, we see that the hypothesis that more gun control results in fewer murders is not supported.

The idea of comparing equal populations is precisely the point of looking at the rate (homicides per population) instead of pure homicide figures.

No, I'm right and they're wrong actually but their egos won't let them see it.

It's got nothing to do with ego. Facts have no ego.

 

[redcon1]

The idea of comparing equal populations is precisely the point of looking at the rate (homicides per population) instead of pure homicide figures.It's got nothing to do with ego. Facts have no ego.

I'm the only one comparing equal populations. Look at my post comparing Vallejo with Lafayette. Those are two equal populations. The one in the state with the strictest gun control laws in the country and given an A rating by Giffords has double the per 100,000 rate of homicides as the city in the state ranked 33rd and given an F grade by Giffords. I don't think you're actually reading what I'm saying. Not trying to be a D.

 

[JohnKSa]

Anyone looking at homicide rates per 100,000 are comparing equal populations, by definition. That's exactly the point of using that type of statistic.

I don't think you're actually reading what I'm saying.

Actually, I am. I'll admit that I've had the same thought about you.

Look at my post comparing Vallejo with Lafayette. Those are two equal populations.

LA, overall, has about 3x the homicide rate per 100,000 compared to CA overall.

As I've said many times now, on this thread. Comparing homicide number or even homicide rates between states does not tell you anything about the gun control philosophy within the state. The fact is that there are clearly other variables that affect homicide rates far more than the effects of gun control laws.

A state or region with strict gun control may be near the top of the list for homicide rates (MD, IL) or they may be very near the bottom (MA, HI, RI).
A state or region that is very gun friendly may be near the top of the list for homicide rates (MO, MS) or they may be very near the bottom (ID, WY).

The bottom line is that you can't use homicide rates to either prove or disprove the effectiveness of gun control in terms of reducing homicides without determining the other variables that are involved and compensating for them. Gun control laws might be causing a few additional homicides, or a few less homicides or having no effect at all. We can't tell because there are clearly other things affecting the rates so much that the whatever effect gun control is having (if any effect at all) it can't be seen until the effects those other things are having can be quantified and compensated for.

What we CAN say with certainty is that the effect of gun control on homicides (if any) is small compared to the effects of the other variables involved.

 

[JohnKSa]

By the way, to show the pointlessness of trying to pick out individual cities with similar populations to compare them, here are two more cities with very similar populations.

I went with Louisiana and California again, just like your comparison.

New Orleans, LA.
Population: 387,564
Homicides: 218
Homicides per 100K: 56.2

Bakersfield, CA.
Population: 391,438
Homicides: 60
Homicides per 100K: 15.1

In this case we seen that the LA city has a homicide rate that is nearly 4x that of the CA city. So are we supposed to say that this proves gun control laws are very effective at reducing homicides? Clearly not. When we look at the big picture instead of trying to cherry pick examples, we see that there's more going on than meets the eye and that trying to prove that gun control either does or doesn't work using raw homicide data is just a non-starter.

 

[redcon1]

LA, overall, has about 3x the homicide rate per 100,000 compared to CA overall.

That's great if you live in Overall, California but if you live in Vallejo, California you have 2x the homicide rate as a similarly sized city in Louisiana. If gun control is as effective as California thinks it is, how is that possible?

The fact is, 68% of US homicides are committed in 5% of US counties. Those counties invariably include large cities. The homicide rates are abysmal regardless of the state's gun control laws. In other words, gun control has minimal effect on homicides one way or the other in the large urban areas where homicide is an actual problem. California's large cities are not any more safe than Louisiana's large cities and if there is a difference, it's because of demographics, not gun control.
2% of counties have 51% of the murders

About 70 percent of US counties, accounting for 20 percent of the U.S. population, had no more than one murder in 2014, with 54 percent of counties experiencing zero murders

There is no meaningful conclusion that can be drawn from a state's per 100,000 homicide rate. It's as useful as iron sights on a thousand yard benchrest rifle. When you decide to move to a different state, you don't look at that state's per 100,000 homicide rate and then assume that every city is equally safe. You look at the per 100,000 homicide rate of each potential city within that state and, if you are able, you pick the one that is lowest. Same with neighborhoods. Some California cities are perfectly safe-Beverly hills for instance. But right next door in Oakland?" Not so much.

 

[JohnKSa]

That's great if you live in Overall, California but if you live in Vallejo, California you have 2x the homicide rate as a similarly sized city in Louisiana. If gun control is as effective as California thinks it is, how is that possible?

That's great, but if you live in New Orleans, LA, you have almost 4x the homicide rate as a similarly sized city in California. If you're trying to prove that gun control is ineffective, how is that helping your case?

....if there is a difference, it's because of demographics, not gun control.

WHOA! Are you saying that there are factors OTHER than gun control that might be affecting the homicide rates in a big way?

THAT is an AMAZING concept! I wonder why no one else has brought it up on this thread?

 

[redcon1]

I went with Louisiana and California again, just like your comparison.

New Orleans, LA.
Population: 387,564
Homicides: 218
Homicides per 100K: 56.2

Bakersfield, CA.
Population: 391,438
Homicides: 60
Homicides per 100K: 15.1

that's interesting that you would pick NOLA btw because New Orleans actually accounts for the majority of Louisiana homicides. Check this FBI site out and add it up if you want. I did it once but I don't feel like doing it again right now. As I said earlier, Gun grabbers are fond of pointing the finger at Louisiana but the fact is, New Orleans accounts for the majority of Louisiana's murders (and rapes which is whole different subject that deserves its own thread). Most every other city is quite safe. And again, that ain't a gun control issue.

 

[JohnKSa]

Actually, I just quickly scrolled down the population list of U.S. cities below looking for two that were next to each other, one in LA and one in CA. The Bakersfield, NOLA were the pair that caught my eye.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities

Could I have gotten a different result if a different pair had caught my eye? Obviously yes. And that's the whole point.

Ok, well maybe not the whole point, but it's a big part of it.

 

[redcon1]

THAT is an AMAZING concept! I wonder why no one else has brought it up on this thread?

I have never said that there weren't other factors that determine homicide rates and, in fact, I have consistently admitted that there are other issues that are vastly more relevant to the homicide rate than gun control. All I have said is that you can't look at a states per 100,000 homicide rate and draw a meaningful conclusion about the effect of gun control or the risk of homicide. I have been 100% consistent in that. But , at the same time, you can't include demographic information while analyzing and evaluating gun control data because, in that respect, it is irrelevant.

 

[JohnKSa]

All I have said is that you can't look at a states per 100,000 homicide rate and draw a meaningful conclusion about the effect of gun control...

Yeah, I'm not going to count how many times I've said that on this thread. And you keep arguing with me for some reason.

The exact same thing applies to overall homicide rates, and for the same reason PLUS the fact that without compensating for population, you throw in an additional contributing factor that has nothing to do with gun control.

I think we've also just proved that you can't look at a cities per 100,000 homicide rate (or overall homicide rates) and draw a meaningful conclusion about the effect of gun control without considering other factors. Right?

...you can't include demographic information while analyzing and evaluating gun control data...

If you want to know what affects homicide rates, then you have to look at all the possible factors until all of them, taken in concert provide results that match the real world data.

If you are going to quote homicide statistics as if they prove or disprove gun control effectiveness, then you have to FIRST know what drives homicide rates so you can compensate for those factors and look at the effects that ONLY relate to gun control.

Otherwise, you end up with the situation you're in now. You find a couple of cities that make your point and someone else finds another couple of cities that show something different and then you have to start talking about other things that affect homicide statistics while at the same time claiming the other things that affect homicide rates are irrelevant.

 

[redcon1]

I think we've also just proved that you can't look at a cities per 100,000 homicide rate (or overall homicide rates) and draw a meaningful conclusion about the effect of gun control without considering other factors. Right?

Why do we care about "other factors"? All I want to know is does your data prove that strict gun control measures reduce homicides. I don't want to know if they reduced homicides among blacks, or among Hispanics, or among poor people. Homicides are certainly going to be higher in cities with disproportionately high numbers of blacks, Hispanics and poor people but I don't care about that. That's a different study entirely. Furthermore, I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm interested in disproving something; specifically, the hypothesis that strict gun control leads to decreased homicides. It either does or it doesn't and the data can't really be weighted differently because of these "other factors". So yes, in the case of California, it appears, on the surface, that gun control does work but when you dig just a little deeper, you see clearly that the data doesn't really support that, that numerous California cities have homicide rates equal to or greater than cities in states with very lax gun control laws. Because of this, I don't think it's necessary to look any deeper or to massage data one way or the other. The hypothesis is not supported by the data and it is therefore disproven which is why I said earlier that California can not say that they have reduced homicides because of their strict gun control measures and any attempt to throw out the statewide per 100,000 rate is nothing but a statistical trick to lend support to a disproven hypothesis.

 

[JohnKSa]

Why do we care about "other factors"?

California's large cities are not any more safe than Louisiana's large cities and if there is a difference, it's because of demographics, not gun control.

Homicides are certainly going to be higher in cities with disproportionately high numbers of blacks, Hispanics and poor people...

Seems like you know exactly why. If there are factors other than gun control that affect homicide rates, then they have to be accounted for before you can use homicide rates to prove or disprove anything about gun control.

In fact, when I started using EXACTLY the same tactic you did to compare cities, YOU immediately brought up "other factors". Now, if you want to go back and edit your posts to eliminate those objections, I think maybe you could legitimately go back to arguing that "other factors" don't matter. But as it stands, it's abjectly ridiculous for you to continue to argue against considering other factors when you, yourself, just pointed out that other factors are important to consider.

Furthermore, I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm interested in disproving something; specifically, the hypothesis that strict gun control leads to decreased homicides.

Because you acknowledge that there are other things affecting homicide rates and because it's easy to see from the data that if there is an effect from gun control, it is much smaller than those other effects, then until you can compensate for the effects from the other factors and isolate the effect (if any) due to gun control, you don't know if gun control is having an effect or not. All you know is that the effect (if it exists) is smaller than the other factors by a significant amount.

By the way, if you would just slow down and read that last sentence--the one that is highlighted--and think about it for a minute or two instead of just immediately starting to compose a response, you might just have an epiphany.

It either does or it doesn't and the data can't really be weighted differently because of these "other factors".

Massive oversimplification. It may have a positive effect in some areas, none in others, a negative in others. For one thing, not all the states that are primarily anti-gun have the same mix of gun control. Second, as you acknowledge there are other factors affecting homicide rates which change from one to another.

If you want to prove that there's NO effect, (as opposed to just proving that the effect, if it exists, is very small-hint, hint) then you have to go through all the possible effects and compensate for them so you can see what (if any) effect is actually due to differences in gun control laws.

Go back to the water tower example. Without turning the pump off, you'll never see the effect due to the hole. The hole IS there, it IS having an effect, but you won't ever be able to see it in the water level data unless you can compensate that water level data for the effect of the pump to isolate the effect due to the hole. I'm not claiming that gun control is having an effect on homicide stats in the U.S., this is just an example of how one effect can be present but masked by other more significant effects.

...any attempt to throw out the statewide per 100,000 rate is nothing but a statistical trick to lend support to a disproven hypothesis.

At times, I think you are very close to finally "getting it" and then you will say something like this...

If you could just read through some of what's been posted here with an open mind, you would see that you can already effectively rebut the argument that gun control can be shown to have an effect based on a simple assessment of raw homicide statistics. Unfortunately, because you're stuck in "Reject! Reject! Reject! Mode", all you can do is repeat the same logically bankrupt arguments over and over, and continue to fight against statistics which if you were able to stop arguing just long enough to think about them, actually prove almost exactly what you want to prove.

 

[JumboJVT]

I'm the only one comparing equal populations. Look at my post comparing Vallejo with Lafayette. Those are two equal populations. The one in the state with the strictest gun control laws in the country and given an A rating by Giffords has double the per 100,000 rate of homicides as the city in the state ranked 33rd and given an F grade by Giffords. I don't think you're actually reading what I'm saying. Not trying to be a D.

Just what in the H do you think a per capita comparison is if not comparing equal populations? There is nothing more damaging to a given point-of-view than supporters cherry-picking their data and employing unsound logic to support a pre-determined conclusion. If you can't be persuaded by the discussion put forth by Will and John, I for one don't need your help.

 

[johnjohn]

All the statistics point to the fact that you couldn't pay me to live in NOLA.

 

[redcon1]

Just what in the H do you think a per capita comparison is if not comparing equal populations? There is nothing more damaging to a given point-of-view than supporters cherry-picking their data and employing unsound logic to support a pre-determined conclusion. If you can't be persuaded by the discussion put forth by Will and John, I for one don't need your help.

I don't care what you need and I'm not cherry picking anything.

 

[redcon1]

Seems like you know exactly why. If there are factors other than gun control that affect homicide rates, then they have to be accounted for before you can use homicide rates to prove or disprove anything about gun control.

They don't have to be accounted for. They're meaningless overall. The gun control pill either lowers the homicide rate or it doesn't just like the blood pressure pill either lowers the blood pressure or it doesn't. I have provided numerous examples of the gun control pill not lowering the homicide rate. I don't need to explain it. I just need to show it.

Massive oversimplification. It may have a positive effect in some areas, none in others, a negative in others.

If a blood pressure pill appears to lower blood pressure in one group and, at the same time, doesn't appear to lower blood pressure in another group, you have to conclude that the blood pressure pill doesn't actually lower blood pressure in any group and there are other factors at work. It should work regardless of the group. When gun control appears to work because you can point to low homicide rates in areas that already have historically low homicide rates but you can't point to examples of it working in areas that have historically high homicide rates, you have to conclude that the gun control doesn't reduce gun crime which aligns with what we all already know, that guns don't kill people, people kill people and that directing your gun control legislation primarily at law abiding populations will have minimal effect on criminal populations. This does not require a degree in statistics to understand.

If you could just read through some of what's been posted here with an open mind, you would see that you can already effectively rebut the argument that gun control can be shown to have an effect based on a simple assessment of raw homicide statistics.

California's per 100,000 homicide rate is almost always used as prima facie evidence of the success of California's strict gun control and as justification to employ similar strict measures elsewhere and on a larger scale. I'm simply showing that that evidence isn't actually prima facie, that it is not sufficient to prove their case. Certainly you must see after all of this that the state's per 100,000 homicide rate doesn't tell a complete and accurate story about its actual homicide problems.

 

[danez71]

I feel there is a disconnect.

Can you explain how/why you, on 1 hand, claim that there are other issues that are vastly more relevant to the homicide rate and then, on the other hand, claim they're meaningless and don't need to be accounted for?

I have consistently admitted that there are other issues that are vastly more relevant to the homicide rate than gun control.

They don't have to be accounted for. They're meaningless overall.

 

[redcon1]

Can you explain how/why you, on 1 hand, claim that there are other issues that are vastly more relevant to the homicide rate and then, on the other hand, claim they're meaningless and don't need to be accounted for?

The gun grabbers use the state level per 100,000 rate as evidence that gun control measures reduce gun violence and then go on to use that as prima facie evidence to support further encroachments on the 2A at the federal level and at other state levels. It's one of of their many statistical deceptions. I don't feel like it's necessary to prove that various demographic issues are a bigger contributor to gun violence than gun control laws or lack thereof. that's just a distraction from my point, the bigger point. It is certainly relevant to the gun control argument but it isn't necessary or relevant to my point here which is, quite simply, that state level per 100,000 homicide rates are not prima facie evidence that gun control measures reduce homicide rates as evidenced by county and city level homicide rates which are not significantly correlated with a state's overall level of gun control one way or the other and; furthermore, I feel like we just need to agree on that before we can really move on and begin to discuss those "other factors" that might explain why county and city level homicide rates don't correlate with gun control levels. Debating those other issues, incidentally, is always extremely difficult in the context of this gun control debate. It is really just...unnecessary.

 

[danez71]

state level per 100,000 homicide rates are not prima facie evidence that gun control measures reduce homicide rates as evidenced by county and city level homicide rates which are not significantly correlated with a state's overall level of gun control one way or the other

I can agree with the red parts.

Having said that, its exactly why all the variables are very important... a point many have been trying to get across.

I think the disconnect is that, overwhelmingly on multiple pages, you've been saying the variables dont matter, and more recently have acknowledged they do matter.

It's the variables that prove the summary data being worthy or not.

 

[Will Munny]

So, if it were proven, irrefutably, that strict gun control, let’s say, of the Australian type, or worse, would result in a 40 to 50 percent decrease in “gun violence”, how many people would be willing to make that trade?

Or, taken to the extreme, let’s say a
total ban on semi-autos of all types would
equate to a 99 percent decrease in “gun deaths”, but in both cases, the .gov, police, etc, get to keep theirs, who’d make that trade?

I suspect none of us would want to make the former or the latter.
However, that is not the point. Most moderate Americans would take either trade, which is why it is so important to have good statistical analysis of what the actual impact is to prevent inflated claims of effectiveness from being accepted as fact.

 

[redcon1]

I feel there is a disconnect.

Can you explain how/why you, on 1 hand, claim that there are other issues that are vastly more relevant to the homicide rate and then, on the other hand, claim they're meaningless and don't need to be accounted for?

And I also want to provide an example of what I'm talking about but in a different post. Here we have Everytown doing exactly what I'm talking about-using the state level per 100,000 homicide rate as prima facie evidence that more gun control results in fewer homicides and as justification for further encroachments on 2A rights at other levels of government. Notice they place California right at the top as their "flagship" example.

When you click on California, they again use the state level homicides per 100,000 rate as evidence to support their position: California has the strongest gun laws in the country—along with the seventh-lowest rate of gun deaths. Thanks to strong leadership, California continues to innovate with its gun safety laws. blah blah blah etc etc

But when you click on Louisiana, they guilefully use a different metric to show how the state's lack of gun control is evidence of how well gun control works. They use city level data, NOLA specifically, the most violent city in Louisiana and the city which accounts for over half of Louisiana's homicides. They didn't bother to talk about Oakland California. Louisiana has weaker gun laws than most of the country and experiences the second-highest rate of gun deaths. Both New Orleans and Baton Rouge are routinely among the most dangerous cities nationwide

Louisiana homicides are highly concentrated in New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Shreveport. These 3 cities accounted for 74.5% of Louisiana's 369 homicides in 2018. Louisiana has a lot more than 3 cities and in those cities, Louisiana's gun control laws work just fine. But, according to Everytown, Louisiana is less safe than California because they don't have California like gun control. Louisiana seems pretty safe to me. New Orleans seems pretty dangerous but, then again, so does Oakland, so does Baltimore, so does Chicago, so does Detroit, so does Washington D.C., etc

It's also pretty humorous that they would list Alaska as being much much more dangerous than California because Alaska has the sixth-highest rate of gun deaths in the nation even though Alaska had only 47 murders in 2018 and 26 of them (55%) were in Anchorage. Meanwhile, California had 2,203 murders in 2018. I don't see how this kind of comparison proves that California's gun control laws are evidence that gun control reduces homicides and Alaska's lack of gun control laws is evidence that lax gun control result in more homicides. California cities are just as dangerous and more so than Anchorage but Anchorage will exert more influence on the overall state homicide rate which is, frankly, not that much worse than California anyways. The two states were actually only separated by 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people in 2020.