A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Mountain Man]

Are we looking at the same graph? It's significantly lower,

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26639[/ATTACH]

Your definition of "significantly lower" is apparently different than mine. Suicide rates rose and then declined to about the same level they were at previously. And besides, even your own sources that try to paint a rosy picture are forced to admit that such changes in statistics can not be definitively linked to guns.

Yes, we've gone over this I think about 6 or 7 times now. This also coincides with stricter gun legislation, and many of those gun sales were from repeat owners during the various legislation scares after each major mass shooting.

And there have been a lot of first-time buyers, too.

Guns aren't the problem.

[Adrift]

Your definition of "significantly lower" is apparently different than mine. Suicide rates rose and then declined to about the same level they were at previously.

The charts you linked shows 20-21 suicides per 100,000 people before the ban, dropping to 16-17 per 100,00 by the end. That's significant.

And besides, even your own sources that try to paint a rosy picture are forced to admit that such changes in statistics can not be definitively linked to guns.

I specifically noted that in my comments of the post, and they note the reason for that is because the paper is merely observational in nature. You'll also note that the author of the paper, himself, suggests that the ban did play a factor (calling it a "big story"). MM, you can't have it both ways, you can't say that suicides didn't go down after the gun ban and also that they did, but that it's not linked to the ban. Both of our sources show an overall decline in suicides contrary to your previous assertions.

And there have been a lot of first-time buyers, too.

Agreed, but overall gun ownership is being concentrated on what is being labeled as "super-owners" (individuals who've amassed on average 17 guns each). According to studies done at Harvard, only 3% of Americans own half of the guns in the US, and it's primarily driven by scares that guns will be taken away after each mass shooting.

Guns aren't the problem.

I obviously disagree.

[Darth Executor]

The charts you linked shows 20-21 suicides per 100,000 people before the ban, dropping to 16-17 per 100,00 by the end. That's significant.

It isn't and you're both incapable of doing a proper statistical analysis, even of a simple graph. checking average suicides in the decade before, and after a gun ban is meaningless. they tell you absolutely nothing about trends, and that's where most gun grabbers fail. Because suicides trend downwards from decade to decade, the poor statistical anlysis mostly benefits you, but it's obvious from the graph that there was a boost in suicides the year of the gun grab and didn't start falling until a couple years later. So trying to attribute the decrease in suicides to the gun grab is... dishonest (to put it mildly). You can make a better case that the gun grab caused a bunch of people who were on the fence to off themselves out of fear that they would lose the means to do so quickly and painlessly.

[Adrift]

It isn't and you're both incapable of doing a proper statistical analysis, even of a simple graph. checking average suicides in the decade before, and after a gun ban is meaningless. they tell you absolutely nothing about trends, and that's where most gun grabbers fail. Because suicides trend downwards from decade to decade, the poor statistical anlysis mostly benefits you, but it's obvious from the graph that there was a boost in suicides the year of the gun grab and didn't start falling until a couple years later. So trying to attribute the decrease in suicides to the gun grab is... dishonest (to put it mildly). You can make a better case that the gun grab caused a bunch of people who were on the fence to off themselves out of fear that they would lose the means to do so quickly and painlessly.

Is it also your expert opinion that Professor Simon Chapman is incapable of doing a proper statistical analysis?

[Darth Executor]

Is it also your expert opinion that Professor Simon Chapman is incapable of doing a proper statistical analysis?

No, I suspect he's spinning, if not outright lying.

[Adrift]

No, I suspect he's spinning, if not outright lying.

Of course.

[Darth Executor]

I believe the point of this thread is to actually discuss things yourself, not engage in argument by authority when you're caught with your pants down.

[Adrift]

I believe the point of this thread is to actually discuss things yourself, not engage in argument by authority when you're caught with your pants down.

1. This point of this thread was simply to have a discussion about the issue of gun violence without devolving "into name calling, a wide variety of personal attacks, and some pretty wild accusations". 2. I've spent the majority of the thread discussing things myself. 3. There's absolutely nothing wrong with citing relevant authorities. In fact, it's typically encouraged in debate. 4. I haven't been caught with my pants down.

[Darth Executor]

There's a difference between citing authorities and responding to a dismantling of your poor statistical analysis by blaming it on someone else.

[Adrift]

There's a difference between citing authorities and responding to a dismantling of your poor statistical analysis by blaming it on someone else.

Ok.

[Mountain Man]

The charts you linked shows 20-21 suicides per 100,000 people before the ban, dropping to 16-17 per 100,00 by the end. That's significant.

More like a slight decrease, but I guess even that's significant if you have an agenda to push.

And there's the inconvenient truth that suicide rates in Australia have been on the rise for the past several years. How does that fit into your anti-gun narrative?

The problem with statistics is that things can get messy, especially when trying to compare one country to another.

Source: Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/co...oss-countries/

© Copyright Original Source

It also seems that Australia's celebrated gun ban didn't necessarily have the results you would expect:

Source: CPRC testimony on gun control before the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee

The number of people who owned guns increased from 1.2 million Australian adults in 1997 to 1.97 million in 2015. At the same time, the number of guns increased even more from 2.5 to 5.8 million. Both of these were much greater than the increase in the population from 18.52 to 23.79 million.

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/10/cp...ces-committee/

© Copyright Original Source

So whatever changes you see in crime statistics, it wasn't because there were fewer guns and fewer gun owners.

You'll also note that the author of the paper, himself, suggests that the ban did play a factor (calling it a "big story").

He can "suggest" whatever he wants. There's a difference between wanting something to be true, and being able to prove that something is true. When looked at holistically, the rate of gun sales and ownership does not move in lockstep with crime and suicide statistics.

Guns are not the problem.

[Sparko]

If you left it unsecured, yes. Rights come with responsibilities.

It's my freaking house! I am not required to secure my belongings in my own house. The burglar is not allowed to come in and take something "unsecured" and it be my fault. That's just dumb. If I leave my car outside of the garage and someone steals it and runs someone over, it is not my fault that someone stole it. Not even if I left the keys in it accidentally. I didn't give anyone permission to steal it.

[Sparko]

1) Buy an adequate safe.
2) Take the weapons apart to store them.
Rights come with responsibilities - and since gun ownership is a limited right, you DO bear the responsibility to not allow your weapon to be stolen or sold to someone who is not legally able to own it.

This total lack of responsibility is why you have people that don't want ANYONE to have guns.

Gun ownership is not a 'limited' right. It is a constitutional right. And you are completely wrong on this.

[Sparko]

Yeah - but when you were a kid, dinosaurs still roamed the earth...

You are thinking of mossrose.

[Mountain Man]

What if someone breaks into my house and steals a knife that is later used to commit a crime, am I to be held accountable because I didn't properly secure the knife? How far do we want to push this insanity?