Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GavJ]

To anyone using the UK as an example for why gun control works:

Initially, comparing homicide rates between the US and UK supports the idea that gun control works wonders. Except if you look at historic data, you find that UK homicide rates were comparatively very low even when there were basically no restrictions on gun ownership, and they actually rose significantly after the introduction of gun restriction laws, whereas US crime rose in the 1920s probably due to Prohibition and has generally risen and fallen in relation to the status of the Drug War, with increases during Prohibition, Nixon's Drug War escalation and the 1990s and drops from the end of Prohibition and from the 2000s onwards. So really, the evidence is fairly strong that gun control, at best, has a net neutral effect on homicide, and at worst increases homicide rates to some degree. Comparing US states with stricter gun laws to those with laxer gun laws generally supports the same conclusion (though differences in poverty rates, etc can make it less clear).

It's not very useful at all, in either direction. Gun control could have raised OR lowered their crime rates. Because normally, if you introduce a bunch of legislation like that, there's probably some reason, something was already changing. For example higher crime rates. So the original thing changing might be what caused the difference and for all we know, the gun control kept it in check (which would = lowering crime rates relative to no gun control). I.e., maybe crime was rising by 10 units a year, then they implemented gun control, and it raised by 5 units a year. That would be gun control helping, yet if you only look at the summary before and after, you'd say "zomg, it did the opposite!"

But then again, maybe it DID do the opposite.

This is why they attempted to drill it into your head in high school that correlation =/= causation, folks.  Don't ignore that lesson. If you want to test gun control, you need a proper, manipulated experiment. Such as two regions right next to each other with the same crime rates, same culture, and one suddenly passes gun control and the other doesn't.

[Reelya]

If your arguing time-frame as correlation though, you can't just cherry-pick the data that agrees with one position or another. That's too easy to do. e.g. here the raw data on different types of homicide in the USA:



Reagan enacted the Firearm Owners Protection act in 1986, pushed by the gun lobby, and we see a steep increase in handgun deaths starting 1 year later. That increased steadily, peaking in 1993. Then at the end of 93, Clinton introduced the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and we see a steady uninterrupted drop back to the pre-1986 levels.

Note that the Firearm Owners Protection act loosened gun control in general, but tightened gun control on full automatic rifles. Handguns, on which controls were loosened, massively increased in the death rate, whereas automatics / machine guns etc, which did not have loosened controls did not see a similar spike in usage. Literally, ONLY the guns that had loosened federal laws saw a massive spike in their usage for murder. NOTHING else did. Not one other type of murder spiked up. Death by every other type of weapon declined in that period, and DID NOT spike up after handguns became restricted in 1993.

So this idea that strict gun legislation is correlated with WORSE gun crime just is not borne out at the federal level.

[GavJ]

Still I'd prefer experimental data.

But if this is all we have to work with (?) then the next questions to ask are:
1) Why was the Brady legislation passed? Were there special circumstances that cropped up just prior to or during 1986 that caused them to pursue that law? If so, might those motivating factors themselves have something to do with the increased homicides, rather than the bill itself?
2) What's that peak in 1980?
3) Are there any other salient national events ~1986 or 1993 that might not have had anything to do with direct influence on the Brady bill, but may happen to explain homicide rates independently? Two trend lines lining up with two dates is nothing to sneeze at, but also not exactly steel-clad data in itself. A coincidence is entirely plausible still, and we can go hunting for possible ones and maybe or maybe not find something, which would help further understanding either way.

[smjjames]

That smaller peak looks more like 1981, but yeah, I'm also wondering what that small 1980/1981 peak is.

[Reelya]

Well, in 1982 - right after the 1980 gun crime peak passed, the Reagan administration put out a report saying that the ATF was becoming too zealous in enforcing gun laws. This report was backed by the NRA & co, and lead to the 1986 law. In the interim period, presumably when the ATF were continuing their "over-zealous" enforcement, handgun crime remained low.

It's plausible that there was a spike in gun crime rates due to other reasons, maybe the recession, the ATF ramped up their enforcement to combat that spike - and was successful - then they got slammed for being too zealous, and the new laws hobbling the ATF's powers were introduced, thus opening the door for whatever control was working to break down.

That theory is plausible as any other, and matches what's on record.

[Sergarr]

Can we have the same kind of graph for some other countries? Say, UK and France. To put things into scale.

[smjjames]

Can we have the same kind of graph for some other countries? Say, UK and France. To put things into scale.

Also Russia, just to be fair (and lets throw in Germany and some other random countries).

Not trying to Russia bash here.

[Sergarr]

Can we have the same kind of graph for some other countries? Say, UK and France. To put things into scale.

Also Russia, just to be fair (and lets throw in Germany and some other random countries).

Not trying to Russia bash here.

Yeah, sure. Might also see the nineties effect.

[Rolepgeek]

Can we have the same kind of graph for some other countries? Say, UK and France. To put things into scale.

Won't work; it's a graph of total homicides. Either you scale it so the y axis is relative to country/total number of homicides size, and we get shouts of 'see! They have just as many homicides as us/their other homicide rates go up to compensate instead so nothing will happen if we try to implement gun control!' or you do it on the same scale the US uses and we get shouts of 'but they're smaller countries so it's totally unrepresentative!'

That said, I'd still like to see those graphs anyway. Just keep in mind that since it's not a 'rate of homicides', it's total numbers, things won't match up as nicely as we might prefer.

[Reelya]

the UK has about 650 total murders a year compared to about 14500 per year in the USA. The sample size is hard to compare, since there were so few handgun murders in UK even before the handgun ban, saying the ban led to a rise or fall in the murder rate is meaningless.

There is a graph by gun activists showing that after a crackdown on handguns in 1996 in England, there were more total murders after that. But that's pretty much not connected, since regular people just don't cart guns around for self-protection in the UK or Australia. It's just not part of the culture or what normal people do, unless you are a farmer (which is about 1% of the population) and you might have a .22 rifle and a shotgun.

Handguns are the MAIN choice of weapon for murders in the USA, so total murder rate after changes in handgun ownership rates are meaningful. Handguns are a RARE form of murder in most western countries, so total murder rate changes before or after a gun control policy changes don't really say anything.

I grew up in country Australia (in a town) and can't even remember seeing a real gun. Only people who are actual farmers with actual sheep and cows even had that shit. I literally cannot remember any time in my whole life that I have actually seen a working gun except on TV or in a sporting goods shop.

I've had friends on all sorts of drugs, run ins with criminals, robberies, lived everywhere from the countryside to inner-city slum neighborhoods considered some of the worst in Australia. I have never met anyone with a gun. I've even heard of heroin users that I knew getting home invaded by a gang. EVEN THAT GANG were not armed with guns. I'm sure it happens, it's just never happened to anyone I ever met, even in the roughest neighborhoods in the country.

[Sergarr]

Can somebody try to argue that because handguns cannot punch through modern army's bodyarmor, that they are not under protection of the Second Amendment?

[Rolepgeek]

Can somebody try to argue that because handguns cannot punch through modern army's bodyarmor, that they are not under protection of the Second Amendment?

Why? I'd much rather argue that because assault rifles can't even dent a tank's armor, that they aren't under the 2nd Amendment, and that in fact the Second Amendment is redundant, arbitrary, and useless in this day and age, and indeed the whole constitution needs to be rewritten again.

Not by the politicians though. Fuck those guys.

[RedKing]

Only people who are actual farmers with actual sheep and cows even had that shit.

Now I have to wonder if there's a bunch of people in Australia with artificial sheep....

And yeah, according to latest estimates, there are 90 guns for every 100 people in the US. Versus 15 per 100 in Australia.

[Loud Whispers]

Wolves, unless they're starving, generally avoid humans due to the fact they've learned we WILL kill them.

And the Bulgaria case where they deliberately live away from remote reserves and into the peripheries of human settlements for the additional food, that is an exception?

[mainiac]

And yeah, according to latest estimates, there are 90 guns for every 100 people in the US. Versus 15 per 100 in Australia.

Yeah but if you eliminate my extended family that drops down to like 25.