Print

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

[Reelya]

You might think that, but there is also the potential that people prevented from self-termination will thus survive, and commit other crimes they would have been unable to dead.

Granted, that is still a change in the crime rate-- related to suicide prevention-- but is still significantly not what you were shooting for Trekkin.

It's not a change in the crime rate. If more people survive, the population is larger, so any future crimes they commit are proportional to a larger population, so the rate stays the same. If we optimize instead for total number of crimes instead of rate, then the only stable optimal point would be to have zero people.

Also, Shazbot, that article delves into two unrelated things: gun permits and red-flag laws. Red-flag laws allow the police to remove guns from someone deemed a threat, and this tends to only reduce the suicide rate. But if you read the headline the article promises to look into both red-flag laws and gun permits in general.

In fact the headline states "Gun Studies: Permit Laws Reduce Murders; Red Flag Laws Cut Suicides". So saying it's only about suicides means ignoring both the headline itself and half the article. The first half of the article gets the suicide thing out of the way, and the second half of the article goes into evidence that permits reduce the homicide rate.

"Requiring handgun purchasers to obtain a license prior to purchase was associated with a 14 percent reduction in firearm homicide," says Cassandra Crifasi, at the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

There could be multiple reasons for this. Perhaps having to go through the permit process means that more people take getting the gun more seriously, and fear that "big brother" knows about your guns means that people take better care of their guns and secure them better from being stolen. Also, with permits, it's harder to just on-sell the gun to some unspecified person, who is therefore even harder to work out who has which gun, and therefore would feel a better chance of getting away with a homicide.

[Shazbot]

I am discussing Indiana, which does require a license to purchase a handgun (or long arm). There is only a license to carry a handgun (the manner of carry being unspecified as to open or concealed) which is shall-issue within 15 days.

[Dunamisdeos]

Maybe kneeling in prayer should be banned if Fox is going to mistake it for protesting? heh (sarcasm, and a dig at Fox news)

"Kneel = triggered, create article now."
~#181 of the Rules of Foxquisition

[Shazbot]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pattern recognition is a powerful thing.

[hector13]

What exactly is that graph showing? I mean there are lines going up and down, but it doesn't really tell us anything. How does it relate to concealed carry?

[WealthyRadish]

Pattern recognition is a powerful thing.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[smjjames]

The % reduction for forcible rape (is there even a thing as unforced rape? It's like a double negative here) and murder/manslaughter is incredibly misleading as murder/manslaughter is barely even a blip on that scale, both before and after and the rape line barely moves compared to the other lines.

Also, *ahem*, it starts when there was already some concealed carry coverage, wouldn't a more persuasive argument also look at BEFORE concealed carry was even implemented?

Also, I'm gonna call biased source.

ninjaedit: UrbanGiraffe nailed it, correlation isn't neccesarily causation and as I pointed out, it doesn't show when there were absolutely no concealed carry, does that mean the crime rate was LOWER before concealed carry was implemented and the site doesn't want to show people that?

[Trekkin]

Correlation especially doesn't equal causation when we can't rule out confounding variables, as is often the case in looking at a single population over time. I could just as easily make the a similar graph and show that iPhone usage is correlated with a decrease in violent crime, although I'd probably label my y-axes if I did. (And, incidentally, always be wary of a graph with two superimposed unlabeled y-axes.)

[smjjames]

Correlation especially doesn't equal causation when we can't rule out confounding variables, as is often the case in looking at a single population over time. I could just as easily make the a similar graph and show that iPhone usage is correlated with a decrease in violent crime, although I'd probably label my y-axes if I did. (And, incidentally, always be wary of a graph with two superimposed unlabeled y-axes.)

I also pointed out that it doesn't start when concealed carry started (outside of police and federal agents), it started when some had already been implemented. So, it doesn't carry it's argument very well.

[Lord Shonus]

forcible rape (is there even a thing as unforced rape? It's like a double negative here

IIRC, "forcible rape" is the stereotypical "hold the woman down and have your way with her" sort, as opposed to that using drugs, maniplulation, or non-violent forms of coercion.




Overall, the current discussion is a pretty good microcosm of why the gun debate is so acrimonious. The phrase "gun control" is enormously vague and inclusive, and thus means something different to everyone using it. To many, it is the sort of measures in the linked article - one is entirely non-controversial (as long as you convince people that it won't be abused  for unjustifiable confiscations), while the other is the sort of thing that most gun-rights advocates would either support or be willing to accept as a compromise position as long as the permits are shall-issue.

To others, it means measures of the "only a psychopath would want to own a gun, so we will come as close to banning ownership as we can For The Greater Good" sort. Still more define the term as something in between the two. Quite naturally, gun-rights advocates tend to hear the term in the definition they are most afraid of, while not considering the label to cover the perfectly reasonable lesser definitions as falling under the umbrella.

I'm beginning to believe that the best solution would much tighter proposals intended to solve easily identifiable issues, referred to solely by exactly what the proposal is intended to do.

[nenjin]

Didn't we already try that with Mental Health vs. Gun ownership, and it went nowhere?

[PTTG??]

And high capacity magazines.
And "assault weapons."

Nobody has explained to me how it's constitutional to ignore half the sentence when interpreting the constitution.

The second amendment clearly only empowers well-regulated militias to have guns.

[smjjames]

It seems like theres trouble even agreeing on the specific issue they can identify, yes theres mental health care but the Democrats say the Republicans are barking up the wrong tree and insist on X.

They also tried to do the bump stock thing, which is about the narrowest most useless thing they can do, and THAT went nowhere.

Politicians are going to have to agree on the identifiable issue as a majority in order for that solution to work.

And high capacity magazines.
And "assault weapons."

Nobody has explained to me how it's constitutional to ignore half the sentence when interpreting the constitution.

The second amendment clearly only empowers well-regulated militias to have guns.

*insert NRAs argument regarding well-regulated militias*

[Lord Shonus]

They also tried to do the bump stock thing, which is about the narrowest most useless thing they can do, and THAT went nowhere.

That didn't fall apart due to opposition of the idea. It fell apart because the ban bill had seriously flawed language (in an attempt to ensure that there was no room for similar devices to slip through later on, the definition of a banned device was made broad enough to make reassembling a disassembled firearm illegal), and thus the exact measure was opposed.

And high capacity magazines.
And "assault weapons."

Nobody has explained to me how it's constitutional to ignore half the sentence when interpreting the constitution.

The second amendment clearly only empowers well-regulated militias to have guns.

In the first part, bans on high-capacity magazines and "assault weapons" weren't rejected because the issue wasn't narrow enough. They were rejected because a great many people oppose those specific measures. Indeed, one of the primary reasons so many other bills haven't passed is because that specific measure keeps getting shoved in.


Or, to put it another way:

Group A: "We're getting pizza. I'm thinking anchovies"
Group B: "No, we don't want anchovies"
Group A: "Ok, how about pepperoni, mushroom, and anchovy?"
Group B: "No. Anchovies"
Group A: "Ham, Pineapple, and anchovy?"
Group B: "What part of NO ANCHOVIES did you not understand?"
Group A: "FINE, WE AREN'T GETTING PIZZA AND IT IS YOUR FAULT!"


Regarding the second part, there are two critical flaws with your interpretation.

1.) The only way you could 100% support the "militia only" interpretation is if the "well regulated militia" section was found between "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed." It is possible to state that you believe the "militia only" interpretation to be the intended one, but only if you also acknowledge that it is possible for it to not be. Either it is worded with two possible interpretations, or the only interpretation is the "not militia only" one, just by the way sentence structure works.

2.) The first formal definition of "militia" after the Constitution was ratified spells out "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia". In other words, the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment clearly seemed to consider "militia" to be "any voting citizen that was physically fit for military service."

[Reelya]

That doesn't say you're "militia" just by existing, but that you must enroll unless you are explicitly exempted.

Therefore, people who don't or won't serve in the militia have no reason to bear arms. The militia should have the right to disarm non-participants, after all the 2nd amendment is not restricting the rights of the militia, but of the federal government. Having a well-regulated militia requires that you can in fact stop disloyal people from running around with guns.