Mourning Number 24: The selfless life and tragic death of Zaevion Dobson.

[coloradoatheist]

Yes. so I am trying to find an example that could be close and say yes this happened so it would have a measurable affect. Has the ban on drugs and the increased punishment for offenses had the desired affect on drug use?

Are you making the case that violence, in particular, gun violence, is addicting? Or just easy money for criminals? Or both?

The US has had a different mindset. We've had the mindset of using guns to protect our homes, property and protect ourselves from government. That hasn't been as strong elsewhere. And a gun ban would do the same thing though not as drastic where people would stockpile it and it would still be an underground market for them. Plus with the advance of technology, guns are going to be easier to make and they aren't hard as it is.

But what I asked for was an example of a drastic reduction because the US has had a drastic reduction in crime and even murder of the last few decades without gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. so I am trying to find an example that could be close and say yes this happened so it would have a measurable affect. Has the ban on drugs and the increased punishment for offenses had the desired affect on drug use?

FLAG ON THE PLAY!!!!

Moving of goal post. 15 yard penalty, Loss of down.

Pretty funny coming from you. Can the person that made the original claim find something?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whatever the solution, it certainly isn't any kind of gun control or registration or other such reactionary lunacy. It's gotta be something practical and common sense... perhaps constructing some sort of wall around poor people to keep their shootouts from bothering rich people?

In country after country, more stringent gun control improves the situation. Why do so many otherwise seemingly rational people refuse to accept the clear, unequivocal evidence. Aren't we supposed to be rational?

Gun control helps with psychos doing mass shootings. It has basically zero effect on the murder rate.

- - - Updated - - -

What ocuntry would you say had a high rate of gun violence, implemented gun control and it went down to the levels you suggest? I am just curious.

Insert opportunity to bring up pre-learned talking point here <-----<

In other words, you don't have an answer. That's because there is no answer--gun control doesn't cut the murder rate.

- - - Updated - - -

He made the claim. I'm trying to find a similar example of the US that's in. Should we compare areas in the US that have stricter gun control laws to areas that don't?

Actually, that's not a good test because it hides underlying factors. Gun control is often a response to crime.

The question you asked before is the right one--what is the effect of passing gun control legislation.

 

[Trausti]

Has there been a thorough demonstration that gun control results in less homicide, anywhere? I know that Western European countries are often held up as examples, but did Western Europe ever have a high gun homicide rate (other than during war, of course)? If gun homicide was low to start with, laws restraining gun ownership cannot be said to be the reason gun homicide rates remain low. Yet, if you continue with that false premise, by enacting gun laws government unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) ignores the actual cause of homicides. It's not benefiting anyone except politicians who use the rhetoric to get elected.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBMwPcRbVE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

The above was the opening line in a Snopes article that was in response to an email that was making the rounds back in 2001 that claimed that crime rose and rose sharply after the gun buy back in Australia. The link is to a Washington Post article from earlier this year.

The general consensus appears to be that the buy back caused a significant drop in suicides, but evidence of a drop in homicide rates has not been so clear cut.

Pro gun extremists take the findings and only see no change
Pro control extremists take the finding and see drops in crime sufficient to prove the laws were the agents of change

Both groups tell part of the story

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whatever the solution, it certainly isn't any kind of gun control or registration or other such reactionary lunacy. It's gotta be something practical and common sense... perhaps constructing some sort of wall around poor people to keep their shootouts from bothering rich people?

Already done. You don't think the apartments in the poor parts of the city are tall enough?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's entirely understandable - because they see the U.S. as having different conditions than other countries which would make gun control more difficult to implement.

Yes. so I am trying to find an example that could be close and say yes this happened so it would have a measurable affect. Has the ban on drugs and the increased punishment for offenses had the desired affect on drug use?

Your problem might be that the call isn't for a ban, but for controls on some types of guns... much like other "arms" have restricted access... like for instance, grenades. But you seem more interested in trying to reframe the debate than being a part of it.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

Gun violence is a public health issue, a life and death issue, a soul of our country issue.

And let's take a guess, the shooters were Black or were they White? hmm..... I wonder...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gun violence is a public health issue, a life and death issue, a soul of our country issue.

And let's take a guess, the shooters were Black or were they White? hmm..... I wonder...

Well... AthenaAwakened knows the race of the shooters, but brought it up anyway. And she has mentioned cases involving white shooters too.

Makes one think maybe her problem is with the violence, not the race of the shooters. Yet, you bring race into it. Why?

Oh wait... nevermind... I know why!

 

[Bar-Jesus]

look, it's nearly always those of darker complexions that do this sort of shit, shootings, gangs, etc....being PC here doesn't really help anyone

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

look, it's nearly always those of darker complexions that do this sort of shit, shootings, gangs, etc....being PC here doesn't really help anyone

Ah... I always love it when they come out of their cocoons. The transformation from inquisitive member to person trying to get people riled up is always a beautiful thing to see in nature.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

The above was the opening line in a Snopes article that was in response to an email that was making the rounds back in 2001 that claimed that crime rose and rose sharply after the gun buy back in Australia. The link is to a Washington Post article from earlier this year.

The general consensus appears to be that the buy back caused a significant drop in suicides, but evidence of a drop in homicide rates has not been so clear cut.

Pro gun extremists take the findings and only see no change
Pro control extremists take the finding and see drops in crime sufficient to prove the laws were the agents of change

Both groups tell part of the story

"Not so clear cut" = can't find any way to spin the facts to support this conclusion. The slope of the homicide rate didn't change.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

The above was the opening line in a Snopes article that was in response to an email that was making the rounds back in 2001 that claimed that crime rose and rose sharply after the gun buy back in Australia. The link is to a Washington Post article from earlier this year.

The general consensus appears to be that the buy back caused a significant drop in suicides, but evidence of a drop in homicide rates has not been so clear cut.

Pro gun extremists take the findings and only see no change
Pro control extremists take the finding and see drops in crime sufficient to prove the laws were the agents of change

Both groups tell part of the story

"Not so clear cut" = can't find any way to spin the facts to support this conclusion. The slope of the homicide rate didn't change.

From the Washington post

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides.

A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides. Leigh and Neill argued that this paper's methodology was deeply flawed, as it included the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

Another paper by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi looked at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no "structural breaks" associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violence, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as "breaks."

"When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect," Hemenway explains. "It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years."


Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted.

It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

Not so clear cut means not so clear cut.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Not so clear cut" = can't find any way to spin the facts to support this conclusion. The slope of the homicide rate didn't change.

From the Washington post

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides.

A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides. Leigh and Neill argued that this paper's methodology was deeply flawed, as it included the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

Another paper by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi looked at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no "structural breaks" associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violence, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as "breaks."

"When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect," Hemenway explains. "It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years."


Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted.

It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

Not so clear cut means not so clear cut.

I don't see anything in that that shows evidence it reduced homicides.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From the Washington post

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides.

A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides. Leigh and Neill argued that this paper's methodology was deeply flawed, as it included the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

Another paper by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi looked at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no "structural breaks" associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violence, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as "breaks."

"When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect," Hemenway explains. "It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years."


Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted.

It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

Not so clear cut means not so clear cut.

I don't see anything in that that shows evidence it reduced homicides.

Well luckily for the rest of us, we don't have to rely on your eyesight.

 

[Trausti]

From the Washington post

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides.

A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides. Leigh and Neill argued that this paper's methodology was deeply flawed, as it included the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

Another paper by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi looked at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no "structural breaks" associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violence, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as "breaks."

"When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect," Hemenway explains. "It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years."


Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted.

It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

Not so clear cut means not so clear cut.

I don't see anything in that that shows evidence it reduced homicides.

Well luckily for the rest of us, we don't have to rely on your eyesight.

Eh, regardless of his eyesight, you seem to be in consensus that it has not been shown that gun control reduces homicide. As long as that remains the case, advocacy for gun control looks based on little more than spite or useful excuse to to ignore other homicide causes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From the Washington post

Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides.

A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides. Leigh and Neill argued that this paper's methodology was deeply flawed, as it included the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."

Another paper by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi looked at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no "structural breaks" associated with the law. But Leigh and Neill note that, because of the large number of factors affecting gun violence, real changes due to the law could potentially not show up as "breaks."

"When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect," Hemenway explains. "It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years."


Given those flaws in the studies showing no effect, the Leigh and Neill study appears the most reliable of the ones conducted.

It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well.

Not so clear cut means not so clear cut.

I don't see anything in that that shows evidence it reduced homicides.

Well luckily for the rest of us, we don't have to rely on your eyesight.

Eh, regardless of his eyesight, you seem to be in consensus that it has not been shown that gun control reduces homicide. As long as that remains the case, advocacy for gun control looks based on little more than spite or useful excuse to to ignore other homicide causes.

First, I am in consensus with we need more study, but with what we know so far, any evidence for a drop in homicides being the direct result of the gun buy back is not strong enough to mount a successful push for additional gun control. And I accept that such evidence may never be forthcoming, but I think It is worth the look.
Second, the reduction in suicides is not controversial and that alone is reason institute controls.

Look, I own guns. I shoot guns. I don't want to get rid of my guns. But I know I can live my life WITHOUT guns, if I have to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, I am in consensus with we need more study, but with what we know so far, any evidence for a drop in homicides being the direct result of the gun buy back is not strong enough to mount a successful push for additional gun control. And I accept that such evidence may never be forthcoming, but I think It is worth the look.
Second, the reduction in suicides is not controversial and that alone is reason institute controls.

Look, I own guns. I shoot guns. I don't want to get rid of my guns. But I know I can live my life WITHOUT guns, if I have to.

Homicide rates in Australia were going down. They continued to go down at the same rate. There's no evidence the gun buyback and regulation had any effect on it. "We need more study" means we need to keep looking until we find some way to cherry pick the data to attain the desired conclusion.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

First, I am in consensus with we need more study, but with what we know so far, any evidence for a drop in homicides being the direct result of the gun buy back is not strong enough to mount a successful push for additional gun control. And I accept that such evidence may never be forthcoming, but I think It is worth the look.
Second, the reduction in suicides is not controversial and that alone is reason institute controls.

Look, I own guns. I shoot guns. I don't want to get rid of my guns. But I know I can live my life WITHOUT guns, if I have to.

Homicide rates in Australia were going down. They continued to go down at the same rate. There's no evidence the gun buyback and regulation had any effect on it. "We need more study" means we need to keep looking until we find some way to cherry pick the data to attain the desired conclusion.

There is evidence, but it is weak, and opened to interpretation.

Are absolutes and extremes the only way you can speak?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Homicide rates in Australia were going down. They continued to go down at the same rate. There's no evidence the gun buyback and regulation had any effect on it. "We need more study" means we need to keep looking until we find some way to cherry pick the data to attain the desired conclusion.

There is evidence, but it is weak, and opened to interpretation.

Are absolutes and extremes the only way you can speak?

That "open to interpretation" is that only shows up if you don't look carefully.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is evidence, but it is weak, and opened to interpretation.

Are absolutes and extremes the only way you can speak?

That "open to interpretation" is that only shows up if you don't look carefully.

Wrong again Loren and you have answered the second question in the affirmative.