Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by Huntn

So what do you think about it being high or low? Are you disputing the number as a means of arguing against removing the gun show lack of oversight?

I am just stating the 40% number is a stretch, used as a talking point. They surveyed 2500 households in 1997.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

I am just stating the 40% number is a stretch, used as a talking point. They surveyed 2500 households in 1997.

Usually talking points are used to reinforce or diminish an idea. Which is it in this case?

[CalWizrd]

Here is the quote from the article in Atlantic magazine:

... worked diligently to defend the loophole—misnamed, because while loophole suggests a small opening not easily negotiated, about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks.

I think that the wording above has been very carefully constructed to imply something that may not in fact be the real picture.

The portion of the statement reading "...where buyers are not subject to federal background checks..." might seem, to a casual or uninformed reader, to be referring to all that precedes it. However, I can state with absolute certainty (because I have purchased firearms at both gun shows and through the internet), that that last part of the sentence mentioned above does not necessarily pertain to gun shows or internet purchases.

Yes, there is a "gun show loophole" where one can purchase a firearm without going through a background check. It definitely should be closed, in my opinion, because it is only reasonable to attempt to vett anyone who wants to acquire a firearm (more so, IMHO, than is even proposed currently).

However, and this is a big 'however', as far as gun shows go (the ones I've been to anyway, which is a large number in multiple states), most of the firearms offered there for sale are offered by FFL dealers... meaning if you purchase from them, you go through exactly the same paperwork requirements as if you had purchased in a retail store. This means background check, Form 4473, etc.

In addition, I have bought and sold many firearms utilizing the internet, typically, using one of the two biggest sites for this... GunBroker.com or GunsAmerica.com.

All of these transactions required the transfer of the firearm to take place through the services (and requirements) of an FFL, again meaning the same paperwork, etc. It is a criminal offense to do otherwise, unless done face to face between two residents of the same state.

So, if roughly 40% of firearm transactions occur through the above means (and I'm not sure I trust that number anyway), that does not means that the supposed 40% are transferred with no Federal background checks.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

In addition, I have bought and sold many firearms utilizing the internet, typically, using one of the two biggest sites for this... GunBroker.com or GunsAmerica.com.

All of these transactions required the transfer of the firearm to take place through the services (and requirements) of an FFL, again meaning the same paperwork, etc. It is a criminal offense to do otherwise, unless done face to face between two residents of the same state.

Good to know.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Usually talking points are used to reinforce or diminish an idea. Which is it in this case?

The 40% number is not my talking point. But, since I disagree with the number, it would be to diminish their talking point.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

The 40% number is not my talking point. But, since I disagree with the number, it would be to diminish their talking point.

..to the end of suppressing or supporting the idea of gun regulations? Come on, answer. No never mind, until you say otherwise, I ASSUME you mean to diminish the idea of gun regulations.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by Huntn

..to the end of suppressing or supporting the idea of gun regulations? Come on, answer.

As I have stated in other threads, I have no problem with background checks. I do have an issue that they make claims that internet sales and gun show sales result in 40% without background checks.

So, you think it is okay for them to throw around data that is 15 or 16 years old? I assume you do.

I ASSUME you mean to diminish the idea of gun regulations.

Assume all you want, you are incorrect.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

So, you think it is okay for them to throw around data that is 15 or 16 years old? I assume you do.

What was your source for this assertion? Not trying to cause trouble here.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

So, you think it is okay for them to throw around data that is 15 or 16 years old? I assume you do.

More up-to-date data would always be preferred.

However, it is a starting point.

Have laws or any other conditions changed that would have moved that number significantly these past 15 years?

I'm not aware of anything that would have.

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by Huntn

What was your source for this assertion? Not trying to cause trouble here.

The age of the data? It is from a 1997 study PDF warning, Pages 6 & 7.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by miloblithe

I wanted to refute one of the original sources cited by the OP in this thread:



This blog post uses particularly bad analysis to substantiate the claim that there is no correlation between gun control laws and violent crime rates. To "prove" this, the author uses a statistical package to compute a -0.01335 correlation coefficient between violent crimes per capita and gun control laws, using each state's gun law scores from the Brady Campaign’s annual report. This kind of correlation analysis is a kind of first step investigation into data that assumes that, in terms of the outcome of interest (violent crime per capita), the states differ in no ways other than gun control laws--an assumption that seems ludicrous once you realize it's the basis of the author's argument.

I took the data and plugged it into STATA to see what would happen if I started adding co variates that seemed likely to have an impact on a state's crime rate. The first one I chose was the percentage of the population living in an urban area (source= http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0029.xls). I then ran a simple linear regression using violent crimes as the outcome. What did I find? Controlling for the percentage of the population that is urban, for each additional point a state receives on the Brady score, there is a drop of 0.0325 violent crimes per 1,000 people (p=0.058). Meaning what? That if each state had gun laws as tough as California's (81 on the Brady scale), that would cut their violent crime rate by about 2.5 crimes per 1,000 people over where they would be with a 2 score (such as states like Kentucky and Louisiana have). Pretty impressive when you consider that the average rate among the states is only 4.1 violent crimes per 1,000.

Now, does my analysis sound too simplistic? It's only taking into account the Brady gun control score and the percentage of the population that's urban. I agree. It is too simplistic, but it's better than Ferdinand Bardamu's blog post for sure. Want me to improve it? Suggest other co variates I should add to the model and point me to a reputable source for the data. I'm happy to plug them in.

Nice job. How about mean income, welfare and such? I'm guessing poverty and gun crime would be pretty closely related.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

My only beef I had with you was, and still is that you never come to the discussion with any of your own ideas. It's like you want everybody else to do that for you, and you will pick the answer you like. You could you know also go online and look for sources and information if this topic interests you so much.

As I've said repeatedly already, I'm not interested in arguing against gun control, I'm interested in knowing whether there are in fact any fact based arguments for it since I can't find them. Frankly, I have a very hard time understanding why you seem to completely ignore most of what I'm saying. It's like you're not the least bit interested in anything but attacking me.

So in other words, your only beef with me is based on either your own inadequacies or general interest in writing negative posts. I would appreciate it if you just stopped answering my posts in general if the only thing you're going to write is irrelevant crap that has been explained over and over again.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

The age of the data? It is from a 1997 study PDF warning, Pages 6 & 7.

Using statistics from 1994, making it nearly two decades old. And, IIRC, the data is based in large part on survey responses, so its reliability, well, hmm …

[StruckANerve]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

Here is the quote from the article in Atlantic magazine:


I think that the wording above has been very carefully constructed to imply something that may not in fact be the real picture.

The portion of the statement reading "...where buyers are not subject to federal background checks..." might seem, to a casual or uninformed reader, to be referring to all that precedes it. However, I can state with absolute certainty (because I have purchased firearms at both gun shows and through the internet), that that last part of the sentence mentioned above does not necessarily pertain to gun shows or internet purchases.

Yes, there is a "gun show loophole" where one can purchase a firearm without going through a background check. It definitely should be closed, in my opinion, because it is only reasonable to attempt to vett anyone who wants to acquire a firearm (more so, IMHO, than is even proposed currently).

However, and this is a big 'however', as far as gun shows go (the ones I've been to anyway, which is a large number in multiple states), most of the firearms offered there for sale are offered by FFL dealers... meaning if you purchase from them, you go through exactly the same paperwork requirements as if you had purchased in a retail store. This means background check, Form 4473, etc.

In addition, I have bought and sold many firearms utilizing the internet, typically, using one of the two biggest sites for this... GunBroker.com or GunsAmerica.com.

All of these transactions required the transfer of the firearm to take place through the services (and requirements) of an FFL, again meaning the same paperwork, etc. It is a criminal offense to do otherwise, unless done face to face between two residents of the same state.

So, if roughly 40% of firearm transactions occur through the above means (and I'm not sure I trust that number anyway), that does not means that the supposed 40% are transferred with no Federal background checks.

I would bet the number is below 10%.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by StruckANerve

I would bet the number is below 10%.

People lose bets everyday.

Las Vegas was built on people losing bets.

I prefer evidence.

Let me know when you have some.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by hafr

As I've said repeatedly already, I'm not interested in arguing against gun control, I'm interested in knowing whether there are in fact any fact based arguments for it since I can't find them.

Please restate your question to be more specific. Many people have interpreted your question as meaning something like, "If a country has strong gun control, crime is lower." But, apparently you don't mean something like that. What question are you asking specifically?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Please restate your question to be more specific. Many people have interpreted your question as meaning something like, "If a country has strong gun control, crime is lower." But, apparently you don't mean something like that. What question are you asking specifically?

I'm not really sure how many times I have to say it, but here goes...

The pro-gun control side uses the argument that stricter gun laws make for a safer society. I can't find any proof of this being the case. Therefore I ask if others can help me.

My personal stand in this debate is that there are OTHER arguments for having strict gun laws in a country, I'm just curious to know if there are in fact any solid fact based evidence to support the claim that strict gun laws = safe society. Since I can't find it myself, I'm asking here.

I think I made this clear in the initial post, but certain people have, instead of providing on-topic posts, kept on calling me a troll, lazy, that I should do my own research and so on. It's pretty frustrating. When I pointed this out earlier, I was met with posts like "it's already been proven", but no one has specified which post(s) they were referring to.

So. If you believe there are evidence that points to stricter gun laws make for a safer society, would you care to share them?

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by hafr

My personal stand in this debate is that there are OTHER arguments for having strict gun laws in a country, I'm just curious to know if there are in fact any solid fact based evidence to support the claim that strict gun laws = safe society. Since I can't find it myself, I'm asking here.

The problem is, facts, based on reliable data, are both rather hard to come by, so you are not going to get the solid evidence you are asking for. Yes, other countries are culturally different, but on the other hand, the gun thing is pretty firmly embedded in American culture, so separating the two out clearly is problematic.

There is the example of the town of Kennesaw Georgia, which has laws just about requiring gun ownership of all its citizens and also a very low crime rate. But is there a direct correlation? That much is not clear, little else gets said about Kennesaw in the discussion, so it is hard to be sure. For all we know, its gun law has no effect, it could be a town that is otherwise naturally disposed to a low crime rate.

Then we get the "home defense" argument. What the deuce is that all about? You splurt about emotion-based arguments, what could be more emotion-based than that? I asked elsewhere what the real incidence of home invasion is (with intent to harm the residents) and was told "10000/day", and the person who said that tried to cite the same source webbuzz used above, then conceded that it said nothing of the sort. A quick search pulled up this from a site dedicated to the subject, which estimates the actual number of home invasions to be less than a hundred a day. So one of the biggest arguments for having a house full of weapons is weak at best and frothing paranoia at worst.

The problem with lax gun control is that guns end up in the wrong hands, and then we get these ridiculously awful incidents happening. Yet, the gun owners who sell, give, loan or otherwise make guns available to unstable or soulless people take no responsibility. I could legally buy a massacre-oriented gun, then sell it to a friend, under no constraint, and when my friend uses that gun in a crime, "Well, how was I to know he was a convicted felon/clinical psychopath?"

There are big holes in the system, and in the end, your personal freedom has come to be interfering with mine. How do you think we should resolve this? Is it fine the way it is? Because you get to have your nice toys? And Newtown is so rare that it is simply the unfortunate cost of freedom that we have to pony up from time to time?

You see, logic and reason are crucial tools in decision-making, but emotion is important as well. Unemotional decisions are often not the best ones. And, to be honest, I see just as much emotion spilling out of the gundamentalists' mouths, so your request needs some balance. "Because .... freedom!" is just not good enough.

[miloblithe]

Originally Posted by hafr

Nice job. How about mean income, welfare and such? I'm guessing poverty and gun crime would be pretty closely related.

I added gini coefficient (income inequality) and that improved the model significantly. By adding a few other covariates (% with bachelors degree, % black, % male), the adjusted R-squared value for the model is 0.4682 (ok for social science). In this model gun laws have a smaller effect on reducing gun laws, and while it's more likely to be a positive effect in reducing gun violence than an effect increasing it (P = 0.219), that's pretty inconclusive. Still, I'm not a social scientist and I'm sure there are better ways to build this model.

[hafr]

Originally Posted by Sydde

[...] So one of the biggest arguments for having a house full of weapons is weak at best and frothing paranoia at worst.

[...] a massacre-oriented gun [...]

You see, logic and reason are crucial tools in decision-making, but emotion is important as well. Unemotional decisions are often not the best ones. [...]

Thank you for an interesting post. I just have three small comments to it:

I agree, safety-wise there are far more evidence that points towards not having a gun in the house makes you less, not more safe.

Would you consider the Glock 19 and Walther P22 "massacre-oriented guns"?

Yes, but the problem is when emotion completely drowns out logic and reason. A great example would be the French 75 % tax rate...

----------

Originally Posted by miloblithe

I added gini coefficient (income inequality) and that improved the model significantly. By adding a few other covariates (% with bachelors degree, % black, % male), the adjusted R-squared value for the model is 0.4682 (ok for social science). In this model gun laws have a smaller effect on reducing gun laws, and while it's more likely to be a positive effect in reducing gun violence than an effect increasing it (P = 0.219), that's pretty inconclusive. Still, I'm not a social scientist and I'm sure there are better ways to build this model.

Thank you.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by hafr

So. If you believe there are evidence that points to stricter gun laws make for a safer society, would you care to share them?

Early in this thread (post 25) I quoted a study from the Oxford Journals, American Journal of Epidemiology, that found that possessing a gun increased one's risk for being killed or committing suicide.

Stricter gun laws would reduce the number of people possessing firearms, thus fewer people would be at an increased risk for being killed by a firearm.

Reducing the number of people killed by a firearm would make for a safer society.

How was that not clear 607 posts ago?

[hafr]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Early in this thread (post 25) I quoted a study from the Oxford Journals, American Journal of Epidemiology, that found that possessing a gun increased one's risk for being killed or committing suicide.

Stricter gun laws would reduce the number of people possessing firearms, thus fewer people would be at an increased risk for being killed by a firearm.

Reducing the number of people killed by a firearm would make for a safer society.

How was that not clear 607 posts ago?

Want to talk about early in the thread? In the very first post of this thread, I mention this but explain that I'm talking about a safer society in a larger sense, not only gun owners in their own homes.

How was that not clear 632 posts ago?

In post #29 I told you that I mentioned it in the very first post of this thread, and in post #33 I even had to tell you I didn't only mention suicide.

How was that not clear 603/599 posts ago?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by hafr

Want to talk about early in the thread? In the very first post of this thread, I mention this but explain that I'm talking about a safer society in a larger sense, not only gun owners in their own homes.

What do you mean, "I'm talking about a safer society in a larger sense"?

What kind of effect are you looking for?

In Post #99 I quoted an article from the NY Times regarding the decline in health of Americans under 50 ...

The 378-page study by a panel of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council is the first to systematically compare death rates and health measures for people of all ages, including American youths. It went further than other studies in documenting the full range of causes of death, from diseases to accidents to violence. It was based on a broad review of mortality and health studies and statistics.

“Researchers have known for some time that the United States fares poorly in comparison with other rich countries, a trend established in the 1980s. But most studies have focused on older ages, when the majority of people die.

The findings were stark. Deaths before age 50 accounted for about two-thirds of the difference in life expectancy between males in the United States and their counterparts in 16 other developed countries, and about one-third of the difference for females. The countries in the analysis included Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and Spain.

Something fundamental is going wrong,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, chairman of the Department of Family Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, who led the panel. “This is not the product of a particular administration or political party. Something at the core is causing the U.S. to slip behind these other high-income countries. And it’s getting worse.”

Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/he...ays.html?_r=1&

Do you think that qualifies as "talking about a safer society in a larger sense"?

Let's compare a few numbers ...

Traffic-related Death Per Capita
Canada — 9.2
Japan — 3.85
Australia — 5.7
France — 5.5
Germany — 4.5
Spain — 6.9
United States — 12.3

Alcohol-Related Deaths Per Capita (I haven't found a good source for overall drug-related deaths)
Canada — 1.6
Japan — 0.2
Australia — 0.9
France — 4.0
Germany — 3.9
Spain — 0.4
United States — 1.6

Firearm Deaths Per Capita
Canada — 2.13
Japan — .07
Australia — 1.05
France — 3.0
Germany — 1.1
Spain — .63
United States — 10.2

So, if "Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50," we can compare the impact of those three factors.

Traffic-Related Deaths — The other countries average 0.4830623306 the number of deaths as the U.S. The United States is just over two times worse than the average for these other countries.

Alcohol-Realated Deaths — The other countries average 1.1458333333 the number of deaths as the U.S. The United States is slightly better than the average for these other countries.

Firearm-Related Deaths — The other countries average 0.130392156 the number of deaths as the U.S. The United States is over 7.5 times worse than the average for these other countries.

Clearly, when compared to those other countries, guns play a disproportionate role of the three factors listed as "major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50".

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by hafr

I'm not really sure how many times I have to say it, but here goes...

I'm looking for a re-statement of the question because I don't understand the original question.

Consider me obtuse and help me out.

The pro-gun control side uses the argument that stricter gun laws make for a safer society.

There may be people making such an argument. This is not what I normally hear. Most people are not interested in passing laws that are not going to be enforced, for example. It isn't necessarily a question of more laws, but, among other things, fewer actual guns, and, fewer actual guns in the hands of "certain people" (with much argument over how do this). What difference does it make whether or not Honduras has strict gun laws if the flow of drug money and guns are making areas of the country lawless killing zones? Nobody I know of has ever claimed that just passing laws is a solution to anything.

So, I don't agree with your initial stipulation in an important way.

I can't find any proof of this being the case. Therefore I ask if others can help me.

This question needs to be refined much further.

Are you asking if "everyone in Dodge City is safer if everyone stops carrying weapons around"?

http://www.heartsthroughhistory.com/...s-and-fiction/

Of course, Dodge City was (and is0 sitting in a sea of guns, but, it still might help, since it might at least stop people from carrying guns into the Long Branch Saloon or whatever. [I would say that the preponderance of evidence doesn't support the Dodge City strategy in the modern U.S.]

Are you asking if you are safer if you carry, open or concealed, in a society where large numbers of others are carrying? [This one seems intuitively obvious (if everyone else is carrying, I better too), but, some gun control advocates have pointed to statistics showing that you are more likely to shoot yourself than you are to prevent someone else shooting you. We can discuss this later.]

Are you asking if an entire country enacts strict gun control laws and enforces them, will it be safer?

What if I restate the question this way: we now know (we didn't know this until fairly recently) that very low homicide rates are possible. If we want to build a society with a very low homicide rate, what steps do we need to do to get there? It is interesting that every large industrialized country with very low homicide rates has strict gun controls. You can't prove that it is only gun controls, though, because many of the comparison countries are different in other significant ways from the U.S. But, you can see the homicide rates right here, along with references to where the numbers come from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate


Are you asking what the risk factors are for someone using a gun to kill someone else, this is a sociological question that turns out to be modeled best by using a nonlinear, dynamic model that includes a bunch of family factors including such things as number and spacing of siblings. Lots and lots of papers you could dig through. See Google Scholar. If you want to build a model of homicide rates in different countries, including not only gun availability, but also, high birth rate, socioeconomic-racial-ethnic inequality, religiosity, and so on, you could build a second career perhaps.

So. If you believe there are evidence that points to stricter gun laws make for a safer society, would you care to share them?

I think it would help avoid all the frustration if we are all clear on exactly what question (see examples above) you are asking.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

I think it would help avoid all the frustration if we are all clear on exactly what question (see examples above) you are asking.

I will second the notion that a more carefully considered and phrased question will go a long ways to better understanding the issue and the answers that the OP is looking for.