Understanding why gun control successes aren't necessarily observed

Disprove anything I have linked. Stop the dance and put up data that debunks mine.

 

Some laws related to firearms are effective while others are not in curbing gun violence. One thing we do know is that addressing it from the perspective of "mass shooting" such and Newtown is the wrong approach because mass shootings are statistically irrelevant when addressing gun violence.

The problem really hinges on laws that would have no real effect such as "assault weapons ban" where a person couldn't own a magazine fed .223 caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle because it's scary looking but could own magazine fed .223 caliber Remington hunting rifle because it isn't as scary looking. Functionally they are identical and, in fact, if the Remington has a scope and the Bushmaster doesn't the Remington is a more "deadly" firearm because it has a greater effective range.

We also have calls for background checks in the US for private sales. In truth it's in the best interests of the private owner to run a background check to ensure that the buyer can lawfully purchase and the problem is that they can't. We don't need mandate to run the background check, we need the ability to run the background check. A "criminal" isn't going to run the check anyway so the "mandate" is stupid but allowing access to the FBI NICS database is important.

We also need to do something about the fact that while a background check can block a sale if nothing is done about the person trying to illegally purchase a firearm they just "go down the street" and purchase one anyway. Blocking a sale does not prevent a person from obtaining a firearm that they can acquire illegally from another source.

Yes, firearms regulations can work but they need to be pragmatic and based upon compelling arguments. Sadly neither the "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" groups are really interested in addressing the issue from a pragmatic standpoint based upon compelling arguments. The extremists on one side want no regulations at all and the extremists on the other side want no guns at all.

 

What can be done in 'addressing' gun control that has not already been done? What regulation prevents the next Newtown?

 

There's nothing to disprove, that's the point. You haven't used internationally comparable data, nor have you provided anything capable of isolating gun effects. And when you have gone for primary research you chose a source completely reliant on a flawed empirical methodology (i.e. using a simple dummy variable approach which is incapable of providing non-biased estimates)

 

I accept your surrender.

 

Its true that emotional reactions to specific crime has to be avoided. However, the pro-gunners have nothing to fear from an evidence-based approach. We know that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. The debate is therefore purely on optimal policy reaction. We're certainly not there yet!

- - - Updated - - -

If you're not prepared to participate in the debate, then there is nothing I can do

 

There are no regulations that can prevent a "Newtown" situation. That is a false hope held by some but pragmatically a person not prohibited from owning firearms and/or not being denied access to firearms that is prohibited can always commit a crime. As I mentioned if we banned Bushmasters then nothing prevents a person from walking into a school with a .223 cal hunting rifle and killing people. Functionally the two firearms are identical.

But we can do something. For example gun control advocates correctly state that about one million firearms purchase were blocked because of the background checks done by FFL's but the problem is they can't say that the people that attempted to purchase firearms didn't later obtain them. They complain that there are no background checks on private sales but seem to forget that a private person can't run a background check.

I happen to have a CCW and can carry a firearm in public and personally believe that "open-carry" is just as serious if not moreso than concealed carry. Open-carry is basically "bandishing a firearm" in public because it causes fear. I would suggest that anytime a person carries a firearm in public that they must have a permit or license to do so and don't limit this to concealed weapons. Make the licensing process simple (i.e. if a person is not prohibited by the courts then they can obtain the license) and make the license good in all states based upon the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. For limited purpose such as hunting then the hunting license is the permit to carry in public.

At the same time there is no rational reason for a license related to a firearm in the home. A firearm in the home does not threaten the "public safety" and there is no more of a rationalization for it than there is for a person having a drivers license for a car that they never drive on the public road.

I've actually gone into much more than this in the past but people need to think before they speak. What is the compelling argument for the regulation or law and is the law or regulation to the least extent possible to meet the considerations of the compelling argument?

 

If you want a slanted circle-jerk then you do not want a debate.

 

Just answer the following. Can you refer to one criminology publication that uses official crime data within an international perspective? Can you refer to one criminology publication that finds a structural break in crime data consistent with the handgun ban? If not, why not?

 

Are you saying that those statistics I posted are lies or not?

 

But you're (*)(*)(*)(*) out of luck if a bad guy comes calling.

 

I'm saying they are useless and either the person who posted them doesn't realise that or they are deliberately trying to misrepresent. Please answer my questions:

Can you refer to one criminology publication that uses official crime data within an international perspective? Can you refer to one criminology publication that finds a structural break in crime data consistent with the handgun ban? If not, why not?

 

So in other words they are true. That's all I asked. You do not deny that they are violent crimes.

 

Pffft. Baloney.

 

There's no truth from non-comparable data. There is only misinterpretation and misrepresentation

Its a shame that you can't answer my very simple questions: Can you refer to one criminology publication that uses official crime data within an international perspective? Can you refer to one criminology publication that finds a structural break in crime data consistent with the handgun ban? If not, why not?

 

My stats are correct until you can prove otherwise. Now if you wish to change the parameters of my point, start another thread.

 

They are but fluff. There is no valid comparison or any effort at showing gun effects. I'll keep asking and I expect you will keep dodging: Can you refer to one criminology publication that uses official crime data within an international perspective? Can you refer to one criminology publication that finds a structural break in crime data consistent with the handgun ban? If not, why not?

It is useful, mind you, that you refuse to answer my questions. You advertise the non-evidence based approach which is unfortunately adopted

 

Crime victims are 'fluff'. Interesting.

 

Making international comparisons with non-comparable data is certainly fluff. Why can't you answer my questions? Do you need some help?

 

I compared nothing. You did.

 

You referred to a poor secondary source that made irrelevant comparisons. Unfortunately that has put you in a hole. You know that you cannot find one valid source that would make such ridiculous comparisons. You also know that you cannot show one credible source that finds Britain's handgun ban has had negative effects on crime rates. Overall, you haven't actually said anything.

 

I inferred nothing. I posted accurate statistics Prove them wrong.

 

You posted a secondary source that either is ignorant of the data or deliberately misrepresents. There is no means that official data can be used for international comparison. If you think it can be, please present a source in support.

 

Prove that.

 

Which bit? It was a secondary source. It did use non-comparable data. You know that no credible source would use that data. You also know that there isn't one credible source that finds Britain's handgun ban has worsened crime. As you freely admit, you haven't actually said anything.