Gun Regulation Statistics

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by jakem617, Feb 5, 2013.

  1. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I am saying is guns or no guns, crime and murder are still there, so guns are not the problem.
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A ludicrous argument. Everyone agrees that there are multiple factors that impact on crime. Guns just happen to be one
     
  3. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obviously they are not. If they were than they would have at least a very small positive impact on the crimes and murder rate when they are taken away. America is at a 50 year low WITHOUT any kind of federal control/ban, so my question is why now? It is just an emotional response that has no actual or proven effects, now you and people like you want to restrict MY rights because you refuse to look at more serious methods that could potentially be more effective than current proposals. Less guns=same crime and the actual given stats have provided that answer, it does not matter the other factors, you take away the guns the crime is still there. You try to treat the mentally ill correctly, you WILL get far better results with the guns still being there.

    The only problem now is getting polititions to stop beating a dead issue and wasting time when they could focus it somewhere usefull. It is time to stop being politically correct toward the dangers of society while demonizing perfectly safe, responsible legal gun owners which IS what a majority of gun owners are.
     
  4. Europe Rick

    Europe Rick Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Reiver doesn't provide "evidence." If we are lucky Reiver will provide a quote from the abstract for that's all he can do. The papers he uses as "evidence" are only available to the professional publication's private subscribers or if older, document archive subscribers, they are not in the public domain. He can't link to them or quote them since he doesn't own them.

    Unless one would want to fork over the money to subscribe one must take Reiver's word that these studies consist of only high quality data to which is applied the appropriate econometric technique and that these studies go through impartial, unbiased tests for robustness. I mean hey, Reiver is an expert, why wouldn't we believe him?


    So, here goes some stats that will cause Reiver's head to explode because they are evil "raw data":


    In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun.

    In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun.

    20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns =7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?



    Now Reiver will say that we can't use "raw data" but his premise is a "raw data" based argument.

    One needs to ask, how would a normal, non-statistician process the premise MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES . . . or more to the point, what would that typical person expect to be presented as a proof of the premise?

    Would they want to hear about subjective controls and regression coefficient or internalizing the externality?

    No, MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES demands that we expect that with 80,000,000 guns added a rise of "X" gun homicides will be noted.

    The proof of MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES should be a factor that we can apply to a hard number (# of guns added) and come out on the other side with a hard number . . . Add a million guns, 177.3 more people will be killed per year . . . Problem is, we add 4+ million guns a year for 20 years and homicides go down.

    If there is an increase in gun homicides it is of such an insignificant magnitude that it is negated and even reversed in the real world. How one can base the implementation of "corrections" (legal and/or market based) on a premise that purports to be about simple numbers but simple numbers just don't bear it out?

    It's no wonder the resident expert so detests refering to raw data.

    Various, 'Bow before me, I swallowed a econometric textbook' exhortations denouncing my nefarious conclusions from spurious use of data in,........................5..........4...........3............2.........1............
     
  5. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While there is no standing proof that taking away Rifles that look like they are military rifles(which is what the AR-15 is, a regular run of the mill rifle like any other that cosmeticaly resembles a military assault rifle) actualy raises crimes and murders, this statistic shows that there was an increase in AR 15 ownership and a fall in murder.
    AR15sandMurderRates350.jpg
    While this is not proof that more of these ARs are directly reflecting the lower murder rate, it can only be taken at the VERY LEAST as proof that ARs have no direct coorilation with the number of murders.
     
  6. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny, he was very active on this thread until the exact moment you posted this, than poof.....
     
  7. nimdabew

    nimdabew Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    First, with the Aussie decrease by 5%, that is a statistically irrelevant point as soon as you give it some context. There were 282 murders in 2007 with firearms from the factcheck.org link you posted above. This is a really great number! But this is down from a height of 385 in 1999. An unscrupolous person would say that a 30% decrease is amazing and that it should be replicated everywhere. Looking closer at the murder rates in the United States, we can see that there has been a 40% reduction in murders overall since 1992, or a decrease of 9000 murders.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

    While both statics are true-ish, a decline in the number of murders shows more than a percentage.

    As for AR-15's, my argument against restricting them is that the people wanting to ban guns don't want to ban just AR-15's. They want to ban ALL guns.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI

    The anti AR-15 crowd is in vogue right now and hating them is easy from a political and social point of view. But if they ban AR-15's, then the next best weapon used in some form of violence, say a semi-auto shotgun, will be the next hated item. I can see the headlines now "super lethal double ought buck for close ranged mass murders!" Right now, it is high capacity assault banana clips and military style black assault weapons. They will continue to leap frog from one gun to the next until we get to a place like Australia or the UK where having a gun is considered a privilege that can be taken away if the masses so deem it.
     
  8. Europe Rick

    Europe Rick Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    He's a narcissistic pompous Brit who needs to bludgeon others with his useless, donnish, club of knowledge.

    He will be back; he just can't help himself.
     
  9. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Thank you, this is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Do you know the source of this graph though? I understand that you probably got it off of google, but I have learned the hard way (by making an ass out of myself by posting incorrect information from google) that google is not always right. Anyways, if you could give me the exact source, that would be great.
     
  10. jakem617

    jakem617 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    FINALLY, an intelligent conservative (or gun nut or whatever you identify yourself as lol). Thank you for constructing a decent argument with statistics and logic to back yourself up. You made an excellent point about the leap frog thing that I never fully considered, but it does make sense, and I will take that into consideration next time I talk about/debate this topic. You gave me an excellent new perspective on the topic though, and I'm always looking for people to give me a new perspective on things.
     
  11. Logician0311

    Logician0311 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    5,677
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Neat... How about the fact that since 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the wars of this country's history? A decrease just brings our per-capita decrease from "repulsive" to "depressing". http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mmentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

    I disagree. That would be like saying that America has more people attending church than the Vatican, so the US must be more religious than the Vatican...

    Agree that banning is a slippery slope and represents giving up on 'control'. Gun control should be relate to minimizing risks associated with gun ownership, not ending gun ownership across the board.

    That being said, I do not believe that citizens of either Australia or the UK consider themselves any less free than citizens of the US.
     
  12. SDDL-UP77

    SDDL-UP77 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    jakem617,

    I'm just "sure" New York will have a much lower murder rate over the next few years right! Don't count on it. Too many places blame the tool, not the criminal. I've watched "48 Hours" too often and too many of those people are CRIMINALS flat out. Always in trouble, always breaking the law, it's sad.

    Beware of "international" murder and "gun crime" statistics - they will not tell you how many people are killed by their own governments, or wrongly imprissioned, or "gone missing" or a whole host of other things. How many people were hacked to death in Rwanda? No guns used there. A safe place? I think not.

    How have the other crime statistics been impacted in Australia - rapes, home invasions, car jackings, muggings etc.? I'd bet they are all higher.
     
  13. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If people must have a useful purpose to own something, they'll have to give up half of what they own - starting with your television and netflix subscription.

    Luckily we live in a country that doesn't control people to that point and allows us to own useless or unnecessary things if we want.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you're looking for nonsense. Criminologists have been using econometric methods for some time. There is a mountain of literature to use, with techniques capable of testing gun effect hypothesis. It is an exercise into invalidity to restrict yourself to useless raw data
     
  15. Europe Rick

    Europe Rick Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I think you need to reform your premise so it conforms with your proofs.

    If we are testing the basic premise that "more guns = more gun homicides" then the use of raw data is perfectly acceptable.

    Your proofs might prove something far, far, far more complicated but there is no reason why we need to consider that.

    After all, we are only discussing if "more guns = more gun homicides" and that is quite obviously not true:



    In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun.

    In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun.

    20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns = 7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you folk so insistent on refusing basic sense? Raw data cannot be used as there are multiple variables impacting on crime rates. A multiple regression methodology is required to ensure that you control for these other factors, ensuring that you avoid basic problems such as omitted variable bias.
     
  17. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Give it up already, your methods here are swiss cheese, stankin and full of holes.
     
  18. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Raw data can be used' it shows that if you take the gun away from the criminal, he will still commit the crimes. You keep saying more guns=more murder, than the raw data would show a decrease in murder when bans are in place.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Without an empirical specification, it can only be used to illustrate spurious conclusion. There is no debate in this.

    Wrong! The 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis cannot be rejected. We also see statistically significant reductions in crime from gun control. Again, you're just clueless about the evidence and you're making vacuous claim because you have nothing else to offer.
     
  20. 2ndaMANdment

    2ndaMANdment New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you smoke your breakfast? The statistics in countries that ban guns or have heavy gun control are relativly uneffected or slightly worse, nothing you have brought to this debate has change that, including your magical studies. You can pick and choose what you want to quote from peoples post, but you are missing the entire picture, taking away guns does not stop crime.
     
  21. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who wants to make the new law? In other words, shouldn't the side that wants to ban a given gun type have to prove that doing so would actually make things better somehow - less crime, fewer murders, fewer deaths, etc.?

    Regardless, how about a little actual experimental evidence. What if a community with a high or rising crime rate suddenly and significantly increased firearm ownership in the county? Would you accept the impact it had on crime rates as good evidence of the impact gun ownership has on crime?
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You'd need more than that to conduct a natural experiment (e.g. you'd need two areas which you know have seem identical changes in other crime-impacting variables). You could go for a structural break analysis, but that is likely to be rather difficult (e.g. reported crime rates are found to be related to the business cycle, creating noise in the data)
     
  23. nimdabew

    nimdabew Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I cannot pull up any hard statistics right now, but if you remove the gang on gang related violence, gun murders for everyone else drops significantly. I find it hard to believe that the non-gang criminals in Chicago are any different, morally, than the same type of non-gang criminals in LA, Seattle, Dallas, or New York. So, my big question is what percentage of murders are gang related or criminal on criminal? The loss of life is depressing at times, but the root cause of many of the murders in the country can't be nailed down to one area or even a set of laws. It is a complicated problem and treating one tool or symptom of the problem will still leave the root cause of the disease.

    Another interesting fact: more soldiers are committing suicide than dying in combat (as of 2010). Does this mean one specific thing can be nailed down to an object? A person bent on committing suicide will commit suicide. A safety net, social structure, and family all can help reduce suicides by firearm more than removing the firearm itself. Getting to the root cause, PTSD in some to most cases, and treating that, is more effective than removing a tool.

    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...ldiers-committed-suicide-than-died-in-combat/
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...cide-january-killed-al-qaeda-article-1.391264
    http://www.mediafreedominternationa...ldiers-committed-suicide-than-died-in-combat/

    Having very small sample sizes for percentages can have the percentages changed very quickly, and apparently by large amounts, with a very small number of change. Rates per 100,000 are a better indicator of the health of a population statistic than percentages.


    The United States has different laws than the UK or Australia and cannot be directly compared because of different cultures. For example, in the UK, you can be compelled to testify against yourself and be forced to implicate yourself (5A protection in the US). The Uk legal system, for better or worse, has different rules and outsiders cannot get a good grasp of how it works unless you live there for an amount of time. The same is true for gun rights. Outsiders from other countries cannot understand the culture surrounding firearms and other methods of self-defense because their culture is permeating their thinking and mindset, just like American thinking and mindset clouds our view of the rest of the world. I believe it is why a significant portion of the world views Americans as spoiled. I think that Americans are spoiled as well, but that still doesn't mean that I want to give it up. Our ancestors, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, husbands and wives have fought long and hard and produced enough to get to where we are today, and I will fight to protect it. This includes the entire Bill of Rights, not just the Second Amendment.

    You served in the Marine Corps Logi, and I respect and honor you for it and I choose to extend the courtesy because of that position that you have. I do not extend the same to outsiders from different cultures decrying the use and prevalence of firearms in our country. Cultures are not direct comparisons; they are many people. One cannot understand another culture for having something or not having something unless you are fully immersed in the culture.
     
  24. Europe Rick

    Europe Rick Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Fine, then please offer the premise that reflects that. The simple premise that MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES defines the parameters and is definitive in and of itself.

    If I said, IT ALWAYS RAINS ON FRIDAYS, that doesn't really permit multiple regression methodology and various controls ensuring that we avoid basic problems such as omitted variable bias. If it is Friday and it ain't raining the premise is defeated!

    The proof for IT ALWAYS RAINS ON FRIDAYS shouldn't be - There exists a .900432 confidence coefficient that measurable moisture will occur on Fridays that include a 1 in their date falling on a full moon in the lunar cycle (excepting eclipses) falling in a month that occurs during the southern hemisphere's summer solstice in which American Idol is in reruns . . .

    You have presented a premise with only one variable, MORE GUNS . . .

    The theorized outcome from adding MORE GUNS is MORE GUN HOMICIDES.

    The realized outcome of FEWER HOMICIDES defeats the premise.

    In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun.

    In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun.

    20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns = 7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?


    Please feel free to construct a multi-pronged premise (hopefully less comedic than the rainy Friday one above) that your variable laden proofs support because MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES ain't it.

    Failing that, please compose a statement of your proof in the same plain English and in the simple terms of the premise because I have never heard you actually state it. All I've ever heard from you is that the premise can't be defeated . . . .

    .
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're asking for repetition. The 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis can only be tested by controlling for the other crime-impacting variables. You folk are simply very ignorant about the empirical process and how hypothesis testing is conducted
     

Share This Page