Support NeoGAF

[Lead]

I spoke to a UK sports shooter recently and when I told him that Germany and Sweden let you have AR-15s and handguns he told me 'damn, I want to move to Sweden now, this country is stupid'. UK firearms holders universally support sane gun control but are universally opposed to gun bans, and they really want their handguns and semi autos back. I've been to a range to shoot .22LR rifles (the only legal semi-autos allowed in the UK) and black powder pistols, and I must admit that shooting firearms on a range is pretty fun. I probably will have problems getting a license though, I have anxiety+depression issues and take meds for them. And I have no problem with this fact.

Don't be reasonable. People think owning a gun makes you instantly a ticking time bomb with psychopathic potential, and ohh boy it makes it so much worse if he owns an evil black rifle too.

Thankfully most of the European countries haven't caved in to this bad logic.

 

[Eyeh4wk]

That's not an alternative solution. It's an alternative explanation.

Right

I am saying that if Australia did not ban guns then death by shooting might still have massively decreased because of higher living standards (which, by no means, is a function of gun laws). With higher living standards, you can reasonably imagine that people have far more to lose and much less to gain by purposefully shooting another individual. Accidental shootings might also be affected because people with higher living standards, many of whom get college degrees, might use guns more responsibly than those with lower living standards.

That's more than enough reason to think their research is bad.

Are you sure?

 

[Imperfected]

They think they're safe now, but when a single bad guy with a gun/giant spider takes over the whole of Australia because there wasn't a good guy with a gun to stop him, we'll see who has the last laugh.

 

[killamajig]

What strict gun laws stop gun violence???

Who would have thought?

Too bad, that gun culture in the US is not based on facts or rational thinking, else it would have had some impact.

If its just about the availability of guns then why did the US see a big drop too?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

They had one in New York, thousands of guns wee turned in if I remember correctly.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/polit...s-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730

I registered mine and the background check was more in depth than the standard NICS check and I gotta re-register ever five years...

 

[sturgboski]

Sorry but you're ignorant on this matter. I live in Denmark, I own an AR-15 and a Glock 17DK and they're sitting in a safe with ammunition 10 feet from where I'm at now.

Ah see, here is the difference: in the US, the NRA funded Republicans to pass legislation to repeal laws that said that is how had things need to be. Hell, its on the gun owner how they want to store guns. Want to store a loaded shotgun so your son can shoot a little girl who wont let him see the new puppy she got because he used to bully her? Go right the fuck ahead as its your right (and also that happened last year).

If its just about the availability of guns then why did the US see a big drop too?

Hmm, I mean in 1994 the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented, so perhaps that helped? I mean that was the first result for gun laws in early 90s.

It isn't "bad science", it's "hard to get data for". It is still of incredible importance, for obvious reasons.

Gun laws are rarely enacted separately across states/municipalities/whatever, but if you look at the US gun deaths by state, they are almost one-to-one matched up with strictness of gun control. The stricter the control, the fewer the deaths per capita.

Gee, if only there was a leading national public health institute of the United States that could gather such research and prove this fact. Alas, Republicans ensured that funding for that group for gun violence research will not happen (few complicated laws that basically cut funding for specifically that research).

 

[Lead]

If its just about the availability of guns then why did the US see a big drop too?

Don't post that crap here, we don't want anything that contradicts our narrow understand of gun control!!!!

But really there's so many thing in society across the world that have changed in the past 20-30 years. With improved quality of life comes improved desire to preserve that. People are less likely to become desperate and do shit with their guns if they're fed and happy.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Ah see, here is the difference: in the US, the NRA funded Republicans to pass legislation to repeal laws that said that is how had things need to be. Hell, its on the gun owner how they want to store guns. Want to store a loaded shotgun so your son can shoot a little girl who wont let him see the new puppy she got because he used to bully her? Go right the fuck ahead as its your right (and also that happened last year).

This is an extremely valid point and I can't disagree with it. There was a bill in NY not even force gun owners to own safe but make them tax deductible. Which is something I suggested years ago. Failed.

 

[Feep]

As close as you can doesn't mean to chuck out control groups entirely and look at a single country only because there are plenty of confounding variables like improvements in living standards.

If you can't use countries because there's no valid control group then you could look for similar municipalities or other geographical areas which can provide a good counterfactual. If you can't do that but you still want to produce research, poke the obvious holes in your paper because it's a bad paper.

And sociology is a bad science.

It isn't "bad science", it's "hard to get data for". It is still of incredible importance, for obvious reasons.

Gun laws are rarely enacted separately across states/municipalities/whatever, but if you look at the US gun deaths by state, they are almost one-to-one matched up with strictness of gun control. The stricter the control, the fewer the deaths per capita.

 

[Arials]

I could've included it, but it's an outlier and there's so many things the countries I listed have in common that the U.S. doesn't have.

The U.S. is the odd one out, I could've spend time putting in every European country and it would've been the same general thing as I've provided, and you would still find it useful to include the U.S. that obviously deviates because of a lot other reasons than just "guns".

Yeah it is the odd one out.... well spotted.

..your position is absurd. The US has a significantly higher murder rate than every other first world country and it has a significantly higher gun ownership rate than every other first world country, that's what is an "outlier" here.

 

[pringles]

You're right, I can't, but I can prove (and you helped me there, thank you) that legal privately owned firearms doesn't mean death and carnage like it does in the US.

Yeah but that probably is in part because there are laws in place to keep firearms from being too easily acquired. I really don't see how any sane gun owner could be against stricter gun control. If you're mentally sane, don't have a criminal record, have good storage for your guns, and you're part of a hunting/sporting club, you're fine. There's nothing negative about it.

 

[Arials]

If its just about the availability of guns then why did the US see a big drop too?

It isn't just about the availability of guns but availability of guns is a large factor, that is why the Australian rate fell faster and has stayed lower.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

The reason I make the comparison is subtle but obvious (to me anyway).

Do you think it would've made a difference if the Orlando shooter was required to store his firearm in a safe? It didn't make a difference to Anders Being Breivik.

And your little anecdotal evidence there is cute, I went to Germany last year competing and there was people from all levels of society participating there. Germany also have among the highest gun ownership in Europe, so something tells me you're talking with some very select people there.

I get that you super love guns and have lots of other people to argue with but I have a question.

You seem pretty sure that guns in America isn't the problem so what is? Are you suggesting that America just, by some coincidence, has the most mass shootings and also the least regulated gun control in the developed world? Do they have a higher level of psychopathy? I just don't get how you don't see a correlation here.

You point to Brevik but it doesn't happen often at all in any of Europe and yet so often in America. If people in these countries can get guns to murder lots of people then why don't they?

 

[Chmpocalypse]

But this study does show what you asked to be in a study about a week or so ago, and concluded that the reform/buyback accelerated the reduction in homicides and suicides.

DAMN.

 

[humansarehorses]

Are you sure?

Look at model c in the paper on JAMA. Using a control for living standards should show up as statistically significant because the counts of death and standard of living move in opposite directions over time. That won't tell you much in terms of causation. You need to find a valid control group where they are identical or almost identical in the important ways prior to applying the treatment.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I get that you super love guns and have lots of other people to argue with but I have a question.

You seem pretty sure that guns in America isn't the problem so what is? Are you suggesting that America just, by some coincidence, has the most mass shootings and also the least regulated gun control in the developed world? Do they have a higher level of psychopathy? I just don't get how you don't see a correlation here.

You point to Brevik but it doesn't happen often at all in any of Europe and yet so often in America. If people in these countries can get guns to murder lots of people then why don't they?

He's pointing out that no country needs to be as draconian as Australia is. There's a middle ground, one that is found in most of Europe.

 

[Peléo]

Did the ban had any impact in other crime rates besides murders ?

 

[killamajig]

Ah see, here is the difference: in the US, the NRA funded Republicans to pass legislation to repeal laws that said that is how had things need to be. Hell, its on the gun owner how they want to store guns. Want to store a loaded shotgun so your son can shoot a little girl who wont let him see the new puppy she got because he used to bully her? Go right the fuck ahead as its your right (and also that happened last year).



Hmm, I mean in 1994 the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was implemented, so perhaps that helped? I mean that was the first result for gun laws in early 90s.



Gee, if only there was a leading national public health institute of the United States that could gather such research and prove this fact. Alas, Republicans ensured that funding for that group for gun violence research will not happen (few complicated laws that basically cut funding for specifically that research).

I bought a AK-47 during the ban. It was a total joke. They banned specific types and the manufacturers would just make a cosmetic change (like change the grip style and give it a new name) and it was legal.

If anything it made people buy more. My friend owned a gun store and he said the ban was the best thing they could of done for his business.

 

[Lead]

I get that you super love guns and have lots of other people to argue with but I have a question.

You seem pretty sure that guns in America isn't the problem so what is? Are you suggesting that America just, by some coincidence, has the most mass shootings and also the least regulated gun control in the developed world? Do they have a higher level of psychopathy? I just don't get how you don't see a correlation here.

You point to Brevik but it doesn't happen often at all in any of Europe and yet so often in America. If people in these countries can get guns to murder lots of people then why don't they?

I'm on my phone now so i'll make this brief:

Poverty
Lack of equality
Overall standards of living

 

[humansarehorses]

It isn't "bad science", it's "hard to get data for". It is still of incredible importance, for obvious reasons.

Gun laws are rarely enacted separately across states/municipalities/whatever, but if you look at the US gun deaths by state, they are almost one-to-one matched up with strictness of gun control. The stricter the control, the fewer the deaths per capita.

Claiming a causal effect and saying this should be used to advise policy when their coefficient is clearly biased is bad science.

The only importance of this work is to be used as an example of how not to do social science research.

Do those states differ by other important metrics? Like standards of living. The states with higher deaths per capita due to shootings -- bet they're mostly southern states, right? And are any of those deaths per capita driven by certain cities which too have low standards of living?

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I bought a AK-47 during the ban. It was a total joke. They banned specific types and the manufacturers would just make a cosmetic change (like change the grip style and give it a new name) and it was legal.

If anything it made people buy more. My friend owned a gun store and he said the ban was the best thing they could of done for his business.

Isn't an assault weapons ban just a ban on cosmetic features? Reagan banned full-auto on firearms before this IIRC.

 

[Zach]

I liked that part a few pages back about it being illegal in Denmark to own a gun if you've been convicted of violence. Why can't we have that in USA USA USA?

 

[killamajig]

It isn't just about the availability of guns but availability of guns is a large factor, that is why the Australian rate fell faster and has stayed lower.

I'll agree with that.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I bought a AK-47 during the ban. It was a total joke. They banned specific types and the manufacturers would just make a cosmetic change (like change the grip style and give it a new name) and it was legal.

If anything it made people buy more. My friend owned a gun store and he said the ban was the best thing they could of done for his business.

Yup. My AK doesn't have a pistol grip. Shoots the same bullets.

 

[killamajig]

Isn't an assault weapons ban just a ban on cosmetic features? Reagan banned full-auto on firearms before this IIRC.

Well, full auto has been regulated way before that.

But yeah, thats what I dont like about the "assault weapon" ban talk. Its kinda meaningless to people that know about guns.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

I liked that part a few pages back about it being illegal in Denmark to own a gun if you've been convicted of violence. Why can't we have that in USA USA USA?

It already is like that.

Don't be reasonable. People think owning a gun makes you instantly a ticking time bomb with psychopathic potential, and ohh boy it makes it so much worse if he owns an evil black rifle too.

Thankfully most of the European countries haven't caved in to this bad logic.

And legal firearms owners are fighting a losing battle here in the UK, most of the public want to see MORE gun bans.

 

[Zach]

It already is like that.

Oh, wow. Look how progressive we are.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

If its just about the availability of guns then why did the US see a big drop too?

could someone explain to me why the scales on the left and on the right don't match?

 

[jerry113]

Meanwhile gun lobbyists have prohibited the CDC from even doing gun-related studies.

 

[killamajig]

could someone explain to me why the scales on the left and on the right don't match?

Because we like to shoot ourselves more.

 

[jellies_two]

could someone explain to me why the scales on the left and on the right don't match?

That graph is so misleading. As a percentage basis, Australia dropped from 2.5 to 1, that is a reduction of, what, over 60%? US in the same period dropped from just over 12 to just under 12 or about 10%, which is almost statistical noise by comparison.

Introducing the same laws in the US (using a magic wand) could cause a drop from 12 to 4 if it followed the Australian experience.

 

[hockeypuck]

Claiming a causal effect and saying this should be used to advise policy when their coefficient is clearly biased is bad science.

The only importance of this work is to be used as an example of how not to do social science research.

Do those states differ by other important metrics? Like standards of living. The states with higher deaths per capita due to shootings -- bet they're mostly southern states, right? And are any of those deaths per capita driven by certain cities which too have low standards of living?

Thank God JAMA published a study all the way back in 2013 that did just what you asked for:

"..to account for other socioeconomic factors associated with firearm fatalities, we used a multivariable Poisson regression to adjust for age, race/ethnicity, sex, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, and rates of nonfirearm suicides and/or nonfirearm homicides."

How far are we moving these goalposts? Until they're out of the stadium? Funny how the NRA can't find a single damn scientist to publish a study that disagrees with what everyone else has been saying. You know, so it can at least be a controversy. Even Coca-Cola and Pepsi were able to do that thanks to the University of Colorado and Temple University.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

If its just about the availability of guns then why did the US see a big drop too?

There might be an explanation for that if the CDC was allowed to study gun violence. Just to be safe though, we had better not regulate/ban guns. They're pretty fun and it would be horrible tragedy to take them away and find that we didn't save as many lives as we hoped.

 

[Replicant]

But...but...Australia is different, bla bla bla.

Yeah yeah, we know we are special snowflakes. It's Winter Wonderland over here.

 

[Aureon]

could someone explain to me why the scales on the left and on the right don't match?

It's a "rate change" graph, which takes a point (1990) as "1" and shows the difference in marginal change since that point.

 

[humansarehorses]

Thank God JAMA published a study all the way back in 2013 that did just what you asked for:

"..to account for other socioeconomic factors associated with firearm fatalities, we used a multivariable Poisson regression to adjust for age, race/ethnicity, sex, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, and rates of nonfirearm suicides and/or nonfirearm homicides."

Are far are we moving these goalposts? Until they're out of the stadium?

Apparently you don't understand what I'm talking about.

As I said in prior posts (which you either didn't read or didn't comprehend), people with different living standards are behaviorally different. I said that those with higher living standards might be more careful with using their guns than those with lower standards of living.

You cannot control for that by traditional means because it is not observable.

Which is why you need a valid control group: to control for all possible unobservable and observable confounding variables.

Jesus Christ.

edit:

Also, I don't know how they define poverty -- too general of a term. Should use actual income per capita, intergenerational income mobility, etc. They're also not addressing any points that I brought up with regards to the possibility that certain cities are driving the number of deaths.

edit 2:

They're using the federal poverty line. Uh huh. Like I said, you want to know their actual standards of living. Income per capita is a good measure.

 

[Aureon]

Apparently you don't understand what I'm talking about.

As I said in prior posts (which you either didn't read or didn't comprehend), people with different living standards are behaviorally different. I said that those with higher living standards might be more careful with using their guns than those with lower standards of living.

You cannot control for that by traditional means because it is not observable.

Which is why you need a valid control group.

Jesus Christ.

Where the hell are you getting the assumption that USA and europe's standards of living are that different?
Especially since south europe packs straight up with northern?
And Canada \ Australia is a hair above Europe?

If you want a policy comparison.. i don't know, US\UK virgin islands?

 

[hockeypuck]

Apparently you don't understand what I'm talking about.

As I said in prior posts (which you either didn't read or didn't comprehend), people with different living standards are behaviorally different. I said that those with higher living standards might be more careful with using their guns than those with lower standards of living.

You cannot control for that by traditional means because it is not observable.

Which is why you need a valid control group: to control for all possible unobservable and observable confounding variables.

Jesus Christ.

No, you do a RCT to control for all "possible unobservable and observable confounding variables." Which is not a realistic scenario for this topic. What kind of hypothetical control group are you even suggesting? Who makes up these individuals? People born in plastic bubbles? If you want to argue that standards of living and behavior cannot be studied by "traditional means," then you've gotten bigger issues than just a study about gun control.

And what the hell do you even mean by "traditional means?" Are you or do you know someone on the cusp of an epidemiological breakthrough?

They're also not addressing any points that I brought up with regards to the possibility that certain cities are driving the number of deaths.

Maybe, perhaps, it's because they actually studied and saw those points that you brought up don't have any significant influence. Maybe a group of researchers actually studied that instead of shooting from the hip like you are.

They're using the federal poverty line. Uh huh. Like I said, you want to know their actual standards of living. Income per capita is a good measure.

I think the goalposts just moved back another 5 yards.

 

[humansarehorses]

No, you do a RCT to control for all "possible unobservable and observable confounding variables." Which is not a realistic scenario for this topic. What kind of hypothetical control group are you even suggesting? Who makes up these individuals? People born in plastic bubbles? If you want to argue that standards of living and behavior cannot be studied, then you've gotten bigger issues than just a study about gun control.

And what the hell do you even mean by "traditional means?"

RCTs aren't some gold standard in research nor are they good science because they're randomized. You can think of research on teen pregnancy: forget the ethical ramifications. Randomly assigning girls from the teen girl population into treatment and control groups where the treatment group is impregnated is not good science.

Why? Because teen girls don't randomly become pregnant. You actually have to think through the research design.

However, randomization is used precisely because those researchers care about having a valid counterfactual. The objective is to create two groups which, although if you randomly picked a member from each group they'd be fairly different, the two groups are similar prior to applying any treatment. So that they could analyse a better counterfactual.

That's exactly why I keep talking about a valid control group. But you don't need randomization to get identical groups prior to applying any treatment.

Traditional means i.e. to use a control variable to explain variation in the data.

Maybe, perhaps, it's because they actually studied to see if those points that you brought up don't have any significant influence. Maybe these researchers actually studied that instead of shooting from the hip like you are.

That wasn't a criticism of them. It was a criticism of you.

You acted like you shut down my argument with that paper when one of the things I specifically brought up was the possibility of certain cities driving the death numbers.

I think the goalposts just moved back another 5 yards.

Yeah, you tell researchers that having good measurements means moving goalposts.

See how many of them laugh at you.

 

[hockeypuck]

RCTs aren't some gold standard in research nor are they good science because they're randomized.

This is a great sentence. What, in your opinion, is the gold standard in research using populations?

That's exactly why I keep talking about a valid control group. But you don't need randomization to get identical groups prior to applying any treatment.

Why are you using terms more applicable to prospective studies when gun control studies are purely retrospective in nature by the very argument you so elucidated for me regarding RCTs?

Enlighten me, how do you get identical groups without randomization?

Traditional means i.e. to use a control variable to explain variation in the data.

So, you're basically telling me that regression analysis is bunk. Okay, thanks for that clarification.

You acted like you shut down my argument with that paper when one of the things I specifically brought up was the possibility of certain cities driving the death numbers.

You keep bringing this up, this hunch of yours. You think it's going to mess up the regression analysis that these researchers put forth. Why don't you show me some peer-reviewed evidence that helps argue that the researchers missed an important variable?

 

[humansarehorses]

edit:

In my rush to post, I completely overlooked the fact that the paper you posted was a cross-sectional study too which only looks at one time period. Panel data is needed since you care about changes over time.

This is a great sentence. What, in your opinion, is the gold standard in research using populations?

There is no gold standard. There is no set methodological trick, like randomization, which will always guarantee a real causal effect.

Why are you using terms more applicable to prospective studies when gun control studies are purely retrospective in nature by the very argument you so elucidated for me regarding RCTs?

Enlighten me, how do you get identical groups without randomization?

Why are you babbling? The terms I'm using are applicable to any causal research and have been for decades.

You can take identical twins as an example. They are very similar across economic outcomes, biologically they're very similar, grew up in the same households and communities and carry with them whatever unobservable effects come from those aspects of their lives.

So, you're basically telling me that regression analysis is bunk. Okay, thanks for that clarification.

You got me. That's exactly what I said.

Ignore what I said about unobservable variables, you know, being unobservable meaning you can't account for them in a regression analysis.

But there are plenty of problems with regression analyses. One obvious example is that you can find statistically significant results just because variables move together (as that's what correlation deals with: movement). So two randomly generated random walks which track each other can give you statistically significant but meaningless results. You randomly generated those series. There's no causal relationship; it's spurious.

You keep bringing this up, this hunch of yours. You think it's going to mess up the regression analysis that these researchers put forth. Why don't you show me some peer-reviewed evidence that helps argue that the researchers missed an important variable?

If there are certain cities which are driving the state death rates then I think it's more important to make comparisons between the cities which are similar prior to any state law changes.

It's a hunch which I don't care to look into because I'm not emotionally invested in the policy implications.

I couldn't care less about whether or not there are stricter gun laws.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

That's not going to happen because of the elephant in the room (not so much?) called the 2nd amendment that makes it a right to Americans, and not a privilege like it is to Europeans.

and it use to be a right to own people as fucking property. rights and laws change. There is no reason whatsoever that owning a gun is some god given right or that it should be a right in a modern civilized society.

 

[hockeypuck]

You can take identical twins as an example. They are very similar across economic outcomes, biologically they're very similar, grew up in the same households and communities and carry with them whatever unobservable effects come from those aspects of their lives.

Shitty example and you know it. Yea, let's only study identical twins for this specific question, about gun control. Too bad we don't know which twins have guns. You have yet to give me an example of a "valid control group" to study this question.

But there are plenty of problems with regression analyses. One obvious example is that you can find statistically significant results just because variables move together (as that's what correlation deals with: movement). So two randomly generated random walks which track each other can give you statistically significant but meaningless results. You randomly generated those series. There's no causal relationship; it's spurious.

You're arguing for using prospective methods to study gun control. Please tell me how that's feasible. Keep digging this hole.

It's a hunch which I don't care to look into because I'm not emotionally invested in the policy implications.

It's okay to admit that you're talking out of your ass and you couldn't back it up when you were called out on it.

I couldn't care less about whether or not there are stricter gun laws.

Another five yards.

 

[humansarehorses]

And with that, I'm done. You're either intentionally misreading what I say or you can't read.

Shitty example and you know it. Yea, let's only study identical twins for this specific question, about gun control. Too bad we don't know which twins have guns. You have yet to give me an example of a "valid control group" to study this question.

Do you suffer from dementia? You never said I needed to give you a valid control group for this research question.

I answered your prior question to the point. Don't like it, that's your problem.

You're arguing for using prospective methods to study gun control. Please tell me how that's feasible. Keep digging this hole.

So more of your literacy problems. I never argued for prospective methods to analyse this question. When I say prior to applying the treatment, you can just re-word it to prior to when the treatment was applied.

I mean, you're obviously having a hard time following what I'm saying as what you quoted is a summarization of one of Clive Granger's contributions to time series analysis. And is just meant to show that regression analyses have real pitfalls.

I's okay to admit that you're talking out of your ass and you couldn't back it up when you were called out on it.

I never said it was a fact. Not once. Go through the comments and see. Just try to make sure you understand what you read. Difficult for you, I know.

Another five yards.

Let me nip two things in the bud:

1. There's no moving of any goalposts.

When you said that I was moving goalposts by pointing out that using the poverty line is not a good measurement for living standards, it's because it isn't a good measurement (which I mentioned above but you didn't or chose not to see it).

The poverty line for different sized households is arbitrarily defined. Say you're in a single household: you can have $10 above that line and you wouldn't be counted in this study.

Now, anyone with half a brain, would look at that and say, hey, his living standards aren't really any better than someone whose income is $10 less.

Measurements matter. Tell any researcher differently and watch them, deservedly, laugh at you.

2. Me stating that I couldn't care less isn't any goalpost moving. What kind of daft statement is that?

I know you're emotionally invested in this policy but I don't care about the gun law. Every post in this thread has been about social science research and what policy should be based on (i.e. not bad research like this paper).

 

[gohepcat]

You're right, I might take these numbers instead (they're available).

I would if I could. I know it's a lazy cop out, but it's literally the case. European countries doesn't write these sorts of reports in English, but their native language, if they even do this at all. It's a clusterfuck to sort based on your perimeters that admittedly would be more useful.
Sorry but you're ignorant on this matter. I live in Denmark, I own an AR-15 and a Glock 17DK and they're sitting in a safe with ammunition 10 feet from where I'm at now.

There's no country in Europe other than the United Kingdom that prohibits people from owning semi automatic rifles and pistols, it just requires the proper licensing like a hunting license or a sporting license.

So...why? Why do you own an AR-15?

It just seems like such a wanna be tough-guy thing to own. You're not in a video game. You live in a peaceful civilized society.

To me it just seems embarrassing. Even as a hobby....it's a symbol of the absolute worst of humanity.

 

[hockeypuck]

So more of your literacy problems. I never argued for prospective methods to analyse this question. When I say prior to applying the treatment, you can just re-word it to prior to when the treatment was applied.

If you're not arguing for prospective methods, but don't trust retrospective methods to study this question, then exactly what method works for you?

I mean, you're obviously having a hard time following what I'm saying as what you quoted is a summarization of one of Clive Granger's contributions to time series analysis. And is just meant to show that regression analyses have real pitfalls.

And by including such an argument it basically tells me that you were never going to trust the outcome of any gun control study anyways, because all of them use regression analyses.

I never said it was a fact. Not once. Go through the comments and see. Just try to make sure you understand what you read. Difficult for you, I know.

Why would you critique a methodology using non-facts? That's poor form. I'm sorry you were offended when I equated "non-fact" with "talking out of your ass."

Let's treat your own short-term memory loss with your own quote:

They're also not addressing any points that I brought up with regards to the possibility that certain cities are driving the number of deaths.

Why would these researchers even need to address your non-fact? Why should they bend to your whimsical, baseless, thoughts?

Me stating that I couldn't care less isn't any goalpost moving. What kind of daft statement is that?

I was merely rebutting a daft statement with an equally daft statement.

 

[Opto]

Exhaustive background checks, purchase delay and no private sales didn't prevent Anders Being Breivik either, and it wouldn't have prevented the Orlando shooter either. Prior to the shooting he was spotless.

Maybe there will always be those that get through the net. But you argue that because one will get through, it's pointless. You like bringing up Breivik a lot, which goes to show you have very little mass shooters in your corner of the world. Here in the US, we have so many names we have to get into the specific location to keep track of what happened with the shooter.

 

[Jimrpg]

It's a shame Australians don't understand freedom.

Is this a joke?

Please come to Australia and breathe in the freedom first before making such a remark.

And its America's loss if they don't want to ban guns. There's no place for them in a civil society.

 

[Opto]

I'm on my phone now so i'll make this brief:

Poverty
Lack of equality
Overall standards of living

Those don't apply to shooters of

Orlando
Sandy Hook
Aurora
Virginia Tech
West Nickel Mines School
Isla Vista

And also we know we need a lot of equality reform. And will that reduce gun violence? Absolutely, as there will be less crime. But then don't go tell me that's all there is to it

 

[Kenshin001]

He's pointing out that no country needs to be as draconian as Australia is. There's a middle ground, one that is found in most of Europe.

I think any country that has mass shootings on a regular basis should adopt Australia's policies. Since it has obviously worked.