The Correlation Between State Gun Laws and Homicide Rates

You've got this so ass backwards, it is flooring. I'm the one who spoke of nuances, he was the one touting a single correlation as evidence of something.

You can't talk about guns being non-perishable and pot being a poor analogy, and then say "point KB." That's literally the most critical part his entire argument-- municipal and state lines are non-porous for guns. Well, they are porous. So measuring the effectiveness of local gun laws on preventing homicide is meaningless.

Further, I'm the one who said, and I quote, "not everything is linear" and talked about EXACTLY what you're saying.

You just said point KB, and then went on to echo my posts in this thread. What gives?

 

.

 

I was just talking about the flow of guns argument, which seemed to be the main point of convention. I thought you made no sense on that. That's where he earned a point. Not for the entire thread/gun debate.

But yeah I fully admit that the bulk of my post has more in common with your position than his. And I think country level rather than state level data is the only sensible way to study this.

 

So you think guns can move, but you disagree with guns moving... And uh, point KB who the bulk of your post disagreed with.

Thanks. Great internetting going on in this thread. I should just get an anonymous account.

 

Stop reliance on Daddy Goverment, would the first step.

Obviously expanding carry, rather than limit it, but that need not be said.

Gun free zones are an interesting study. The vast majority of government (state/local) mandated gun free zones owned by the government are really well locked down. Each public entry point with multiple armed security guards and metal detectors.

All except schools. So if there are gun free zones, the same should apply. That, or let those present take whichever measures they feel necessary in protecting themselves.

Another good step would be to once and for all convince everyone that law enforcement is not coming to the rescue. They'll solve your murder, and generate revenue for the city by way of traffic violations.

But if you are faced with a life and death situation, it's own you.

The more and more we take away from individuals the ability to protect themselves, and the more and more we put on government to protect us, the less adaptive we will become.

 

Your binary view of guns moving is the most idiotic thing this thread has going.

 

Why would increased carry decrease shootings?

 

Again, the vast vast majority of shootings are against soft targets. Ie: unarmed targets.

That's not a coincidence.

Up the likelihood of meeting resistance and you will stamp out a lot of it, or at least greatly limit the carnage.

You aren't dealing with professionals, you are dealing with cowards.

 

Are these perps rational? Will more people carrying eliminate soft targets? Will a shooting be more or less chaotic with multiple people firing?

Will the alleged decrease in carnage be outweighed by the increase in people who are carrying when they are having a bad day, get angry, or otherwise have a lapse in self-control/judgement?

 

I actually have no idea how one debunks a lack of correlation. I'll assume since you've "debunked" this showing of no correlation, that you are asserting there is a correlation? That would be how a debunking would work here. Well then by all means proceed. Show us this correlation of which you speak.

Oh wait, you cite as an example -- ostensibly in support of your "argument" -- the District of Columbia, which has absurd gun regulations and a strong chance of catching a stray at any given time. Are you cognizant of how ridiculous this sounds on your part? On how there isn't even a proper word in the English language that accurately encapsulates the absurdity of your combined sentences. It's as if you're trying to "debunk" a study that male porn stars have above average size schlongs, and in support thereof, you point to Exhibit A....Mandingo. Like...did you realize his schlong was 13 inches? How would you have missed that tiny detail?

 

In a lot of these shootings, there is planning. Decrease the availability of targets, or the potential of failure before meeting their goal, or being wounded, and you will cut down on the number. These guys want to get in, do as much damage as possible, and eat their own bullet. Vast, vast majority.

You can't eliminate. You should know this by now. There are few if any absolutes. You greatly reduce the number, though.

As chaotic. How many shooters were reported during JFK's assassination? How many shooters at any media covered mass shooting? All gunfights are chaotic, period.

Ah, yes. The crucial argument. How many times have you punched or been punched by a co-worker at the office? Or seen it happen? Or been laid out by some guy in the meat section of the grocery store?

Odds are never, in all cases. Why do you think this changes, just because someone has the ability to have a gun? You aren't suddenly more violent. And yet even something like an office fist fight is rare. And the step between that and killing is not a short one.

 

You can throw around your vocabulary, but it doesn't change that your posts are of little substance. You're not even addressing what I said, merely lobbing random shots that are pitifully far from finding the mark. Yes, I referenced DC-- precisely for the reason you just laid out as some sort of ridicule for doing so. Did you even read my post?

 

Doesn't this conflict with most gun statistics? (it does)

 

If I'm not addressing your posts, it's because I stopped reading after you wrote something head-scratchingly ridiculous, and I did that because it was necessary to memorialize that you're either saying something completely absurd or you haven't advanced a point at all (and I thus have no idea what it is that you are attempting to communicate with your posts). A writer tends to lose credibility when the things that he writes fall under the above ambit. Or if he says that space and time are literally the same thing. Or both.

 

It doesn't, no.

 

[video=youtube;LORVfnFtcH0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0[/video]

 

More evidence that gun control laws are useless: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...01/the-costs-and-consequences-of-gun-control/

 

And neato technology won't help matters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/24/first-3-d-printed-revolver/

 

Kid, what is your explanation for why we're so much more violent than all other countries at our income level? Is it cultural? And if so, what is it about American culture that makes us more likely to off someone than, say, the British?

 

Larger number of inner city violence with more organized crime at that level. With all of that said I don't think we're that much more violent on average than other countries.