Las Vegas shooting thread moved to polyass

[neufox47]

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/18/246023...its-usefulness

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=96409853

These were the debates among the best experts both sides had to offer. The pro gun crowd was trounced and their data was refuted and explained.

[Art Shirk]

I'm unsure what there is to argue over. Can't we all agree that regardless of all the other causes of death and pain, and regardless of data indicating a decline in gun-related death, that living in a society where some dude totes an arsenal of military grade shit into a hotel and mercilessly rains hot murder on a huge crowd of innocent people, is something that we should find unacceptable - like, just fucking mindblowingly ridiculous. And if we find it unacceptable, why can't we take new action. And in taking new action, why don't we look at the cause. And if we look at the cause and you are commonly on the left and you attribute it to a tool, or if you are commonly on the right, and you attribute it to the person or mental health, can't we all agree that we should attack both "motive" and access? And if motive requires us to take a hard look at healthcare, how can we hold the belief that it is a right to own a gun, but it is a mere privilege to be treated once you become a victim of one. And if access is even one factor, regardless of how minute, wouldn't better regulating it provide better chances to reduce the frequency of unacceptable events.

[Mofro261]

Beer Drinker provided evidence. I'd be interested in some contrary evidence that supports a different conclusion.

Here you go-

Am J Public Health. 2013 Nov;103(11):2098-105. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409. Epub 2013 Sep 12.
The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010.

OBJECTIVES:

We examined the relationship between levels of household firearm ownership, as measured directly and by a proxy-the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm-and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates at the state level.
METHODS:

We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.
RESULTS:

Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
CONCLUSIONS:

We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

and here-

Am J Public Health. 2015 Oct;105(10):2042-8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749. Epub 2015 Aug 13.

Firearm Prevalence and Homicides of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States.

Swedler DI1, Simmons MM1, Dominici F1, Hemenway D1.

OBJECTIVES:
In the United States, state firearm ownership has been correlated with homicide rates. More than 90% of homicides of law enforcement officers (LEOs) are committed with firearms. We examined the relationship between state firearm ownership rates and LEO occupational homicide rates.
METHODS:
We obtained the number LEOs killed from 1996 to 2010 from a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) database. We calculated homicide rates per state as the number of officers killed per number of LEOs per state, obtained from another FBI database. We obtained the mean household firearm ownership for each state from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
RESULTS:
Using Poisson regression and controlling for factors known to affect homicide rates, we associated firearm ownership with the homicide rates for LEOs (incidence rate ratio = 1.044; P = .005); our results were supported by cross-sectional and longitudinal sensitivity analyses. LEO homicide rates were 3 times higher in states with high firearm ownership compared with states with low firearm ownership.
CONCLUSIONS:
High public gun ownership is a risk for occupational mortality for LEOs in the United States. States could consider methods for reducing firearm ownership as a way to reduce occupational deaths of LEOs.

and here-

Inj Prev. 2014 Dec;20(6):424-6. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2014-041187. Epub 2014 Apr 16

Examining the relationship between the prevalence of guns and homicide rates in the USA using a new and improved state-level gun ownership proxy.

Siegel M1, Ross CS2, King C3.


Determining the relationship between gun ownership levels and firearm homicide rates is critical to inform public health policy. Previous research has shown that state-level gun ownership, as measured by a widely used proxy, is positively associated with firearm homicide rates. A newly developed proxy measure that incorporates the hunting license rate in addition to the proportion of firearm suicides correlates more highly with state-level gun ownership. To corroborate previous research, we used this new proxy to estimate the association of state-level gun ownership with total, firearm, and non-firearm homicides. Using state-specific data for the years 1981-2010, we modelled these rates as a function of gun ownership level, controlling for potential confounding factors. We used a negative binomial regression model and accounted for clustering of observations among states. We found that state-level gun ownership as measured by the new proxy, is significantly associated with firearm and total homicides but not with non-firearm homicides.

and....

[muted]

Beer Drinker provided evidence. I'd be interested in some contrary evidence that supports a different conclusion.

Can you quote which post that he did? No way I'm going back and reading all his posts to find it, that would be painful.

[Bobby Stainless]

"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."



Do places in Florida see more deaths by drowning in pools, than Alaska?

[GiBo]

I'm unsure what there is to argue over. Can't we all agree that regardless of all the other causes of death and pain, and regardless of data indicating a decline in gun-related death, that living in a society where some dude totes an arsenal of military grade shit into a hotel and mercilessly rains hot murder on a huge crowd of innocent people, is something that we should find unacceptable - like, just fucking mindblowingly ridiculous. And if we find it unacceptable, why can't we take new action. And in taking new action, why don't we look at the cause. And if we look at the cause and you are commonly on the left and you attribute it to a tool, or if you are commonly on the right, and you attribute it to the person or mental health, can't we all agree that we should attack both "motive" and access? And if motive requires us to take a hard look at healthcare, how can we hold the belief that it is a right to own a gun, but it is a mere privilege to be treated once you become a victim of one. And if access is even one factor, regardless of how minute, wouldn't better regulating it provide better chances to reduce the frequency of unacceptable events.

Thank you.

[Mofro261]

"We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."



Do places in Florida see more deaths by drowning in pools, than Alaska?

so you are changing your position that more guns do not equal more gun deaths?

[Bobby Stainless]

And if access is even one factor, regardless of how minute, wouldn't better regulating it provide better chances to reduce the frequency of unacceptable events.

Once you start round up people's rights, for the good of everyone, you have to do better than a nice paragraph.

[Bobby Stainless]

so you are changing your position that more guns do not equal more gun deaths?

350 Million guns in the US now, there will be gun deaths. That is not the issue, and that study is common sense.

Just like more people drown in pools in Florida, than they do Alaska.

The issue is, why has gun ownership gone up, and violent crime has gone down?

Apparently it was the gas we use.

[Game Over]

I thought his point was gun deaths down while gun #s and population is way up

[MultiVerse]

The issue is, why has gun ownership gone up, and violent crime has gone down?

Apparently it was the gas we use.

Agreed. Maybe they are two separate issues:

Why has gun ownership gone up? good question

Why has violent crime has gone down? lead abatement

[digitaldeath]

so you are changing your position that more guns do not equal more gun deaths?

just an inquiring mind ...

[digitaldeath]

violent crime has dropped because the standard of living has risen

crime is directly linked to poverty


this isnt new

[Game Over]

violent crime has dropped because the standard of living has risen

crime is directly linked to poverty


this isnt new

This. There is a reason that countries with the highest homicide rate are the poorest

[Mofro261]

Agreed. Maybe they are two separate issues:

Why has gun ownership gone up? good question

Why has violent crime has gone down? lead abatement

But here's the thing. Gun ownership as a percentage of US residents is NOT up. It's been falling since the early 90's at least.



What is way up is the AVERAGE number of guns owned by registered owners.

[digitaldeath]

No, the issue is that guns are easy to acquire and continue to be used in the commission of homicide. That the proportion of guns in society that are used to kill is going down is irrelevant. That the population is going up (guns and/or people) is irrelevant. That there continues to be blood on the street is relevant.
I can't be bothered to look it up but there is a study that gun owners are more likely to die from gun violence ... it becomes a self-perpetuating death cycle.

legit reason why cops are scared

yet they decided they wanted to play with guns

so they may get shot

[Grape_Ape]

I'm unsure what there is to argue over. Can't we all agree that regardless of all the other causes of death and pain, and regardless of data indicating a decline in gun-related death, that living in a society where some dude totes an arsenal of military grade shit into a hotel and mercilessly rains hot murder on a huge crowd of innocent people, is something that we should find unacceptable - like, just fucking mindblowingly ridiculous.

This is obvious to most with working grey matter, but beer drinker is evidently fine with what happened (and has said so implicitly and somewhat explicitly in this thread) because in his mind, gun violence has gone down on average in the past few decades (a point which is debated and widely refuted).

Just look at the BS being spouted by faux news on these very topics:


i.e. instead of regulating guns or providing more and better access to HC, we need to increase security at hotels??? WTF

[54-46]

This is obvious to most with working grey matter, but beer drinker is evidently fine with what happened (and has said so implicitly and somewhat explicitly in this thread) because in his mind, gun violence has gone down on average in the past few decades (a point which is debated and widely refuted).

Just look at the BS being spouted by faux news on these very topics:


i.e. instead of regulating guns or providing more and better access to HC, we need to increase security at hotels??? WTF

And schools. Don't forget to have more people with guns at schools to prevent another Newtown.

[basinbeater]

I'm unsure what there is to argue over. Can't we all agree that regardless of all the other causes of death and pain, and regardless of data indicating a decline in gun-related death, that living in a society where some dude totes an arsenal of military grade shit into a hotel and mercilessly rains hot murder on a huge crowd of innocent people, is something that we should find unacceptable

I agree with you. But there are lots of people who do find it completely acceptable. They won't admit it, and you can hear them stumble around in the argument, but this morning, Chris Buskirk, publisher of American Greatness, and member of the NRA said this... (and I am including the interviewer question for context):
MARTIN: Which is why the left would point to the guns and say if you can't control the evil of the person, can you not control their access to the weapon?

BUSKIRK: I think as a practical matter the answer is you can't and the bad that you do as a result of trying to restrict access to somebody like the man in Las Vegas is outweighed by the people who, you know, the weak can't defend themselves against the strong if they don't have access to a weapon that will protect them or that they can use to protect themselves. And so you wind up in this situation where, you know, is the - this proposed solution actually worse than the problem?

This is a standard conservative political response, and it boils down to, this is an acceptable outcome for me, because I want continued unfettered access to guns.

The question you have to ask yourself is, do you find it acceptable? If the answer is no, we know how to fix it. Don't pretend that we don't. Acknowledge that we won't.

And if you need to hear what Paul Ryan has to say about it so you can really shake your head, he said this...
PAUL RYAN: We cannot let the actions of a single person define us as a country. It's not who we are. Instead, what truly defines us are the acts of heroism we witness after the tragedy.

So again, nothing we can do. We define ourselves after the tragedy. Never mind stopping it. Is that acceptable to you?

[Game Over]

because in his mind, gun violence has gone down on average in the past few decades (a point which is debated and widely refuted).

Regardless of ones stance on this issue this ^^^^ is a fact and not refuted anywhere.

Gun violence in the US has gone down over the past few decades. Like climate change this is a fact and not debatable.

[basinbeater]

Regardless of ones stance on this issue this ^^^^ is a fact and not refuted anywhere.

Gun violence in the US has gone down over the past few decades. Like climate change this is a fact and not debatable.

I agree, gun violence has gone down over the past few decades. Does that make the 30000 people killed by guns OK then? Are you satisfied with how things are right now, and this sort of thing is acceptable? - Yes or No question...

If you answered no, how would you change it?

[Buster Highmen]

350 Million guns in the US now, there will be gun deaths. That is not the issue, and that study is common sense.

Just like more people drown in pools in Florida, than they do Alaska.

The issue is, why has gun ownership gone up, and violent crime has gone down?

Apparently it was the gas we use.

This guy can continue to point out the little sparkly candy wrapper twinkling in the sea of shit that is 25 times the average rate of gun related deaths in civilized counties.

But it's still a sea of shit.

The twinkly wrapper is irrelevant when it comes to the overall stats on gun deaths. Aside from that it's spewing guttersuck on the lives of people who just died.

[jackstraw]

I'm unsure what there is to argue over. Can't we all agree that regardless of all the other causes of death and pain, and regardless of data indicating a decline in gun-related death, that living in a society where some dude totes an arsenal of military grade shit into a hotel and mercilessly rains hot murder on a huge crowd of innocent people, is something that we should find unacceptable - like, just fucking mindblowingly ridiculous. And if we find it unacceptable, why can't we take new action. And in taking new action, why don't we look at the cause. And if we look at the cause and you are commonly on the left and you attribute it to a tool, or if you are commonly on the right, and you attribute it to the person or mental health, can't we all agree that we should attack both "motive" and access? And if motive requires us to take a hard look at healthcare, how can we hold the belief that it is a right to own a gun, but it is a mere privilege to be treated once you become a victim of one. And if access is even one factor, regardless of how minute, wouldn't better regulating it provide better chances to reduce the frequency of unacceptable events.

Stop making sense

Regardless of ones stance on this issue this ^^^^ is a fact and not refuted anywhere.

Gun violence in the US has gone down over the past few decades. Like climate change this is a fact and not debatable.

So you're happy. It's down. Still wicked fucking high, but hey it's down. We're all good here. Moving on...

[Bobby Stainless]

I'm not ok with people committing suicide, but it happens. It's extremely easy with a gun, but so is let you car run in a garage and going to sleep. I feel 95% of those will find a way.

That's 2/3 of the gun deaths. Self inflicted.

[Bobby Stainless]

Banning bump stocks would be a start

Absolutely. I always thought those were a novelty until this. I never thought they actually worked.

I don't see a need for the Surefire 80 round mags, or beta c mags, either. Which usually don't cycle very well.