Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[overtone]

What metric are you using to reflect that Mexico and the United States are similar enough for a comparison?

How about whatever metric you guys are using to compare Japan and the US, or Singapore and the US. as "similar enough"? Or the countries of the world with each other. Or the States of the US with each other. As you are doing above, and as I have specifically noted is problematic. Try that one.

 

False aggregation, failure to consider known and confounding variables, is a indeed a mark against the validity of any conclusions drawn.

btw: Mexico was a rich country not too long ago -.richer than Canada, say. Still is, in a world comparison. When one reads the term "Colossus of the North" in Central American writings from the mid 20th Century, the term often refers to Mexico.

 

 

 

 

 

In Saudi Arabia woman still get stoned to death. In Mexico drug cartels behead people and toss them in mass graves. What does any of that have to do with gun violence statistics in the United States?

I'm not the one using the aggregate stats here, ok? You guys are. Inow is.

Meanwhile: Those two have quite a bit of potential relevance to the claim by the gun nuts that the right to keep and bear firearms acts a deterrent to such behavior by (as they label them) "tyrants". Right?

 

As does Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Indonesia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Cuba, Haiti, possibly the Philippines and Cambodia, it's really a very, very, long list you guys are not considering. And in that list let's include the US for the first 2/3 of the 20th century, why not - when a systematically disarmed black population faced the enforcement agents of the peculiar institutions of their towns and counties and cities and regions.

 

I've been pointing out for a while now, listing as well Indonesia, Mexico, and various Latin American and African populations as examples, that we have quite recent evidence for the risk of not possessing such deterrence. It's not ancient history, in the US.

 

That's why overlooking US racial correlations in these studies is so derelict - everything from lead exposure to child abuse to criminal involvement to particular gun type and management is correlated with race, in the US. Here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

 

The new research also suggests a paradox: While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).

 

 

 

Meanwhile, in the encore chorus of the always agreeable and moderator anointed good faith posters:

 

 

What specific changes to current gun laws and regulations would you support? Any?

Yet again? Look, last time I did this I got a moderator warning, but really: How about if I quote from a couple of earlier posts?

 

- not exhaustively, and not too far back, just a reminder of how many times this question has been answered by me right here in this thread:

 

#332 "Several well known possibilities: Revamp the nations drug laws. Spend the money and do the diligence to set up functional and rapid and free background checks at point of sale for all guns, sold anywhere. Establish specific and explicit description of "responsible" gun handling and storage, including penalties for accidental discharge regardless of harm done or circumstances, penalties for carrying a gun with a round in the chamber, trigger locks for handguns in dwellings with children, automatic charges for accidental killings by firearm regardless of "fault", that kind of thing. The stuff 80% of the NRA agrees is sound policy for gun owners."

 

#223 " So any time we want to, we can discard the overheated rhetoric and come to a perfectly reasonable consensus. But that means the threatening bs on both sides has to go - there is no moral high ground on top of bad stats, appeals to emotion, slander of reason, trashing of basic principles, and the like, regardless of the virtues of one's higher cause.

America is awash in firearms, and will be for our lifetimes barring tyranny. American society is comparatively violent on a personal level, and will be for our lifetimes barring tyranny. So an unusually high level of peacetime gun violence is within reason a permanent aspect of American life, barring tyranny. That's the bad news. The good news is that it's not that bad for most people, and it could get a lot better for everyone.

It could even get a lot better without addressing guns specifically - by addressing the drug laws, minimum sentencing, and economic oppression of racial minorities, say.

But it could also get better via legal backing and accountability behind the notion of a "responsible gun owner". And that is where the consensus is broadest, the meeting of minds easiest to achieve. Most people would agree, for example, that an armed man who starts a fight with an unarmed man is not exonerated by "self defense" if he shoots the guy because he is going to lose the fight. Carrying a gun carries extra responsibility for those starting fights, in the common and consensus view.

Edited September 6, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Yet again? Look, last time I did this I got a moderator warning, but really: How about if I quote from a couple of earlier posts?

 

 

You mean the last time you ignored a simple question and tried the hint method of communication?

[overtone]

You mean the last time you ignored a simple question and tried the hint method of communication?

Yep. Ignored it by quoting it, hinted by quoting multiple answers to it -including the post directly above it, on the questioner's screen while the question was being typed.

 

Y'know, I don't think you've even yet noticed what was being hinted at, or figured out whom I was communicating with (if anyone).

Edited September 6, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

Y'know, I don't think you've even yet noticed what was being hinted at, or figured out whom I was communicating with (if anyone).

 

 

Y'know. I think you're right...

[overtone]

Not that it's likely to be extricated from the goo at this stage, but my thesis is collecting support by the shovelful in all this: the gun control issue in the US is being politically jammed by extremism and irrationality on "both sides". This situation, a talking point and canard of the wingnut Right in the US in most circumstances (especially since they developed a strong need to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of their votes and advocacy and influence since 1980), is exceptional, almost unique, but no less damaging for that.

 

btw: Continuing in Latin America:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579495863883782316

Notice that gun prevalence doesn’t seem to explain much of the pattern.

Notice their invocation of organized crime. That’s generally missing, as a specific factor, from the US discussion - and offers possibilities for reducing gun violence in the US.

https://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/5280/Violence%20in%20Latin%20America%20and%20the%20Caribbean:%20A%20Framework%20for%20Action.pdf?sequence=1

Notice their invocation of income inequality, and child raising custom. Those are factors strikingly absent from the general US discussion, despite obvious apparent correlations in naive observation.

[MigL]

Never thought I'd say this, but Overtone seems to be the only one making a sensible argument here.

The rest of you are only attacking him and accusing him of being a 'fence-sitter', when he has clearly spelled out his position and various proposals; and then patting each other on the back by +1ing yourselves and -1ing him.

 

iNow, maybe if you actually read other people's posts you'd know if you've previously disproven their claims.

 

Let's simplify ( I didn't like your condescending attitude either ).

 

I didn't mention Switzerland, Japan, China or any other place when I said that population density correlates more closely with gun fatalities than gun prevalence does. I mentioned Overtone's example of Minnesota.

Give me the statistics that disprove that !

Or are you finally going to start making arguments honestly, without taking quotes out of context ?

[iNow]

Overtone said Australia was the only other model mentioned. That was wrong.

[MigL]

Again, Read people's posts before you answer them !

 

I was referring to my post #467 where I stated that in Overtone's example of Minnesota, gun fatalities are more closely correlated to population density. And your dismissive answer in post #468 was that you'd already 'corrected' me several times on that matter.

 

I guess Overtone is right again, some of you guys seem to have a comprehension problem ( or is it intentional to simply ignore facts that don't fit your worldview ? ).

Edited September 6, 2015 by MigL

[MonDie]

How about whatever metric you guys are using to compare Japan and the US, or Singapore and the US. as "similar enough"? Or the countries of the world with each other. Or the States of the US with each other. As you are doing above, and as I have specifically noted is problematic. Try that one.

 

False aggregation, failure to consider known and confounding variables, is a indeed a mark against the validity of any conclusions drawn.

Failing to control for the gun prevalence, demographics, and such known factors as drug wars and lead exposure, in the actual area and population of the homicide, leads to confusion and possible large error. Aggregating by State is a blunder, in that respect. So is failing to consider drug law enforcement patterns, racial segregation history, etc.

Overtone, the researchers did their best to control for known confounding variables.

 

"Our study extends previous work by using recent data, looking across both regions and all 50 states, disaggregating victims by age, and adjusting for potential confounders, including poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery."

You have a point since the distribution of gun toting states isn't hetergeneous. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/119908408802266349

As the map shows, although there are 10 states with 50%+ gun ownership rates, they cluster together into 4 regions (if you count Alaska). The lowest states are somewhat more dispersed. Regardless, there could be other relevant variables that would remain linked to gun ownership even in a heterogeneous sample, for example political leaning. With all that said, this may be the best data available, so we should use it.

 

When all that has been settled, it's time to look at the direction of argument: one might reasonably postulate that a high rate of violence and risk in an area might well lead to an increase in gun prevalence, rather than (or as much as) the other way around. Not impossible, eh?

The discussion section acknowledges that the study doesn't address causation, and it poses the very same hypothesis. What stood out to me is that gun toting states had higher gun-related and non-gun-related homicides, although the former link was much stronger.

 

---

 

I read the research, and Table 3 is the most interesting. They compare the 6 highest states with the 4 lowest states in gun ownership rates. note: The FS/S is a validated proxy for gun ownership that uses the fraction of suicides committed with guns. The gun-high and gun-low states had

53% vs 13% guns-per-household (4:1)

76% vs 33% on the FS/S* (2.3:1)

21,148 vs 7266 homicides (3:1)

15,283 vs 3,668 gun-related homicides (4:1)

5,865 vs 3,598 non-gun-related homicides (1.6:1)

Here's the link once more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/?report=classic

I was referring to my post #467 where I stated that in Overtone's example of Minnesota, gun fatalities are more closely correlated to population density. And your dismissive answer in post #468 was that you'd already 'corrected' me several times on that matter.

 

If Overtone provided data, then we could discuss his population density argument. I'm not wasting breath on qualitative hearsay.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MonDie

[overtone]

Overtone said Australia was the only other model mentioned. That was wrong.

The only model of a significant reduction in gun prevalency mentioned so far. To correct me, mention another.

 

 

 

 

Overtone, the researchers did their best to control for known confounding variables.

Well their best wasn't very good, and their study does not reliably inform the discussion here. They did not even control for race, let alone lead exposure or organized crime or drug fads or income inequality or population mobility - in the US, a world center of racial violence involving guns for 300 years and counting.

 

They aggregated by State.

 

C'mon. Compared with Vermont, Texas has triple the proportion of nonwhite residents and a far more serious history of racial hostility, six concentrated cities with more people in them than the entire State, a 30% higher transiency rate, much higher rates of lead and other debilitating childhood exposure, a far more serious organized crime problem, a significantly higher level of income inequality, and so forth and so on. What do you think anyone can learn by comparing homicide rates and gun prevalency aggregated at the State level, between those two States?

 

You would learn more on that topic by comparing Texas overall with an aggregation of a few of its own whiter, cleaner, safer, more income homogenous, more stable, rural/suburban counties added up to be about half a million people. At least that would reduce the confounding cultural stuff.

Edited September 7, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

They did control for poverty, which may ultimately be more to the point than controlling for ethnicity.

"percentage of the population who live in poverty (as defined by the poverty index developed by the Social Security Administration in 1961 and revised by the Federal Interagency Committees in 1980, with thresholds updated yearly to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index)"

Show me evidence that lead exposure etc makes people violent.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MonDie

[iNow]

The only model of a significant reduction in gun prevalency mentioned so far. To correct me, mention another.

When did the goalposts get moved from discussing smart regulations to discussing reductions in gun prevalence? In context of the former, Switzerland and Canada offer useful examples, as does Japan specifically in terms of safe storage.

.

Well their best wasn't very good, and their study does not reliably inform the discussion here.

Says the man who has yet to put forth a single piece of evidence in support of his points.

[overtone]

When did the goalposts get moved from discussing smart regulations to discussing reductions in gun prevalence?

Here's the post, quote and response. Note the topic addressed:

 

> > > It would take a fool to argue that increasing the prevalence of an object would result in a decrease in the effect of that object

The argument at issue concerns decreasing the prevalence of an already present object. And it carefully avoids the question of how that is to be accomplished - the only model mentioned so far is Australia, where firearms were confiscated in large numbers and great benefit in mass shooting prevalence gained thereby - but essentially no visible effect on homicide rates, - - - < < < <

 

Note that the "argument at issue" specifically addressed "concerns" the following: decreasing the prevalence of an already present object. The actual accomplishment of that. There has been one thread example of the actual accomplishment of that with respect to guns, Australia, and as I noted it presents problems for US gun control advocates.

 

Is more explanation necessary? Still confused? Ok:

 

That is, I begin by noting that the mechanics of prevalence reduction in the case of US guns being the objects - the thread focus - have not been clearly addressed. This is so: actually reducing the prevalence of guns in the US, rather than regulating the terms of their presence, has been kind of slid past in a lot of posts. Apparently a lot of "self-deportation" for unspecified reasons is being assumed, or something. And this is a significant aspect of a thread in which gun violence is so often held to ride primarily on gun prevalence, and reducing gun violence (especially toward children) is the overall goal.

 

In the language of the ever so respectable and always in good faith posting crowd, I am pointing to a goal post planted by others early in this thread, looming over the field, and never moved an inch. If you regard gun prevalence as the key variable in gun violence, and gun violence as the crisis described, then - - -

 

 

Says the man who has yet to put forth a single piece of evidence in support of his points.

Except for the various links, quotes from other people's links and posts, observations of common reality and so forth , littering my posts throughout. Odd they are invisible.

Edited September 7, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

If you regard gun prevalence as the key variable in gun violence, and gun violence as the crisis described, then - - -

Of course gun prevalence is relevant. The data there is clear, but I haven't argued that we must confiscate them and yet your post against this position was directed to me. This misinterpretation is only exemplified and further magnified given the fact that you had to use a quote from someone else to demonstrate your point instead of a quote from me. Perhaps if you learned to use the quote feature these sorts of remedial communication mishaps would be less...prevalent.

[Ten oz]

The prevalence of smoking cigarettes has been declining for decades. The govt investing in real research and education rather than kneeling to big tobacco lobbies has driven use down. There was not a door to door confiscation and people were not denied the opportunity to purchase and smoke cigarettes.

 

[overtone]

They did control for poverty, which may ultimately be more to the point than controlling for ethnicity.

I posted two studies more or less - if the crime and population and so forth hadn't already taken care of that - directly contradicting that in the State of Minnesota and the continent of South America,

 

They controlled for poverty by State, which confuses rather than explicating the matter of poverty, etc. They did not control for income inequality, which seems to be far more significant than absolute poverty. They did not control for the difference between moderate poverty and poverty severe enough to be a barrier to gun purchase and ownership. And so forth.

 

Seriously - no conclusions relevant to the US about either the effects or the causes of gun prevalence can be drawn from that study.

 

 

 

The prevalence of smoking cigarettes has been declining for decades.

The prevalence of cigarettes themselves has been reduced only by their owners setting fire to them and then not replacing them, throwing them in the garbage, etc.

 

Are you anticipating something like that significantly affecting the prevalence of guns in the US?

 

 

 

Of course gun prevalence is relevant. The data there is clear, -

The lack of clarity, or even relevance, in that data is one of the discussion topics. If you have a case for defending its clarity and implications, best make it - it's long over due.

 

 

 

but I haven't argued that we must confiscate them and yet your post against this position was directed to me

You, among many others, have argued that gun prevalence is a key and primary factor in causing gun violence of all kinds. You have also argued for gun controls, mostly in the abstract (not as specific as mine), in order to reduce gun violence of all kinds.

 

If you are planning to reduce gun violence significantly without reducing gun prevalence significantly, the emphasis on prevalence seems misplaced as well as confused. If you are planning to reduce gun prevalence significantly in the US, what is your anticipated mechanism? You have handed us one example of such reduction in comparable circumstances - Australia - with approval, as an example of a country that manages its guns better than the US.

Edited September 7, 2015 by overtone

[Willie71]

They did control for poverty, which may ultimately be more to the point than controlling for ethnicity.

"percentage of the population who live in poverty (as defined by the poverty index developed by the Social Security Administration in 1961 and revised by the Federal Interagency Committees in 1980, with thresholds updated yearly to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index)"

Show me evidence that lead exposure etc makes people violent.

It's not well known in a lit of circles, but this has been a revolution in forensic circles.

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/may08/w13097.html

 

I was skeptical at first, but it's pretty robust.

[MonDie]

It's not well known in a lit of circles, but this has been a revolution in forensic circles.

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/may08/w13097.html

 

I was skeptical at first, but it's pretty robust.

How convenient.

 

"Lead exposure does not appear to affect the murder rate though, a result the author finds not entirely surprising given that her analysis omitted the effects of gangs and crack and that it is possible that only substantial exposure to lead would lead to an extreme outcome like murder." - the NBER

 

Gotta love that evidence.

[Willie71]

How convenient.

"Lead exposure does not appear to affect the murder rate though, a result the author finds not entirely surprising given that her analysis omitted the effects of gangs and crack and that it is possible that only substantial exposure to lead would lead to an extreme outcome like murder." - the NBER

Gotta love that evidence.

There is some evidence in the literature. Mother Jones did a piece on it a while back.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

 

I may have picked a poor example from numerous studies available to pick.

[MonDie]

There is some evidence in the literature. Mother Jones did a piece on it a while back.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

 

I may have picked a poor example from numerous studies available to pick.

Alright alright, but do state-by-state lead emissions correlate with gun ownership rates?

State by state gun data is easy to come by. I can do the calculation for Pearson's r. Just need Reyes' state by state lead data.

Edited September 7, 2015 by MonDie

[Willie71]

Alright alright, but do state-by-state lead emissions correlate with gun ownership rates?State by state gun data is easy to come by. I can do the calculation for Pearson's r. Just need Reyes' state by state lead data.

State by state, and country by country, as well as city by city violence correlates with lead exposure. Like I said, I thought it was BS at first, but this is the most robust correlation/causation with violence there is, outside of direct exposure to violence within the family. It's the strongest societal correlation. Interestingly, many of the slum areas still have lead based paints on the walls. I would like to see if that gets researched.

[iNow]

Seriously - no conclusions relevant to the US about either the effects or the causes of gun prevalence can be drawn from that study.

Ignoring all of the studies for a moment, can you please clarify whether or not you think the rate of gun homicide is independent of gun prevalence? If there were zero guns, do you believe the gun homicide rate would be equivalent to an environment where there were instead three guns per capita?

 

You, among many others, have argued that gun prevalence is a key and primary factor in causing gun violence of all kinds.

Whether or not it's key and primary, it seems self-evident that prevalence is A factor. Do you disagree?

 

You have also argued for gun controls, mostly in the abstract (not as specific as mine), in order to reduce gun violence of all kinds.

Yes, there are many things we could do better in terms of regulations beyond mere reductions in prevalence, though a reduction in prevalence would certainly also help. Australia took one path. Other nations took other paths. We can learn from their experience and pick and choose for ourselves which to borrow and which to ignore here in the U.S. I'm open to specifying and exploring these.

 

A clear obstacle here, however, is how for so many participants on this topic ANY mention of ANY regulation is immediately treated as a nonstarter, met with endless obfuscation and perpetual nit-picking, continued focus on furthering division and avoidance of common ground, and IMO misguided arguments regarding our second amendment (which until very recently enjoyed majority agreement that regulations of the type under consideration were not prohibited).

 

I believe you agree on much of this. I believe you support smart regulations if they're clearly defined and implemented well following appropriate processes and protocols that respect individual liberties. I believe you see room for improvement and that we could be allies on this (what I deem to be a) just cause. I apologize if I'm mistaken and I stipulate that I do sometimes struggle to understand your actual stance given your style of writing.

 

I readily concede that I don't have all the answers. I unhesitantly submit that I'm looking for others with whom to share ideas that might improve the current status quo. I openly acknowledge that this discussion is primarily academic, but let's be clear... The problem is real, the U.S. is an outlier, and allowing the current situation to persist unaddressed seems to me foolhardy, myopic, and frankly immoral.

Edited September 8, 2015 by iNow

[MonDie]

State by state, and country by country, as well as city by city violence correlates with lead exposure. Like I said, I thought it was BS at first, but this is the most robust correlation/causation with violence there is, outside of direct exposure to violence within the family. It's the strongest societal correlation. Interestingly, many of the slum areas still have lead based paints on the walls. I would like to see if that gets researched.

 

You're right, and thus any correlation between gun rates and lead will probably be positive. If no correlation, however, then lead's not a confounding variable. If they're negatively linked, then the study may under-estimate the potential effect of guns on homicide rates.

[overtone]

 

 

Ignoring all of the studies for a moment, can you please clarify whether or not you think the rate of gun homicide is independent of gun prevalence?

Of course it isn't. People buy guns for the express purpose of committing homicide, after all, and if there is no gun then no gun homicide is possible, and so forth.

 

But that doesn't mean any change in gun prevalence in any situation will have any significant effect on homicide - cutting the current flood prevalence of guns in the US by a third overall and in general, for example, is not in my opinion likely to help much. I suspect the guns most likely to be used in homicides will prove the most difficult to reduce in prevalence, and that they are such a small percentage of the total prevalence that their retention would be lost in the noise.

 

And it doesn't obviate the threat of prevalence reduction as an intermediary goal in the US: how do advocates of serious prevalence reduction actually plan to accomplish it? They use Australia as a recommended example, and that is a threat in the US. They use car regulation and usage curbs as examples, and that is a threat in the US. They advocate prevalence reduction while pushing for gun registration, and that is a threat in the US.

 

So I'm wondering why it keeps coming up with such urgency and insistence and so little care or prudence - why bs statistics are continually invoked in support of bad arguments on the topic of gun prevalence, why such a complex and culture dependent correlation of so little immediate significance is continually brought front and center in ways that jam the discussion.

 

 

 

Alright alright, but do state-by-state lead emissions correlate with gun ownership rates?

All aggregation by State in these matters invalidates any conclusions.

 

 

You're right, and thus any correlation between gun rates and lead will probably be positive. If no correlation, however, then lead's not a confounding variable.

What's a "gun rate"?

 

One can observe that lead exposure is negatively correlated with gun prevalence aggregated by sociological race in the US (more lead, fewer guns, in black communities).

[dimreepr]

Of course it isn't. People buy guns for the express purpose of committing homicide, after all, and if there is no gun then no gun homicide is possible, and so forth.

 

But that doesn't mean any change in gun prevalence in any situation will have any significant effect on homicide - cutting the current flood prevalence of guns in the US by a third overall and in general, for example, is not in my opinion likely to help much. I suspect the guns most likely to be used in homicides will prove the most difficult to reduce in prevalence, and that they are such a small percentage of the total prevalence that their retention would be lost in the noise.

 

And it doesn't obviate the threat of prevalence reduction as an intermediary goal in the US: how do advocates of serious prevalence reduction actually plan to accomplish it? They use Australia as a recommended example, and that is a threat in the US. They use car regulation and usage curbs as examples, and that is a threat in the US. They advocate prevalence reduction while pushing for gun registration, and that is a threat in the US.

 

So I'm wondering why it keeps coming up with such urgency and insistence and so little care or prudence - why bs statistics are continually invoked in support of bad arguments on the topic of gun prevalence, why such a complex and culture dependent correlation of so little immediate significance is continually brought front and center in ways that jam the discussion.

 

 

 

All aggregation by State in these matters invalidates any conclusions.

 

 

What's a "gun rate"?

 

One can observe that lead exposure is negatively correlated with gun prevalence aggregated by sociological race in the US (more lead, fewer guns, in black communities).

 

 

 

At the risk of looking profoundly stupid, I’ll ask one last time, do you support the status quo or some form of gun control (I haven't read this post BTW it just didn't seem worth the effort)?