General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

159. It's silly to claim we've "never seen it work".

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 09:01 AM

Sep 2013

At best, you can claim that it's difficult to determine what the exact effects are of specific gun control laws because there is no environment in which to perform controlled experiments. That's a far cry from "it doesn't work". The fact of the matter is across states, there is less gun violence where there is tighter gun control, and the same holds internationally.

We also know that guns used in crimes originate more frequently from states with weaker gun laws, indicating that gun laws are effective in making it more difficult for criminals to get them. We know that when Virginia passed it's "one gun a month law" fewer guns from Virginia showed up in crimes in places like New York. The closest I've seen to a "natural experiment" is a study in Hawaii which documented a drop in gun ownership and also homicide following a tightening of gun laws.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/UCLF-HawaiianExperience-2005

The inability to perform experiments is common to all social sciences. No branch of public policy has hard-science quality evidence. The evidence for gun control is at least as compelling as it is in areas like healthcare or economic policy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

173 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder [View all] n2doc Sep 2013 OP

Prepare to be swarmed by DU gun nuts. Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #1

They're beginning to arrive billh58 Sep 2013 #21

I like that. Because FREEDOM! Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #27

Short busses with gun racks are the in thing now. TheCowsCameHome Sep 2013 #28

Hey billh58: From the report: "No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist" NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #58

It makes no sense that they can accurately claim this without that data. nt Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #68

Bullshit. enki23 Sep 2013 #107

I am not saying it is not true. There are a huge number of suicides with fire arms Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #120

They use fraction of suicides with guns as a proxy variable. DanTex Sep 2013 #130

Of course you are right. To conclude otherwise is just insane. But many of our DU friends will Squinch Sep 2013 #151

It'll be interesting. This isn't the first study with similar findings. DanTex Sep 2013 #26

It's fun to preemptively attack people... Bay Boy Sep 2013 #32

they are predictable Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #35

I might conduct a study on the incidence of the use of juvenile epithets in RKBA discussions... NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #59

It's SOP for controller banners: When debate is joined, they call it "predictable" Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #163

That's okay. rrneck Sep 2013 #166

Considering no one has actually read the report hack89 Sep 2013 #54

File. This. Under. Duh. onehandle Sep 2013 #2

Forward this to the Gungeon TheCowsCameHome Sep 2013 #3

Did you alert? NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #57

No, I didn't alert. TheCowsCameHome Sep 2013 #60

I guess that's one of the reasons that Skinner always kept guns out of GD. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #61

Skinner is wise beyond his years, TheCowsCameHome Sep 2013 #63

Just an FYI nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #70

well gee no sh** Skittles Sep 2013 #4

But, but, but...second amendment...but, but, but...freedom... joeybee12 Sep 2013 #5

Post removed Post removed Sep 2013 #6

Planned Parenthood "kills more kids every year" than guns? Oh. uppityperson Sep 2013 #7

That's a tell. pintobean Sep 2013 #10

Indeed. I am surprised they left out "hammers", but adding PP in there is very much a tell. uppityperson Sep 2013 #11

Half hour at the most. pintobean Sep 2013 #12

And whoosh. Thanks jurors. uppityperson Sep 2013 #17

It was close: 4-2. Warren Stupidity Sep 2013 #44

Juror #4 needs to think again. Thanks for the results. uppityperson Sep 2013 #45

well, well, look at who is a strange bedfellow of gun rights... CTyankee Sep 2013 #38

This is not a competition. If we can reduce all A B C D sources, why not do it. Non-sequitur. nt thereismore Sep 2013 #9

I don't think this post will last. n/t Jazzgirl Sep 2013 #14

Enjoy your brief stay. progressoid Sep 2013 #15

Hmmm Lee-Lee Sep 2013 #8

Not so familiar with criminological literature on gun violence, I see. DanTex Sep 2013 #24

"broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic" hack89 Sep 2013 #13

Imagine if we concentrated on that alone with 110% of our efforts. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #18

Culture wars are more fun I suspect. nt hack89 Sep 2013 #19

The Liberal/Progressive movement, of which this website is a participant, has been doing that for CTyankee Sep 2013 #36

Just a moment, CTyankee. Here is what I wrote: NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #39

I have been in this movement going back to the Vietnam Era and gun safety was an issue then CTyankee Sep 2013 #42

I wish I could read about more laws and more people in support of expanded gun safety courses. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #43

see my edit above for a little more of my own personal and professional involvement with the issue.. CTyankee Sep 2013 #46

You have a rich history of public service. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #51

back in that day, handguns were the big issue. The Second A was still in its pre-Heller CTyankee Sep 2013 #52

This "intense debate" has been going on for 40 years. MicaelS Sep 2013 #172

"one large movement that took shape because of MLK, Jr. and civil rights" Kolesar Sep 2013 #77

I took a long walk down Memory Lane with that one...I haven't revisited it in years... CTyankee Sep 2013 #79

Doh, forgot to include a link. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #41

So do I nt Mojorabbit Sep 2013 #133

Found the first error hack89 Sep 2013 #16

I have never seen a study cited on this board, or anywhere, that didn't contain lies and deception. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #20

What "lies and deception" can you find in these studies, for example? DanTex Sep 2013 #33

I'm sorry I missed your reply earlier. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #72

What I find most troubling is your general attitude toward science. DanTex Sep 2013 #74

Let's say we take all of this as valid science, then. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #87

That's another discussion. DanTex Sep 2013 #88

The "noise to signal ratio" is why these topics used to be kept in the gungeon. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #89

Fair enough. DanTex Sep 2013 #90

And yet no one has actually read the study, have they? hack89 Sep 2013 #97

I think you and the other gungeoneers should probably read it before DanTex Sep 2013 #132

I have no problem with the basic premise of the report hack89 Sep 2013 #135

Then why all the complaining? DanTex Sep 2013 #136

What complaining? hack89 Sep 2013 #137

About how the paper is behind a paywall. DanTex Sep 2013 #138

So you admit that no one here has actually read the study? hack89 Sep 2013 #139

I never claimed I did. What's your point? DanTex Sep 2013 #142

I was referring to all the other happy dancers. hack89 Sep 2013 #143

If I were you, I'd forward your find to the BU professor. I'm sure he can issue a corrigendum CTyankee Sep 2013 #37

Have you been able to download the actual study? hack89 Sep 2013 #93

No, I have not, but if you wanted to, you could contact the prof and ask to see it.... CTyankee Sep 2013 #113

Don't you think you should actually read the study first? hack89 Sep 2013 #118

I don't have sufficient reason to believe what the author says is invalid. CTyankee Sep 2013 #121

There many using this study to attack gun owners. hack89 Sep 2013 #127

but we know what the author examined and what the conclusions were and his methodology. CTyankee Sep 2013 #128

Just to add. We also know that the results are consistent with previous studies on DanTex Sep 2013 #134

That persuades me not to look further, but for some reason this idea of our not reading this study CTyankee Sep 2013 #140

That error was not in the study, but in the article about the study. DanTex Sep 2013 #40

Since apparently no one has actually downloaded the study hack89 Sep 2013 #49

Yes, we do. DanTex Sep 2013 #75

Have you been able to download and read the study yet? hack89 Sep 2013 #76

One engine smoking and feathering down already. Jeez. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #164

Uh oh. If there's one thing the gun nuts hate more than gun control, it's science. DanTex Sep 2013 #22

According to the NRA and billh58 Sep 2013 #23

Who needs peer review when there are gun bloggers to tell us the reel troof!!! DanTex Sep 2013 #25

But Gungeoneers claim billh58 Sep 2013 #81

Still quoting nonexistent 'Gungeoneers', bill? friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #66

Nonexistent? DanTex Sep 2013 #82

Yet another comprehension fail pintobean Sep 2013 #84

And I bet the gungeoneers will even believe you! DanTex Sep 2013 #86

Isn't it amazing that billh58 Sep 2013 #94

Sort of like the non-existent Koch brothers who would *never* spend a dime of their own DanTex Sep 2013 #96

I'll take billh58 Sep 2013 #98

Mystery quotes and mystery money pintobean Sep 2013 #105

You do know that billh58 Sep 2013 #111

I'll quote you pintobean Sep 2013 #114

I stand by that statement billh58 Sep 2013 #116

Then, it didn't happen. pintobean Sep 2013 #119

Fortunately, you and your Gungeon billh58 Sep 2013 #125

Outrage? Try amusement. pintobean Sep 2013 #144

Meh. billh58 Sep 2013 #145

No, you don't. pintobean Sep 2013 #146

If the shoe fits... DanTex Sep 2013 #154

Genius. pintobean Sep 2013 #155

And thus you demonstrate (again) that yours is a faith-based movement. friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #147

LOL. Kinda ironic to toss that out in a thread where gungeoneers are overtly denying science! DanTex Sep 2013 #153

There's no science (as of yet) to deny, in case you haven't noticed friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #160

I guess planet gungeon still hasn't figured out what a peer reviewed study is. DanTex Sep 2013 #161

And some here still haven't figured out what hearsay and 'argument from authority' are. friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #167

Ahh, the buzzwords! The conspiracy theories! DanTex Sep 2013 #168

Feel free at any time to refute what I say, instead of insulting me friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #169

It is technically possible that AJPH skipped the peer review. I can't refute that. DanTex Sep 2013 #170

FYI, I don't 'win' when others are incorrect friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #171

LOL. And you especially don't "win" when you are incorrect... DanTex Sep 2013 #173

I notice neither of you actually quote anybody saying what he claims. friendly_iconoclast Sep 2013 #148

Have you been able to download the actual study? hack89 Sep 2013 #31

Here's some reading to keep you busy. The link between gun ownership and homicide is not new. DanTex Sep 2013 #34

So you have not actually read this study? hack89 Sep 2013 #48

+1 HuckleB Sep 2013 #53

Is it possible to view the actual study without paying for it? hack89 Sep 2013 #29

I think I might conduct a study, base it on already skewed reports and missing data, and sell it. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #62

Whatever you do, don't pintobean Sep 2013 #64

Oh shit! NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #69

why not just contact the professor at BU and ask how you can obtain a copy? CTyankee Sep 2013 #73

I have way too much regular work to do. That's not very high on my list of priorities. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #149

thank you for your nice compliment. CTyankee Sep 2013 #152

I'm pretty sure it was a different member who was asking folks if they have read the study. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #156

you have my apologies. Obviously, I had some confusion over who was saying what... CTyankee Sep 2013 #158

I think there is an important distinction to be made here between the number of guns and ... 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #30

We need to know why these guns kill people. ileus Sep 2013 #47

and why our society allows them to do so easily. CTyankee Sep 2013 #50

No, they don't billh58 Sep 2013 #55

True, some NRA types say such things, but none of them are posting on this board. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #56

Duh! malaise Sep 2013 #65

Another addition to the "no duh" file. nt LWolf Sep 2013 #67

That duh file is getting large nadinbrzezinski Sep 2013 #71

Well, yes, but.... Turbineguy Sep 2013 #78

This guy is obviously not a real American. pintobean Sep 2013 #80

Good guess, as billh58 Sep 2013 #83

No shit pintobean Sep 2013 #85

because freedom! KG Sep 2013 #91

Yup. And billh58 Sep 2013 #92

No shit fucking gun nut idiots will be too blinded to understand this! gopiscrap Sep 2013 #95

The study makes perfect sense hack89 Sep 2013 #99

outlaw guns gopiscrap Sep 2013 #100

I thought you wanted a serious discussion. Sorry to bother you. nt hack89 Sep 2013 #101

I am very serious gopiscrap Sep 2013 #102

And partly because the Constitution, our president and the Democratic party platform hack89 Sep 2013 #104

I lived for a good portion of my life in Europe gopiscrap Sep 2013 #103

That's because for the most part billh58 Sep 2013 #112

Like pot? Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #165

duh spanone Sep 2013 #106

Just a question... discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2013 #108

I think the prominence of this is because the NRA gopiscrap Sep 2013 #109

That may be a possibility discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2013 #122

That's not actually the conclusion of the study. DanTex Sep 2013 #110

I didn't really expect that it was discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2013 #126

Gun Violence Costs to Taxpayer dem in texas Sep 2013 #115

Answer: billh58 Sep 2013 #117

Studies have estimated the total dollar cost of gun violence to society upwards of $100 billion DanTex Sep 2013 #123

New Children's Defense Fund Report Highlights NRA's Efforts to Hide the Truth About Guns etherealtruth Sep 2013 #124

Using suicide rates as a proxy for gun ownership is shaky at best NickB79 Sep 2013 #129

They don't use suicide rates. They use fraction of suicides with guns. DanTex Sep 2013 #131

A bit dishonest to use suicide rates as gun violence LittleBlue Sep 2013 #141

Sigh. DanTex Sep 2013 #157

Good data. Now, do gun laws yield fewer guns? Recursion Sep 2013 #150

It's silly to claim we've "never seen it work". DanTex Sep 2013 #159

. geomon666 Sep 2013 #162