• After Two Decades, Connecticut's Permit-to-Purchase Law Has Reduced Gun Deaths by 40%
    159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949146][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation[/url] Please read it, please.[/QUOTE] you'll have to try harder saying "correlation does not imply correlation" is meant to deter retards who say "pirates cause global warming". The people in this study aren't dipshits, they controlled for this.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949354]Most people shot don't die.[/QUOTE] Got a source on that because most of the stuff I see marketed at home defense is designed to inflict lethal wounds, such as hollow points
[QUOTE=Rocket;47949372]A man walks into his house and sees his wife in bed with another man. He learns martial arts and three years later comes back and kills the man. A man walks into his house and sees his wife in bed with another man. He takes his gun and shoots the man. Yes, these seem equally likely.[/QUOTE] Most of the time the kitchen knife is used. Its fairly effective. Generally the martial arts would be learned long before such an encounter. Even if the husband doesn't know martial arts just punching and kicking the shit out of someone is pretty common and can lead to death.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949047]I find this deeply flawed. There is so much conjecture and assumptions on the part of this study. Homicide trends for the 90s-now have been going down. Its hard to point at any one law and say it had that effect. But its been pointed out by gun control advocates that a state law doesn't have much effect since they can just go to a neighboring state and purchase a firearm there.[/QUOTE] The authors of the study: Kara E. Rudolph, PhD, MPH, MHS Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD Jon S. Vernick, JD Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH What are your qualifications?
if you want to discredit the study please read the paper and actually criticize their methodology of course you aren't going to understand what the fuck they're talking about if you don't know how they came to their conclusion it is true that correlation does not equal causation, however I don't see anything to suggest that they founded their conclusion solely on correlation so that's irrelevant to the discussion.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47949451]if you want to discredit the study please read the paper and actually criticize their methodology[/QUOTE] I would love to, but it's behind a paywall. So all we can do is postulate.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47949350]I really don't get this conclusion. Here's the graph in question: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/i7oqrXu.png[/IMG] The vertical line represents the law passing. How can they attribute the downward trend to the law when the trend started far before the law was even passed and continued at the same rate afterwards? I would love to look at their methodology for the "synthetic connecticut" spike, but I can't find the actual study.[/QUOTE] The answer is there in the graph you presented. Connecticut was following the national trend until 1995. You can clearly see where the trend in Connecticut diverges from the national trend near 2000, which is (as the study proves) a result of this law.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47949471]The answer is there in the graph you presented. Connecticut was following the national trend until 1995. You can clearly see where the trend in Connecticut diverges from the national trend near 2000, which is (as the study proves) a result of this law.[/QUOTE] No, that's the theoretical divergence. It didn't actually happen.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47949469]I would love to, but it's behind a paywall. So all we can do is postulate.[/QUOTE] Someone else [I]already posted[/I] [url=http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Connecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf]the study[/url] from a free source. [editline]13th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47949477]No, that's the theoretical divergence. It didn't actually happen.[/QUOTE] No, that is real divergence. The solid "Connecticut" line represents the actual results.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949230]A gun does not increase my chances of being successful in murder. Knifes are fairly effective. A chainsaw would be fairly effective. A car is also quite effective. My fists and feet are effective. There are only two things that would prevent me. Physics, and my desire. I have no desire to go and murder someone. But overall it actually is incredibly easy to do. Physics as in, someone physically stopping me or other such actions. The law is a guideline to people. But it doesn't prevent people from taking any action they choose. It doesn't stop me and tons of other people from speeding down the highway at speeds higher than posted signs. Literally, the only thing that prevents this world from being complete chaos is people's desire for it not to be. And no, "a higher quality of life" doesn't factor into my desire not to go murder people.[/QUOTE] I want to bake a cake. A cake tin does not increase my chances of being successful in baking a cake. Frying pans are fairly effective. A pot would be fairly effective. A glass is also quite effective. My hand is quite effective. See how terrible your argument is? When something makes an act much, much easier, said act becomes much more likely to happen.
The government needs a record of everyone who owns a gun. For the children.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47949394]Got a source on that because most of the stuff I see marketed at home defense is designed to inflict lethal wounds, such as hollow points[/QUOTE] Keyword is "marketing." Been trying to find unbiased sources. But its hard because Google is filled with biased sources. Edit: Rocket's source for firearms does fine. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10692193[/url] Also, Rocket, the knife points out that actual statistics in the case of knifes is hard. Plus intentional vs unintentional. "The morbidity and mortality of stab wounds is unknown since much of the data is unobtainable."
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949230]A gun does not increase my chances of being successful in murder. Knifes are fairly effective. A chainsaw would be fairly effective. A car is also quite effective. My fists and feet are effective. There are only two things that would prevent me. Physics, and my desire. I have no desire to go and murder someone. But overall it actually is incredibly easy to do. Physics as in, someone physically stopping me or other such actions. The law is a guideline to people. But it doesn't prevent people from taking any action they choose. It doesn't stop me and tons of other people from speeding down the highway at speeds higher than posted signs. Literally, the only thing that prevents this world from being complete chaos is people's desire for it not to be. And no, "a higher quality of life" doesn't factor into my desire not to go murder people.[/QUOTE] Im gay for guns and gun laws, but hot damn, if you are going to commit a murder id probably list a gun as the #1 weapon you could easily commit a murder with. If you are a murderer and you have a gun, you are WAY WAY WAY more successfully gonna kill or hurt someone than with a knife. Like, are you fucking kidding me? Is this why our military is just using chainsaws and cars? Now lets see how private sales were in Connecticut before this law and lets see a hypothetical situation on what could be a very likely scenario. Bob:Hey im Bob and im selling this handgun on my own terms, its a private sale. Murderer:Hey Bob, can I buy that gun? I have no permit or anything, but I like collecting guns Bob:Sure here you go Murderer: *Proceeds to scratch off all identification on the gun* "Glad no one knows who owns this now" [QUOTE]Literally, the only thing that prevents this world from being complete chaos is people's desire for it not to be.[/QUOTE] Actually, if you really look back at history and see what really prevents this world from being complete chaos it pretty much ends up being wars/death of people for the most part and we have been fighting them with guns for a while now.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;47949544]Im gay for guns and gun laws, but hot damn, if you are going to commit a murder id probably list a gun as the #1 weapon you could easily commit a murder with. If you are a murderer and you have a gun, you are WAY WAY WAY more successfully gonna kill or hurt someone than with a knife. Like, are you fucking kidding me? Is this why our military is just using chainsaws and cars? Now lets see how private sales were in Connecticut before this law and lets see a hypothetical situation on what could be a very likely scenario. Bob:Hey im Bob and im selling this handgun on my own terms, its a private sale. Murderer:Hey Bob, can I buy that gun? I have no permit or anything, but I like collecting guns Bob:Sure here you go Murderer: *Proceeds to scratch off all identification on the gun* "Glad no one knows who owns this now" Actually, if you really look back at history and see what really prevents this world from being complete chaos it pretty much ends up being wars/death of people for the most part and we have been fighting them with guns for a while now.[/QUOTE] Not saying it isn't easier with a gun. Just saying the gun is not necessary to go and commit murder. Again, my main point is murder statistics are largely control by peoples desire to go and commit murder. Not that a gun or other tool has a large effect on that.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949621]Again, my main point is murder statistics are largely control by peoples desire to go and commit murder.[/QUOTE] I think people vastly underestimate just how impulsive people can be. Sometimes all it takes for someone to do something horrible is for it to be easy enough to get done before they realize how bad an idea it is.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47949667]I think people vastly underestimate just how impulsive people can be. Sometimes all it takes for someone to do something horrible is for it to be easy enough to get done before they realize how bad an idea it is.[/QUOTE] To further this point, consider a situation where Alice gets so angry at her husband Bob that she feels the need to do something to hurt him. Two things can happen. Situation 1: She launches herself at him and starts beating the shit out of him. After throwing a few punches, Bob starts to retaliate and pushes her off. She realises that she went overboard and steps aside. He leaves the house angrily. Both are alive. Situation 2: She grabs the gun she keeps in her bedside drawer and shoots Bob in the chest. Bob bleeds out in minutes. During those few minutes, Alice calms down and realises what she just did. She is mortified, but there is nothing she can do, because Bob is fucking dead.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;47949809]To further this point, consider a situation where Alice gets so angry at her husband Bob that she feels the need to do something to hurt him. Two things can happen. Situation 1: She launches herself at him and starts beating the shit out of him. After throwing a few punches, Bob starts to retaliate and pushes her off. She realises that she went overboard and steps aside. He leaves the house angrily. Both are alive. Situation 2: She grabs the gun she keeps in her bedside drawer and shoots Bob in the chest. Bob bleeds out in minutes. During those few minutes, Alice calms down and realises what she just did. She is mortified, but there is nothing she can do, because Bob is fucking dead.[/QUOTE] This doesn't just go for murder. There's a reason gun availability affects suicide rates.
Overall since 1993 (on a national level), Gun Deaths are down about 50%. Connecticut's stupid fucking permits have nothing to do with it. Also iirc the Sandy Hook shooting deaths were not filed under public record as murders, which further skews it. Believe it or not, making guns harder to acquire legally does not make them harder to acquire illegally, especially in a country that is so absolutely full to the brim with firearms. Not to mention homebrew firearms, if you're willing to drop $1500 on a ghost gunner, you can order 80% complete AR Lowers, have the machine automatically finish the lower (which is the part of a firearm that is legally considered a firearm. Since you receive it at only 80% complete and it requires machining, it does not count as a firearm). Then you can just order whatever other AR parts you want and have as many unregistered "assault" rifles as you want. The black market would be absolutely booming. 1man1automated machine could potentially churn out a fully built rifle every 4 hours (and this would be completely legal, it only becomes illegal when you transfer the firearms) (just as a note for anyone unfamiliar with a "ghost-gunner", the process of gunmaking i described is so easy that someone with 0 woodshop, gunsmithing, or any experience at all can make a gun in 4 hours) [QUOTE=Headhumpy;47949809]To further this point, consider a situation where Alice gets so angry at her husband Bob that she feels the need to do something to hurt him. Two things can happen. Situation 1: She launches herself at him and starts beating the shit out of him. After throwing a few punches, Bob starts to retaliate and pushes her off. She realises that she went overboard and steps aside. He leaves the house angrily. Both are alive. Situation 2: She grabs the gun she keeps in her bedside drawer and shoots Bob in the chest. Bob bleeds out in minutes. During those few minutes, Alice calms down and realises what she just did. She is mortified, but there is nothing she can do, because Bob is fucking dead.[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree you really shouldn't have firearms around if you're an impulsive psycho. I've had guns within feet of me at my home my entire life, and admittedly I'm pretty impulsive. However, even in my most heated or emotional moments I've ever lived through, the worst I've done is punch a wall. I wouldn't ever physically hurt someone not in self defense. If you get mad and reach for a gun and SHOOT someone on impulse, you are either vastly underestimating what you're doing, or are a complete lunatic who belongs in an asylum. If ya gots anger you gotta physically express make sure you hit something that will hurt you more than you will hurt it. If anyone made it this far down this post, congratulations. Personally, I feel the most effective way to reduce gun deaths is gun education. I had it instilled pretty young that you never point a gun at someone unless you have to kill them, and I also had instilled how serious of a matter taking a life is. Those two things alone have made me a very safe firearm owner and a borderline pacifist.
[QUOTE=Kigen;47949363]Have you ever heard of the "knockout game?" Or just learning martial arts.[/QUOTE] I am a second degree black belt and I still doubt I could kill somebody with my bare hands that is fighting back or running away. Plus they teach you from a self defense standpoint
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47949479]Someone else [I]already posted[/I] [URL="http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Connecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf"]the study[/URL] from a free source.[/QUOTE] Alright, I've now read through most of the study. There's just one thing I don't understand: They have 5 states (California, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) that they used to create the synthetic Connecticut because of a similarity in gun homicide rate before the passing of the law. So, I looked up the gun homicide rate for those states. The interesting thing is that those states are all completely different. Some are near the top in homicide rate (Maryland was at 5.1 in 2010), and some are almost at the very bottom (Rhode Island was at 0.4 in 2010). How can states that vary about as much as they can possibly vary be good comparisons for Connecticut? This study also directly states that it rests on the assumption that nothing else happened to change the numbers.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47949447]Lethality of firearms: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10692193]31.7%[/url] overall Lethality of knives: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911111]3%[/url] overall Lethality of fists: ???[/QUOTE] So the chances of surviving a stabbing are 97% and the changes of surviving a shooting are 68%? That doesn't sound right to me, I don't think our bodies are [I]that[/I] durable.
It's so bizarre seeing this from an across-the-pond perspective. I'm not going to criticise the way that many Americans think about gun laws because you guys live in a very different country with very different cultural standards. It's just really strange.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950329]Alright, I've now read through most of the study. There's just one thing I don't understand: They have 5 states (California, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) that they used to create the synthetic Connecticut because of a similarity in gun homicide rate before the passing of the law. So, I looked up the gun homicide rate for those states. The interesting thing is that those states are all completely different. Some are near the top in homicide rate (Maryland was at 5.1 in 2010), and some are almost at the very bottom (Rhode Island was at 0.4 in 2010). How can states that vary about as much as they can possibly vary be good comparisons for Connecticut? This study also directly states that it rests on the assumption that nothing else happened to change the numbers.[/QUOTE] The synthetic Connecticut is likely based on the homicide rate for those states in 1995. EDIT: Nevermind, I checked on those. That is peculiar.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47950516]The synthetic Connecticut is likely based on the homicide rate for those states in 1995.[/QUOTE] It was, but you would expect them to continue in a similar manner if the comparison was valid. The entire point is that since they were similar before the law, then they should be similar after the law, but the states used diverged completely.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47948965]When faced with any evidence that gun control will actually work, Facepunch seems to find whatever reason it can that the results are flawed.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why anyone would be against gun control. I totally get not wanting guns to be outright banned (and I share that opinion) but I don't see anything wrong with background checks.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47950571]we don't have great background check laws everywhere. [/QUOTE] What is NICS
[QUOTE=sgman91;47950533]It was, but you would expect them to continue in a similar manner if the comparison was valid. The entire point is that since they were similar before the law, then they should be similar after the law, but the states used diverged completely.[/QUOTE] Ah. I found it. The study says that those states were chosen because they had similar homicide [i]trends[/i] from 1984-1994.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47950571]The study says the weighting system used to determine their synthetic Connecticut "minimizes a measure of the distance between the vector of outcomes and covariates of Connecticut in the pre-law period and the weighted vector of outcomes and covariates of the control pool states in the pre-law period" i.e. that they've weighted it so that synthetic Connecticut matches pretty well with real Connecticut.[/QUOTE] Right, matches pre-law connecticut, but they assume that since it worked for pre-law it must work for post-law, but post-law is where the conclusions are made. I don't see why one should assume that since those states were similar during the pre-law period that they would be similar during the post-law period, especially when they are not similar to each other in the post-law period. [QUOTE]It does not say that it rests on the assumption that nothing else happened to change the numbers. The three assumptions are: 1. "there were no interruptions in the law and no effects prior to its implementation" i.e. that the law did not change the homicide rate before it was implemented, 2. "the implementation of the PTP law affects Connecticut only and has no effect on other states’ homicide rates," 3. "there are no unmeasured confounders during the post-law period." The last one is probably what you're talking about, but "unmeasured" would mean something that happened in Connecticut, only in Connecticut, and that didn't affect any other state but Connecticut.[/QUOTE] Unmeasured just means unmeasured. It could have happened in only connecticut or in every state across the union, as long as it was unmeasured. They basically assume that every important factor is accounted for.
A bit sad that a study done by extremely well educated people from an extremely well regarded university is being treated as a elementary school essay in this thread. Do you think the authors are retarded or something.
[QUOTE=PolarEventide;47950674]Ah. I found it. The study says that those states were chosen because they had similar homicide [i]trends[/i] from 1984-1994.[/QUOTE] I'm trying to find gun homicide rates by state, but it's proving difficult. [editline]13th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;47950696]A bit sad that a study done by extremely well educated people from an extremely well regarded university is being treated as a elementary school essay in this thread. Do you think the authors are retarded or something.[/QUOTE] Do you really believe that? You want me to go get a study by "extremely well educated people" who conducted studies that disagree with climate change? I'm sure I could find some. There's a reason science generally waits until multiple studies or tests are conducted before coming to conclusions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.