• After Two Decades, Connecticut's Permit-to-Purchase Law Has Reduced Gun Deaths by 40%
    159 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951908]He didn't even say you should get rid of all the guns in America, just that making it more difficult to obtain guns would reduce the rate of gun use in America.[/QUOTE] oh yeah man lets just make the average joe wait six months to get a CCW permit approved because nothing bad can happen in six months
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;47951943]Their statistical model takes into account these things. The data is fed into a model and only a few states of the entire control group of 39 were suitable for creating the synthetic model.[/QUOTE] Which they then fail to prove is an effective synthetic control. Synthetic controls are a nightmare to implement effectively. Basically nobody worth a damn wastes their time with them.
[QUOTE=Rocket;47951852]Better qualifications than theirs? Better qualifications in statistics and public health than people with PhDs in public health and statistics and professors of public health and statistics?[/QUOTE] You're right. People with PhDs never have an agenda and also are never wrong. Proof: the medical industry. "This doctor just keeps running all these expensive tests that aren't necessary..." Also, see death rate due to medical malpractice. People with PhDs are also....... PEOPLE, just like you, me, and politicians. They have flaws, they are completely capable of having agendas, and 100% capable of making mistakes. To use educational status to "qualify" someone's argument is nothing more than a way of trying to shut your opponent up because you don't have an answer for their argument, and don't want to accept it. In other words: you don't have to be a genius to bring up a valid point.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47951577]Ooh score, didn't notice the non paywalled actual research. Thanks for pointing that out. Edit: wow the news article is a pretty complete misrepresentation of the research. Though honestly this shouldn't surprise me. Edit2: wait, why are they using R for the analysis? They should be using SPSS. Edit3: oh public health. That is why they are using R and have a convoluted control group. They aren't really trained to do this. This would be what criminologists are trained to do.[/QUOTE] Come on dude. I don't agree with the article's slant but picking a problem with the analytical system is a bit much. Criminologists don't have inherent insight into something which is ultimately a system of numbers. That's all this study really attempts to do. [editline]13th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;47951934] Public health likes to pull this shit. They throw their shit tier research into the fold and fail to get it peer reviewed by actual professionals in the field. It is like a bunch of biologists writing a paper about electrical engineering and then getting it peer reviewed by a bunch of other biologists instead of electrical engineers.[/QUOTE] Invoking departmental competitiveness to deter internet users from considering the results of a study isn't ethical, Mr. BA in criminal justice and sociology.
[QUOTE=Moose;47951901]you're even more deluded if you think you can get rid of all the firearms in america, much less FIND them in the hands of 'bad people' in this system it is a roll of a dice, you either get caught at the wrong place at the wrong time and catch a bullet or you go about your day peacefully through your daily grind to make a living for yourself this concept seems strange to sheltered people living in more liberal oriented areas but thats not really a surprise[/QUOTE] But he never said anything about whether or not it CAN be done, he merely said that IF it was done, certain results will likely be achieved.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;47951500]Why do you accept information on authority alone seemingly? Do you think the people who fund these research projects don't have an agenda? Berkeley is a completely corporatized university with huge sponsors like Warner Bros etc, I'm not afraid of some conspiracy to "take muh guns" so I still don't vote republican or anything like that, but I'm fairly certain when they set out with their objective it wasn't "figure out what this law has done", but rather "find some way to prove this was a success as well as you can, and put official stuff on it" California, being one of the more strict states as far as gun control goes has a murder rate of 4.6 (2013) compared to some pretty gun friendly states such as CO (3.4) , WV (3.3), OR (2.0) As gunfox has already iterated, the problem is lack of education and cultural issues. People can be good (or at least better) at living in harmony with or without guns[/QUOTE] lol
[QUOTE=Moose;47951952]oh yeah man lets just make the average joe wait six months to get a CCW permit approved because nothing bad can happen in six months[/QUOTE] Isn't the NRAs stance that guns are a big decision that one shouldn't rush into? [editline]14th June 2015[/editline] I don't get why people are opposed to the state giving you a card to show at every gunseller that you've passed your background checks, seems like it would speed up the gun ownership process since every gundealer doesn't have to have to run a background check individually, but only because they use the word license does the 2nd amendment suddenly become an issue.
[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] Are you a navy seal champion with 500,000 confirmed kills
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47949078]i'm not entirely sure what this post is about[/QUOTE] America in a nutshell.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47954115]lol[/QUOTE] Sweden yes
[QUOTE=Sableye;47954976]Isn't the NRAs stance that guns are a big decision that one shouldn't rush into? [editline]14th June 2015[/editline] I don't get why people are opposed to the state giving you a card to show at every gunseller that you've passed your background checks, seems like it would speed up the gun ownership process since every gundealer doesn't have to have to run a background check individually, but only because they use the word license does the 2nd amendment suddenly become an issue.[/QUOTE] It's along the same lines as requiring voters to show an ID at the polls. If you register to vote before you show up why do you need an ID? If a federal background check is ran every time you buy a firearm from an FFL why do you need a license? Gun Dealers DO have to run a background check, for every single firearm evey time. It's a redundancy that doesn't necessarily work well. Here in Minnesota you need a permit to buy handguns and assault style rifles. They run a background check when you get the permit, but only for the state of minnesota. This leads to people getting permits who when they go to buy a gun get denied for a crime they committed in another State. Hell I've had customers who were issued a state carry permit get denied by the federal background check for felonies they committed 20 years ago in a different state. It's at that point that you're wasting state resources on something that's already done on a federal level. The only positive is that it helps people doing private sales know that the person they're selling to are legally able to own firearms. Even then though as previously explained that's not always 100% correct either. It comes down to the same issue as requiring ID at the polls, its a method of preventing minorities from exercising their rights depending on how its implemented. Minnesota doesn't charge for the permit so it's not a huge issue here, but that's not to say other states don't.
[QUOTE=The golden;47955624]Gun fetishists who see this as an attack on "muh guhns" But seriously, from page 1:[/QUOTE] I'm going to reiterate this point: It didn't actually save any lives. Their murder rate remained in step with the national murder rate almost exactly. The same number of people are still dead. Our homicide rate has halved since the 90's (see the previous UCR reports) and, per capita, there are no fewer firearms floating about. [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx[/url] I appreciate that you feel as though controlling firearms further is the answer, but the evidence really doesn't support it. I get that the knee jerk reaction to resistance to gun control is to dismiss it as a bunch of uninformed rednecks, and nobody is going to deny that a lot of the resistance really is a bunch of idiot rednecks, but the actual science behind it doesn't support it. I enjoy guns, and I recognize that any resistance I put up against gun control is going to be viewed as stemming from that, and there is undoubtedly some measure of truth there, but I also see the factors that we know to have strong ties to crime placed in the wings all so we can have this stupid debate about gun control when we know, for sure, ways to reduce crime. Not just murder, but the lion's share of violent crime as well. Meanwhile, instead of focusing on the factors that will undoubtedly reduce crime and break poverty cycles, we have this debate that has been going around in circles for decades in spite of a massive growing body of evidence that gun control is largely not the answer here.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47951577] Edit2: wait, why are they using R for the analysis? They should be using SPSS. [/QUOTE] What's wrong with R?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47949322]The mentally ill and criminally violent should have the right to guns. This is an afront to freedom and our democratic system! Seriously, why are people so opposed to mere background checks? If you're sane you should not even have a problem.[/QUOTE] It's an inconvenience. I've traded guns for a boat, camper, car battery, and a car. I don't want to go pay a fucking fee to trade my shit for someone elses shit. If I could run a check for free online then it would be fine, otherwise its "a scam to take my money".
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47956763]What's wrong with R?[/QUOTE] R makes Grand Theft Auto, which glorifies crime sprees.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.