The Great Gun Control Debate

[Jarnhamar]

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the amendment, after public-health researchers produced a spate of studies suggesting that, for example, having a gun in the house increased risk of homicide and suicide. It deemed the research politically motivated. Gun-rights advocates zeroed in on statements like that of Mark Rosenberg, then the director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In response to the early ’90s crime wave, Rosenberg had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.”

The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy. But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades.

 

[pbi]

Prevents repeat offenders from getting out and destroying everyone elses lives.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-shooting/repeat-offender-who-killed-new-york-policeman-sentenced-to-life-idUSKBN17513U

Well, maybe. If they are repeat offenders, chances are they were either in a Provincial jail or a Federal prison at some point. Apparently the first exposure didn't work.
That said, I do see that there are those who while not quite bad enough to be executed, need to spend the rest of their lives in an institution. I think we actually deal with that more or less effectively with the Serious Offender designation, but maybe not as effectively as we could.

After that, though, if they are "in " they are at some point getting "out". And just what sort of person is "getting out"? What did prison really do to make them likely to become a useful citizen again, and not another serious repeat offender or petty sh**bird who ends up in the  local slammer every weekend?

I'm skeptical about the ability of the prison system to do that, but I don't say it's impossible.

 

[pbi]

Unfortunately., the one organization that could actually gather all the facts, pro and con, compile it and scientifically analyze in a dispassionate way and look at it, not from a political point of view, but from a clinical one based on epidemiological point of view has been barred BY LAW from doing so, or even to be funded in any way to do so, by the Republican congress in the US: It's called the CDC.

Those brave kids in Florida trying to start a campaign to get congress to move should, in my estimation, be hitting that button first: Get a major write in campaign to your Senators - every one in the US - to tell them: "You are talking through your hat - don't have a clue what you are talking about - because there is no research. Please start immediately to task and fund the CDC to research the subject and illuminate the debate on all sides."

BTW, when the Republican killed that initiative by the CDC, they did it, clearly, at the behest of the NRA.

I recall this. This was not a particularly smart move by the Republicans, but its not unknown for govts to take money away from institutions or groups they fund, who don't toe the Party line. It's usually blatant, quite transparent and doesn't really do what the government hopes for, but politicians can't seem to resist the temptation.  Two examples might be the Tory muzzling of scientists, and the Liberal vetting of summer job providers who don't agree with abortion.

 

[Altair]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/florida-gun-control-march_us_5a8988b3e4b00bc49f451f44

“People are saying that it’s not time to talk about gun control, and we can respect that,” Cameron Kasky, a junior at the high school, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“Here’s the time: March 24,” Kasky continued. “In every single city, we are going to be marching together as students begging for our lives. This isn’t about the GOP. This isn’t about the Democrats. This is about the adults. We feel neglected. At this point, you’re either with us or you’re against us.”

Young people versus the NRA. This is going to be interesting.

 

[pbi]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/florida-gun-control-march_us_5a8988b3e4b00bc49f451f44

Young people versus the NRA. This is going to be interesting.

I predict it will be short, and end with a whimper rather than a bang. Young people don't contribute millions of dollars to party war chests, and many of them don't  (or can't) vote. By the time I have posted this, the emerging student spokespeople will probably  have received hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats posted online. Very shortly, InfoWars will announce  that this mass killing never happened, and was in fact staged by actors in the pay of anti-Second Amendment forces. Just like what they trotted out about Sandy Hook.

This incident will just inflame things on both sides of the debate. Trenches will be dug deeper. Objective analysis will remain impossible.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I predict it will be short, and end with a whimper rather than a bang. Young people don't contribute millions of dollars to party war chests, and many of them don't  (or can't) vote. By the time I have posted this, the emerging student spokespeople will probably  have received hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats posted online. Very shortly, InfoWars will announce  that this mass killing never happened, and was in fact staged by actors in the pay of anti-Second Amendment forces. Just like what they trotted out about Sandy Hook.

This incident will just inflame things on both sides of the debate. Trenches will be dug deeper. Objective analysis will remain impossible.

Can't argue with that insight. Damn.

 

[Altair]

I predict it will be short, and end with a whimper rather than a bang. Young people don't contribute millions of dollars to party war chests, and many of them don't  (or can't) vote. By the time I have posted this, the emerging student spokespeople will probably  have received hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats posted online. Very shortly, InfoWars will announce  that this mass killing never happened, and was in fact staged by actors in the pay of anti-Second Amendment forces. Just like what they trotted out about Sandy Hook.

This incident will just inflame things on both sides of the debate. Trenches will be dug deeper. Objective analysis will remain impossible.

@NateSilver538
So far, Parkland is *not* fading from the news the way that mass shootings usually do. (The graph shows Google searches for the term "gun control".) The students speaking out makes a pretty big difference.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Great short YouTube video on choosing ones own crime states and comparing the USA to countries like the UK.

https://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Unfortunately., the one organization that could actually gather all the facts, pro and con, compile it and scientifically analyze in a dispassionate way and look at it, not from a political point of view, but from a clinical one based on epidemiological point of view has been barred BY LAW from doing so, or even to be funded in any way to do so, by the Republican congress in the US: It's called the CDC.

Those brave kids in Florida trying to start a campaign to get congress to move should, in my estimation, be hitting that button first: Get a major write in campaign to your Senators - every one in the US - to tell them: "You are talking through your hat - don't have a clue what you are talking about - because there is no research. Please start immediately to task and fund the CDC to research the subject and illuminate the debate on all sides."

BTW, when the Republican killed that initiative by the CDC, they did it, clearly, at the behest of the NRA.

The CDC was playing games and not being terribly neutral. Studies like Kellermans did not help. Plus the CDC was suffering from mandate creep, guns are not a diseases. 

 

[Altair]

Great short YouTube video on choosing ones own crime states and comparing the USA to countries like the UK.

https://tu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0

so he goes on to say that crime rates are higher in cities with over 250 000 residents.  Fair enough.  Then he says England has 6 times less cities over 250 000 than the USA.

That is true,  but completely irrelevant. If he simply compared the crime rates of the large cities of the USA to the ones in the UK,  that would make sense,  but that's not what he did.

And while he compared the violent crime rate between the USA and the UK,  while having a higher crime rate than the USA,  the UK had a lower murder rate. Doesn't really touch on that,  just says a bunch of factors are involved in that,  and most right on.  Wonder why.

Also doesn't touch on gun deaths between the two nations.

Interesting video,  but for a guy who accuses the media and all of cherry picking stats,  he does a lot of it himself.

 

[pbi]

so he goes on to say that crime rates are higher in cities with over 250 000 residents.  Fair enough.  Then he says England has 6 times less cities over 250 000 than the USA.

That is true,  but completely irrelevant. If he simply compared the crime rates of the large cities of the USA to the ones in the UK,  that would make sense,  but that's not what he did.

And while he compared the violent crime rate between the USA and the UK,  while having a higher crime rate than the USA,  the UK had a lower murder rate. Doesn't really touch on that,  just says a bunch of factors are involved in that,  and most right on.  Wonder why.

Also doesn't touch on gun deaths between the two nations.

Interesting video,  but for a guy who accuses the media and all of cherry picking stats,  he does a lot of it himself.

I'm not sure that just comparing cities on the basis of their size has any merit anyway. I don't believe that the number of residents is a direct determinant of crime levels on its own, except to say that 1,000 people are more likely to have more crimes than 10 people.  There are, actually, more factors involved.

As an example, the Mayor of Toronto (decades ago ) once publicly and smugly compared the city's crime rate to that of Detroit (at the time Detroit and Metropolitan Toronto were about the same size ). The Mayor of Detroit was understandably PO'd, and he was right: the comparison was shallow.

More important comparison criteria would be  things like income levels, educational levels, employment levels, existence of racially divided or distinct neighbourhoods, availability of firearms, gang presence, cultural attitudes towards violence and firearms, etc, etc.

 

[pbi]

Here is an interesting twist. The woman in the CBC article at the link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/colten-boushie-verdict-online-hate-1.4536661

apparently thinks that it's wrong to raise money to help Gerald Stanley with legal fees, etc, because he is a person who "...kills young indigenous men", along with a clear implication of racism. She feels entitled to "call these people out". Why? Because they helped a family that went through a horrifying incident and has expenses as a result of it?

I certainly understand sympathy for the needless death of a young  man, and the suffering of his family (and my views on gun control have been flogged already on these pages), but this nonsense is out of control. I don't sympathize with the Internet idiots who threatened her, but her message is typical of how badly things have been distorted.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Reply to you soon Altair.


To the woman crying about being harassed: play stupid games, win  stupid prizes.

Dyck said she has filed a report with police after being bombarded with harassing phone calls, threats and hate mail after she singled out people online for donating money to the Stanley crowdfunding campaign.

Conversely, some have accused Dyck of doxing — the act of posting a person's personal information online against that person's wishes.

Dyck had included some donors' hometowns and places of employment to her tweets, and called for boycotts of some donors' workplaces.

In a statement, Pioneer Co-op suspended an employee after he was centred out in one of Dyck's tweets.

So someone possibly chose to donate $20 (or whatever) and used their real name. Dyck singles them out to their boss and their boss fire's them over it?
What a POS. It's funny how quickly online bullies cry about becoming a victim.
Maybe poetic justice if her own workplace gets hammered with negative attention and she loses her job.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm not sure that just comparing cities on the basis of their size has any merit anyway. I don't believe that the number of residents is a direct determinant of crime levels on its own, except to say that 1,000 people are more likely to have more crimes than 10 people.  There are, actually, more factors involved.

As an example, the Mayor of Toronto (decades ago ) once publicly and smugly compared the city's crime rate to that of Detroit (at the time Detroit and Metropolitan Toronto were about the same size ). The Mayor of Detroit was understandably PO'd, and he was right: the comparison was shallow.

More important comparison criteria would be  things like income levels, educational levels, employment levels, existence of racially divided or distinct neighbourhoods, availability of firearms, gang presence, cultural attitudes towards violence and firearms, etc, etc.

You find this link interesting https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

 

[pbi]

You find this link interesting https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

I do find it interesting, even though the site's bias is extremely clear: the OpEds clarify that point even better than the recommended book list does. The usual list of villains: the Media, Liberals, the Anti-Gunners, etc. Ok, fine. It also isn't clear immediately what the data sources are, other than the book the author mentions.

All that said, if indeed the data are valid, they do reinforce the point that dealing with firearms-related crime, especially homicides, is more than just passing gun control laws (which I still support, BTW  :nod: )  It's like fighting an insurgency: you have to understand the problem; think for a while before acting;  use all instruments; and one size does not fit all.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Reply to you soon Altair.


To the woman crying about being harassed: play stupid games, win  stupid prizes.

So someone possibly chose to donate $20 (or whatever) and used their real name. Dyck singles them out to their boss and their boss fire's them over it?
What a POS. It's funny how quickly online bullies cry about becoming a victim.
Maybe poetic justice if her own workplace gets hammered with negative attention and she loses her job.

C'mon she was just being a Dyck....   or maybe she's looking for her Miranda rights. :nod:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I do find it interesting, even though the site's bias is extremely clear: the OpEds clarify that point even better than the recommended book list does. The usual list of villains: the Media, Liberals, the Anti-Gunners, etc. Ok, fine. It also isn't clear immediately what the data sources are, other than the book the author mentions.

All that said, if indeed the data are valid, they do reinforce the point that dealing with firearms-related crime, especially homicides, is more than just passing gun control laws (which I still support, BTW  :nod: )  It's like fighting an insurgency: you have to understand the problem; think for a while before acting;  use all instruments; and one size does not fit all.

Rule 1 in any gun control debate, there are no non-bias sources, not even crime data.

Case in point https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155967177168070&set=gm.2046437202063515&type=3

 

[pbi]

Sorry I couldnt open that one. No worries. I am sure the bias is just as silly but coming from the other direction. And I do agree that this is a very emotional argument: I think it goes to how people view the world.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Try this from Dennis Young, a ATIP expert (yes it's bias, but then you need something to keep you going against the RCMP.)

https://dennisryoung.ca/2018/02/16/rcmp-doesnt-know-firearms-trace/

 

[dapaterson]

I think this is an excellent summary.