RRC Archives

dustonian wrote:ra·tion·al·ize
Just admit you like your guns and assault rifles and whatever and want to keep them, don't dress it up with the corny, self-righteous interest group propaganda. The country would be far better off without you caped crusaders prancing about and waving your surrogate phalluses around.

i will never deny that i do like loud things that go boom

however, i will have to respectfully disagree with you on the country being better off. disarmament needs to start with the bad guys, not me.

Look at how much the concealed carry law has reduced crime. If you are against it you might as well be for killing, raping and assaulting. Now, do you feel lucky punk.

The Lott-Mustard Report
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

This is profoundly unconvincing. These correlations do no equate causation. What is the control group for comparison? What were the nationwide declines in crime rates for the same period? What confounding variables were controlled for and how do the authors account for broad secular trends across this 15-year period? Most importantly, one study does not resolve a complex social issue with dozens if not hundreds of variables and manners of interpretation.

From a systematic review of all studies on the topic (far more convincing methodologically than any one single study) conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) :

"Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence. Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. This information is a vital starting point for any constructive dialogue about how to address the problem of firearms and violence.

While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty. Some of the problems that the committee identifies are common to all social science research. In the case of firearms research, however, the committee found that even in areas in which the data are potentially useful, the complex methodological problems inherent in unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence have not been fully considered or adequately addressed.

Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods. In some instances—firearms violence prevention, for example—there are no data at all. Even the best methods cannot overcome inadequate data and, because the lack of relevant data colors much of the literature in this field, it also colors the committee’s assessment of that literature."


Point is, just embrace the 2nd amendment for what it is--the right to blow shit up when you feel like it--but don't stoop to playing these lame and unconvincing dress-up games trying to twist the ready availability of firearms into a net positive influence on our society. No one with an iota of critical thinking skill is buying that line of crap.

Wrong.

Yeah, the National Academy of Sciences is always wrong, right Larry? Just like with climate change. Stupid scientists, always looking for facts and convincing proof of everything!! What a bunch of assholes, raining on some folks' best efforts to hasten us back to the Dark Ages.

Pretty good rant there, dustonian.

Pretty good retirement into smug obsolescence and stereotypical old-man political posturings there, Lar.

Guns are a great deterrent. If I were to think like a criminal, I would be hesitant to break into a house or try to carjack someone if I thought that person had a gun. That is why we have nukes. They are great deterrents. They also come with great responsibility and we both know not everyone is responsible. That is the crux. I wish we lived in a world where everyone got along and treated everyone with respect but we don’t.

I agree that nobody can really confirm either way if guns are good or bad but they are a fact we have to deal with. Don't take the guns away from the good side and only the evil have them. The balance of sides would be out of whack. I am a true believer that a balance must be made. Give one side too much power and that is when the shit hits the fan. Look at history.

Rick has already shown us what we need to know about a world without guns: