Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

bobzilla said:

Justjim75 said:

Because mass shootings were less prevalent or at least less reported for a given time (the Clinton defensive gun ban)definitely is not proof that it reduced anything.  I'm sorry, that is statistically a coincidence 

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion when half the arguments are intellectually dishonest intentionally. 

I like how you call all the arguments against your point intellectually dishonest or pushing an agenda.

Steve_Jones said:

I don't see where he said only the ones against his point. That being said, comparing shootings with 6+ dead against ones with 4+ dead to make a point, is dishonest no matter what side of the point you are on.

Except for the part where I never compared 6+ dead to 4+ dead (the entire graph measures 6+ dead), there was full disclosure of the metric in the graph, and then I went on to prove that the higher metric did not make the graph misleading?

bobzilla said:

What makes it even funnier when talking about how the AWB "dropped killings", the vast majority of murders are done with handguns. Same with "mass shootings" under he current definition. It's been a while since I looked up the physical numbers but the percentage if all "AW" were to disappear it would be ~1% of all murders. 

I agree, I've never understood the logic of singling out "assault" weapons. 

It seems like a move that was intended to drive response via fear (which I dislike that tactic) from supporters. But then it backfired (haha) because opposite side can see that it is a poor argument logically in many ways. So then we all just go round and round about nothing ("assault" weapons). 

Steve_Jones said:

93EXCivic said:

bobzilla said:

Justjim75 said:

Because mass shootings were less prevalent or at least less reported for a given time (the Clinton defensive gun ban)definitely is not proof that it reduced anything.  I'm sorry, that is statistically a coincidence 

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion when half the arguments are intellectually dishonest intentionally. 

I like how you call all the arguments against your point intellectually dishonest or pushing an agenda.

I don't see where he said only the ones against his point. That being said, comparing shootings with 6+ dead against ones with 4+ dead to make a point, is dishonest no matter what side of the point you are on.

He has said something to that effect multiple times in this thread.

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to Robbie (Forum Supporter) :

Yeah, but shouldn't we wait and find out if they are criminals before we kill them? 

 

I'm quite conflicted on the matter myself and I can empathize strongly with that argument, but I generally choose to let other people run their lives the way they see fit - which is a view I support on gun control and birth control and marijuana control and end-of-life euthanasia control and converting your streetcar efi to racecar efi control, etc. This is similar to how often times I support smaller local governments trying to solve problems rather than expecting one giant federal government to make sweeping decisions. 

I also, on occasion, masturbate (without feeling the guilt of preventing a possible life from coming into the world), and if we're gonna say one is ok and not the other then we need a line, I don't want to try to propose where that 'line' should be. 

We probably agree on more than we would disagree.

IMHO, I'm not the person to draw that line. My comment was more tongue in cheek than a serious statement. While I would like to think that as a society we could come up with better ways to limit mass killing and crime than just doing away with all the children born into poor households, I'm smart enough to know I don't have the answer.

Back to the gun discussion. 

How many of us have contacted our legislators about changing the 2a? I have not. 

What are our thoughts on the legislation that they did pass? Was it only good for the press coverage? Will it actually do something? 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Let's consider the possible scenarios:

1: Mass shootings of 6+ deaths are reduced while shootings of 4~5 deaths are unaffected (plausible). Result: The AWB significantly reduced mass shootings with 6+ deaths but not those with 4~5 deaths. Would this graph be misleading? Perhaps very slightly, if you're really not paying attention.

2. Mass shootings of 6+ deaths are reduced AND mass shootings of 4~5 deaths are similarly reduced (less plausible considering the selection, maybe what the person who made the graph would like us to think if we don't look too closely). Result: The AWB significantly reduced all mass shootings. Would this graph be misleading? Only in the sense that it would actually be hiding the full extent of the decrease in the AWB period.

3: Mass shootings of 6+ deaths are reduced while shootings of 4~5 deaths increased (highly implausible). Would this graph be misleading? It certainly could be in this scenario, at worst it could be hiding an overall increase in mass shooting deaths if, theoretically, there were a huge increase 4~5 death shootings.

Now it's time to look at the answers:



Result: We can see mostly depressed numbers during the AWB, which rules out scenario 3.

Edit: Found another graph using the 4-killed metric instead of 6, but is slightly more selective on the conditions of the shooting, it shows a slightly smaller decrease from the pre-ban numbers:

I don't think you are trying to be misleading, but I think all of the graphs you posted demonstrate how easy it is to let confirmation bias affect how one interprets data. I can look as the same graphs and agree with you- or use them to argue against you. The earlier graph showing mass shootings by county makes the US look pretty bad compared to the world. But the world is much bigger than 23 countries. Why present that data in that format, if not to lead the reader to a conclusion? Say I'm mid pack at an autocross. If I just graph the times below me, does that make me the fastest? And if I scale it to .00001 seconds, that .01 second gap to the car behind me would look like a huge difference. 
 

The graphs on mass shootings before and after the assault weapons ban are interesting. But they only show one variable during vastly different, long, time periods. It may not even be the most important variable once you look into other changes in society, mental health, and the criminal justice system during those periods. Even then, from '84-'94 to '94-'04, the number of incidents went up by only 1, while the number of victims went up substantially. We can assume that there were more victims because of the rifles, but the data doesn't really say that. And if assault rifles were the big variable, than why the big jump from pre '94 to post '04? If we just went back to how it was before, and the guns were the big variable- then wouldn't we expect the '04 on numbers to look more like pre '94? It gets even weirder when we look at the year by year graph. While you can see some long term trends, the most consistent part of the graph is it's inconsistency.

As I said pages ago, the problem is that this is a rare and sporadic incident, and every one is different. One outlier, like Las Vegas, can skew a decade of data depending on how you group it. There are so many different factors that are intertwined that It's about impossible to put your finger on a cause. 

Boost_Crazy said:

I don't think you are trying to be misleading, but I think all of the graphs you posted demonstrate how easy it is to let confirmation bias affect how one interprets data. I can look as the same graphs and agree with you- or use them to argue against you. The earlier graph showing mass shootings by county makes the US look pretty bad compared to the world. But the world is much bigger than 23 countries. Why present that data in that format, if not to lead the reader to a conclusion? Say I'm mid pack at an autocross. If I just graph the times below me, does that make me the fastest? And if I scale it to .00001 seconds, that .01 second gap to the car behind me would look like a huge difference.

It shows the US along side other developed "first world" countries. This eliminates many of the countries that are closer to the US in gun deaths. The autocross equivalent would be comparing your time to the times of other cars in the same class, even if your time is vastly different, which seems like a fair way to group the data. I don't see how it would be less damning to show the US closer to the countries with similar gun deaths such as El Salvador and Jamaica - the autocross equivalent of showing your Porsche Cayman next to a Toyota Prius because you got a similar time somehow. It still says that something is terribly wrong with your car (or driving), just in a different way.

Boost_Crazy said:

The graphs on mass shootings before and after the assault weapons ban are interesting. But they only show one variable during vastly different, long, time periods. It may not even be the most important variable once you look into other changes in society, mental health, and the criminal justice system during those periods. Even then, from '84-'94 to '94-'04, the number of incidents went up by only 1, while the number of victims went up substantially. We can assume that there were more victims because of the rifles, but the data doesn't really say that. And if assault rifles were the big variable, than why the big jump from pre '94 to post '04? If we just went back to how it was before, and the guns were the big variable- then wouldn't we expect the '04 on numbers to look more like pre '94? It gets even weirder when we look at the year by year graph. While you can see some long term trends, the most consistent part of the graph is it's inconsistency.

As I said pages ago, the problem is that this is a rare and sporadic incident, and every one is different. One outlier, like Las Vegas, can skew a decade of data depending on how you group it. There are so many different factors that are intertwined that It's about impossible to put your finger on a cause. 

I agree there are one or more other factors driving up the gun deaths constantly over time independent of gun control laws, but there is a clear reduction in the AWB era that can't be disregarded as a coincidence. Just eyeballing the graph it looks like 5 of the lowest years were during the 10-year AWB period. Only 2 of the lowest years are outside the AWB period and they are on the earliest end of the data collection. Combined with the lower death count per incident it's a strong correlation that suggests causation, which can be further reinforced by gun death data from other countries that have enacted stricter gun control.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

I agree there are one or more other factors driving up the gun deaths constantly over time independent of gun control laws, but there is a clear reduction in the AWB era that can't be disregarded as a coincidence. Just eyeballing the graph it looks like 5 of the lowest years were during the 10-year AWB period. Only 2 of the lowest years are outside the AWB period and they are on the earliest end of the data collection. Combined with the lower death count per incident it's a strong correlation that suggests causation, which can be further reinforced by gun death data from other countries that have enacted stricter gun control.

Sure it can be coincidence. It could be 100% coincidence for all we know, because we don't know. That's not likely. So how much is coincidence? How much is due to the AWB? How much was due to other variables? Heck, I could take that data and tell you that there are almost 40% more mass shooting deaths in odd years than even years. Since we know the calendar is not really a factor, that demonstrates the randomness of the incidents by their nature. As I pointed out earlier, the AWB alone does not explain the large differences before or after. 

Boost_Crazy said:

Sure it can be coincidence. It could be 100% coincidence for all we know, because we don't know. That's not likely. So how much is coincidence? How much is due to the AWB? How much was due to other variables? Heck, I could take that data and tell you that there are almost 40% more mass shooting deaths in odd years than even years. Since we know the calendar is not really a factor, that demonstrates the randomness of the incidents by their nature. As I pointed out earlier, the AWB alone does not explain the large differences before or after. 

The numbers are noisy but in the larger view, not random at all, on the 6+ death chart grouped by decade you can draw trend lines with a single ruler stroke and the AWB decade is the only one that isn't a close fit. The record low deaths-per-incident in that period combined with the only slightly decreased incident count also suggest that slower/less deadly firearms were being used in mass shootings in that period. So just from that graph, we must conclude that either the AWB was having something along the lines of its intended effect, or mass shooters just coincidentally became far less effective on average during the same period.

One could argue that the "Assault Weapon" ban increased demand for that style of rifle and that increased demand led to more "crazy" people buying those weapons.   

One could argue that the differences in occurrences are a reflection of the state of the economy and the general frustration a bad economy creates and have nothing to do with the number of these rifles in circulation.

One could argue that the evolving state of political discourse, of two parties each saying the other side is evil (one more than the other but that is getting political),  that leads people susceptible to "Jedi mind tricks" into believing whatever angry words they hear against their chosen enemy and acting out violently.  The graph could represent the ebbing and flowing of this general anger and is a representation of this violence driver at any given time.

We, as a country, have gone through 20 years of a serious schism in how we, as Americans, view what being an American is. (The last 6 years were especially contentious)    Think  16th & 17th century European Reformation religious wars.   The schism of disagreement between Roman Catholics and the new Protestants led to bloody confrontations.  This is where Americans are with two, or more, political philosophies dis-uniting any sense of a consistent identity.  

In my opinion this evolving and expanding schism is fueling the organized violence of BLM & ANTIFA, and the chaotic violence of these random mass shooters. 

I am betting that the next wave of BLM & ANTIFA riots will include them carrying AR-15's. An Agent Provocateur will goad two sides(think Proud Boys as the other side) into shooting at each other.    This, IMO, will lead to a massive police state crackdown on everyone with firearms. The War on Drugs on steroids.    

In reply to jharry3 :

to say nothing of the effect of social media and careless rhetoric on social polarization.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Boost_Crazy said:

Sure it can be coincidence. It could be 100% coincidence for all we know, because we don't know. That's not likely. So how much is coincidence? How much is due to the AWB? How much was due to other variables? Heck, I could take that data and tell you that there are almost 40% more mass shooting deaths in odd years than even years. Since we know the calendar is not really a factor, that demonstrates the randomness of the incidents by their nature. As I pointed out earlier, the AWB alone does not explain the large differences before or after. 

The numbers are noisy but in the larger view, not random at all, on the 6+ death chart grouped by decade you can draw trend lines with a single ruler stroke and the AWB decade is the only one that isn't a close fit. The record low deaths-per-incident in that period combined with the only slightly decreased incident count also suggest that slower/less deadly firearms were being used in mass shootings in that period. So just from that graph, we must conclude that either the AWB was having something along the lines of its intended effect, or mass shooters just coincidentally became far less effective on average during the same period.


 

You just highlighted my point. Your line has an upward slope. If the AWB was the most influential variable, then we would expect more of a flat line connecting the before and after with a dip in the middle. We don't see that. At best, we see the AWB as lowering the slope a bit, as it's reasonable to believe that the upward trend would have continued. But we really don't know, because there are too many variables and too few data points, as jharry3 pointed out. The record low death per incident is misleading, because the above graph shows a 10 year average. There were a couple years in that group that were higher than the previous 10 year lows, with one really bad year right in the middle. I get why they chose those years, 10 year increments make sense. But gun violence didn't start in 1982, and we have such little data- it would be interesting to see that trend line if it included a couple more decades. 
 

Edit: It's really hard finding raw data on this, much of it is grouped one way or another to lead to a conclusion. But it appears that there were 19 mass shootings in the 70's, 18 with 126 deaths from '74-84. If that is accurate, then the number of incidents for 20+ years before and during the AWB remained pretty consistent. If you added a trend line, the AWB would just be a continuation of the already downwards trend. Of course, move your grouping by a couple years in either direction, and you can change the results. 

stroker said:

In reply to jharry3 :

to say nothing of the effect of social media and careless rhetoric on social polarization.

I think this brings up an excellent point. Social media. Since it started to really gain popularity in the early 2000s, we've seen a pretty notable increase in mass shootings. Social media has really changed how we access information, and one of the worst parts is that it's made it much easier for people to access extremist propaganda (no, I'm not suggesting banning any sort of information, just pointing this out). In many recent mass shootings, they've found that the shooters were consuming extremist media. There is already lots of data about how social media negatively impacts young people's mental health, self image, etc, but I think some attention should be given to this. Social media algorithms seek only to put things in front of our eyes that will encourage us to click them, which is why many people see increasingly inflammatory things. In the documentary "The Social Dilemma" they talk about how people are more likely to click "extreme" topics, or especially things that make them angry. 

Also, I'd like to post this just to fact-check some numbers I've seen thrown around:
link

"Notably, most individuals who engaged in mass shootings used handguns (77.2%), and 25.1% used assault rifles in the commission of their crimes. Of the known mass shooting cases (32.5% of cases could not be confirmed), 77% of those who engaged in mass shootings purchased at least some of their guns legally, while illegal purchases were made by 13% of those committing mass shootings. In cases involving K-12 school shootings, over 80% of individuals who engaged in shootings stole guns from family members."

So in terms of mass shootings, we can see that the overwhelming majority of offenders were people who either bought their guns legally or stole them from family members.

I don't really see the point in another AWB other than to claim, "we did something!" which to me would be a waste of political capital to do something meaningful.   There are already so many in circulation, I don't see how it would move the needle on mass shootings in any significant direction.  And let's face it, any sort of forced buy-back program is a non-starter.  Of course, what would be "meaningful" is the point of this thread, and I already made my suggestions some two dozen or so pages ago.

Plus... the AWB wasn't arguably all that effective. My own Mak-90 is an AWB era AK.  It meets the AWB requirements as sold, but there is no real difference in functionality.  I originally planned to back-date it, but now I like the novelty of its AWB bits. 

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

I don't really see the point in another AWB other than to claim, "we did something!" which to me would be a waste of political capital to do something meaningful.  

It's not about doing something effective.  It's about image and precedent.  The new ruling by the SC has pretty much killed the concept of banning "Assault Weapons"....

The AWB had notoriously ham-fisted criteria for defining an "assault weapon" and I'm certainly not advocating bringing it back just as it was, and there would be easier ways to have a greater impact on gun deaths than doing anything similar a second time - Canada focuses a lot of gun control efforts on handguns because they're so much more commonly used in crimes. I was just using it as an example to point out that it did have an effect and as such, the USA is not magically unaffected by gun control laws as others had suggested may be the case.

An interesting article into the world of using marketing, outrage and virtue signaling to sell more guns. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/07/25/daniel-defense-super-bowl-ad/

Speaking of social media and the like having influence: the lines above follow the same slope if we look at the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

It's easier to radicalize people when there is no rebuttal to your points. 

So a few pages back I mentioned an active shooter situation on my road, 3.1 miles from my front door. The gentleman who was involved in this incident was having a bad day. A single 47 year old man who has had previous mental health issues and is currently on disability. Many of his neighbors are my neighbors and a few of these people who know the accused have stated that there has been an escalation in his paranoia over the last three years. He had become violent a month ago after chasing down a vehicle that passed by his house three times in a row. The driver was a delivery driver looking for an address on the wrong road. The driver, a woman, was quick to call the police after the man attacked her car and he was taken in and charged with a minor crime. When he started shooting at cars he had been seen screaming at them to leave him alone. A note that may or may not be related to his state of mind, he was on doctor prescribed medications to control his paranoia and also was self medicating with Michigan's now legal high grade marijuana. Not saying it's linked but I recall being a bit paranoid on the Devils Lettuce  anyhoo, more details will unfold soon. 

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

Speaking of social media and the like having influence: the lines above follow the same slope if we look at the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

It's easier to radicalize people when there is no rebuttal to your points. 

Plus a million.  I think the return of the fisrness doctorine would take the wind out of a bunch of peoples sails. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I read through that article twice to try to see if it had even a little bit to do with this discussion. I must have missed it. I don't see the point of the article in the first place. Marketing is manipulative? You don't say! Next you will tell me that the Toyota Camry in my driveway is different from the one they drove in NASCAR. 

In other news, pretty much all marketing is manipulative and most controversies are manufacturered to increase sales, viewers, or donations. The real story? Nothing sells guns like talk of banning guns. 

Boost_Crazy said:

The real story? Nothing sells guns like talk of banning guns. 

Which is why there are upteen zillion AR-15's out there...

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

Speaking of social media and the like having influence: the lines above follow the same slope if we look at the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

It's easier to radicalize people when there is no rebuttal to your points. 

Plus a million.  I think the return of the fisrness doctorine would take the wind out of a bunch of peoples sails. 
 

I see this brought up occasionally, and every time I'm convinced that those that bring it up have almost zero understanding of the issue or it's implications. 

While I would love to have a debate about this, it's definily out of bounds here so I'll tread carfully to avoid anything directly political, or advocating one side over the other. 

Extreme right wing nuts and extreme left wing nuts have way more in common with each other than the vast majority of people. They are nuts. I believe that the political spectrum is not a line but a circle, with the extreme right and left meeting on the far side. 

Calling someone or an organization extreme or radical just because they are slightly to the right or left of you does not make it so, and only widens the divide. 

Both "sides" have wide audiences, though they dominate different forms of media. Both offer token amounts of opposing content. When most people say that want the fairness doctrine to come back, they want it to apply to one and not the other. My observation as a skeptical person who takes in info from multiple sources is that one group tends to be a bit more forthcoming in what they call opinion, while the other frequently portrays opinion as news. Other than that, they are not all that different.

All that said, I fail to see the relevance in this discussion. There is no data that shows that extremists on one side or the other commit more of the mass shootings, or that extremist nuts are much different that regular nuts that commit these shootings. I do acknowledge that there is an appearance that one group commits a disproportionate amount of the shootings. But I believe that is largely due to the disproportionate ways that they are reported. In one recent shooting, the race of the monster who commited it was intentionally misreported to support the narrative. There is no need for that. 
 

As far as radicallizing people- I don't really see either group doing that. Unless you are taking about the extreme fringe bloggers or guys in the woods with a small radio station with 200 listeners. If you are talking about the mainsteam shows and networks, maybe listen for yourself before you believe what others tell you to think. You probably won't agree, but you should see that they aren't trying to build armies of radicals. Unless your definition of radical is anything other than what you believe, then I can't help you.