Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2022, 02:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: There are other studies that have different findings, like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/  --- clearly saying among other things that "Figure 1G and table 3 indicate that although the rate per 100 000 of total firearm deaths was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this rate doubled to 6% after the introduction of gun laws". So, gun laws, right.

So with this study I can see why you may think this counters my claim. However, you can see on table 3 that they are (partially) agreeing with the study I linked. Keep in mind that the study I linked uses almost a decade more data so trends will change some. But table three clearly shows that the reduction rate in firearm homicides, both with and without mass shootings in the statistics, was not statistically significant. Now, statistical significance alone is not enough to be evidence of causality, but it does show evidence that there is not a strong enough correlation between the two variables (gun law change and firearm homicide rate) to be evidence of a causal effect. In fact, the overall homicide rate and the non-firearm homicide rate had a more significant drop than the firearm homicide rate.

As for the other figures on the table, firearm suicides and unintentional firearm deaths did see a significant reduction. Again with the suicides, we see this trend with non-firearm suicides as well. So we again do not have strong enough indication of causal factors.

(06-07-2022, 02:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...or this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/ ---which concludes that "The rate of firearm homicides in Australia is dramatically lower than that in the United States not because Australia banned semiautomatic rifles and implemented a buy-back program but because there was a greater degree of control of who had access to firearms even before passage of the NFA." - and if I hold that opinion, I have a study to back that up too.

This is actually not a study, but is a response to the study I posted that was in the same journal volume it was published in. It asks questions, but doesn't truly refute any of the points and uses older studies and data to make attempts at refutation. It isn't really a strong case.

(06-07-2022, 02:26 PM)hollodero Wrote: (btw. the last study might be a bit simplistic, but makes a claim that made me wonder about "your" study, even if i'm not nearly versed enough to even grasp most of the methods described. "Your" study behaves as if regarding gun laws, there was simply a time "before NFA" and "after NFA"; which doesn't seem quite right to me. But again, what do I know.)

Which would be a fair criticism is the study in question was attempting to say that gun control doesn't work. Instead, they were looking at the effects of the NFA. For that research question, you are looking at the pre- and post-NFA dichotomy. Could there be another study that expands on that? Absolutely. I'd love to see it. I want evidence based policy and if there is something that could be done within our constitutional framework to reduce gun violence, I am all for it.

I just know that the strongest correlation for gun violence is socioeconomic inequality. I know we have a woefully inadequate mental health system and a declining sense of community in our society. All of these things are causes of violence of all types and working to resolve these issues would be within the constitutional framework and would actually solve the problem. It's like treating the pain of a headache but ignoring the brain tumor causing the pain.