Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[hollodero]

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

OK after going through that several times I think I see your point.

Also I start feeling like debating physics with Einstein. Evidence that it's not evidence... but sure, laws-homicides correlation not strong enough to be clear evidence of a causal connection, I begrudgingly can see that.

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

But it has figures... but sure, fair enough.

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Me too.
I did not try to critizise the study. Couldn't if I wanted to. Rather I wondered whether the study under these premises really addresses the question at hand; which is if [Australian] gun control measures worked, not so much whether that one specific measure called NFA definitely worked [with strong enough correlat... you know]. I figured the not-strong non-study posed that question too, imho with merit.

(06-07-2022, 05:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I do not doubt that socioeconomic inequality is the bigger factor. Doesn't make it the only factor.
And I also feel that part of this inequality is just too engrained in the American way of life to ever significantly change. I don't mean that in a disdainful way; I mean it in a rather more or less factual way. The US won't change into a more equal society for most Americans strongly reject the idea, or the ideas that could lead there. Everything can change for sure, but this possibly only slowly and with time.
Sense of community, imho similar. Hard to turn back the clock on that one.
- Gun laws (and mental health, can't refute that one), you can change that. At least more quickly. Eg. if I had said tumor, sure a cure would be best, but for starters I wouldn't say no to painkillers.

- Overall, I get that you prefer evidence-based policies and that studies didn't provide unambiguous evidence of gun laws effectiveness. Myself, I'm more leaning to a "more likely than not" approach in many cases. For one, at times there can not be unambiguous evidence. And beliefs and ideology (what defines a positive outcome) has to play a part as well.
I see these studies, I get away with a feeling that more likely than not gun laws have an effect. And I'd also say that to me, as an example, it is more likely than not that the fact an 18-year-old more or less can get any guns no questions asked contributes to the number of such tragic events. It just feels like common sense. Just as not moving an inch for democrats are all dishonest on the gun issue feels like a "more likely than not" common sense stance to others. Which certainly can be backed up by anecdotal evidence, but hardly with unambigous scientific evidence either. It IS an emotional debate, after all, and hence I think emotional arguments can be viably brought up.


But sure this quickly leads me down a dangerous path, for admittedly my emotions and my common sense lead me to the same utter bewilderment that Arturo expresses. Your whole 2A created a gun romanticism that I feel has a huge cultural effect, even though I could never measure that; America is just too different to always understand really. I try though.