Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.


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.


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.

Problem with this type of study is how do we show that someone who planned to open fire on a school was deterred because of an armed guard?

you really can't, so your study.. is a bit inconclusive.

Is it true that more mass shooting occur in Gun Free Zones? 
If so, wouldn't that be an indicator that having an armed person would in fact have a chance to make the shooter pick a different target vs having no protection at all??