"Myths of Murder" -- junk science in the debate on guns and crime

[NorthernSpy]

Do you believe that every time a prisoner is executed in the United States, eight future murders are deterred? Do you believe that a 1% increase in the number of citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons causes a 3.3% decrease in the state's murder rate? Do you believe that 10 to 20% of the decline in crime in the 1990s was caused by an increase in abortions in the 1970s? Or that the murder rate would have increased by 250% since 1974 if the United States had not built so many new prisons?

If you were misled by any of these studies, you may have fallen for a pernicious form of junk science: the use of mathematical models with no demonstrated predictive capability to draw policy conclusions.

--Ted Goertzel, in "Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression"


A couple of years ago, the Skeptical Inquirer published Ted Goertzel's critique of the use of pseudosciencey econometrics to "prove" just about anything a determined researcher might have an ideological interest in proving. The article is online at Goertzel's site, and it's a great piece; not at all technical, and absolutely a must-read for anyone who wants to evaluate many of the claims made in social policy debates -- including the controversy over guns.

Bottom line? Analyses that rely on multiple regression modeling to demonstrate that concealed-carry licensing affects crime rates have produced a lot of heinously complicated, equation-crammed baloney. That's bad news for John Lott. It's also bad news for anyone trying to make a case for gun control using methods similar to Lott's.


I've pasted a few excerpts below. You can find the entire article at http://crab.rutgers.edu/goertzel/ .



These studies are superficially impressive. Written by reputable social scientists from prestigious institutions, they often appear in peer reviewed scientific journals. Filled with complex statistical calculations, they give precise numerical "facts" that can be used as debaters’ points in policy arguments. But these "facts" are will o' the wisps. Before the ink is dry on one study, another appears with completely different "facts." Despite their scientific appearance, these models do not meet the fundamental criterion for a useful mathematical model: the ability to make predictions that are better than random chance.

(...)

Lott's work is an example of statistical one-upmanship. He has more data and a more complex analysis than anyone else studying the topic. He demands that anyone who wants to challenge his arguments become immersed in a very complex statistical debate, based on computations so difficult that they cannot be done with ordinary desktop computers. He challenges anyone who disagrees with him to download his data set and redo his calculations, but most social scientists do not think it worth their while to replicate studies using methods that have repeatedly failed. Most gun control researchers simply brushed off Lott and Mustard's claims and went on with their work. Two highly respected criminal justice researchers, Frank Zimring and Gordon Hawkins (1997) wrote an article explaining that:

just as Messrs. Lott and Mustard can, with one model of the determinants of homicide, produce statistical residuals suggesting that 'shall issue' laws reduce homicide, we expect that a determined econometrician can produce a treatment of the same historical periods with different models and opposite effects. Econometric modeling is a double-edged sword in its capacity to facilitate statistical findings to warm the hearts of true believers of any stripe.

Zimring and Hawkins were right. Within a year, two determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin (1998) published a study showing that if they changed the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's findings disappeared. Black and Nagin found that when Florida was removed from the sample there was "no detectable impact of the right-to-carry laws on the rate of murder and rape." They concluded that "inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy."


There are, in fact, no important findings in sociology or criminology that cannot be communicated to journalists and policy makers who lack graduate degrees in econometrics. It is time to admit that the emperor has no clothes. When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis.

[SheilaT]

1. Thanks for posting this.

I like to point out that if the death penalty really deterred murder, a country with the death penalty should have the lowest murder rate around. Oddly enough, that's not the case. Or a heavily armed population ought to be one in which little or no crime occurs. Again, that's not the case.

Instead, this country, with the death penalty in most states, and many armed citizens, has high murder and crime rates, far beyond those of all other industrialized countries.

[Withergyld]

2. The UK and Australia both have higher crime rates then the US

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm
"The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The countries fall into three bands.
- Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
- 20%-24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France, and USA
- Under 20%: Finland, Catalonia (Spain), Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland.
<snip>
Contact crime

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%). In Japan the risk of contact crime was especially low (0.4%).

Robbery

Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%). On average, just over a third of victims of robbery said the offender(s) carried a weapon of some sort - in most cases a knife. There was a higher than average use of weapons in the USA, Catalonia, Scotland, and Portugal. Although not very statistically robust, the data indicate that guns were used relatively more often in Catalonia and the USA.
<snip>
Assaults and threats

Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults or threats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%). Risks were lowest in Japan, Portugal, (under 1%) and Catalonia (1.5%). Offenders were known in about half the incidents overall. Men were less likely to know offenders than women. Weapons (especially knifes) were said to have been used (if only as a threat) in just under a quarter of incidents."

[CO Liberal]

3. That Still Doesn't Justify America's Obsession With Guns

IMHO.

[Withergyld]

4. It does show that ...

Reducing access to firearms does not reduce the overall crime rate.

[CO Liberal]

8. And Neither Does Increased Gun Access

[Withergyld]

15. If gun control does not affect crime rates, why impose stricter laws???

:hi:

[CO Liberal]

16. And Why Make Them Looser???

[slackmaster]

17. Because we live in a free society that values individual liberty

Self-determination, personal choice, the pursuit of happiness and all that crap.

:eyes:

Needless, useless restrictions are just plain WRONG.

[Withergyld]

18. well said

You beat me to it Slack
:toast:

[CO Liberal]

20. I Do Not Consider Gun Control Needless or Useless

However, I consider assholes like Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh to be needless and useless.

[el_gato]

23. you want the government to have too much power

We ain't gonna be your sucker.

[CO Liberal]

25. And You Seem to Want The NRA To Have Too Much Power

IMHO.

[el_gato]

28. Weird projection on your part (I just want my freedom)

I couldn't care less about the NRA, but you can
coninue your dishonest smears if you want. It only further
exposes your pathetic attempts at equating all gun owners
with support for people like ted nugent.

[CO Liberal]

34. Not to Mention YOUR Feeble Attampts....

...to denigrate any opinion that differs from yours.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

24. Some gun control makes sense to me

However, I consider assholes like Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, and John Lott/Mary Rosh to be needless and useless.

I consider them to be a Red Herring in this thread.

[el_gato]

32. they have to continue the smear by association

and act like liberals never own guns

desperation

[CO Liberal]

36. Perhaps The Desperation...

...is that your side is runing out of arguments?

[MrBenchley]

38. Seems somebody failed to notice

that the initial post concerned Mary Rosh's "more guns = less crime" FRAUD....

[Withergyld]

39. How is that any different then the VPC's 1n 5 LEO killed lie??

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

41. For one thing it's not a lie

[Withergyld]

43. It is a lie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=39376#39525
Note that the officer from MD they claim died from an assault weapon was shot BEFORE the AWB.

[MrBenchley]

44. Not even close to true

Yeah, and he died after it.

"Not so, said Kristen Rand, the Violence Policy Center's legislative director, in a telephone interview.
"All we did was we called the FBI, we asked them if we could get a list of guns used to kill police officers," Rand said. "We took those instances where we knew for sure that it was an assault weapon and put them together. I think the confusion comes in that this data is not routinely released."
The data, summarized in the organization's "Officer Down" report, includes the model number and bullet caliber used in police shootings from Alaska to New York. Among the fatalities is the Oct. 20, 2000, death of Baltimore County Police Officer John Stem, the last Maryland officer to die of wounds inflicted by an assault weapon. Stem suffered the wounds during a barricade shooting in 1977 that left him paralyzed and killed a fellow officer."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.guns11feb11,0,650684.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

[jimsteuben]

51. I read the VPC's report

They never define "assault weapon."

If Partnership for a Drug-Free America releases a report claiming that X number of high school students became addicted to "gateway drugs" without ever defining the term "gateway drug," then it would be another case of junk science.

"Sagecraft" as Don Kates calls it.
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Kates/gun-control.html

[MrBenchley]

54. Again, not even close to true...

Funny how you missed this when reading it...

"5) The law states, "The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means—(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; (vi) SWD —10, M-11/9, and M-12; (vii) Steyr AUG; (viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12...."

As well as this...

"8) The Federal Bureau of Investigation data does not identify the firearm used in some instances, in those cases the type of firearm is listed as "unknown." Therefore, the number of law enforcement officers killed with assault weapons may actually be higher. (This figure does not include the 72 law enforcement deaths that resulted from the events of September 11, 2001. The foreword of the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2001 states, "Because a catastrophe such as the September 11 attacks falls far outside the normal course of police experience, the FBI has not included those fatalities in the 2001 rate, trend, or disposition tables for to do so would skew the data and render analyses meaningless.") The year 2001 is the most recent year for which complete information is available from the FBI. "

http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm


Next, you should ask me if I give a good steaming crap about ANYTHING Don Kates says.....

[Columbia]

57. Nope

That does not list what VPC is using as the definition of AW, only what models had to change by name and features to become post-ban.

"Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law, a tactic the industry dubbed "sporterization." Of the nine assault weapon brand/types listed by manufacturer in the law,5 six of the brand/types have been re-marketed in new, "sporterized" configurations."

Thanks for leaving that footnote there to make it easier to detect the denial, distortion, and outright deception that so often pervades the anti crowd.

Nice try though. :hi:

[MrBenchley]

58. Yup....

But it's wonderful to see how desperately the RKBA crowd will spin..

[Columbia]

61. Nope

Are we going to do this all day?

[MrBenchley]

91. What else does the RKBA crowd do?

They post right wing crap, slur Democrats, and try to pretend the truth is a lie.

[Withergyld]

62. The study is incorrect

They list 13 example incidents. In 6 of these incidents whether or not the weapon used would be considered an assault weapon is dependent on it's configuration. In one of these incidents they list the wrong weapon. In the other five, the Newspaper sources they list do not provide enough information to determine if the weapon in question was an assault weapon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=25271

[MrBenchley]

83. Only to those

desperate enough to pretend Mary Rosh is a real scientist....

[Withergyld]

94. I have never said ...

Mary Rosh was a scientist.

Keep you strawmen to yourself.

Anyone who supports the VPC is a gun grabber. Go to their Home page. on it you will find the following logo:


Clicking the icon will take you to the following page:
http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/
"Every Handgun is Aimed at You
Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, by Violence Policy Center Executive Director Josh Sugarmann, covers a wide range of issues in 10 chapters demonstrating that banning handguns is the most effective way to reduce gun violence in America.

Encompassing topics ranging from crime to homicide to suicide to women and minorities, Every Handgun is Aimed at You uses statistics, easy-to-read charts, and first-person interviews to illustrate the true nature of America's epidemic of gun violence. It is an invaluable resource for all who are working to stop firearms death and injury."

RKBA proponents are accused of being paraniod, what about this "Every Handgun is Aimed at You" That sure sounds paranoid.
:freak:

[MrBenchley]

95. Tough luck...

I'd take the VPC over any source the RKBA crowd puts up...

[Withergyld]

101. When did I use a NRA source??

:freak:

[CO Liberal]

132. No More Paranoid...

...then all the pro-gunners who bitch and moan about every gun control measure being an attempt to confiscate each and every gun on the face of the planet.

[jimsteuben]

123. what is an "assault weapon"?

Mr.B wrote:
Funny how you missed this when reading it...

"5) The law states,..."


Yes, that is what the federal definition of "assault weapon," but is that the definition of "assault weapon" that the VPC uses? Don't they include post-ban versions as "assault wepaon"? Do they at least pictures of the actual weapons used so that someone can examine the evidence and try to verify the numbers?

[el_gato]

40. Your desperation is a result of your lame arguements CO

I stand for LIBERTY

too bad you have to rely on McCarthyite tactics

[Superfly]

45. It also stems from the anti-RKBAers'

incredibly assinine support of a morally bankrupt position.

[CO Liberal]

47. But Too Many Of Your Fellow Travelers....

...stand for oppressing opposing views and forcing their viewpoints on everyone else. it's truly ironic how some people scream that they suppoort "LIBERTY". but only for themselves.....

[Superfly]

49. What in the holy hell are you talking about now?

Or are you just going to continue making overly obtuse statements with no bearing on the current conversation.

[alwynsw]

60. I, for one, am strongly opposed to stifling anyone's viewpoint

Such viewpoints become a matter of contention when the advance of same places undue restrictions upon the personal freedoms and rights of others. It is my right to own firearms. Many of the control mandates being bandied about by the anti crowns stink of Jim Crow in the worst sense.

I would contend that a vote is far more powerful than any firearm ever produced, yet we have no qualifications aside from appropriate age, mental stability, and a legal record clear of felony convictions (in most instances) in order for one to cast a ballot. Why should there be any tighter restrictions on firearms ownership?

Please spare me the same old tired lines.

Incidentally, "Fellow Traveler" is an archaic term once used to denote communist in this and other free countries. It was used frequently by McCarthy and his supporters. I find it's use in referring to freedom loving liberals offensive in the worst possible way.

[CO Liberal]

64. And I'm NOT A "Freedom Loving Liberal"???

I find that even more offensive.

[el_gato]

71. We know

but I love freedom so quit trying to take mine away.

[CO Liberal]

74. And Stop Trying to Take Away MY Freedom...

...to tell you that I think you're wrong.

[el_gato]

76. Your freedom to take away my right to own a gun? LOL!

And disagreeing with you is not a threat to your freedom. Get over it.

[CO Liberal]

77. My Stating An Opinion On This Board

...has no effect on you and your precious little guns. Get over THAT.

[el_gato]

78. Your opinion is that we should have less freedom

[CO Liberal]

105. My Opinion Is That We Should Have Less Guns...

...in the hands of felons, violent people, and the mentally ill. Do you object to that?

[el_gato]

108. and how do you go about doing that?

[CO Liberal]

109. It Doesn't Matter What I Suggest

When every suggestion anyone makes of a reasonable gun control measure is met by "It can't be done / I refuse to compromise any more / You're trying to take away my guns" from people and organizations on your side.

[RoeBear]

119. Throw out one proposal...

...the last gun control law that we'll ever need. You only get one, this is it for ever. The I'll get back to you.

This one gun control law at a time crap is what makes us dig in our heels. For example the bullshit 'gunshow loophole'. The minute the 'gunshow loophole' is closed someone will be offfering the 'private sale loophole' law.

Or discriminatory handgun bans, what comes after those?

[CO Liberal]

127. What You're Asking For is Impossible

No one knows what the future holds - and no one can compose one law that will work forever - on ANY subject.

One law at a time is how our system works, and you pro-gunners are gonna have to accept that.

[RoeBear]

133. And of course...

...we won't accept that and aren't accepting that. As a matter of fact we have become pro-active on the subject are going for things to improve our lot. Things like 'fair-issue' CCW, nuisance law suit protection and allowing the AWB to expire.

So maybe you should have asked me for one last pro-gun law.

[CO Liberal]

135. Also Impossible

For the same reason that one last gun control law is impossible.

[beevul]

120. Try suggesting...

the idea of finding and targeting agressively the CAUSE or CAUSES of the violence problem, instead of targeting guns. You might get some support then.


Reasonable gun control measure...

Promoting any gun control for the purposes of stoping violence rather than targeting the cause of violence is hardly reasonable IMO.

As I eluded to in a previous post, CO, "compromise" is a falsehood where the gun control arena is concerned. When a compromise is made, anti-gunners get everything and give up nothing. Pro-gunners give, and anti-gunners take. The whole idea of compromise in this arena is a farce, and is used as a tool to make one side look unreasonable if they decide not to give any more.

Concentrating on the tools of violence, rather than the cause/causes of violence appears to me as a foot in the door for gun control proponents who are more concerned with the tools than the cause.

[alwynsw]

122. There was never an implication that you are not

[iverglas]

56. are you actually saying

If gun control does not affect crime rates, why impose stricter laws???

... that you expect gun control to reduce the rates of, oh, shoplifting? Date rape? Consumer fraud? Insurance fraud? Arson? Child-beating? Unarmed robbery? Drunk driving?

Or ... were you maybe suggesting that anyone else had ever suggested that it would?

Seems to me that you're the one with the bad case of apples and oranges here.

And I mean, that even if you could actually provide credible evidence that crime rates -- either overall crime, or crime committed with firearms -- do not differ between jurisdictions with more or less strict firearms control.

.

[Columbia]

59. Let's see here...

"And I mean, that even if you could actually provide credible evidence that crime rates -- either overall crime, or crime committed with firearms -- do not differ between jurisdictions with more or less strict firearms control."

If anything, areas with more gun control suffer from more violence. Just take a look at Chicago and DC versus any other city in the US.

[iverglas]

73. yes, do let's

If anything, areas with more gun control suffer from more violence. Just take a look at Chicago and DC versus any other city in the US.

Dog knows why one bothers ...

Do Chicago and DC have "gun control" -- or do they have legislation designed to control guns that is virtually completely ineffective because they have no way of controlling the importation of firearms from other jurisdictions, and of controlling the firearms already present within their jurisdiction?

Suffer from more violence that what? Than what they would have suffered w/o gun control?

I mean ... I thought we were supposed to be taking into account those things like racial/ethnic makeup/mix, and how about income disparity? DC and Chicago have "more violence" (I do hope I can assume you are referring to firearms violence) than other comparable places?

Surely someone isn't demanding that those factors be taken into account, when s/he is claiming (often baselessly) that the US is more affected by those factors than other countries, and pretend that no one ever said that, when it comes to comparing places within the US?

Shurely not, eh?


(typo edited)

[Columbia]

75. Yup

"Do Chicago and DC have "gun control" -- or do they have legislation designed to control guns that is virtually completely ineffective because they have no way of controlling the importation of firearms from other jurisdictions, and of controlling the firearms already present within their jurisdiction?"

You're right, gun control laws are completely ineffective, thanks for agreeing with me.

"Surely someone isn't demanding that those factors be taken into account, when s/he is claiming (often baselessly) that the US is more affected by those factors than other countries, and pretend that no one ever said that, when it comes to comparing places within the US?"

Yes, there are many factors affecting violence, the least of which is guns.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

82. really?

Quote it.

Or just falsely represent something I said again.

I know which I'll be expecting.

And I know which I regard as a personal attack.

.

[Columbia]

86. I'd say the whole thing

was pretty inflammatory, but that's just me.

[iverglas]

55. no it doesn't

But hell, maybe you will tell us, in your own words and having regard to all the relevant facts as we know them to be, how it might do that.

The sun is shining. Perhaps hell will thaw today.

.

[MrBenchley]

6. Only according to a survey

Actual crime rates show a very different story....

And the rate of VIOLENT crime is much much higher in the US than in other countries with gun control....for example,, as we saw here, despite the constant horseshit posted here about the supposed British bloodbath, the FACT is that the entire UK has less gun crime in a year than San Antonio, Texas, all by itself.

[slackmaster]

7. The real truth about the UN International Crime Victim Survey

We've been over MrBenchley's little attempt at distraction about a dozen times in the last month or so. Neither the widespread use of biased surveys by politically motivated organizations nor the ubiquitous hokey Internet "surveys" in which no attempt is made to control the sample detract from the long-established value of properly designed and executed surveys as sources of valid data for scientific research. The UN survey is the real thing done by real scientists for sterling reasons:

...There were two main reasons for setting up this project. The first was the inadequacy of offences recorded by the police for comparing crime in different countries. The second was the absence of any alternative standardised measure.

Police figures are problematic for comparative purposes because the vast majority of incidents the police know about are notified by victims, and any differences in propensity to report in different countries will undermine the comparability of the amount of crime counted by the police. Moreover, official police figures vary because of differences in legal definitions, recording practices, and precise rules for classifying and counting incidents. These limitations are well-established....

See http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/Index.htm

Main page at http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/Index.htm

[jimsteuben]

9. comparing crime rates

"...the FACT is that the entire UK has less gun crime in a year than San Antonio, Texas, all by itself."

Britain has always had a lower rate of violent crime than the US - regardless of gun control laws.


America doesn't have a "gun problem." It has a problem of criminal violence.

[MrBenchley]

10. Too frigging funny...

Guess that's RKBA logic, or whatever it is.....

"RKBA crowd: Britain has more violent crime than the US
(Truns out it has less)
RKBA crowd: Big deal, Britain always had less violent crime than the US"

America certainly DOES have a gun problem....mostly caused by letting the corrupt gun industry set public policy...for example, commissioning the GOP to block the two Democratic proposals to end the problem of gun-running currently under discussion in another thread.

[slackmaster]

13. Don't take my "crowd's" word for it

The UN survey data is all there at http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/Index.htm for anyone who wants to see how the actual research was conducted and what it concluded.

[jimsteuben]

48. Crime in the UK

"In the past 20 years, both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearm laws; even banning all handguns in 1997. Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The public is not any safer and may be less safe. Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000."

"The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales" by Gary A. Mauser
PUBLIC POLICY SOURCES
A FRASER INSTITUTE OCCASIONAL PAPER
Number 71 / November 2003

[iverglas]

65. It's the Fraser Institute!

And all good Canadians, and enlightened USAmericans, know that quoting the Fraser Institute is kinda like quoting Fox News, only with bigger words. And quoting Gary Mauser, well, that's kinda like quoting John Lott (except Mauser has only one personality, as far as I know). And good Canadians point and laugh, just like anyone should do when looking at junk science. Btw, the url is: http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/forum/More-guns.pdf or http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm

In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000."

Uh, yeah.

And the homicide rate in the US in 2000 was 5.5/100,000 -- roughly 55 per million.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm

In 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population-triple the Canadian rate of 1.8. The number of homicides has declined in both countries during the 1990s, particularly south of the border. Two decades ago, the American homicide rate was about four times that of Canada.

And in Canada, 17.7 per million (18.5 in 2002), or :

http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm

The 2002 rate was similar to that of Australia and France and was one-third that of the United States.

The UK rate was 1/3.67 of the US rate.

Three homicides in the UK for every 11 in the US, on a per capita basis. What a horrible, dangerous society.


From Mauser and the Fraser Institute, re UK firearms laws:

Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed.

Yup, they've failed, just like my shovelling the driveway failed to prevent that accident on the highway a few miles away yesterday.

AS WE ALL KNOW, the UK's firearms control measures were not designed to reduce crime, to reduce the use of firearms in the commission of crimes, or to reduce deaths caused by the use of firearms by criminals. So who but a deceitful demagogue would say that they have "totally failed" when they did not do what they were not designed to do??

There have been no mass murders of schoolchildren by law-abiding gun owners in the UK since the new measures were imposed. No one sensible would claim that this is "proof" that the firearms control measures accomplished their objective -- but no one sensible ... and honest ... would claim that there is proof that they did NOT accomplish their objective.

Certainly, no one honest would say anything that might misrepresent what that objective was.

Guess that just rules out Mauser and the Fraser Institute.

Here's a useful little commentary on their brand of junk science in this area -- "English Crime Trends"
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/malcolm.html

... while firearms homicide increased from 49 in 98/99 to 62 in 99/00 to 73 in 00/01, all of these are less than the number of firearms homicides in 1993 -- if you examine the figures for the whole decade instead of those for a few months as Malcolm does <"between April and November 2001 murders with a firearm soared by 87%. During the same period the number of people robbed at gun point rose by 53%">, no significant trend <is> present.

Or as Mauser does, when he compares 1990 to 2000 without looking at intervening years.

Furthermore, in the case of firearms homicides, it is misleading to present the changes as percentages, since the raw numbers are so small. Even small random fluctuations look like dramatic changes when converted to percentage increases or decreases. It also obscures the fact that firearms homicide in England and Wales is extremely rare.

Rare, as in 73 firearms homicides in a population of nearly 59,000,000.

That is the equivalent of the US having about 350 firearms homicides in 2000. Hahahaha! -- 350 firearms homicides annually in the US?!? There were OVER 10,000 FIREARMS HOMICIDES IN THE U.S. in 2000 -- more than 3/4 of them committed using handguns.
http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Americas/USA_JY04.html

The UK had something like 885 homicides (15/1,000,000) in 2002, of which 73 - just over 1/12, or 8% -- were firearms homicides. The US had 15,458 homicides, about 2/3 of which were firearms homicides.

If the overall homicide rate in the US were the same as the UK's rate in 2000, even, the figure for total homicides in the US would be about 4,275 -- less than half of what it was.

Now of course what I'd really like to know is why Mauser is comparing TOTAL homicide figures over a decade in the UK, instead of comparing FIREARMS homicide figures over that time.

Furthermore, in the case of firearms homicides, it is misleading to present the changes as percentages, since the raw numbers are so small. Even small random fluctuations look like dramatic changes when converted to percentage increases or decreases. It also obscures the fact that firearms homicide in England and Wales is extremely rare.

Remember: "while firearms homicide increased from 49 in 98/99 to 62 in 99/00 to 73 in 00/01, all of these are less than the number of firearms homicides in 1993".

His "50% increase" in homicide rates over a decade from 1990 to 2000 ignores the fact that FIREARMS HOMICIDE rates in 98/99, 99/00 and 00/01 were LOWER than in 1993.

In 2000, the US had a firearms homicide rate of about 35 per million. The UK had a firearms homicide rate of about 1.23 per million. If the UK firearms homicide rate rose by 50% every decade from now on (even ignoring the fact that it did NOT rise by 50% over the last decade), it would reach the present US rate in just under 90 years.

So one just has to wonder what Mauser has actually "proved". Not much other than the fact that he is a deceitful demagogue, if anybody asks me.

So do people who quote crap like this (without commenting on it, so one must assume that they are presenting it as credible and honest) not bother to understand it, or not care?

.

[iverglas]

81. where are its champions?

Where are the defenders of truth and freedom, rushing to fend off this slur on the honour of the anti-firearms control Fraser Institute and its anti-firearms control number cruncher Gary Mauser?

Surely if someone is going to post something, we might expect that he would want to respond to the complete shredding of what he posted performed by someone else.

We were told that homicide rates in the UK rose 50% from 1990-2000, *and* that this demonstrated the abject failure of gun control.

We have now seen that the firearms homicide rate in the UK is virtually unchanged, being lower in 2000 than in 1993 -- and consisting of numbers so small that they can be explained by random fluctuation or, hell, climate change, far better than by "gun control" in any event, even if anyone could show us how gun control causes homicide rates to rise -- and never having reached even the minuscule number of 100 in a population that is now 59,000,000 (73 firearms homicides in the UK in 2000). We compared that to over 10,000 firearms homicides in the US in 2000, equivalent to over 2,000 in the UK.

Where did the bloodbath go?? Surely someone wants to tell me.

.

[MrBenchley]

85. Gee, another far right wing source from the RKBA crowd

I'm am shocked, shocked, to discover illegal gambling is going on at these premises!

[grower]

140. Don't you understand?

The EU laws were passed to stop insane people from killing school children by the 10's of 10's. The fact that the laws did not reduce 'other' crime has no bearing. On the left side of the Atlantic more restrictive gun laws will have the affect of reducing crime even tho that is not what happened in the EU. This has something to do with gravity, harmonic convergence, the different positions of the planets in relation to the perpetrators, the old farmers almanac, and the percentage of left handed males born between 1979 and 1998. You should really do more reading!

Edited to add

The reason the law is passed is the only effect said law will have

[CO Liberal]

12. And Many of the Criminals Use Guns

A fact you just can't ignore.

[el_gato]

19. and we've got criminals running our government

and yet you want them to have more power?

makes no sense to me, but hey I'm just some 'ol crank who believes in freedom.

[MrBenchley]

21. And those criminals are pushing gun rights

and pandering to the corrupt gun industry.

[el_gato]

22. so why are you supporting criminals benchly?

since you want them to have more control over us.

[MrBenchley]

27. Not me, gato....YOU

Guess that's RKBA "logic" or whatever.....opposing what the GOP wants is "supporting" them and parroting their dishonest rhetoric is "opposing" them....

[el_gato]

29. you want to put more power in the hands of John Ashcroft

plain and simple

[MrBenchley]

33. Not even close to true

It's YOU peddling AshKKKroft's agenda.....

[el_gato]

37. hey it's your arguements

"We need more gun control"
Who the hell do you think is gonna enforce this assault on our liberty?

[MrBenchley]

42. And you're parroting AshKKKroft's rhetoric

But keep on pretending that arming criminals and shielding a corrupt industry from its responsibility from the law is "liberty." It's almost as hilarious as you pretending that the racist heads of the two largest gun owner organizations don't speak for gun owners.

[el_gato]

46. Leave my rights alone (My rhetoric nobody else's)

but hey you can keep up your filthy McCarthyite tactis if you want.
We're laughing at you.

[MrBenchley]

50. Hey, it's AshKKKroft's rhetoric

whether or not you pretend it comes from you.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CO Liberal]

67. Many Pro-Gunners Lost It Years Ago, Gato

And what's even more sad is that they have guns......

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Columbia]

66. Nor do gun control laws address

[iverglas]

53. how many times?

Do you really not think we've all seen this every other time it was posted?

"The UK and Australia both have higher crime rates then the US"
according to one of many possible ways of "measuring" crime, and without any reason to believe that this measurement is more accurate than other measurements to the contrary.

You persist in using a SELF-REPORTING SURVEY as if it were the only, or the best, way of determining crime rates.

It isn't. It definitely is not the only way, and it more than arguably is not the best way.

Various demonstrations of various problems that arise when the figures you keep cutting and pasting are used as you are trying to use them -- and those problems are legion -- have been given, more than once. And you just keep on cutting and pasting them.

This is not how debate, discussion or dialogue is conducted.

A person who sincerely wants to work toward some resolution of something, who is honest about what needs to be considered in working toward such a resolution, and who is acting in good faith and not solely in an attempt to win - to further his/her own interests at the expense of anyone who doesn't share them - does not behave this way.

How pointless is it to waste everyone's time by repeatedly posting things that anyone else can come along and re-post the questioning of and rebuttal to? Very pointless. At the very, very least.

Cutting and pasting is not discussion, dialogue or debate. Saying the same thing over and over again without ever addressing the responses offered to it is not discussion, dialogue or debate. So really -- ho hum, eh? If you prefer to cut and paste the same old shit, rather than to discuss, that's just up to you. And anyone who wants to discuss facts, or debate issues, can just yawn and get back to business.


"Although not very statistically robust, the data indicate that guns were used relatively more often <in robberies> in Catalonia and the USA."

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

The robbery rate declined 3% in 2002, continuing a downward trend. About half of the almost 27,000 robberies were committed with a weapon. The rate of robberies involving a firearm has dropped by two-thirds since 1992. Robberies committed with a firearm now account for one in every eight robberies.

That's fewer than 3,500 robberies committed with a firearm -- a rate of around 0.011%, or just over one person in 10,000. Yup:

Globe and Mail report cited in old DU thread

Last year alone, the rate of gun robberies per 100,000 Canadians fell to 11.05 from 12.27.

While in the US:

http://www.athenaresearch.com/research/uniform_crime_report_2001.pdf

Similar to 2000, of all robberies, 42% involved the use of a firearms (41% in 2000), whereas of murders, 69.5% resulted from firearms (66% in 2000). Of all murders, 8% were related to robberies, the same as the previous year's rate.

That's a pretty statistically robust difference, I'd say -- 42% of US robberies involved a firearm, vs. 12.5% of robberies in Canada.

Why would your source have obtained such different figures from its respondents that it could say that the difference between the two countries is not "statistically robust"? Is armed robbery really an offence that people are unlikely (say, as unlikely as minor sexual assault) to report to the police??


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

Police reported about 300,000 violent crimes in 2002, encompassing everything from homicide to attempted murder, assault, sexual assault, robbery and abduction. Nearly two-thirds of these violent crimes were minor assaults.

...The rate of sexual assaults has remained virtually unchanged over the past four years. Police reported just over 24,000 sexual assaults in 2002, 98% of which were Level-1 sexual assaults, the least serious form.

... The robbery rate declined 3% in 2002, continuing a downward trend. About half of the almost 27,000 robberies were committed with a weapon. The rate of robberies involving a firearm has dropped by two-thirds since 1992. Robberies committed with a firearm now account for one in every eight robberies.

Now, let's compare yours:

The highest risks <of robbery, assault with force, sexual assault against a woman> were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims.

Let's see whether we can get an overall picture from the Statistics Canada figures. Of 300,000 violent crimes in 2002, nearly 200,000 were minor assaults -- i.e. not the "assaults with force" your source refers to. Then we'll deduct the sexual assaults reported that were not assaults against women:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030725/d030725a.htm

Six out of every 10 victims (61%) of sexual offences reported to police in 2002 were children and youth under 18 years old"

-- 14,400 sexual assaults. Let's say the remaining 93,600 were *all* robberies, assaults with force and sexual assaults against women. (And we'll just ignore the fact that 98% of all sexual assaults reported to police were the most minor -- the equivalent of a US misdemeanour, punishable by a maximum of 18 months.)

That's 93,600 out of a population of 31,000,000. That's not 3.0%. That's 0.3%. Your source shows a rate TEN TIMES higher than the rates reported by Canadian police forces (i.e. crimes reported to the police). And the crimes reported by police relate to the entire population, not merely to the adult population surveyed by your source, so they include crimes (other than sexual assaults) not included by your source. And those are "serious" crimes -- and only 10% of victims reported them??

Are we seriously expected to believe that for every ONE person who was the victim of a robbery, assault with force or sexual assault in Canada, there were NINE people who did not report? That might indeed be true of the "minor" sexual assaults (that already make up 98% of all reported sexual assaults) -- but robbery? From your source:

We took six crime types to look at differences in reporting levels. The highest reporting rates were in Denmark and Sweden, Northern Ireland, the Netherlands (60% or just under). Reporting was also relatively common in Belgium, England and Wales, Switzerland, France and Scotland (above 50%). Crimes were least often reported in Portugal, Japan, Catalonia, and Poland (less than 40%).

We have to assume that reporting was over 40% in Canada, according to your source itself. And yet by comparing figures as we have done, we can actually verify that figure -- we know how many crimes were reported to police. And if 40% of the crimes reported by respondents to your source's survey had been reported to police then 40% of the 20-24% who reported being victims of crime, say, conservatively, 8% (40% of 20%), of the adult Canadian population (say, conservatively, 2/3 of 30,000,000) would have been a victim of the crimes your source studied: say, conservatively, 1,600,000 people. And yet:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

In total, police reported 2.4 million Criminal Code offences, excluding traffic. Of these, 13% were violent crimes, 52% were property crimes and the remaining 35% were "other" offences such as mischief and disturbing the peace.

-- even if we are bizarrely generous (in addition to using the most conservative figures from your source), and say that all of the 65% that were violent crimes and property crimes were included in the offences studied by your source (which of course they were not -- shoplifting and other crimes against businesses would be one big omission, and would account for a hefty chunk of StatsCan's figures), and all of those crimes were committed against the same population as your source surveyed, and no one person was the victim of more than one crime, that's only 1,560,000.

So your source's figures cannot be verified using known facts -- the self-reported facts conflict with the known facts even where the subject is *not* a matter of "perception" -- whether a report was made to the police.

And then, of course, there is that perception problem. 5% of Canadians, according to your source, reported to the surveyors that they had been victims of assaults or threats. Well hell, I'd venture to say that a whole lot more people were actually "victims" of assault or threats. Your study says that "Offenders were known in about half the incidents overall. Men were less likely to know offenders than women." I'd venture to guess that if people were to actually report assaults by "offenders" known to them, there'd be far fewer of us who wouldn't be reporting an assault. And gimme a break: "just over one per cent of women reported offensive sexual behaviour"?? What planet were the survey respondents living on?

Ah, the problems of subjective assessment of events.

When police-reported figures are used, there has been a relatively objective assessment of the events in question. The actual date (not the timeframe into which a survey respondent may have imported an event that took place in another timeframe, in one well-known weakness of these kinds of surveys), the actual correlation between the events and the definition of a crime (and not the "victim's" personal assessment of whether the events fit the definition of a crime), and the actual seriousness of the crime (by the applicable standard, not by the "victim's" personal reaction) -- not to mention the actual occurrence of the events -- are far more likely to be accurately reported.

And I'm not even going to start on the difficulty of comparing results across country without a rather serious investigation of cultural and economic factors, just for starters, that would pretty certainly influence the kinds of responses by residents of different countries to the same kinds of questions, regardless of how uniform those questions were. Your source states that it sought to monitor "crime and perceptions of crime", and yet doesn't seem to have even addressed the question of differences in perception across country, let alone differences in reporting that perception.

Indeed, police-reported figures will understate actual events, and it is indeed worthwhile investigating the extent of that phenomenon. But any effort to do that really does have to address the reasons for differences between the numbers of police-reported and self-reported events and make some effort to determine whether the events being reported really are comparable, in terms of timeframe, nature and existence, *and* whether the reporting of those events, even if the events are comparable, really is comparable.


All in all, your cutting and pasting of this stuff in response to a post about the use of junk science in this particular debate is, well, I don't think I actually need to type the punch line.

But what a fine case in point this was.

.

[Withergyld]

87. Every time someone says that the UK or Australia has a lower crime rate

This is why this survey was conducted:
"The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992, the third in 1996 and the fourth in 2000. Surveys have been carried out in 24 industrialised countries since 1989, and in 46 cities in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with seventeen industrialised countries which took part in the 2000 ICVS.
The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime. And since victims report most crimes the police know about, police figures can differ simply because of differences in reporting behaviour.

[iverglas]

90. oh dear

Poor you. Still able (?) only to cut and paste, and not come up with anything in your own words. I mean, that's my charitable guess.

"And since victims report most crimes the police know about, police figures can differ <from country to country> simply because of differences in reporting behaviour."

Yuppers. And survey figures can differ because of lying respondents, respondents with bad memories, respondents with personal motives unknown to surveyors, respondents who misapply the criteria given to them, respondents who simply make mistakes ...

And of course survey results can differ from country simply because of differences in survey-responding behaviour, too.

Too bad you are limited to cutting and pasting. You could maybe have explained to me how the respondents to the survey could have reported more crimes to the police in Canada than the police in Canada actually had reported to them ... or how so many people could have been robbed at gunpoint in Canada and failed to report it to the police (so many more than in the US, apparently) that the difference between firearms robbery rates in Canada and the US -- 12.5% vs. 63% of actual reported robberies, was it? -- could have looked less than "statistically robust" to the surveyors ...

Inquiring minds, doomed to be disappointed.

.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

113. and more evasion

How else could one characterize such a persistent and consistent failure by ANYONE to respond to the substantive content of posts in a forum, and instead engage in all this diversionary grooming I'm seeing here?

I have several posts in this thread providing FACTS AND FIGURES AND ANALYSIS that relate directly to the topic of the thread (as set out in the post that started it) and relate directly to responses to the lead post in the thread.

And yet no one, NO ONE, has addressed any of those facts and figures and analysis.

I really do wish I could say that I'm surprised.

if you folks actually showed respect to others
I probably wouldnt even post here

Apart from the fact that I can't read this so as to make any real sense of it, well, I guess we just have different definitions of "respect".

Mine doesn't include, oh, making great big honking false characterizations of other people that are designed to discredit them.

It doesn't include the repeated posting of third-party material without offering any response to the repeated responses to that material.

It doesn't include what I can only perceive, given its prevalence and consistency, as intentional failure to acknowledge the facts and analysis presented by others in response to what one has one's self presented, and engage in them discussion of them that one tacitly invited by posting in the first place.

But I refer to no one in particular, and that's just me.

.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

138. Pretty weak attack on survey methodology

...survey figures can differ because of lying respondents, respondents with bad memories, respondents with personal motives unknown to surveyors, respondents who misapply the criteria given to them, respondents who simply make mistakes ...

Your broad-brush dismissal contributes nothing useful to the conversation. Those issues are understood by researchers and do not in any way negate the value of survey-based research. If you have a technical issue with the methodology of this particular work perhaps you could share your specific concern with us so we could discuss it.

...And of course survey results can differ from country simply because of differences in survey-responding behaviour, too....

Are you quite sure the researchers were not aware of that potential issue or did not take it into consideration in their analysis?

Have you actually read the published paper yet?

[alwynsw]

5. The unfortunate issue here is simple

One cannot prove a negative; at least not in a scientifically sound manner. Do guardrails prevent falls? You can't prove it unless you leave a drop unguarded until falls occur before installing the rails. It's iffy even then.

I believe that you're missing or ignoring a huge issue: no other nation in the world has such a multinational/multicultural society as the U.S. That alone contributes to a huge numbers of assaults and murders. I am loathe to use such a trite phrase, but birds of a feather do indeed flock together. Look at the makeup of any city worldwide and you will find ghettos of all stripes; religious, ethnic, nationality, sexual preference, etc. It's human nature to desire being surrounded by the familiar. It's also an unfortunate human frailty to be less understanding of those who do not have similar traits and values. This alone contributes a great deal to our national propensity for violent crime. I am referring only in part to "turf wars" or territoriality. Another part is the inevitable friction caused when cultures collide.

We have seen a huge increase in domestic violence in Kentucky during the past ten years. According to associates in law enforcement and corrections, muc of the increase is directly attributable to cultural differences. Part of it is because domestic violence has become the cause celebere since the OJ trial. (Before I continue, allow me to make it clear that I am assessing no blame to any person or group, but simply citing an example of cultural friction.)

Kentucky has had a huge influx of workers from Mexico because of both private and commercial agriculture. For whatever reason, local girls - and I do mean girls (most marriages between the immigrant workers and local females involve brides under 21)- are drawn to the immigrant boys and men. Often, this attraction leads to marriage. Expectations of husbands and wives are very different in traditional Mexican families and American families. When the two cultures clash in the home, violence is a common result. This is one small example of violent cultural clashes.

My sources for this information, from which I have formed this opinion, are both conversations with associates in law enforcement and conversations with my sister-in-law and her siblings, all of whom are natives of Mexico.

[Columbia]

52. Quite right

Excellent analysis. :toast:

It's just too bad that anti-gunners ignore the true roots of the problem and instead parrot "Guns are bad!" over and over again. Makes me think they are less concerned about reducing violence than just reducing public access to an object they don't like.

[iverglas]

69. can you footnote that?

It's just too bad that anti-gunners ignore the true roots of the problem and instead parrot "Guns are bad!" over and over again.

I'm needing a citation. Who dunnit? How many times? What basis do you have for saying that whoever you are quoting ignores the "true roots" of the problem? What does whatever they said have to do with anything said by anyone here?

Why would you assert something that you have absolutely no basis for saying and cannot substantiate, and has nothing to do with anything said here by anyone, if that is indeed the case?

.

[Columbia]

70. Do you disagree?

I make inferences from general attitudes seen here. Let me ask you then, what are you opinions of guns? Good? Evil? Or inanimate tools that are used for both?

[iverglas]

84. sorry, I asked first

Identify the source for your "inferences", please and thank you.

I could claim to infer all sorts of things from what you say. Unless I could demonstrate that it is reasonable to infer those things from what you say, I wouldn't be making the claim in public. You can rest assured that if I claim to have made any inferences and you request that I provide my basis for them, I'll do so.

My "opinions of guns" are not the topic of discussion. Your allegation about some unnamed people's opinions is. The allegation was yours, not mine. The demonstration of the basis of it is for you to offer, not me.

Over to you.

.

[Columbia]

89. Opinions of guns is germane to the whole discussion

And that is why I asked the question. Are you afraid to answer it?

[iverglas]

92. actually, it's completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion

The discussion, for the short o' attention span, is about the use of "junk science" in policy debates, and specifically in debates about public policy relating to firearms.

My "opinions on guns", and the rest of the worlds opinions about guns, have not got the first thing to do with that discussion.

You're the one who chose to respond to a post purporting to present reasons for variations in firearms violence rates (which itself was not really germane to the discussion) by saying:

It's just too bad that anti-gunners ignore the true roots of the problem and instead parrot "Guns are bad!" over and over again.

You have still offered no substantiation for the allegation that anyone at all either ignores the "true roots of the problem" (whatever you might represent those as being) or has ever said "guns are bad!" or anything that might be paraphrased as that, let alone said it over and over again.

If you don't know what my "opinions on guns" are by now, assuming that I have such opinions, that's not my problem.

If you're trying to offer me as someone who "parrot<s> 'Guns are bad!' over and over again", you're going to have to prove I have done that; ditto if you are saying that I am someone who "ignore<s> the true roots of the problem".

And if you want to defend your statement that "anti-gunners ignore the true roots of the problem and instead parrot 'Guns are bad!' over and over again" without reference to me, you're going to have to offer evidence that someone you would characterize as an "anti-gunner" -- in fact more than one such person -- has done what you represented him/her/them as doing.

If you don't want to bother defending your statement, it will stand as what it has evidently been since the beginning: irrelevant, unsubstantiated crap.

.

[Columbia]

93. Generalizations are not only allowed

They are encouraged. And I made an overall generalization of many antis attitudes here who consistently point to guns as the root to the violence problem to which I do not agree. As for proving that, well as you said yourself if you don't know that by now, that's not my problem. This entire forum stands as evidence.

[MrBenchley]

96. Without broad generalizations and distortion

the RKBA crowd would have nothing but a puddle of farr right wing crap and a few slurs on Democrats.....

[el_gato]

98. the gun grabbers would be out of work

he he

[iverglas]

103. yes indeedy

Generalizations are not only allowed
They are encouraged.

Hey!! That sounds like something I was just reading ... lemme see whether I can find it ... oh yeah! Right in that Gary Mauser thing from the Fraser Institute (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most striking difference is that the United States is one of the few countries to encourage qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns for self defence.

Apparently -- what, to the "gun nut" crowd? --

choosing not to prohibit "X" = encouraging "X"

(and once again, I'm impressed all to hell by the math skills exhibited)

Saying nasty things about indeterminate groups of people is tolerated. Can you show me where it says they are encouraged?


I couldn't care less what about whether you generalize. A generalization must still have a basis in truth if it is to be true as a generalization.

I mean, if I were to say "men are purple", that would be a generalization. It would also be false. There are no facts that could be offered to establish that, even as a generalization, it is true -- and there are loads of facts that could be offered to establish that, even as a generalization, it is false.

And I made an overall generalization of many antis attitudes here who consistently point to guns as the root to the violence problem to which I do not agree.

(Whoa, a whole new unsubstantiated allegation! You go, boy!)

Yes, you did -- you made a statement that you are now calling a generalization, but that you have still not demonstrated to be based on any fact -- you have not demonstrated that even as a generalization, it is true.

I'm sure you understand the problem. I'm sure that if I said "firearms owners are ... purple", you wouldn't just say "okay fine, that's a generalization, so I'm not going to demand that you substantiate it". Really, eh?

As for proving that, well as you said yourself if you don't know that by now, that's not my problem.

Ah, but it is. You are the one who made the statement.

What I "said <my>self" was of course not any such thing anyway. Way to misrepresent! Are you aiming for a gold medal? I said that if you didn't know my "opinions on guns" by now that was not my problem. What's that got to do with whether I know what the basis for your "generalization" is? Nada, friend.

I didn't characterize my "opinions on guns" as something, and then refuse to substantiate my statement by saying that if you didn't know my opinions on guns by now it wasn't my problem, did I? Rhetorical question. You don't need to not-answer that one.

You characterized "gun-grabbers" as doing/saying certain things, and then you have refused to substantiate your statement. If I don't know what the basis is for your statement (and trust me, I don't), it *is* your problem ... if you don't want to look like someone who makes unsubstantiated allegations that some other people are -- what, stupid? wilfully stupid? evilly motivated? -- and is unable or unwilling to put his money where his mouth is and back them up. If you don't mind looking like someone who makes such allegations and is unable or unwilling to put his money where his mouth is, then okay, I guess you don't have a problem.


This entire forum stands as evidence.

Ah. And the entire human race stands as evidence that men are purple.

I trust you understand how ridiculous, not to say evasive, your statement looks to the onlooker.

.

[Columbia]

112. Holy smokes

You give a new meaning to the word verbose.

:+

[iverglas]

114. but the standard definition

of "evasion" works quite well:

evade
1a. escape from, avoid, esp. by guile or trickery
1b. avoid doing (one's duty, etc.)
1c. avoid answering (a question) or yielding to (an argument)

Have you said anything in this thread that addresses the issues raised in the initial post?

Any reason why not?

.

[Columbia]

116. As Bench would say

Been there done that. :hi:

[el_gato]

99. we can "discuss" whatever we want to

whether you like it or not

[iverglas]

111. to what imaginary friend are you speaking?

we can "discuss" whatever we want to
whether you like it or not

Uh ... yeah.

But someone saying something in response to something else, that has not the remotest relevance to the thing it is said in response to, isn't "discussing".

That was kinda my point.

I don't like or dislike anyone's choice of what to discuss, as a general rule.

I just think it's silly to pretend that dragging kitchen sinks into a discussion of snow tires is "discussing" anything at all.

And I'm damned if I can figure out how "we can discuss whatever we want to" bears any relevance to -- is in any way a response to -- a statement that that kitchen sinks have nothing to do with snow tires ...

Ah, such a spiral of irrelevance ... such questions in the inquiring mind as to why anyone would embark on it.

I mean, do youse guys do this in real life?

If a couple of people are standing around the water cooler talking about how the recent study claiming to demonstrate that paper clips are better for fastening paper than staples was methodologically flawed and maybe the firm should not rely on it, do you announce "people who want us to use staples refuse to consider the real reasons why paper needs fastening, and all they say is 'paper clips are bad'!"??

If your spouse provides you with a paper showing that the study that claimed that red wine prevented heart disease that was methodologically flawed and suggests that you both might want to reconsider the basis on which you choose your beverages, do you stand up and shout "if you won't let me order red wine for both of us, it's just because you refuse to consider the real reasons for heart disease and you just hate red wine!"??

Well believe me, that's what some of this stuff sounds exactly like.

The lead post in this thread demonstrated how some of the "science" relied on by opponents of firearms control is utter crap. The point of the post was that any one, not just gun control opponents, who relies on junk science is doing the world a disservice.

The discussion that would flow from that post would be about the utility of "science" in a discussion of the public policy regarding firearms, perhaps.

A statement that proponents of firearms control refuse to consider the "root causes" of the problem (whatever they and it might be) and just say "guns are bad!" is about as relevant to the topic presented as a kitchen sink is to a snow tire.

In fact, it does strike me as ... sad and pathetic ... an attempt to discredit by an appeal to emotion and prejudice (and by misrepresentation) rather than to persuade by honest use of fact and argument ...

It was indeed unsubstantiated and apparently not capable of substantiation because it is not true, but the point is that IT WASN'T RELEVANT to the topic presented.

Now I still would love to be told what the basis for the statement was, so that I might perhaps be persuaded that it was not a mere bit of demagoguery, given how disappointed I would be to see anyone engaging in that hereabouts.

But really -- when you're talking about snow tires, and someone butts in and tells you that kitchen sinks are fairies in disguise, you don't really care whether they can prove that they're telling the truth or not. You just wonder why they're bothering you with talk of kitchen sinks.

As I wonder why someone bothered to offer a characterization of firearms control advocates in a discussion of the use of "science" in public policy discussions, whether or not s/he could substantiate that characterization ...

.

[alwynsw]

121. Mr. Imaginary here!

Talk to me, Gato

[RoeBear]

124. "I don't like or dislike anyone's choice of what to discuss...

.. .as a general rule."

Unless it has to do with a person's hobby.

[iverglas]

134. gee, you're right

(oh dear, could that be an inadvertent/subconscious pun?)

"I don't like or dislike anyone's choice of what to discuss..."

I really shoulda said "I don't like or dislike anyone's choice of what to discuss, but I get peeved when people deliberately choose to discuss things, in a forum devoted to a clearly defined set of topics, that haven't got anything to do with those topics, and that serve only to occupy a space that is meant to be used for discussion of those topics among people recognized as equally legitimate stakeholders in the discussion, equally entitled to participate in it and equally worthy of being heard by others, by staking it out for themselves in a manner inimical to such recognition of equal legitimacy, equal entitlement to participate and equal worthiness of being heard ... and that bears a distinct resemblance to the manner in which dogs are wont to stake out their territory."

Or I could just let you put words in my mouth. Easier and probably more entertaining for the hobbyists.

.

[el_gato]

137. well Iver Judging by the gun-control poll from yesterday

my "imaginary" friends out number your demagogues
inspite of your snippy and condescending rants

[iverglas]

68. boolshite

I believe that you're missing or ignoring a huge issue: no other nation in the world has such a multinational/multicultural society as the U.S.

How many times that that piece of crap have to be refuted?

I'm tired of doing it. It's crap on its face. Enough said. Anybody who wants to is welcome, for instance, to go look up the figures from the last Canadian census regarding the population born outside Canada (nearly 1 out of 5), the ethnic makeup of large Canadian cities, etc. etc.

And that's quite apart from its being a mere statement of "fact" with no evidence offered to demonstrate its relevance. E.g.:

When the two cultures clash in the home, violence is a common result. This is one small example of violent cultural clashes.

... simply does not go more than about an inch in "explaining" differences between the society in question and other societies in terms of overall crime rates.

My sources for this information, from which I have formed this opinion, are both conversations with associates in law enforcement and conversations with my sister-in-law and her siblings, all of whom are natives of Mexico.

Yup -- about as reliable as any survey of people with personal and cultural biases, and limited knowledge and experience, as evidence of facts.

.

[alwynsw]

125. I prefer the good ol' American bullshit

Since you have neither knowledge of my experiences and background nor those of my associates, your argument is without merit. Your assumption concerning biases is almost laughable.

I've had enough puffery for one day.

[MrSandman]

126. Hey, I think the immigration thing is...

all over Appalachia.

[alwynsw]

130. So I've heard

I live in the borderline between the knobs and the bluegrass. No mountains. *sigh*

[jimsteuben]

11. armed citizens

Finland and Switzerland have large numbers of citizens who possess weapons, but their violent crime rates are among the lowest in Europe (and, one should add, the world).

Brazil, Jamaica and Mexico have among the strictest gun control laws in the world, but also suffer from extremely high rates of violent crime.

Within the US, Chicago and the District of Columbia have the strictest gun control laws in the country, but are also the most violent cities.

Vermont has the most liberal (non-restrictive) gun laws in the country, and also has one of the lowest rates of violent crime. An adult in Vermont can carry a handgun - open or concealed, it doesn't matter - without any kind of "license" from the state.

Rurual areas in America have far higher rates of gun ownership than cities, but have far lower rates of violent crime.

According to the US BATFE, the number of privately-owned firearms in the US has increased by 70 million in the last 12 years. According to the FBI, the nationa's violent crime rate ha sdecreased 35% in the same period.

Guns don't cause crime.

See _The Seven Myths of Gun Control : Reclaiming the Truth About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment_ by Richard Poe (Three Rivers Press: 2003).

(Are Mexico and Brazil not "industrialized countries"?)

[el_gato]

14. Damn! The gun grabbers are getting spanked today!

OUCH!

[iverglas]

88. wot a very bizarre thing to say

The lead post, to which you reply, quoted a source that asked:

Do you believe that a 1% increase in the number of citizens licensed to carry concealed weapons causes a 3.3% decrease in the state's murder rate?

and went on to say that if you did, you were a victim of junk science.

How many "gun grabbers" was that question addressing, may I ask?

The lead post also quoted a description of the debunking of John Lott's "proof" that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons caused a decrease in murder rates.

How many "gun grabbers" have ever said that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons caused a decrease in murder rates??

Now, who was it getting the spanking?

Your words couldn't be understood as a misrepresentation of the material in the post you were responding too, could they?

.

[el_gato]

97. you seem a little defensive and testy today

and you are awfully presumptuous in telling people what they can and cannot talk about.

hmmmmm.....

[iverglas]

115. I'll be waiting

you are awfully presumptuous in telling people what they can and cannot talk about

... for one o' them quotation things. You know, where I said what you say I said, and all that.

Or for your retraction of the false allegation. Oh ... and the mischaracterization of the material in the lead post that I was addressing in the first place.

Or for deafening silence ... or another kitchen sink flying by my ear ...

.

[NorthernSpy]

106. debaters on all sides of many issues can gain perspective from the article

I posted the article to help everyone evaluate the information that they encounter in these debates. People have used econometrics to make cases both for and against gun control. My point is: all these loads of statistical voodoo don't prove anything, and folks deserve a chance to learn why they shouldn't be intimidated into taking such flummery seriously.

Y'know, I hadn't expected nearly this much response. I thought that maybe three people, tops, would actually read Goertzel's piece, and perhaps one person would reply "oh, that's interesting". Come to think of it, though, maybe that's kind of what did happen here... ;)


Mary

[el_gato]

26. the big fraud perpetrated by the gun grabbers (have gun = nugent lover)

sad and pathetic
smacks of McCarthyism
smear by association

and it's like a broken record

[slackmaster]

30. Well said

Nobody here is promoting the NRA or Ted Nugent's agenda. My agenda is mine. el_gato's is el_gato's.

[iverglas]

100. you need to work that equation out again

the big fraud perpetrated by the gun grabbers (have gun = nugent lover)


The big fact stated by proponents of firearms control is:

nugent lover have gun

which does not imply

have gun nugent lover

of course, but it does imply that

nugent lover - have gun 0

and

have gun - nugent lover 0

You have mistaken "equals" for "is a subset of", apparently, or got your sets and subsets mixed up, maybe.

Perhaps you multiplied when you meant to divide.

If you show us your work, maybe we can show you where you went wrong.

If you can't, of course, that'll be just yet another of those unsubstantiated allegations.

2+2=5 and don't be expecting *me* to show my work. Just believe me.


sad and pathetic
smacks of McCarthyism
smear by association

and it's like a broken record

Sad and pathetic ... smacks of something all right ... smear by misrepresentation ... and indeed, a broken record.

.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

118. then perhaps you can direct me to one

"I rest my case."

People don't generally rest their case before calling any evidence.

Well, not if they expect anybody to pay attention to them ...


What a huge heaping helping of diversionary grooming this thread has amounted to.

If there was something contentious in the article quoted in the initial post, I have yet to learn what it was.

Mary and I have had some experience -- some of it in joint efforts -- in debunking junk science in internet forums on various topics. We both find the subject an interesting one. We both know that the other goes to considerable lengths not to rely on junk science, and is careful not to be fooled by it into believing that something has been "proved", even if it looks like it would be to our advantage if it had.

Since we have rather different views on the subject of firearms control, I certainly wouldn't have assumed that Mary was posting what she posted as a way of "spanking" firearms control opponents (and I completely fail to see how it could have been interpreted as spanking firearms control proponents, for dog's sake).

But I suspect that this was what it looked like to some who seem to prefer jerking their knees to reflecting, and getting their own way to finding democratic solutions. And that this is what prompted all the diversionary grooming.

Ah well. The reses have loquitured ipsas again.

.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[MrBenchley]

107. Amazing that so many of the folks posting gun porn

and whacking their monkey in public over how much money they've wasted on their lethal "toys" don't have a dime to give to the board....

[slackmaster]

110. Maybe there should be a sliding scale system of loyalty

Some formula based on contribution and ability to pay.

[RoeBear]

117. My check is on the way...

...but it's interesting how you ignored all the 'gold star' members who posted in favor of gun rights in my thread "Democrats don't hunt".

[alwynsw]

128. Much like the mental masturbation that occurs daily

from the anti-RKBA crowd, I think.

[CO Liberal]

129. The Biggest Problem (As I See It)....

...is that there are a lot of pro-gunners out there who either DON'T or CAN'T think. I hear a lot of them on local talk radio.

[alwynsw]

131. That knife cuts both ways

There are quite a few who follow Brady, O'Donnel, et al blindly as well.