crosspost

[flamin lib]

When you add more guns ya' get more shootings.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article51044465.html
In Missouri, fewer gun restrictions and more gun killings

In the past decade, Missouri has been a natural experiment in what happens when a state relaxes its gun control laws. For decades, it had one of the nation’s strongest measures to keep guns from dangerous people: a requirement that all handgun buyers get a gun permit by undergoing a background check in person at a sheriff’s office.

But the legislature repealed that in 2007 and approved a flurry of other changes, including, last year, lowering the legal age to carry a concealed gun to 19. What has followed may help answer a central question of the gun control debate: Does allowing people to more easily obtain guns make society safer or more dangerous?
====
Research by Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found that in the first six years after the state repealed the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, the gun homicide rate was 16 percent higher than it was the six years before. During the same period, the national rate declined by 11 percent. After Webster controlled for poverty and other factors that could influence the homicide rate, and took into account homicide rates in other states, the result was slightly higher, rising by 18 percent in Missouri.

Federal death data released this month for 2014 showed a continuation of the trend, he said. Before the repeal, from 1999 to 2006, Missouri’s gun homicide rate was 13.8 percent higher than the national rate. From 2008 to 2014, it was 47 percent higher. (The new data also showed that the national death rate from guns was equal to that of motor vehicle crashes for the first time since the government began systematically tracking it.)


Just like communities with more swimming pools have more drownings and freeways with more cars have more accidents. The ability for some to ignore this simple relationship between more of something and the results of that increase is amazing to me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Yet, national data shows a liberalization of gun laws coupled with a lower gun death rates over

a multi-decade period. Considering the national data is by its nature a much larger and longer sampling Missouri would appear to be an outlier. Are we absolutely certain the liberalization of Missouri's gun laws are the cause of the reported increase?

[jonno99]

2. Yep - factors matter...nt

[Eleanors38]

17. Outliers: You can bet J Hops gun Violence group will find 'em...

[gejohnston]

3. yet heroin deaths still outpaces homicide

funded by Bloomberg, not peer reviewed, and very flawed. Like the claims about Australia, it cherry picks years and lies by omission. While it is true the murder rate rose by 17 percent in the five years after the repeal in 2007, he forgot to mention that Missouri's murder rate increased 32 percent during the previous five years. One could just as easily argue that repealing the slowed the growth of the murder rate. Not only is this an example of card stacking, it is also post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Federal death data released this month for 2014 showed a continuation of the trend, he said. Before the repeal, from 1999 to 2006, Missouri’s gun homicide rate was 13.8 percent higher than the national rate. From 2008 to 2014, it was 47 percent higher. (The new data also showed that the national death rate from guns was equal to that of motor vehicle crashes for the first time since the government began systematically tracking it.)

Yet the gun homicide rate is often lower in places like Wyoming and Vermont than, say, New Jersey and Chicago. Why do you think why that is? Wyoming's gun to other weapon ratio is about half. Chicago's is in the high 90s percentile. Probably because Chicago's is mostly gangs killing each other, where gun laws are about as effective as gun laws.

last year, lowering the legal age to carry a concealed gun to 19. What has followed may help answer a central question of the gun control debate: Does allowing people to more easily obtain guns make society safer or more dangerous?

Were there a rash of murders committed by 19-21 year old CCW holders? If so, would they have left the gun home without the permit and used another weapon or be deterred? If the answers are "no" to either of these questions, how would one have anything to do with the other?

[flamin lib]

4. GE, you have out done yourself. This is almost as good as calling Moms Demand Action a PSYOPS group

and insisting that all the volunteers are paid operatives.

You are nothing if not entertaining.

[theatre goon]

5. I note that you have not responded to any of the points raised...

Not a particularly compelling tactic, ignoring all of the points actually raised to respond to things not actually stated -- but I guess if that's the best you can do, it's what you have to go with.

Of course, that also might be why your side of the debate so regularly accomplishes nothing...

[flamin lib]

12. There is nothing to refute. GE, as always and as most gunners do, didn't address

the increase in deaths but rather attacked the researcher, the research methods (which he has no knowledge of) and repeats the 'no causation' mantra.

Nothing here to refute. Does he claim that the numbers are false? No, just that he doesn't like them.

It's simple; increase the number of cars on a freeway by 20% and the number of accidents increase along with it. Can anyone show causation between the individual new cars on the freeway? Not really. But is there an easy association between number of cars and accidents? I'd say yes.

Unless you'd like to argue that increasing traffic by 20% cannot increase accidents. Ya' wanna' do that?

[gejohnston]

14. there is no increase,

and even if there were, there is no cause and effect.

[theatre goon]

16. Oh, I'm sorry...

Just asserting that there isn't anything to refute doesn't actually, y'know, refute anything. Just like trying to change the subject doesn't refute anything. To refute something, you have to show that it is incorrect -- you haven't done that.

Keep trying, though -- surely you'll get it one of these days. Or, even better, join the real world and discuss actual facts, instead of just trying to divert attention from those facts.

Whichever works best for you...

[sarisataka]

20. Can you show any data

That a 20% increase in the number of cars on the road will have a corresponding increase in the number of accidents?

I would guess not because that which appears logical can often be false. That is why we collect data and study it to determine what the actual numbers are.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that data as you have yet to provide support from any of your other "factual" observations.

[gejohnston]

6. They are astro turf,

actually, a former Monsanto executive paid by Bloomberg and a some Facebook "likes". I said some of the "protesters" were paid. BTW, I think MDA should change their name, it sounds like a blue movie.

[flamin lib]

13. Nope. You said they were paid and bused to protests. nt

[gejohnston]

15. They are,

if they are from out of town.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Do you have an actual rebuttal to his point that homicides were increasing at a faster rate

prior to the change in laws?

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Allergies are laying siege to my sinuses -but even I could smell *that* red herring

red her·ring
noun
noun: red herring; plural noun: red herrings

1.
a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.
2.
something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
"the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings"

[Eleanors38]

19. Nah, the graph in #15 is a lot more compelling.

[branford]

8. Thank god I use Google Chrome.

Every time a surf the web I'm saving so many lives! I'm a hero.

It has to be true, the date is right there. Besides, it's in a convenient multi-colored chart, and that makes even more truthy.



I am hopeful that one day most people might understand the difference between causation and correlation (to the extent the data is not selective or manipulated).

[ileus]

10. Do people really believe this load?

Who would be gullible enough to fall for this???

[DonP]

11. You mean besides desperate gun control supporters looking for "Facts"?

They still haven't achieved any real progress in any courts or legislatures.

So now we're treated to claims or new gun horrors with no supporting cites or links by a self proclaimed "Expert" marksman that never has to practice.

When asked repeatedly for any supporting evidence, they change the subject and dance away.

But the other group has been even quieter than usual lately, going for almost a week with no action from the 2 or 3 regular posters. Funny, for an idea supported by 90% of Americans?

[Eleanors38]

18. Why do I get a whiff of WOD-type skepticism when John's Hops rolls another one?