CDZ Gun Control Proposals Aim to Reduce, not Eliminate, Gun Deaths and Injuries

[sartre play]

Have no problem with people owning guns, have no problem with looking for ways to reduce gun violence, have a problem with any all or nothing thinking.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The problem here is that nobody makes such a straw man argument.

Really?

• CBS News Bombshell: Student Leader Wasn't at School On Day of the Mass Shooting
  
• Trump’s latest plan - bet the NRA talks him down
  
• Hillary: We have got to do something about gun violence in America
  
• Tell us again how gun laws stop gun violence.
  
• How do we stop gun violence? Is getting rid of the second amendment the answer?
  
• Gun violence in America.
  
• CDZ - You wanna stop gun violence?
  
• More posts/threads in which stopping gun deaths/violence is a stated or implied aim or predicate of a member's argument

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Preface:

Thread topic:

This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.​

Not the thread topic:

Anything else.​

Main Post Remarks:

At least weekly I come across remarks wherein the speaker/writer asserts that because a given jurisdiction's gun control legislation has not, within that jurisdiction, completely eliminated gun-related deaths and gun-related injuries, one must conclude that gun control measures don't work.

Such an assertion/argument is pure poppycock! For something to work, it must accomplish what it aims to accomplish. Neither gun control advocates nor the measures they propone have ever aimed to eliminate gun-related deaths and injuries. They have only ever sought to reduce them.

Not even the most ardent supporters of the most draconian gun control measures think that gun control measures will eliminate gun-related deaths and injuries. The goal of gun control measures is to reduce the incidence of gun-related death/injury.

The fact of the matter is that some gun control measures do indeed reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths and injuries. To wit:

• Brady Bill Correlation:
  • 1984-1993
    • America’s gun homicide rate increased during that period by ~55 percent. (Source)
    • America's non-gun homicides decreased during the same period. (Source)
  • 1994 Brady Bill takes requiring background checks takes effect.
  • 1994-2012
    • ~2.4 million prohibited domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals attempted to buy firearms and were denied the ability to to do so because they failed the background check. (Source)
    • 2012 alone: Background checks blocked ~192K prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms.
• Other correlates:
  • The Association Between State Laws Regulating Handgun Ownership and Statewide Suicide Rates [1]
    • Results largely indicated that states with any of these laws in place exhibited lower overall suicide rates and suicide by firearms rates and that a smaller proportion of suicides in such states resulted from firearms. Furthermore, results indicated that laws requiring registration and license had significant indirect effects through the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. The latter results imply that such laws are associated with fewer suicide attempts overall, a tendency for those who attempt to use less-lethal means, or both. Exploratory longitudinal analyses indicated a decrease in overall suicide rates immediately following implementation of laws requiring a license to own a handgun.
  • Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides
    • The law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place. By contrast, there was no evidence for a reduction in non-firearm homicides.
  • Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides
    • Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law contributed to a fourteen percent increase in Missouri’s murder rate through 2012 (updated from sixteen percent; first paragraph of press release).
    • The law’s repeal was associated with an additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.
    • The repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with a 25% increase in firearm homicides rates.

Unless one can show that there are material methodological shortcomings in the studies cited above (or other soundly performed ones like them), one must conclude that at the very least they are correlated to lower incidences of such events and they are so correlated in ways that other actions that either have not or cannot be shown soundly to be equivalently correlated. (See: Statistics and Causal Inference [2]) Anyone who values and places as supreme human life would, if s/he is thinking rationally, will thus conclude that it is sage to act to avail themselves and society of the association between access to guns and lower gun-related death and injury rates.

Thus the assertion that gun control measures do not eliminate gun deaths/injuries is little but an irrational red herring/straw man tactic for misrepresenting what is actually claimed by gun control advocates: that gun control measures reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths and injuries.​

Endnote:

1. I don't actually care whether suicide rates decrease. If one wants to kill oneself, I'm fine with letting one do so. Hell, I'm more likely to give one a ride to the bridge or cliff one wants to jump off of than I am to discourage one from jumping.
   
   Given that that is my view of suicide and the folks who want to commit it, that gun control reduces suicide rates isn't a key basis I'd use to argue for implementing any given gun control measure. That said, suicide-by-gun is a gun-related death, and to that end they "count" as goes the legitimacy of assessing whether gun-related deaths and injuries appear to be reduced by gun control measures.
2. Oddly enough, some people will go so far as to assert that because absolute causation has not been established, thus we do not know whether gun control measures are arbitrarily correlated with lower gun-related deaths or whether the observed correlates result from their being causal to the observe behaviors/outcomes. Such an argument is intrinsically fallacious. It is the very definition of the logical fallacy (flaw in reasoning) called "argument from ignorance."
   • Argument from Ignorance
   • The Fallacy of Negative Premises and 5 Cases that Failed -- The content at this bullet point's link discusses the negative premise fallacy. Basically, it's just the other side of the argument from ignorance coin, so to speak. It applies when the assertion being evaluated is structured as a negative one rather than as a positive one, thus it's given a different name. The derivation of the flaw in reasoning, however, is effectively the same as it is with arguing from ignorance: one's not knowing something for certain is thus a good reason not to take actions indicated by/based on what one does know.
     
   • The rational counter to an argument based on existential, weighty, material and/or preponderant/abundant correlates is not to present an argument from ignorance (or a negative premise fallacy-based argument), but rather, it is to perform new original research that reveals incontrovertible and germane facts about causality and that were heretofore unknown. If those facts show that causality indeed does not exist between the actions and outcomes under consideration, then one can discount the correlation-based arguments from before. (Note: merely assembling a different set of extant minority facts that show a different association than the one claimed does not credibly refute the argument/conclusions of an associative based argument.

That worked really well for Hitler. I have wondered how many Jews turned in their guns and wished they had them back.

The ridiculous rightwing lie about Hitler ‘disarming’ Jew was long ago debunked:

“Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”

The Hitler gun control lie

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is that the American people refuse to accept the fact that there is no quick, easy solution to the problem of gun crime and violence; that the problem is complex and multifaceted and will require considerable time and effort to develop effective strategies to realize a successful resolution.

We do know, however, that certain ‘solutions’ won’t work: more guns in the hands of civilians and arming teachers won’t work, just as banning AR 15s and similar semi-automatic rifles won’t work.

We need to stop wasting time and resources pursuing these and other ‘solutions’ devoid of merit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The problem here is that nobody makes such a straw man argument.

Really?

• CBS News Bombshell: Student Leader Wasn't at School On Day of the Mass Shooting
  
• Trump’s latest plan - bet the NRA talks him down
  
• Hillary: We have got to do something about gun violence in America
  
• Tell us again how gun laws stop gun violence.
  
• How do we stop gun violence? Is getting rid of the second amendment the answer?
  
• Gun violence in America.
  
• CDZ - You wanna stop gun violence?
  
• More posts/threads in which stopping gun deaths/violence is a stated or implied aim or predicate of a member's argument

Thread topic:
This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries? If I shoot a deer or enemy soldier it is not because I hope he has a nice day. Who claims that it is possible to disinvent guns and remove them all from the world for now and always?
The actual discussion is about gun control laws/regulations which have little/or no effect on those who don't wish to obey them and in addition new laws serve to outlaw previously law abiding citizens.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The problem here is that nobody makes such a straw man argument.

Really?

• CBS News Bombshell: Student Leader Wasn't at School On Day of the Mass Shooting
  
• Trump’s latest plan - bet the NRA talks him down
  
• Hillary: We have got to do something about gun violence in America
  
• Tell us again how gun laws stop gun violence.
  
• How do we stop gun violence? Is getting rid of the second amendment the answer?
  
• Gun violence in America.
  
• CDZ - You wanna stop gun violence?
  
• More posts/threads in which stopping gun deaths/violence is a stated or implied aim or predicate of a member's argument

Thread topic:
This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries? If I shoot a deer or enemy soldier it is not because I hope he has a nice day. Who claims that it is possible to disinvent guns and remove them all from the world for now and always?
The actual discussion is about gun control laws/regulations which have little/or no effect on those who don't wish to obey them and in addition new laws serve to outlaw previously law abiding citizens.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries?

I really can't say, nor in this thread would I embark on any line of discussion about such individuals even if they exist, for the topic and rhetorical purpose of the thread is, as you highlighted by citing my thread topic statement, has nothing to do with them or what they claim. I can assure you that regardless of what gun control advocates claim, what they do not claim is that gun control measures will not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

I can tell you that I've observed opposers of gun control measures assert that such initiatives should be rejected because they will not stop gun violence/deaths and I provided you with links to multiple and myriad ways in which those opposers have asserted exactly that. That I have observed gun control opposers make that claim is what motivated me to create this thread.

 

[danielpalos]

Organize the militia! We should have no security problems in our free States!

 

[9thIDdoc]

The problem here is that nobody makes such a straw man argument.

Really?

• CBS News Bombshell: Student Leader Wasn't at School On Day of the Mass Shooting
  
• Trump’s latest plan - bet the NRA talks him down
  
• Hillary: We have got to do something about gun violence in America
  
• Tell us again how gun laws stop gun violence.
  
• How do we stop gun violence? Is getting rid of the second amendment the answer?
  
• Gun violence in America.
  
• CDZ - You wanna stop gun violence?
  
• More posts/threads in which stopping gun deaths/violence is a stated or implied aim or predicate of a member's argument

Thread topic:
This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries? If I shoot a deer or enemy soldier it is not because I hope he has a nice day. Who claims that it is possible to disinvent guns and remove them all from the world for now and always?
The actual discussion is about gun control laws/regulations which have little/or no effect on those who don't wish to obey them and in addition new laws serve to outlaw previously law abiding citizens.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries?

I really can't say, nor in this thread would I embark on any line of discussion about such individuals even if they exist, for the topic and rhetorical purpose of the thread is, as you highlighted by citing my thread topic statement, has nothing to do with them or what they claim. I can assure you that regardless of what gun control advocates claim, what they do not claim is that gun control measures will not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

I can tell you that I've observed opposers of gun control measures assert that such initiatives should be rejected because they will not stop gun violence/deaths and I provided you with links to multiple and myriad ways in which those opposers have asserted exactly that. That I have observed gun control opposers make that claim is what motivated me to create this thread.

Either the argument (as you stated it) is the topic or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

"...for the topic and rhetorical purpose of the thread is..."

 

[usmbguest5318]

The problem here is that nobody makes such a straw man argument.

Really?

• CBS News Bombshell: Student Leader Wasn't at School On Day of the Mass Shooting
  
• Trump’s latest plan - bet the NRA talks him down
  
• Hillary: We have got to do something about gun violence in America
  
• Tell us again how gun laws stop gun violence.
  
• How do we stop gun violence? Is getting rid of the second amendment the answer?
  
• Gun violence in America.
  
• CDZ - You wanna stop gun violence?
  
• More posts/threads in which stopping gun deaths/violence is a stated or implied aim or predicate of a member's argument

Thread topic:
This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries? If I shoot a deer or enemy soldier it is not because I hope he has a nice day. Who claims that it is possible to disinvent guns and remove them all from the world for now and always?
The actual discussion is about gun control laws/regulations which have little/or no effect on those who don't wish to obey them and in addition new laws serve to outlaw previously law abiding citizens.

Who exactly is it that tries to claim that gun control could, or even should, eliminate all gun related deaths and/or injuries?

I really can't say, nor in this thread would I embark on any line of discussion about such individuals even if they exist, for the topic and rhetorical purpose of the thread is, as you highlighted by citing my thread topic statement, has nothing to do with them or what they claim. I can assure you that regardless of what gun control advocates claim, what they do not claim is that gun control measures will not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.

I can tell you that I've observed opposers of gun control measures assert that such initiatives should be rejected because they will not stop gun violence/deaths and I provided you with links to multiple and myriad ways in which those opposers have asserted exactly that. That I have observed gun control opposers make that claim is what motivated me to create this thread.

Either the argument (as you stated it) is the topic or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

"...for the topic and rhetorical purpose of the thread is..."

 

[2aguy]

Preface:

Thread topic:

This thread's topic is the legitimacy of the assertion/conclusion that gun control does not "work" because it does not eliminate gun-related deaths and/or injuries.​

Not the thread topic:

Anything else.​

Main Post Remarks:

At least weekly I come across remarks wherein the speaker/writer asserts that because a given jurisdiction's gun control legislation has not, within that jurisdiction, completely eliminated gun-related deaths and gun-related injuries, one must conclude that gun control measures don't work.

Such an assertion/argument is pure poppycock! For something to work, it must accomplish what it aims to accomplish. Neither gun control advocates nor the measures they propone have ever aimed to eliminate gun-related deaths and injuries. They have only ever sought to reduce them.

Not even the most ardent supporters of the most draconian gun control measures think that gun control measures will eliminate gun-related deaths and injuries. The goal of gun control measures is to reduce the incidence of gun-related death/injury.

The fact of the matter is that some gun control measures do indeed reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths and injuries. To wit:

• Brady Bill Correlation:
  • 1984-1993
    • America’s gun homicide rate increased during that period by ~55 percent. (Source)
    • America's non-gun homicides decreased during the same period. (Source)
  • 1994 Brady Bill takes requiring background checks takes effect.
  • 1994-2012
    • ~2.4 million prohibited domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals attempted to buy firearms and were denied the ability to to do so because they failed the background check. (Source)
    • 2012 alone: Background checks blocked ~192K prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms.
• Other correlates:
  • The Association Between State Laws Regulating Handgun Ownership and Statewide Suicide Rates [1]
    • Results largely indicated that states with any of these laws in place exhibited lower overall suicide rates and suicide by firearms rates and that a smaller proportion of suicides in such states resulted from firearms. Furthermore, results indicated that laws requiring registration and license had significant indirect effects through the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. The latter results imply that such laws are associated with fewer suicide attempts overall, a tendency for those who attempt to use less-lethal means, or both. Exploratory longitudinal analyses indicated a decrease in overall suicide rates immediately following implementation of laws requiring a license to own a handgun.
  • Association Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides
    • The law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place. By contrast, there was no evidence for a reduction in non-firearm homicides.
  • Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides
    • Missouri’s 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law contributed to a fourteen percent increase in Missouri’s murder rate through 2012 (updated from sixteen percent; first paragraph of press release).
    • The law’s repeal was associated with an additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.
    • The repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with a 25% increase in firearm homicides rates.

Unless one can show that there are material methodological shortcomings in the studies cited above (or other soundly performed ones like them), one must conclude that at the very least they are correlated to lower incidences of such events and they are so correlated in ways that other actions that either have not or cannot be shown soundly to be equivalently correlated. (See: Statistics and Causal Inference [2]) Anyone who values and places as supreme human life would, if s/he is thinking rationally, will thus conclude that it is sage to act to avail themselves and society of the association between access to guns and lower gun-related death and injury rates.

Thus the assertion that gun control measures do not eliminate gun deaths/injuries is little but an irrational red herring/straw man tactic for misrepresenting what is actually claimed by gun control advocates: that gun control measures reduce the incidence of gun-related deaths and injuries.​

Endnote:

1. I don't actually care whether suicide rates decrease. If one wants to kill oneself, I'm fine with letting one do so. Hell, I'm more likely to give one a ride to the bridge or cliff one wants to jump off of than I am to discourage one from jumping.
   
   Given that that is my view of suicide and the folks who want to commit it, that gun control reduces suicide rates isn't a key basis I'd use to argue for implementing any given gun control measure. That said, suicide-by-gun is a gun-related death, and to that end they "count" as goes the legitimacy of assessing whether gun-related deaths and injuries appear to be reduced by gun control measures.
2. Oddly enough, some people will go so far as to assert that because absolute causation has not been established, thus we do not know whether gun control measures are arbitrarily correlated with lower gun-related deaths or whether the observed correlates result from their being causal to the observe behaviors/outcomes. Such an argument is intrinsically fallacious. It is the very definition of the logical fallacy (flaw in reasoning) called "argument from ignorance."
   • Argument from Ignorance
   • The Fallacy of Negative Premises and 5 Cases that Failed -- The content at this bullet point's link discusses the negative premise fallacy. Basically, it's just the other side of the argument from ignorance coin, so to speak. It applies when the assertion being evaluated is structured as a negative one rather than as a positive one, thus it's given a different name. The derivation of the flaw in reasoning, however, is effectively the same as it is with arguing from ignorance: one's not knowing something for certain is thus a good reason not to take actions indicated by/based on what one does know.
     
   • The rational counter to an argument based on existential, weighty, material and/or preponderant/abundant correlates is not to present an argument from ignorance (or a negative premise fallacy-based argument), but rather, it is to perform new original research that reveals incontrovertible and germane facts about causality and that were heretofore unknown. If those facts show that causality indeed does not exist between the actions and outcomes under consideration, then one can discount the correlation-based arguments from before. (Note: merely assembling a different set of extant minority facts that show a different association than the one claimed does not credibly refute the argument/conclusions of an associative based argument.

That worked really well for Hitler. I have wondered how many Jews turned in their guns and wished they had them back.

The ridiculous rightwing lie about Hitler ‘disarming’ Jew was long ago debunked:

“Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”

The Hitler gun control lie

Hitler disarmed Jews and his political enemies and armed his brown shirt thugs...

From your own link...what part of "Mostly" did you fail to read.....?

If this wasn't the CDZ I would call you an appropriate name for that lame link.....

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus.

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.

 

[2aguy]

The problem is that the American people refuse to accept the fact that there is no quick, easy solution to the problem of gun crime and violence; that the problem is complex and multifaceted and will require considerable time and effort to develop effective strategies to realize a successful resolution.

We do know, however, that certain ‘solutions’ won’t work: more guns in the hands of civilians and arming teachers won’t work, just as banning AR 15s and similar semi-automatic rifles won’t work.

We need to stop wasting time and resources pursuing these and other ‘solutions’ devoid of merit.

and arming teachers won’t work

Wrong...arming teachers who are trained will work....getting rid of democrat gun free zones will keep mass shooters from targeting schools...we know this....because mass shooters who were captured and mass shooters who died but left notes, tell us this...

And here is some actual research...

Arming teachers: Science or shot in the dark?



For the Purdue project, students pored over FBI data from past mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the 2012 Newtown, Conn., mass shooting that ended with 20 children and six adults dead. They studied police response time in relation to casualties, said the institute's director, J. Eric Dietz, Indiana's first director of Homeland Security. Appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels, Dietz reorganized the state's public safety planning and response while serving as director until 2008.

In their study, the Purdue students created four scenarios and ran them through the computer models that followed an active shooter in a school. It's available at www.researchgate.net/.

They learned what could seem obvious: if a police officer or other armed school official confronts the shooter, fewer casualties are likely to occur. Dietz said the gun debate is so polarizing, his students sought to use science to inform people in the middle of the debate.

"What we found was profound," said Dietz. He said a single resource officer "or even an armed teacher in a defensive position between attacker and students can reduce the number of victims by up to 70 percent."

Dietz and his students have been presenting their findings at seminars across the country. They're using models now to study stadiums and sporting events.

"My students weren't supporting a certain agenda item. We tried to take a very objective look," said Dietz.

"In all cases, some presence of weapons was an advantage," he said. "Essentially, our model shows what President Trump said after the Florida shooting – arm more people. That's what we predict from the science we built."