Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[prizrak]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Dafuq I'm still in this state for?

 

[Spectre]

Dafuq I'm still in this state for?

No idea, perhaps you like being near stupid people for some reason?

 

[CrzRsn]

Dafuq I'm still in this state for?

Time to setup regional Finalgear compounds/escapes/reservations in Texas, Michigan and Colorado.

 

[ScarFace88]

I'll probably head off to Texas after I finish school...

 

[prizrak]

No idea, perhaps you like being near stupid people for some reason?

I do work in support...

- - - Updated - - -

Time to setup regional Finalgear compounds/escapes/reservations in Texas, Michigan and Colorado.

Hard to decide between MI and CO, TX is just too warm for my tastes

 

[biggie]

Saw another piece on the NY law that bans all handguns/pistols due to being poorly written (or intentional mistake).

 

[biggie]

Another good one in NY.

 

[HatePersonified]

Dafuq I'm still in this state for?

 

[MadCat360]

I don't have the rest of the country's stats to hand, but Texas passed shall-issue concealed carry and our homicide rates immediately dropped by one third. I believe that most places that passed CCW in recent years have seen similar effects.

Social science is far more complex than that and you know it. I could correlate the number of times I sneezed in a year versus the number of homicides and, using logic like yours, could conclude that I control the lives of thousands with my nose. Your conclusion leaps the distance between the earth and the moon because entirely half of it is pure assumption. Actual evidence, please.

Maybe try reading this first. It's a nice collection.

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf


But I don't expect you to pay it any heed, because your ability to selectively confirm and bias your arguments is beyond the comprehension of anyone on this board, and maybe beyond everyone in this quadrant of the internet.

 

[Spectre]

Social science was far more complex than that and you know it. I could correlate the number of times I sneezed in a year versus the number of homicides and, using logic like yours, could conclude that I control the lives of thousands with my nose. Your conclusion leaps the distance between the earth and the moon because entirely half of it is pure assumption. Actual evidence, please.

Maybe try reading this first. It's a nice collection.

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf


But I don't expect you to pay it any heed, because your ability to selectively confirm and bias your arguments is beyond the comprehension of anyone on this board, and maybe beyond everyone in this quadrant of the internet.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

Proof is here. Original source of stats, DOJ Uniform Crime Reports.
Format is year then number of homicides. Texas passed CCW in 1995 and it went into immediate effect. Texas implemented no additional anti-homicide legislation that year or in the preceding or following legislative sessions.

1987 1,959
1988 2,022
1989 2,029
1990 2,389
1991 2,652
1992 2,239
1993 2,147
1994 2,022 <-- 1994 AWB introduced, last year pre CCW in Texas
1995 1,693 <-- CCW introduced in Texas
1996 1,477
1997 1,327
1998 1,346
1999 1,217
2000 1,238
2001 1,332
2002 1,302
2003 1,422
2004 1,364 <--- 1994 AWB expired this year
2005 1,407
2006 1,384
2007 1,420
2008 1,370
2009 1,330
2010 1,249
2011 1,126

I will admit to remembering it incorrectly as an immediate 1/3rd plunge - it was an approximate 1/4 plunge and by 5 years in it was approximately down by 1/3rd of the immediate pre CCW numbers. The 2011 numbers for homicide (remember, this is post ban so all the 'evil' weapons are back) are down to levels not seen since 1968 and are still trending downwards.

As statisticians on both sides of the issue have pointed out, the 1994 AWB had no discernable effect on crime or on homicides in general. Texas passed no other bills that would affect this. What's left as a potential cause of the precipitous drop, then?

Seems pretty clear cut to me, and nowhere near what you seem to be accusing me of. Now if you want to talk about the other goals of CCW such as reducing violent crime in general, reducing forcible rape and robbery - it is much less clear, even murky. But then, reducing murder is a worthwhile goal and achievement in and of itself, not so?

 

[MadCat360]

As statisticians on both sides of the issue have pointed out, the 1994 AWB had no discernable effect on crime or on homicides in general. Texas passed no other bills that would affect this. What's left as a potential cause of the precipitous drop, then?

This is where your post should have ended. "I do not know, therefore... I do not know". Not; "I do not know, therefore... CCW/NWO/UFO/CIA/FBwhateverthehellelseyouwanttoconclude".

Not knowing is not determining a cause. Crime rates are affected by hundreds of factors, not only legislation. You are assuming a cause for the correlation when there may not be one.

There is no consensus on the effectiveness of shall-issue legislation, so we cannot assume it is effective. But you would know that if you actually read about it.

 

[Spectre]

Not knowing is not determining a cause. Crime rates are affected by hundreds of factors, not only legislation. You are assuming a cause for the correlation when there may not be one.

There is no consensus on the effectiveness of shall-issue legislation, so we cannot assume it is effective. But you would know that if you actually read about it.

Actually, Texas was no-issue and no-carry before 95. Carriage of pistols by citizens for self defense outside of a nebulously defined 'traveling' was banned entirely and was in fact a felony. No permits to carry for anyone, not even the corrupt NYC permit style. So it's not shall-issue or may-issue for the Texas stats, it was 'issue at all'.

I would further point out that the material you linked to basically says 'in aggregate we don't know' or 'inconclusive' for every single one of the areas of interest. I would submit that while they may not be able to prove looser laws are not helping, they are conversely not able to prove that they are harming either. In fact, using their criteria, they can't conclusively show anything either way.

If you can't prove a course of action is harmful, why ban it or restrict it? Why not continue?

 

[MadCat360]

Actually, Texas was no-issue before 95. Carriage of pistols by citizens for self defense outside of a nebulously defined 'traveling' was banned entirely and was in fact a felony.

OK? That doesn't have anything to do with proving the effectiveness of shall-issue legislation.

If you can't prove a course of action is harmful, why ban it or restrict it? Why not continue?

Because we don't know yet. The way you find out is to keep trying various things in different ways and taking measurements. There are no lab experiments for this. You have to use real world practice.

 

[Spectre]

OK? That doesn't have anything to do with proving the effectiveness of shall-issue legislation.

Who was trying to prove the effectiveness of shall-issue legislation? My mention of the Texas permits upthread was strictly to point out that more guns in legal public (in the sense of 'in public' as opposed to 'in private') circulation does not automatically mean more murders or more crime at all, contrary to what someone else had asserted/questioned - something your own linked metastudy agrees with, actually.

 

[MadCat360]

Who was trying to prove the effectiveness of shall-issue legislation? My mention of the Texas permits upthread was strictly to point out that more guns in public circulation does not automatically mean more murders or more crime at all, contrary to what someone else had asserted/questioned - something your own linked metastudy points out.

No, you tried to show that having permit holders decreased murders. I said there is no proof of that.

 

[Spectre]

No, you tried to show that having permit holders decreased crime. I said there is no proof of that.

No, no, I didn't claim they reduced crime in general.

Here's the exact exchange.

But did those AW Ban, Brady bill, more concealed weapons permits push down overall level of firearms related murders? Those have all decreased and decreased substantially but mass shootings however you want to define them have stayed about the same or maybe increased depending on how you want to define them.

The Brady Bill had no impact on firearm homicides: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm



I don't have the rest of the country's stats to hand, but Texas passed shall-issue concealed carry and our homicide rates immediately dropped by one third. I believe that most places that passed CCW in recent years have seen similar effects.

The question was specifically homicides. In Texas, the evidence is clear that homicides were reduced after CCW was introduced. As I said above, I was mistaken about the immediate drop percentage, but they did drop.

No mention was made about whether it reduced crime in general on either party's part. Mostly because, at least in my case, I know that 'CCW automatically reduces crime in general' is arguable at best and completely untrue at worst (but, as your own metastudy points out, it doesn't seem to make it conclusively worse either).

 

[MadCat360]

The question was specifically homicides. In Texas, the evidence is clear that homicides were reduced after CCW was introduced. As I said above, I was mistaken about the immediate drop percentage, but they did drop.

Yes, and you're assuming that it dropped as a result. You've only demonstrated there may be a correlation, but you have not demonstrated a cause.

Don't get too caught up in semantics. That's idiot territory.

 

[Spectre]

Yes, and you're assuming that it dropped as a result. You've only demonstrated there may be a correlation, but you have not demonstrated a cause.

Please show what other cause there may have been, if you believe that there is one, then.
You may not use any of the ones that your own metastudy says are inconclusive, negligible, or irrelevant. Further, you must take into account that the Texas government could not pass laws or change regulations in 1994 or 1996, the Legislature not being in session in those years.

 

[MadCat360]

Please show what other cause there may have been, if you believe that there is one, then.

I don't know, and I don't believe anything. I look for things that are true, not necessarily intuitive or satisfying. What is true about firearms legislation or lack thereof is yet to be determined, by you or anybody I know of.

 

[Spectre]

I don't know, and I don't believe anything. I look for things that are true, not necessarily intuitive or satisfying. What is true about firearms legislation or lack thereof is yet to be determined, by you or anybody I know of.

Here's the thing - there have been a number of studies over the past decade plus looking at the Texas stats with an eye to figuring out how Texas managed such a precipitous drop in homicides. (50% faster than the national average.) All of the ones I have read so far ignored CCW; they focused on the obvious things like sentencing (turns out the death penalty isn't much of a deterrent), police activity, community programs, racial makeup/friction and legislative activity as well as some not so obvious things like family unit size and domestic/sexual abuse rates. All of them came up much like your metastudy - none of the things they looked at could conclusively be demonstrated to have caused it. The only thing that has been rather studiously avoided as a potential cause in all of these studies over the years is CCW.

Whatever is left, no matter how improbable...