Summations Only

By "sheeple" do you mean people who haven't adopted your paraoid delusions and culture of fear? People who don't imprison themselves in bunkers or behind double steel doors? People who consider not needing to relentlessly lock themselves in and arm themselves up as a far superior form of liberty? People who spend their time doing productive and creative things rather than spending every precious moment preparing for the impending doom that awaits round every corner? Those people?If that's awhat you mean by "sheeple" then - Yes - Count me in. If that is your idea of happiness you should move to somewhere like Beiruit.

Risk? What risk? What study are you basing this "risk" conclusion upon? Who says that guns are a risk? You? Prove it?Next you'll be asserting that guns in the home of people who might drink too much or get overly emotional or who are suicidal or who have any other momentary psychological lapse are also a "risk".....I want to know the evidence upon which this "risk" conclusion of yours is based?

1) Do you accept a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates?2) Do you accept that this correlation isn't just random and that it is in fact due to a causal relationship between the two things?3) What do you think the nature of the causal relationship between these factors is? (i.e. what causes what)Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings?

In a perfect society populated by perfect human beings a proliferation of deadly weapons would be neither here nor there.But in an imperfect society populated by imperfect human beings where social problems and violence are a fact of life a proliferation of readily accessible deadly weapons will exacerbate, rather than help, such a situation. Hence the need for controls and restrictions on such devices.Do you actually disagree with that?

The more pertinent question here is whether you have any argument beyond simply saying 'Nuh uh' to any evidence that contradicts your preferred position. Too old, too small, not taking into account social factors, taking into account too many social factors, international comparisons aren't relevant, there is no correlation between homicides and guns, there is correlation but correlation isn't causation, there is a causal relationship but it is that more homicides causes more people to want guns rather than more guns causing more homicides, none of the evidence matters anyway because gun ownership is a 'natural right'...... and so on and so forth.In these recent gun control threads you have shamelessly flip flopped between multiple positions. And it really smacks of making any argument at all to defend that which you have already decided. You need to get your story straight because at the moment it looks like you are just saying anything in order stop yourself from drawing a conclusion about guns that you won't like. Do you accept that this correlation isn't just random and that it is in fact due to a causal relationship between the two things?What do you think the nature of the causal relationship between these factors is? (i.e. what causes what)

So basically you have nothing beyond 'Nuh uh' and you will continue citing different denial tactics whenever you are confronted with any evidence that doesn't support your preferred position. A single definitive relationship that applies to every single conceivable instance of gun use? No. Of course not. That isn't how the real world works.But does the evidence point towards a detectable trend? And if so what is it? Here's a clue: Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level. Ah. I see. If the evidence doesn't support your position then say that it's inconclusive and suggest that we 'teach the controversy'.....That old tactic.

I repeat - Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level. You spent the initial portion of these gun threads denying that there was any correlation between these things at all. Do you now accept that there is a correlation? Do you think this correlation is just random fluke or the result of a causal relationship between the factors? So you accept that there is a trend. Well that is progress. Yes we do. And the trend seems pretty conclusively evidenced. What is it you want to see further evidence of if not a trend? Are you demanding that it be conclusively proven that every single gun ever owned will be used for a massacre? What do you want to see evidence of if the evidenced trend in question is not sufficient?You’ve flapped around trying on different arguments to support your preconceived position. That’s a debate tactic. So is that. Ah. Yes. I forgot. You are just asking innocent questions. Merely putting forward objections in an entirely impartial and balanced manner. Taking no position whilst highlighting the controversy. Good for you. How jolly reasonable. Numerous people, including myself, have put forward arguments and data on this subject. You have effectively responded with ‘Nuh uh’ at every turn and this fake ‘I’m just impartially objecting’ thing of yours is just the latest weeze along that line of evidence denying debate.The last gasp tactic of those who face evidence that contradicts their position is to insist that the evidence is inconclusive and to assert that they are merely being fair and balanced in rejecting it. This is how unreasonable positions are made out to be superficially reasonable. Creationists do it, climate change deniers do it and apparently those who oppose fire-arm regulations do it to.

Evidence based argument will only be possible once you stop denying evidence. We need to establish what it is the evidence tells us before there is any point at all making any arguments based on that evidence. This trend tells us that for a given social context (nation, region, state, city, home) higher gun prevalence leads to higher homicide rates.Do you dispute that this is the evidenced trend? No. You've said you will accept a correlation for the sake of argument and you have then cited a number of possible causal relationships that might apply to any single incident but most of which are incapable of accounting for the evidenced trend under consideration.I want to know what specific causal relationship you think we can legitimately infer from the evidenced trend under consideration.

I mean that rather than even acknowledge that there is evidence to consider you instead choose to dismiss it or attack it or attack the people putting it forward. As you have done in your latest (frankly slightly hysterical) reply. The questions being put to you are very simple questions about the data that has been presented but you just cannot give a straight answer. Why not?Question: Do you accept that there is a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level?Do you accept that this is what the data tells us? Or not? Just a yes or no regarding correlation will suffice here because without agreement on this basic point, a point that those you are opposing here consider pretty indisputable, absolutely no progress can be made at all. Let us consider those causal relationships you have put forward in the context of the evidenced trend under consideration. This may well be true in some instances but if this were the predominant causal relationship we would see the reverse of the evidenced trend. Thus, given the data we have, it cannot be the predominant causal relationship at play here can it? No doubt this is true in some instances but as a predominant causal relationship it would seem to fail to explain the international data. In countries where guns are harder to come by and less prevalent there are less homicides. Whereas if this were the predominant causal relationship the number of homicides in these countries would be largely unaffected by the relatively low prevalence of guns. This causal relationship also fails to explain the correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rate at the home level. If one wants to commit a homicide, whether highly planned or a more spontaneous event, and guns are highly prevalent and readily available then use of a gun provides an obvious and effective method of achieving that aim. This would seem to be consistent with the evidenced correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates.Thus of the causal relationships you yourself have put forward one obviously isn’t the predominant cause, one fails to explain the correlation at all the levels it is found at and the other three are supportive of the position you are opposing.

At last!!! Some sense.Yes. If people have readily available access to deadly weapons then, entirely unsurprisingly, both their homicidal and suicidal urges will be more efficiently acted upon.This is exactly what those you oppose here have been relentlessly telling you. This is exactly what the evidence tells us. This is exactly the point you continue to deny when actually confronted with detailed arguments. Hurrah!!!!!!. You unequivocally accept the data presented. At last progress is made. Oh dear. So you have reneged on your acceptance of the data at the home level. And here you renege on the acceptance of the data at the international level too.So you accept that there is a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level but you are skeptical of the home level data and reject the international data completely. We have yet to ascertain whether your acceptance of region, state and city level data will be similarly reneged upon (but I know which way I'd bet....)Whether you now accept the data in question or not - Can you at least see why you are being accused of evidence denial?You both broadly accept and specifically reject the same evidence in a single post!!!!!!!!!

It isn’t even possible to sensibly discuss arguments for/against gun controls with someone who accepts a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates one moment and then denies that exact same correlation a few sentences later.You have quite clearly demonstrated yourself to be doing exactly that. So I really don’t see what else there is to say to you on this matter.

There are over 2000 posts in this thread. If you can’t find a single argument being put forward in favour of increased gun controls here then I would suggest you aren’t looking hard enough.The problem you face is that these arguments are based on a conclusively evidenced trend. A trend which applies at various levels ranging from entire nations to individual homes.A trend which you say you accept. But a trend which you repeatedly deny as soon as anyone advocating gun controls mentions it.I saw you exhibiting this contradictory behaviour yet again with regard to the data Percy put forward pertaining to gun ownership at the home level. I re-entered this thread to try and expose the contradictory nature of your stance.I believe I have successfully done that.

Ineffective gun controls which have no effect on the prevalence of guns aren't going to reduce homicides.Gun controls which do reduce gun prevalence probably will. That's what the evidence tells us.Obviously....

Do you accept that reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the homicide rate?Or not?

If one wanted to seriously reduce gun prevalence then the obvious thing to do would be to copy the approach(es) taken by those nations/cities which have successfully and effectively reduced or limited the prevalence of guns.Do you consider reducing gun prevalence in the US to be a sensible aim?Can you think of any nation or city that has successfully and effectively reduced or limited the prevalence of guns?