London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Firstly, I'm not a gun lobbyist. Secondly, who said this, Balbus? "Let me add, the immediate confiscation of all private weapons that hold more than 6 rounds"? Think hard, Balbus.

And did you miss this, Balbus:

Eighteen experts participated in the NRC report, including those in criminology, sociology, psychology, economics, public health and statistics. The NRC’s conclusion: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts - FactCheck.org

What part of "do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship" don't you anti-gun shills get? If you want to actually support your claim, show me the study that shows that the level of firearms ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area.

 

LOL – yes who said it, I think you need to check.

Where it just doesn’t seem to fit or be credible in any rational way

David Hemenway the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, says in the same cited report -that he would “bet a lot of money” that the prevalence of guns increases homicide, all other things being equal. “I think the evidence is very consistent with the notion that more guns have made us less safe.” But it’s “almost impossible” to prove a causal relationship. “All the data are consistent with a causal relationship, but it’s very hard to say anything is causal,” he says.

Going on to point out that the reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.”

That among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out.

“We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”

And as Garen Wintemute the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California points out “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”

 

My mistake. It was in your post, and it was not clear who the "let me add" amendment was from since you did not actually quote Meagain. Having said that, do you agree with Meagain's amendment concerning the confiscation of all guns that hold more than six rounds?

And my point stands. Because of the limitations of existing data and methods, no study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence. So far you've referred to Hemenway who's said that he'd “bet a lot of money” and “I think the evidence is very consistent with . . .” and ". . . it’s very hard to say anything is causal.” Take note that he did not say that "the evidence proves," or "It is proven that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates," or "It was hard, but we've shown that there is a causal relationship . . ."

He found himself in the position of trying to convince his audience of the "facts" by stating how much he would be willing to bet that they are indeed facts. LOL!

Where's the study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with?

 

No pretending. Switzerland very much works in our favor.

 

Those deaths are indeed inevitable. If someone chooses to commit murder, that person will use whatever method is available even if they cannot get their hands on a gun.

Your last statement is in error. Our general homicide rate is not higher than comparable countries that prevent people from having guns.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia

Estimated number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia

Honduras
Homicide Rate: 86
Gun ownership rate: 6.2

El Salvador
Homicide Rate: 41
Gun ownership rate: 5.8

Jamaica
Homicide Rate: 48
Gun ownership rate: 8.1

Belize
Homicide Rate: 45
Gun ownership rate: 10

Bahamas
Homicide Rate: 37
Gun ownership rate: 5.3

Dominican Republic
Homicide Rate: 25
Gun ownership rate: 5.1

Brazil
Homicide Rate: 29
Gun ownership rate: 8

Columbia
Homicide Rate: 24.5
Gun ownership rate: 5.9

Trinidad and Tobago
Homicide Rate: 28
Gun ownership rate: 1.6

United States
Homicide Rate: 4.9
Gun ownership rate: 101

A very small increase, sure.

If he'd like to bet a large amount of money on anything greater than a very small increase, send him my way. I could find some good uses for that money.

Statistics consistently show the exact opposite of that. There are plenty of countries with many privately-owned guns and very few homicides.

Using the same sources that I used above:

Norway
Homicide Rate: 0.57
Gun ownership rate: 31.3

France
Homicide Rate: 1.53
Gun ownership rate: 31.2

Canada
Homicide Rate: 1.68
Gun ownership rate: 30.8

Austria
Homicide Rate: 0.49
Gun ownership rate: 30.4

Iceland
Homicide Rate: 0.91
Gun ownership rate: 30.3

Germany
Homicide Rate: 0.81
Gun ownership rate: 30.3

Finland
Homicide Rate: 1.61
Gun ownership rate: 27.3

 

It's illegal to have ammunition in your home the goverment holds onto guns you may use if you wish. It's hardly the second ammendment's dream of "rights".

 

At the risk of getting sucked back into an interminable debate with Storch, I should point out that the statement that was originally being debated was Toggle Almendro's "The reason why I conclude that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates is because statistics show very clearly that gun availability has very little correlation with homicide rates."Those familiar with the nuances of the English language may note that Almendro writes of "corelation", which any elementary student of statistics knows is not the same as causation. I proceeded to review the Harvard research showing that there is such a correlation. Now Storch has shifted to causation. Hume argued centuries ago that causation is impossible to prove. In a study of guns and violence, it's always possible that the violence caused the guns, the guns caused the violence or that some outside factor caused the phenomenon in question. Most social scientists are willing to stick their necks out and engage in causal modeling, testing relationships with statistical measures like multivariate regression analysis. They use statistical techniques to control for extraneous variables, and are able to show the extent of contribution of the various independent variables in explaining variations in the dependent variable.The quotation that Storch is so emphatic about concerns 2004 findings of a committee of the National Research Council of the National Academies addressing a study by John Lott that reported a correlation between concealed carry laws and reduction of crime. The NRC analyzed Lott’s research and concluded that “it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws”. No study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence. In other words, contrary to Lott, no evidence shows that concealed carry reduces violent crime. Agreed. But it would be incorrect to say "gun availability has little impact on homicide rates... because statistics show very clearly that gun availability has very little correlation with homicide rates." It should also be noted that this NRC conclusion comes from a 2004 study predating the Harvard studies we've been discussing. While those admittedly don't prove a causal relationship, they show relationships which I think are most plausibly interpreted as supporting a causal connection. Certainly, they don't show the opposite.

 

That is incorrect. People in Switzerland are allowed to possess their own guns. And to possess their own ammunition.

On the contrary. Since that is what statistics do show, such a statement would be factually correct.

 

. . .

 

The Harvard study gave Hemenway the authority to make such inconclusive statements as "I'd bet a lot of money that . . .," and "I think . . .," and "it’s very hard to say anything is causal . . ."

So what we have here is a guy who says he'd bet a lot of money on his opinion. Of course, that and a dollar and a half will get you a cup of coffee.

Where's the study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with?

 

Fantastic! I think we could learn a lot from Switzerland and I'm glad you agree, lets start with this

And then there's this

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

 

Keep in mind that people have the right to carry guns in America, so it would be unconstitutional to prevent the general populace from carrying guns in public here.

As for the things you quoted, the US already has a background check system.

I've no specific objections to requiring gun safety classes, but I would want to see any such measures attached to something like Concealed Carry Reciprocity or the SHARE Act.

 

I should have quit earlier. It isn't what the statistics show, so the statement would be factually incorrect. We shown that by Storch's study as well as the Harvard ones. If you keep on saying that, you're just dissembling. Okay, that's it. I quit.

 

No, it is exactly what the statistics show, so the statement is factually correct.

No. He quoted studies that establish that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Fraudulent studies are hardly credible.

No. When I point out accurate facts, that counts as telling the truth.

 

Here's what's been shown:

The Harvard study gave Hemenway the authority to make such inconclusive statements as "I'd bet a lot of money that . . .," and "I think . . .," and "it’s very hard to say anything is causal . . ."

What that means is that Hemenway did his best to make it sound like the Harvard study said something that it didn't and couldn't. That's why he had only his admission "that he would bet a lot of money" to prove his point . . . which is not proof that his point was valid.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Where's the study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with?

 

He has a lot of evidence to back him up. I think the methodology used is impressive, especially when compared with eyeballing a bunch of data from Wikipedia.

Where's the study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with?[/QUOTE]Broad social, cultural, and political forces both shape and reflect guns violence, but where firearms are available assaults are more likely to become homicides. Stockpiling guns is a common factor among perpetrators of mass shootings. Cukier and Eagen, Current Opinion in Psychology, 19: 109-112 (Feb., 2018).

 

He quoted a study showing that the available evidence provided a weak basis for proving a causal relationship--quite a different matter.

That's why I give no credibility to anything you say.

But you haven't, so it doesn't. Maybe somebody else would like to spar with you. I'm outtahere.

 

A lot of useless cherry-picked data.

I'm not impressed by it on account of it being useless due to the cherry picking.

The statistics show otherwise.

Stockpiling guns is a common factor among most gun owners.

 

. . .

 

You cannot back up your false accusations against me. You cannot show anything fraudulent in anything that I've said.

Wrong. All of the statistics that I cited are accurate and verifiable.

So that does count as me telling the truth.