more guns mean more homicide, more gun control mean less homicide

[dairygirl4u2c]

i defy anyone to show otherwise

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions.

Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn 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." 

this is true when you compare developed nations v developed nations. you can't compare undeveloped. and you also have to have variable control of things like poverty v homicide and guns v homicide
R03;
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3274888
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24740937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028252
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fstlpl12&div=18&id&page
http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/

states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gun-laws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html
http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.abstract?ID=209249
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

[Socrates]

Dead horse.  Already dealt with in the umpteen hundred previous threads on the exact same topic.

Mother Jones, Glue-Huffing Post, etc. make good toilet paper.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

i defy anyone to show otherwise

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions.

Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn 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." 

this is true when you compare developed nations v developed nations. you can't compare undeveloped. and you also have to have variable control of things like poverty v homicide and guns v homicide
R03;
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3274888
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24740937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028252
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fstlpl12&div=18&id&page
http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/

states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gun-laws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html
http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.abstract?ID=209249
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

Are you sure you didn't post this a month ago? Or was that someone else?

[Luigi]

I read my local newspaper daily. The majority of crimes I read about include the use of a stolen gun (and often a stolen car - first you steal a gun, then you steal a car, then you commit your crime, then you ditch the car).

Yesterday, a 13-year-old girl shot two people in the stomach to steal some hair weaves. The gun she used must surely have been stolen since 13-year-olds are not issued gun permits in my state.

The problem is not the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, just as the problem is not the ownership of cars by law-abiding citizens. The problem is that criminals (or people intent on committing their first crime) steal the guns (or the cars) and use them to commit crimes.

I wish the anti-gun lobby would work as hard at removing illegal guns from the hands of criminals as they work at trying to remove legal guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

[dairygirl4u2c]

20 hours ago, Socrates said:

Dead horse.  Already dealt with in the umpteen hundred previous threads on the exact same topic.

Mother Jones, Glue-Huffing Post, etc. make good toilet paper.

this is bordering on being anti science. to be fair, some of those source are bias. and, they didn't involve a lot of scientific principles in their study. but to focus on that is ignoring the majority of the other sources that are unbiased and represents an effective scientific consensus. if your positions were true there would be more academic support for your position, which there isn't.

as to peaces points. gun control has positive effects. it isn't just a world split between criminals and noncriminals. noncriminals become criminals, so if we lessen their use of guns, we lessen homicides. but really no one is trying to take away guns from noncriminals anyway. the gun control we do have is effective by academic study and common sense. if automatics were legal there would be more people dead in massacres. just because you can switch a gun to automatic doesn't mean people do, they largely don't. if jon isn't suppose to have a gun and is generally law abiding so doesn't get one, and then goes nuts, he isn't as likely to kill anyone cause he doesn't have a gun. if you limit body proof vest penetrating bullets some people won't find the few underground ones that exist, so when they shoot a cop they wont be as likely to die. I could go on and on with examples.

I posted a lot of this before. but now I have more and better sources. and most importantly, I have evidence that even literature reviews supports my position. anyone can do one, especially at libraries and universities with journal databases. you can't find effective consensus for positions different than what ive shown. there's hardly any differing support against me.

it's like global warming. there is an effective consensus that it's man made significantly. maybe there's a quack or two or disagrees but you won't find many and their evidence is shoddy. if ninety nine percent of engineers think a bridge is unsafe, would you try to argue that it is safe? would you frequent that bridge?
It helps me to compare it to global warming cause the common sense and science is so overwhelming that the usual way to disagree is to be antiscience or a nut job, so that's how they can hold the positions they do.

[Socrates]

Bless your heart.

[Winchester]

On 7/21/2016 at 11:05 AM, dairygirl4u2c said:

i defy anyone to show otherwise

more homicides correlated to more guns owed. here is a quote indicating that's what a literature review confirms, followed by a site with literature review conclusions. aside from a shoddy study or two or so, you can't find generalize consensus that find different conclusions.

Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn 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." 

this is true when you compare developed nations v developed nations. you can't compare undeveloped. and you also have to have variable control of things like poverty v homicide and guns v homicide
R03;
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
http://www.motherjones.com/files/ownership-death630.png
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3274888
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24740937
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028252
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fstlpl12&div=18&id&page
http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/

states with more gun control have less deaths than states with less gun control. following are some studies that indicate as much, including some literature reviews conclusing as much. you cant find literature review consensus finding different conclusions aside from a few shoddy studies. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gun-laws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html
http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.abstract?ID=209249
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

I've  never killed anyone. You don't own me. Go pound sand.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

I've  never killed anyone. You don't own me. Go pound sand.

You do not own you either.

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

You do not own you either.

Bought with a price?

[Quasar]

Correlation is not causation. 

[Anselm]

On 22 July 2016 at 3:10 AM, Luigi said:

I read my local newspaper daily. The majority of crimes I read about include the use of a stolen gun (and often a stolen car - first you steal a gun, then you steal a car, then you commit your crime, then you ditch the car).

Yesterday, a 13-year-old girl shot two people in the stomach to steal some hair weaves. The gun she used must surely have been stolen since 13-year-olds are not issued gun permits in my state.

The problem is not the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, just as the problem is not the ownership of cars by law-abiding citizens. The problem is that criminals (or people intent on committing their first crime) steal the guns (or the cars) and use them to commit crimes.

I wish the anti-gun lobby would work as hard at removing illegal guns from the hands of criminals as they work at trying to remove legal guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Luigi,

I have a lot of respect for your great posts elsewhere on this site but I can't agree here. Yes, criminals steal guns and use them in crime, but if the population as a whole didn't have those guns then they wouldn't be stolen and used to kill people. The fact that you say that the majority of crimes in your local newspaper involve stolen guns is shocking; I can't remember a single crime in my local paper that's involved a gun. Ever. There may have been one or two over the years but they're so rare that I can't even remember them. Remove guns from the local population as a whole and you begin to remove guns from criminals.

 

[Anomaly]

The UK and England overlords have not allowed its peasants the freedom to own any sort of arms for many hundreds of years.   The Norman invasion and conquering pretty much set the precedent.  The US was wrested from the Imperialist Colonizers, native peoples, and wild animals with armed citizens.  We then endured a Civil War with armed citizenry.  Totally different context of History that is not changed by words on paper.  You have to acknowledge reality.  

[Anselm]

Context of history? I'm afraid your understanding of history comes across as a little opaque. For example, the influence of the 1689 English Bill of Rights on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution somewhat undermines your last post. Also, it sounds slightly odd that you're so proud America was 'wrested' from its native people...

[Anomaly]

You read pride where there was no emotion showing.  That is your bias. 

You obviously can't comprehend what has been repeatedly explained.  

Armed citizenry was a  necessity in the circumstances of US history. The UK historically has striven to prevent armed citizenry because it's history of class rule and conquer of native peoples by the invading ruling class.  (Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans) The subjugation of the Scots and Welsch.

If you can't admit or comprehend this fundamental difference, then you're either trolling, stubbornly arrogant, or of less mental acumen than average.  

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by Anomaly

[Anselm]

Where are you getting this from? I won't stoop to your level of snide insinuations about intelligence; of course I understand what you're saying, the point is that I disagree. You give the impression of a uniform, continuous narrative in British political history that simply isn't the case.