Diagoras wrote:I don't know your name, I could only see your handle. Is there some way to access people's names?
The handle is what I was speaking of -- which is why I said "forum name" instead of just "name".
Diagoras wrote:I'm sorry, but that's completely insufficient. In formal statistical analysis, the difference between extremely similar small towns can be too great to allow them to be used due to surprisingly small racial imbalances.
Which is a fair criticism, however I my following of the data provided would be that such differences principally manifest themselves in the lower absolute rates, as we do
see both countries following the same basic trends.
Diagoras wrote:How in the world can you know that it was the gun control law that resulted in the stabilization, as opposed to a million other potential confounding variables? Especially when you give said variables up to ten years from when they occurred to influence things? That's not even remotely rigorous.
How in the world can you know that the gun control laws had no effect, as opposed to a million other potential confounding variables? How can we conclude that the economy grew or shrunk because of tax increases or decreases instead of the million other factors? With lots of figures such as this, there won't be enough data to be able to sufficiently isolate a single figure (and in many cases, including here, you'll see conflicting external data sources if looked at too broadly -- e.g. Switzerland and the UK, though Switzerland is something I would consider a supporting argument if anything; people there are trained in the proper and safe usage of those firearms). Thus, we make arguments based on logic and try to incorporate the data available as we can, while attempting to not make our argument wholly reliant on that data. You're free to go back to my posts and attack that logic and not just the data -- it is not wholly reliant on the data.
Diagoras wrote:I'm really unclear as to exactly how the statistics you're using relate to this issue, and I'm unsure of the level of rigor that you're demonstrating. If you could lay out your statistical argument plainly - including what each citation, in your opinion, demonstrates - I would be appreciative. My main concerns are that you appearing to be handwaving away a phenomenally large differential between the US and Canada, and using a single datapoint to generalize a conclusion.
This indicates to me that you didn't actually read more than just my one post and are foolishly presuming it to be my principal and entire argument. Try going back a page and reading my post
presenting my argument there. If you have already read it or still wish clarification afterwards then I'll go ahead and do so, but I'd rather skip that for now as it seems that you did not read it.
The usage of Canadian data was meant to show that the only way to reduce homicide rates through guns is not, in fact, just taking all of those guns away -- Canada has a high gun ownership rate, but a lower rate of gun homicides. All while having legislation that seems fairly well targeted at reducing gun homicide (limited access to high capacity magazines, strong prevention of guns in public spaces, additional regulations on handguns as opposed to "long rifles", etc.).
mike-l wrote:The US is an outlier in pretty much any group of countries when it comes to (among many others) violent crime stats. If you plot gun ownership by country vs violent crime by country, you get pretty much random noise. But when you control for GDP, Gini coeffecient, etc, the noise becomes less random, and there actually seems to be a slight downward trend (gun ownership decreasing violent crime), except for the US, which lives waaay above the line.
Again, I say this all as someone who went to the data with the express intent of showing that gun ownership is a bad thing.
It's like nobody actually bothers to read what I have written in any detail. I choose Canada as a point of reference because
they have a high gun ownership rate that is much closer to the US than to other countries of comparison. It was to point out that regulation on those guns that are owned can be effective instead of needing to rely on blanket bans of firearms. It was to counter Thesh's argument
that the only way we could accomplish anything would be to completely ban all firearms