So, the notion that armed guards will prevent shootings.

:) I figured that you did. I think there is a danger when you wade into issues like this of being dazzled by the confusion and you begin to think that everything is relative or arbitrary.

I think that American culture is more weighted on the punitive side that other English speaking countries and that is at least a part of the reason that their prison syatem is so loaded on a per capita basis. It certainly looks like they could have just as safe a society without the expense of their present system.

You are exactly right.
I know all about dazzling and baffling people with statistics and scenarios and cost benefit analysis - but ultimately trying to get the best result for the most people (I'm a planner - what can I say !) is what it all comes down to.
Punitive vs regulatory is an interesting area.
 
Punitive vs regulatory is an interesting area.

Certainly is. Why I was thinking punitive i the case of the US justice system is reflected in the trade embargo applied to Cuba.

The intention seems to be to "punish" them for being communist or a dictatorship or an enemy or something or other. The effect is to impoverish the people, cut them off from other countries and make them more dependent on the dictatorship. Thus Castro and all have held on to power for 50+ years and counting, works well for them.

In any case I the political action in Florida will prevent the ban from being lifted any time soon. I just point it out as an example of "the will to punish" sometimes over rides results or commonn sense.
 
I can quibble with parts of this, but am open to the logic of especially the bolded part. It helps me understand your position better. The dispute then is really one of where the imaginary line should be drawn--above guns, or below killing capacity. You say the former, I say the latter, and it's probably the very heart of the gun issue in general. I'm grateful to have seen the conversation get there.

As always, it is a pleasure having you in the car for the trip. ;)
 
The intention seems to be to "punish" them for being communist or a dictatorship or an enemy or something or other. The effect is to impoverish the people, cut them off from other countries and make them more dependent ......

..... and more intriguing to main stream western countries.
Srsly, policy planners take note here. It doesn't always follow the text book example ;)
 
Hardly. Our tiny penised RWCJ have been telling us for weeks that the way to stop school shootings is to arm teachers or employ armed guards on school premises. It only takes one photon going through the wrong slit to fuck up the particle theory of light.

There's this photon named Derrick Bird looking up at you from hell and wondering when you're going to repeal the gun ban over there.
 
Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence
from Panel Data


Andrew Leigh, Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate. JEL (I12, K14)


 
Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence
from Panel Data


Andrew Leigh, Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate. JEL (I12, K14)



This was the pay back for the Port Arthur massacre. Thank you Mr Howard.
 
Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence
from Panel Data


Andrew Leigh, Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate. JEL (I12, K14)



That's nice for the Aussies....too bad every one of them has FAILED HORRIBLY in the US.
 
Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.9 These factors did not apply to the Australian buyback, which was large, compulsory, and the guns on this island nation could not easily be replaced.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
 
Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.9 These factors did not apply to the Australian buyback, which was large, compulsory, and the guns on this island nation could not easily be replaced.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/files/2013/01/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

Sounds bout right....

However even if it were compulsory....how many Americans do you think would keep a stash?

Better yet, how many crazies/violent offenders do you think are still going to have guns? Here in the states that is.....most if not all of them.

Also i wonder what the Assault/robbery/rape stats look like for the several years prior too and after AU's ban.
 
There's this photon named Derrick Bird looking up at you from hell and wondering when you're going to repeal the gun ban over there.

Never...they relinquished their security of self and home to the state, they couldn't get it back if they tried.
 
A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

-There are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW Banning guns would protect us from someone like this.

-If you haven't noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.

-The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves.
 
A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

-There are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW Banning guns would protect us from someone like this.

-If you haven't noticed, people like this are not concerned about breaking laws - they only care about fulfilling their own twisted agenda.

-The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to cripple the ability to protect ourselves.
:D

Exactly. The problem with the political authorities is all they can do is pass more laws, an effort which misses the point.

(I am OK with the suicide part here though)
 
Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence
from Panel Data


Andrew Leigh, Research School of Economics, Australian National University and Christine Neill, Department of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate. JEL (I12, K14)



Am I reading this right? Almost 80% of Australian suicides wouldn't have killed themselves if they hadn't had guns available?

I mean, I believe the data, but doesn't it seem like there must be more to it than that? "Aw, heck, I got a gun, might as well kill myself." "Aw, heck, no gun, might as well live." Really?
 
Sounds bout right....

However even if it were compulsory....how many Americans do you think would keep a stash?

Better yet, how many crazies/violent offenders do you think are still going to have guns? Here in the states that is.....most if not all of them.

Also i wonder what the Assault/robbery/rape stats look like for the several years prior too and after AU's ban.
"Please let there be some bad news behind the studies that refute my claims. Maybe some nice rape or something. Did any babies die while they were handing in guns? That would be a good one."
 
Am I reading this right? Almost 80% of Australian suicides wouldn't have killed themselves if they hadn't had guns available?

I mean, I believe the data, but doesn't it seem like there must be more to it than that? "Aw, heck, I got a gun, might as well kill myself." "Aw, heck, no gun, might as well live." Really?
Firearm-related suicides, not all suicides. The other rates didn't change.
 
Am I reading this right? Almost 80% of Australian suicides wouldn't have killed themselves if they hadn't had guns available?

Researchers conducted interviews with over 1,000 suicide victims before-and-after the suicide.

So the data is accurate.
 
Firearm-related suicides, not all suicides. The other rates didn't change.

Right. So presumably there were a bunch of people who would have offed themselves, but only if they could use a gun? Then they took away the gun and those people decided to live rather than choose a different method? Is that what you're seeing in the data also?

I'm not arguing or pursuing a point here. It just beggars the imagination that anyone would kill himself simply because a gun existed in his life, but not under any other circumstance.
 
Right. So presumably there were a bunch of people who would have offed themselves, but only if they could use a gun? Then they took away the gun and those people decided to live rather than choose a different method? Is that what you're seeing in the data also?

I'm not arguing or pursuing a point here. It just beggars the imagination that anyone would kill himself simply because a gun existed in his life, but not under any other circumstance.

for some, a gun offers a fast and effective manner to self-destruct that only involves pulling a trigger.
pills might take a long time and cause massive pain and damage before death occurs; or a stomach pump or other intervention might mean a failed bid or, worse still, life continuing in a very damaged state.
knives, fire, strangulation, suffocation, poison, throwing oneself under a train etc... all involve far more time and distress to accomplish, and so guns might be considered the easy option.
 
"Please let there be some bad news behind the studies that refute my claims. Maybe some nice rape or something. Did any babies die while they were handing in guns? That would be a good one."

There is no please...UK has a violent crime rate every bit as high as the US and in the cases of assault/robbery they have been even higher, rape usually on par with us.....less than 1/5th our size. These violent crime rates jumped 2-4x what they were before their gun ban.

Don't you think that might be a pertinent little tidbit to consider?? If preventing a few hundred homicides meant dealing with several thousand more rapes/assaults and tens of thousands of more robberies, don't you think we might want to look into that? hmm??

Why not regulate...few hundred thousand people own full auto machine guns....no machine gun problem....we have an effective system working rather well, but we can't do THAT!!

noooooooooooo of course not...BAN BAN BAN!!! b/c prohibition is always effective and without unforeseen consequences. AMIRITE busybody?? Thump your tribal drum a little harder next time.

Firearm-related suicides, not all suicides. The other rates didn't change.

Did the overall suicide rate change or are we back to "Didn't do fucking shit but it wasn't done with a gun which makes it better. - Gubbmint" lunacy??
 
for some, a gun offers a fast and effective manner to self-destruct that only involves pulling a trigger.
pills might take a long time and cause massive pain and damage before death occurs; or a stomach pump or other intervention might mean a failed bid or, worse still, life continuing in a very damaged state.
knives, fire, strangulation, suffocation, poison, throwing oneself under a train etc... all involve far more time and distress to accomplish, and so guns might be considered the easy option.

The staggering majority of pill/blood letting suicides are female...

While men are almost entirely into hanging/guns.

Bottom line, you are dealing with a mentally unstable person bent on ending their life.

To say "gun bans reduce gun suicides" is a real "No shit ya fucking moron." misleading statement. Without the data on TOTAL suicides before and after the ban you can't really say the gun ban did dick all to stop a single one of them can you?
 
Last edited:
Right. So presumably there were a bunch of people who would have offed themselves, but only if they could use a gun? Then they took away the gun and those people decided to live rather than choose a different method? Is that what you're seeing in the data also?

I'm not arguing or pursuing a point here. It just beggars the imagination that anyone would kill himself simply because a gun existed in his life, but not under any other circumstance.
One way to interpret it--and I haven't checked to see if this is the case--is that when someone who is suicidal uses a gun, that person succeeds in killing him or herself more often than with other tools/methods.
 
Firearm-related suicides, not all suicides. The other rates didn't change.

The staggering majority of pill/blood letting suicides are female...

While men almost entirely into hanging/guns.

Bottom line, you are dealing with a mentally unstable person bent on ending their life.

To say "gun bans reduce gun suicides" is a real "No shit ya fucking moron." misleading statement. Without the data on TOTAL suicides before and after the ban you can't really say the gun ban did dick all to stop a single one of them can you?
he already answered this, read his quoted post above yours here.
 
he already answered this, read his quoted post above yours here.

I thought that was in reference to other methods of suicide.

If the suicide rates didn't change then why do the left wing gun control advocate tout that little fact? "Reduced gun suicides by 80%!!! SOUNDS REALLY GOOD! bullshit law did not actually effect how many people kill themselves -Gubbmint"
 
There is no please...UK has a violent crime rate every bit as high as the US and in the cases of assault/robbery they have been even higher, rape usually on par with us.....less than 1/5th our size. These violent crime rates jumped 2-4x what they were before their gun ban.

Don't you think that might be a pertinent little tidbit to consider?? If preventing a few hundred homicides meant dealing with several thousand more rapes/assaults and tens of thousands of more robberies, don't you think we might want to look into that? hmm??

Why not regulate...few hundred thousand people own full auto machine guns....no machine gun problem....we have an effective system working rather well, but we can't do THAT!!

noooooooooooo of course not...BAN BAN BAN!!! b/c prohibition is always effective and without unforeseen consequences. AMIRITE busybody?? Thump your tribal drum a little harder next time.



Did the overall suicide rate change or are we back to "Didn't do fucking shit but it wasn't done with a gun which makes it better. - Gubbmint" lunacy??

I have posted studies refuting this point about UK homicides in the past. Those who make this argument are usually seizing on published reports of an increase in a single year, in a single geographic region, news of which was posted without context on pro-gun sites. Overall, the UK gun ban has meant a provable reduction in homicides almost every year since it was implemented (after, iirc, a rise in the first year or two).

Nobody is saying it will wipe all crime off the map. The only reason for you to continue trying to make that bizarre point is if you are aware that your primary one--that gun bans do not reduce homicides--is wrong. The argument is a simple one: does fewer guns in circulation mean fewer deaths. The answer, over and over again, has been yes.

As to your second question: Gun-related suicides dropped precipitously, all others stayed the same (that is, did not increase to take over the ones that would have used guns). Gun-related suicides accounted for a significant enough portion of overall suicides that removing the guns, brought the overall rate down by a large percentage--I think the number is 74%, but can't recall right now.
 
Back
Top