If you love the kids, you’ll arm the teachers!

[silver gurl]

Just because you are a teacher, doesn't make you mentally stable. It would only be so long, until a teacher takes out a classroom.

 

[bestone4ever]

Just because you are a teacher, doesn't make you mentally stable. It would only be so long, until a teacher takes out a classroom.

Or another teacher. Teachers are known for pettiness and backstabbing and that shit can get out of control really quickly.

 

[KimGordon67]

And don't forget are in no way trained to do the job (or may even want that as their job). Law enforcement gets training, not just how how to handle a gun, but how to assess a situation, identify threats, and when & how to eliminate those threats, and law enforcement still makes mistakes.

Actually, I think when this was first raised as a possibility, the bulk of teachers made it pretty clear that they really didn't want to be armed.
My initial comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek relating to the irony of an avowed conservative free-market capitalist suggesting arming what must one of the more pissed off groups in society.

 

[silver gurl]

Some of these parents need to be held accountable as well. They are to self absorbed. You don't know that your child has mental illness? That they are about to lose it? That they are building bombs? Big lack of family communication.

Not with all families but a majority, it is looking that way.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Some of these parents need to be held accountable as well. They are to self absorbed. You don't know that your child has mental illness? That they are about to lose it? That they are building bombs? Big lack of family communication.

Not with all families but a majority, it is looking that way.

Thank you.

 

[HisArpy]

I’m willing to hear how this study was biased, though I think I can predict...

So, predict.

Here, I'll post some interesting tidbits for you from your article:

The [study] authors are careful to note that their findings do not conclusively prove that gun restrictions reduce gun deaths.

IOW, their conclusions are not what everyone wants to tout them as.

Santaella-Tenorio's study (co-authored with Columbia professors Magdalena Cerdá and Sandro Galea, as well as the University of North Carolina's Andrés Villaveces) examined roughly 130 studies that had been conducted in 10 different countries.

IOW, the authors of the study are members of liberal universities who tend to be anti-gun.

This isn't, then, a study that compiled its own original data on one specific gun law.

IOW, the study only examined the other studies, including the ones that are bought and paid for by anti-gun groups.

"Our goal was just to see what was out there, and identify the quality of the studies," Santaella-Tenorio told me. "We eventually found that many others had used Lott's data, and they have found different results after adjusting for other variables, or using more years of data, or using different models."

IOW, this study decided to use other studies which altered the findings in the studies they disagreed with until those results aligned with their pre-determined analysis.

Argue what you will, there are NO "unbiased" studies out there.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, Australia is a unique example, but the results can’t be denied.

Actually I can deny the claims.

First of all you should actually GO READ the data, not just the conclusions. If you do that you start to see something startling.

The data is being manipulated to reach the conclusions.

What? How can that be?

It's easy. For instance, you can just deny the data and then make sweeping general statements. Like, for example, that gun deaths in Austrailia WENT DOWN after the passage of the NFA in 1996.

That ISN'T what the data shows. Look at this chart:

Source for chart:
Source article

The center vertical dotted line is when the Australian NFA was passed. Notice how the data shows an upswing immediately after the NFA was passed? Notice how it ALSO only declined to PRE-NFA levels (or a bit below)?

What's your conclusion based on that data? Not what the "experts" tell you, YOUR conclusion.

I sincerely believe that the data is being manipulated. It's obvious when you look at the data rather than the summations because the data itself doesn't show what the "experts" want it to show. So they disregard the obvious and make conclusory statements to support their intended result.

They say "suicides including those where a gun was used dropped". Yes it did. After it went up and then it dropped from it's all-time high. What they AREN'T saying is that the level of suicides didn't go below the statistical normal fluctuation. This means that suicide went down to the level it was at before the NFA was passed and not below that (or not by much).

What they also aren't telling you is that the current overall suicide / homicide rate is THE SAME as it was before they passed the NFA. To do that, the "experts' only show data from 1996 to date. This covers up the fact that prior to the spike that started in about 1985 the homicide rate was the same as it is today except there are NO GUNS today.

Notice too that the current trend is an upswing and trending BACK to the levels they were at prior to the passage of the NFA? How do you account for that?

The DATA shows the same basic results in ALL of the categories except 1. Gun homicides. And that only because there are no guns. Instead, the victims are being killed by other methods, not that the killing has stopped.

My opinion is that the NFA didn't do what the "experts" are claiming it did. Instead, it altered the method of killing rather than eliminating it. The NFA was a complete failure in this regard.

Thus, the "Australian gun control model" is as much of a sham as it isn't a success. The DATA shows that if you look at the data and not the report summary. GO READ the source article for the chart I showed. LOOK at the DATA. You're being lied to.

 

[KimGordon67]

Actually I can deny the claims.

First of all you should actually GO READ the data, not just the conclusions. If you do that you start to see something startling.

The data is being manipulated to reach the conclusions.

What? How can that be?

It's easy. For instance, you can just deny the data and then make sweeping general statements. Like, for example, that gun deaths in Austrailia WENT DOWN after the passage of the NFA in 1996.

That ISN'T what the data shows. Look at this chart:

Source for chart:
Source article

The center vertical dotted line is when the Australian NFA was passed. Notice how the data shows an upswing immediately after the NFA was passed? Notice how it ALSO only declined to PRE-NFA levels (or a bit below)?

What's your conclusion based on that data? Not what the "experts" tell you, YOUR conclusion.

I sincerely believe that the data is being manipulated. It's obvious when you look at the data rather than the summations because the data itself doesn't show what the "experts" want it to show. So they disregard the obvious and make conclusory statements to support their intended result.

They say "suicides including those where a gun was used dropped". Yes it did. After it went up and then it dropped from it's all-time high. What they AREN'T saying is that the level of suicides didn't go below the statistical normal fluctuation. This means that suicide went down to the level it was at before the NFA was passed and not below that (or not by much).

What they also aren't telling you is that the current overall suicide / homicide rate is THE SAME as it was before they passed the NFA. To do that, the "experts' only show data from 1996 to date. This covers up the fact that prior to the spike that started in about 1985 the homicide rate was the same as it is today except there are NO GUNS today.

Notice too that the current trend is an upswing and trending BACK to the levels they were at prior to the passage of the NFA? How do you account for that?

The DATA shows the same basic results in ALL of the categories except 1. Gun homicides. And that only because there are no guns. Instead, the victims are being killed by other methods, not that the killing has stopped.

My opinion is that the NFA didn't do what the "experts" are claiming it did. Instead, it altered the method of killing rather than eliminating it. The NFA was a complete failure in this regard.

Thus, the "Australian gun control model" is as much of a sham as it isn't a success. The DATA shows that if you look at the data and not the report summary. GO READ the source article for the chart I showed. LOOK at the DATA. You're being lied to.

Based on the chart you provided, for the decade prior to the legislation, it looks like an average of around 13 vs an average of around 11 now. Not a huge drop, but if my kid was one of the two that didn't get killed, I'd be pretty happy with even a small drop.

 

[KimGordon67]

Actually I can deny the claims.

First of all you should actually GO READ the data, not just the conclusions. If you do that you start to see something startling.

The data is being manipulated to reach the conclusions.

What? How can that be?

It's easy. For instance, you can just deny the data and then make sweeping general statements. Like, for example, that gun deaths in Austrailia WENT DOWN after the passage of the NFA in 1996.

That ISN'T what the data shows. Look at this chart:

Source for chart:
Source article

The center vertical dotted line is when the Australian NFA was passed. Notice how the data shows an upswing immediately after the NFA was passed? Notice how it ALSO only declined to PRE-NFA levels (or a bit below)?

What's your conclusion based on that data? Not what the "experts" tell you, YOUR conclusion.

I sincerely believe that the data is being manipulated. It's obvious when you look at the data rather than the summations because the data itself doesn't show what the "experts" want it to show. So they disregard the obvious and make conclusory statements to support their intended result.

They say "suicides including those where a gun was used dropped". Yes it did. After it went up and then it dropped from it's all-time high. What they AREN'T saying is that the level of suicides didn't go below the statistical normal fluctuation. This means that suicide went down to the level it was at before the NFA was passed and not below that (or not by much).

What they also aren't telling you is that the current overall suicide / homicide rate is THE SAME as it was before they passed the NFA. To do that, the "experts' only show data from 1996 to date. This covers up the fact that prior to the spike that started in about 1985 the homicide rate was the same as it is today except there are NO GUNS today.

Notice too that the current trend is an upswing and trending BACK to the levels they were at prior to the passage of the NFA? How do you account for that?

The DATA shows the same basic results in ALL of the categories except 1. Gun homicides. And that only because there are no guns. Instead, the victims are being killed by other methods, not that the killing has stopped.

My opinion is that the NFA didn't do what the "experts" are claiming it did. Instead, it altered the method of killing rather than eliminating it. The NFA was a complete failure in this regard.

Thus, the "Australian gun control model" is as much of a sham as it isn't a success. The DATA shows that if you look at the data and not the report summary. GO READ the source article for the chart I showed. LOOK at the DATA. You're being lied to.

Also, when ever you point to national differences in murder rates in countries on the basis of gun access, gun advocates always cry 'other variables!' ... but for this data we're suddenly meant to forget the possibility of 'other variables' explaining the spike?

 

[psiberzerker]

Argue what you will, there are NO "unbiased" studies out there.

Not when it comes to sociological studies of statistics. Studies of the average airspeed of unladen swallows, yeah. Those are Empirical, but total shootings on school property are pretty easy to count.

"BANG!" Was that a gunshot? Hundreds of witnesses? They can't all be hysterical, it's pretty easy to conclude that a firearm was discharged. School kids don't whip up WerBell canisters in shop class. (Okay, I did, but I was a little weird.)

Okay. Causality, correlation, why there's so many here, or there, we can look at trends yadda yadda, but we have a lot of them.

I'm just going to assume that this doesn't bode well for our already failing education system.

 

[jomar]

Welcome back.

Here, I'll post some interesting tidbits for you from your article:

The [study] authors are careful to note that their findings do not conclusively prove that gun restrictions reduce gun deaths.

IOW, their conclusions are not what everyone wants to tout them as.

They show definite trends and strong evidence across a lot of studies, that's pretty compelling.

Santaella-Tenorio's study (co-authored with Columbia professors Magdalena Cerdá and Sandro Galea, as well as the University of North Carolina's Andrés Villaveces) examined roughly 130 studies that had been conducted in 10 different countries.

IOW, the authors of the study are members of liberal universities who tend to be anti-gun.

You don't think they can follow the data and make findings based on that so you dismiss them right off the bat.

This isn't, then, a study that compiled its own original data on one specific gun law.

IOW, the study only examined the other studies, including the ones that are bought and paid for by anti-gun groups.

"Our goal was just to see what was out there, and identify the quality of the studies," Santaella-Tenorio told me. "We eventually found that many others had used Lott's data, and they have found different results after adjusting for other variables, or using more years of data, or using different models."

IOW, this study decided to use other studies which altered the findings in the studies they disagreed with until those results aligned with their pre-determined analysis.

And pro-gun groups. But no, they bumped Lott's work because he has been discredited as a fraud and his research worthless. That's not the same thing as not using studies they disagree with.

Argue what you will, there are NO "unbiased" studies out there.

You probably don't realize you've gone from "most" studies to "all" studies are biased.

 

[jomar]

Actually I can deny the claims.

First of all you should actually GO READ the data, not just the conclusions. If you do that you start to see something startling.

The data is being manipulated to reach the conclusions.

What? How can that be?

It's easy. For instance, you can just deny the data and then make sweeping general statements. Like, for example, that gun deaths in Austrailia WENT DOWN after the passage of the NFA in 1996.

That ISN'T what the data shows. Look at this chart:

...

The center vertical dotted line is when the Australian NFA was passed. Notice how the data shows an upswing immediately after the NFA was passed? Notice how it ALSO only declined to PRE-NFA levels (or a bit below)?

What's your conclusion based on that data? Not what the "experts" tell you, YOUR conclusion.

I sincerely believe that the data is being manipulated. It's obvious when you look at the data rather than the summations because the data itself doesn't show what the "experts" want it to show. So they disregard the obvious and make conclusory statements to support their intended result.

They say "suicides including those where a gun was used dropped". Yes it did. After it went up and then it dropped from it's all-time high. What they AREN'T saying is that the level of suicides didn't go below the statistical normal fluctuation. This means that suicide went down to the level it was at before the NFA was passed and not below that (or not by much).

What they also aren't telling you is that the current overall suicide / homicide rate is THE SAME as it was before they passed the NFA. To do that, the "experts' only show data from 1996 to date. This covers up the fact that prior to the spike that started in about 1985 the homicide rate was the same as it is today except there are NO GUNS today.

Notice too that the current trend is an upswing and trending BACK to the levels they were at prior to the passage of the NFA? How do you account for that?

The DATA shows the same basic results in ALL of the categories except 1. Gun homicides. And that only because there are no guns. Instead, the victims are being killed by other methods, not that the killing has stopped.

My opinion is that the NFA didn't do what the "experts" are claiming it did. Instead, it altered the method of killing rather than eliminating it. The NFA was a complete failure in this regard.

Thus, the "Australian gun control model" is as much of a sham as it isn't a success. The DATA shows that if you look at the data and not the report summary. GO READ the source article for the chart I showed. LOOK at the DATA. You're being lied to.

I can't get to WAPO right now since I'm a free user.

How I read the data is that completed suicides fluctuate a bit, but they are doing a little better toward the end of the years in the chart...no current numbers? Again, I can't get to the article, but there is no information in the chart about the number of pre-NFA gun suicides vs non-gun suicides. Might be guns were used in a very small number of suicides.

The chart says nothing about gun homicides. Are you pulling that claim from somewhere else? Or conflating it with the suicide chart?

But as we are also talking about mass shootings, not just gun homicides, Australia took that off the table for the most part.

If I can get to the WAPO article in the next few days I'll comment on that.

 

[HisArpy]

Also, when ever you point to national differences in murder rates in countries on the basis of gun access, gun advocates always cry 'other variables!' ... but for this data we're suddenly meant to forget the possibility of 'other variables' explaining the spike?

Based on the chart you provided, for the decade prior to the legislation, it looks like an average of around 13 vs an average of around 11 now. Not a huge drop, but if my kid was one of the two that didn't get killed, I'd be pretty happy with even a small drop.

I'm only looking at the data. If people want to manipulate the data or point fingers at someone's conclusions, then the argument isn't about the DATA, but about the person(s) who compiled it.

Look at the data. See the trend. Notice that in around 1980 the numbers of completed suicides was between 10 and 12 per 100K population. In 1996 when they passed the NFA it was between 12 and 14 and WENT UP FROM THERE and stayed up for the next 3 or 4 years before it came back down to the level of 1996. So the NFA did NOTHING for 3 or 4 years after passage. That's pretty damning when you consider how much money and time and energy went into the buybacks in the first year. Especially since part of the reason they passed the NFA was to limit or reduce suicides. Not so much success on that and in fact that's what pro-gun researchers have discovered.

If you want to talk about "other variables" then what CAUSED the run up beginning approx 1985? See how that entire thought process becomes a rabbit hole?

Notice too how the graph oscillates with peaks and troughs. The cycle appears to be around 30 years from trough to trough. (approx 1985 to approx 2015). Notice how at the end of the chart the graph is on an upward trend from the same level as the trough in approx 1980? In about 15 years we ought to know in a positive way if the NFA actually worked or not UNLESS we can get data from 1970 to 1985. Unfortunately I haven't seen that data in any graph or chart. Just finding a study that uses any pre-1996 data is difficult. Go look at Snopes and see what years they use in their debunking research. (Hint: it's AFTER 1996).

You really do need to look at the data to understand that EVERYONE is massaging it to come to a predetermined conclusion. Anti-gun groups have big money and they're willing to give grants to universities and other orgs who write research papers showing gun control works. Pro-gun groups aren't as well funded but the researchers like Lott have compiled data and come to different conclusions. That Lott's work is discredited by anti-gun groups isn't that surprising.

Which is why I look at the data and not the summaries and conclusions of the reports.

 

[HisArpy]

Welcome back.

Thanks, 12-14 hours days suck.

They show definite trends and strong evidence across a lot of studies, that's pretty compelling.

No. What they show is that the researchers relied on the summaries and conclusions of the studies they included in their report. That doesn't make the underlying studies any more reliable.

You don't think they can follow the data and make findings based on that so you dismiss them right off the bat.

No. I looked at the data and read their conclusions and realized that they are misrepresenting the results. For instance, take the chart I included in my post. (it's not this particular study we're talking about but the point is obvious and relevant.) According tot he researchers suicides when down after the NFA was passed. What they omitted from that was the fact that the number was still equal to or higher than BEFORE the NFA was passed AND that it was rising again despite their anti-gun law.

My point is that you can't massage the data or give misleading statements and have a reliable study. If that's what the study did, then I can dismiss it's findings without qualm.

And pro-gun groups. But no, they bumped Lott's work because he has been discredited as a fraud and his research worthless. That's not the same thing as not using studies they disagree with.

It's not surprising that anti-gun groups try to discredit research that comes to the opposite conclusion they have. What this is called is "battle of experts" and you get to choose who you want to believe. There's a 3rd choice, go read the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.



You probably don't realize you've gone from "most" studies to "all" studies are biased.

This last bit is nothing more than semantics. 999 out of thousand may as well be "all" for the amount of difference it makes.

 

[HisArpy]

I can't get to WAPO right now since I'm a free user.

How I read the data is that completed suicides fluctuate a bit, but they are doing a little better toward the end of the years in the chart...no current numbers? Again, I can't get to the article, but there is no information in the chart about the number of pre-NFA gun suicides vs non-gun suicides. Might be guns were used in a very small number of suicides.

The chart says nothing about gun homicides. Are you pulling that claim from somewhere else? Or conflating it with the suicide chart?

But as we are also talking about mass shootings, not just gun homicides, Australia took that off the table for the most part.

If I can get to the WAPO article in the next few days I'll comment on that.

The Wapo article has a lot of charts in it with pre-1996 data. Which is why I chose it for illustration because most of the articles and studies don't include the pre-1996 data at all. It's like it doesn't exist.

If you read the article and compare what the "experts" are being quoted as saying, you'll notice that it doesn't correspond to what the data shows. And, we're smart enough to understand cyclic events and trends and we can project based upon what we know. The chart shows a cyclic trend that refutes the conclusions based on the data presented.

Mass shootings are reduced when there are no guns. But, mass murderers will switch to different methods when they can't employ a gun.

Pan Am Flight 103 used a bomb. 259 dead.

Oklahoma City was a truck bomb. 168 dead.

Flight 93 on 9/11 used box cutters. 40 dead.

Boston used a pressure cooker bomb. 3 dead, 264 maimed or injured.

The list can go on but that's pointless becasue anyone who watches the news knows about the truck rammings and other current events that didn't use a gun to kill LOTS of people in one event.

If the argument is about Mass SHOOTINGS rather than Mass DEATHS then yes, you win. Gun control/gun bans will reduce mass shootings to nearly zero. That won't stop the killing. You know it, I know it, and the anti-gun zealots know it too. So in order to sell it, they need low information voters they can sell FALSE AND MISLEADING conclusions to.

IOW, they need gullible people to buy the lies they are promoting as facts. And, when the promises they promote turn out to not do what the people thought they'd do, they just make more false promises to "fix the problems and loopholes in the law". What they don't mention is that the law that has those "problems and loopholes" is the law THEY championed as the "cure" for the problem of people killing each other.

Gun control doesn't work. It can't because controlling the weapon doesn't change the mind of the person who is willing to kill. That is where societies efforts should be focused instead of the band-aid cure-all that the anti-gun groups are trying to sell you on.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'm only looking at the data. If people want to manipulate the data or point fingers at someone's conclusions, then the argument isn't about the DATA, but about the person(s) who compiled it.

Look at the data. See the trend. Notice that in around 1980 the numbers of completed suicides was between 10 and 12 per 100K population. In 1996 when they passed the NFA it was between 12 and 14 and WENT UP FROM THERE and stayed up for the next 3 or 4 years before it came back down to the level of 1996. So the NFA did NOTHING for 3 or 4 years after passage. That's pretty damning when you consider how much money and time and energy went into the buybacks in the first year. Especially since part of the reason they passed the NFA was to limit or reduce suicides. Not so much success on that and in fact that's what pro-gun researchers have discovered.

If you want to talk about "other variables" then what CAUSED the run up beginning approx 1985? See how that entire thought process becomes a rabbit hole?

Notice too how the graph oscillates with peaks and troughs. The cycle appears to be around 30 years from trough to trough. (approx 1985 to approx 2015). Notice how at the end of the chart the graph is on an upward trend from the same level as the trough in approx 1980? In about 15 years we ought to know in a positive way if the NFA actually worked or not UNLESS we can get data from 1970 to 1985. Unfortunately I haven't seen that data in any graph or chart. Just finding a study that uses any pre-1996 data is difficult. Go look at Snopes and see what years they use in their debunking research. (Hint: it's AFTER 1996).

You really do need to look at the data to understand that EVERYONE is massaging it to come to a predetermined conclusion. Anti-gun groups have big money and they're willing to give grants to universities and other orgs who write research papers showing gun control works. Pro-gun groups aren't as well funded but the researchers like Lott have compiled data and come to different conclusions. That Lott's work is discredited by anti-gun groups isn't that surprising.

Which is why I look at the data and not the summaries and conclusions of the reports.

I hadn't noticed you had only posted the suicide chart. I don't debate suicide stats in relation to gun control - I don't think guns are the relevant variable. The legislation in Australia was never intended to address suicide. I don't even understand why you're bringing it to the argument, which is about mass shootings. Of which there have been none since this policy in Australia.I

 

[coachdb18]

Mass shooting in Australia...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-shooting-in-22-years/?utm_term=.2849d46c346d

 

[Taint_mAnn]

Mass shooting in Australia...

http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11/its-just-horrifying-seven-killed-in-australias-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-22-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f9b5da00a837

Fail much? Lol @ mensa boy binky

 

[phrodeau]

Mass shooting in Australia...

http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11/its-just-horrifying-seven-killed-in-australias-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-22-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f9b5da00a837

More home schoolers. Coincidence?

 

[coachdb18]

Mass shooting in Australia......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11/its-just-horrifying-seven-killed-in-australias-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-22-years/?utm_term=.2849d46c346d

 

[KimGordon67]

Mass shooting in Australia......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11/its-just-horrifying-seven-killed-in-australias-deadliest-mass-shooting-in-22-years/?utm_term=.2849d46c346d

Without wanting to minimise the awfulness of this ... do family murder/suicides really fall under the definition of 'mass shootings'?

 

[KimGordon67]

High levels of gun onwership result in high levels of mass shootings - source.

There is a clear positive correlation between rates of gun ownership and violent crime - source.

HisArpy - of the four examples of non-gun-related mass killings you mention, both planes were clearly organised terrorism. You can't actually GET a gun onto a plane - I'm pretty confident that if you could, there'd be a massive increase in planes being used as weapons of mass destruction. The other two are less clear, but also anomalies. The evidence of the second article is that yes, mass murders can happen in numerous ways but guns makes them hellishly easy.

If I want to get laid by a particular person, I have to travel 300kms for the pleasure. I could do that a number of ways - bus, walking, hitching, flying ... or by CAR, which is easier, cheaper, and readily accessible. If I didn't have ready access to a car, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be getting laid by that particular person very often - it would happen, but not nearly as much as it does.

 

[psiberzerker]

Without wanting to minimise the awfulness of this ... do family murder/suicides really fall under the definition of 'mass shootings'?

Family Annihilators? Pathologically, yes. It's the same sort of Motive. (assumed by profilers, because they don't generally get to interview the killer.)

 

[jomar]

Good Lord, HisArpy, I don't even know where to begin...

You initially outright dismissed university research saying they were inherently anti-gun and biased, then claimed to look at their data and realized they were biased. Huh?

You claim to only be looking at data and not conclusions in an effort to be intellectually honest, I suppose, which is fine. But then you cling to John Lott's data saying that it's no surprise that anti-gun folk attempt to discredit his research. In fact, John Lott has actually discredited himself - he made shit up, used fuzzy math, misrepresented results and used sock puppets to bolster his fake results and reviews. So, to keep citing him is to actively ignore reality and blindly accept disinformation.

By the way, looking at the raw data will only get you so far. Do you trust a researchers use of statistics? Are they running the right models and formulas?

The Australian suicide chart you posted is pretty meaningless without knowing how many completions used guns...1/10, 5/10, 9/10? You can't make the conclusions you make in your post to KimGordon67 without that information. But again, Wapo still won't let me in, but see the article below which does indicate a significant difference in pre and post law change in suicide by gun.

Then you conflate single man mass gun shootings with ideological terrorist mass killings as if they're the same thing.

Honestly, I think you are experiencing confirmation bias because of your strong pro-gun views, but here's a study you'll like since it concludes that it is not possible to determine whether the change in Australian firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms...because of things...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

Again, I'm not saying gun control will solve society's ills, but guns are a factor.

ETA: Funny, got in Wapo on a different computer and we both cited the same JAMA research.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So are we blaming the people who do this shit yet?


*looks and is not shocked *


Still looks like it's gun owners and NRA's fault.....what a bunch of assholes.