58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[Yorzhik]

Every other Western democracy has significant and universal gun laws and every single one of them does a dramatically better job at safeguarding their citizens.

Dramatically better?
Noting Australia; most everything bad went up after the gun ban:
View attachment 26011

Dramatically better?
Suicides also went up in Australia, not down. That's not safeguarding.
View attachment 26012

Dramatically better? Only the black knight would think so.

You'll agree that this shows that areas outside of big cities have more guns per capita than big cities (in addition to the Pew data you ignored before):
View attachment 26013

Yet, the most murders are in the big cities, and even there they are in some neighborhoods a lot more than others - dramatically, even. Chicago is typical:
View attachment 26014

There is no doubt that big city crimes in other western countries jack up crime rates there, too. But if you take the big cities out of the data, or even just certain places in big cities out of the data, then crime rates are about the same across the western nations...

Even though the US has a lot more guns per capita, and a lot less restriction than all the rest of the western nations combined.

Stop making laws against people who aren't the problem. And recognize that even if you take guns away from everyone, the crime will continue until you fix the problem in the big cities.

A good place to start would be correlating problems. Cleaning up gangs, black markets, and broken homes. We know of things we can do that will help fix these problems that aren't hard to do. And they would even make these same problems, to the extent they are in places outside of big cities, better as well. And it is not a matter of fixing poverty, although getting rid of these problems results in less poverty as one of the unseen benefits.

It's a win-win-win, even in the unseen. Your way is lose-lose and you haven't said anything yet to show otherwise (and I'm not ignoring your gun data).

 

[Gary K]

You are just some dumb kid. My opinion has nothing to do with being honest. Now go pester someone else who cares what you think :loser:

It has everything to do with being honest in what you say. If I have a dog and say I own a German Shepherd when in fact I own a Chihuahua am I being honest? Not in the least. Claiming that object A is in fact object B is dishonest. No way around it.

Am I a kid? Yeah, a kid who has seen 6+ decades of life.

 

[Ktoyou]

It has everything to do with being honest in what you say. If I have a dog and say I own a German Shepherd when in fact I own a Chihuahua am I being honest? Not in the least. Claiming that object A is in fact object B is dishonest. No way around it.

Am I a kid? Yeah, a kid who has seen 6+ decades of life.

Then you are just immature for your age. Why bother me about it when I am not interested? I do not care about your dog, dumbbell.

 

[Gary K]

Nihilo,

Whether or not those being decieved understand they are being lied to does not change dishonesty into honesty. I understand the socialist mindset pretty well. The duplicity started with Marx and it has never ceased, nor even declined. They take their mindset from him.

I came out of the liberal/progressive mindset a few decades ago, and I did it because I finally started looking at the dishonesty. That people told me I was being lied to was the first step along the way. The dishonest people won't care if they are lied to because it is no big deal to them. The honest people will appreciate that they are being told to look out for the lies because they find lying to be a big deal. They are the ones we have to reach.

 

[Town Heretic]

Dramatically better?
Noting Australia; most everything bad went up after the gun ban:
View attachment 26011

Using the chart:

Unqualified Murder
1996: 1.7
2013: 1.2 (it's even lower now)

Manslaughter, unchanged.

Total homicides
1996: 1.8
2013: 1.2, down.

Sexual assaults are up, though they don't have anything to do with guns.

Armed robbery
1996: 34.2
2013: 24.3, down.

Unarmed Robbery
1996: 55.2
2013: 26.2, down.

Total Robbery
1996: 89.4
2013: 51.47, down.

Kidnaping
1996: 2.6
2013: 2.6

Almost every category has gone down and only one has increased over the span. But we already know that gun related violence has gone down and that mass shootings that were in the double digits in the 11 years prior to changing the laws haven't happened in the twenty-one years since.

That's a profound difference.

Dramatically better?
Suicides also went up in Australia, not down. That's not safeguarding.

Sales tax may have increased too, but neither have anything to do with gun safety laws, unless you want to talk about gun related suicides.

Suicides in Australia are strongly tied to drug abuse with around half of the post mortems showing evidence of those in the system of the suicide. And it's a relatively recent trend. Prior to the Port Arthur sponsored gun laws were increasing by one percent per year and declined, after an extinction flare, by about 1.5 percent per year until fairly recently, when suicide numbers began to rise again. Non firearm related suicides were climbing by around 2.4 percent before the laws and saw a similar decline with the same caveat. JAMA (link)

Dramatically better? Only the black knight would think so.

Yes, gun related violence is dramatically better. No mass shootings, reduced levels of gun violence, gun accidents, etc.

You'll agree that this shows that areas outside of big cities have more guns per capita than big cities (in addition to the Pew data you ignored before):

That's a lot of data on gun concentrations. And?

Yet, the most murders are in the big cities

Right, where most people are. There are also more heart attacks, cancer, births, etc.

There is no doubt that big city crimes in other western countries jack up crime rates there, too.

Or, it's likely true that any densely populated area will have more of about everything you can imagine, including but not limited to McDonalds.

But if you take the big cities out of the data

Aka, most people...

, or even just certain places in big cities out of the data, then crime rates are about the same across the western nations...

Demonstrate that with a study instead of a supposition, but you're still mostly talking about numbers. Disperse the city population and you should see the same sort of numbers.

But again, the numbers of deaths by handgun here compared to any of those places (with their share of cities) is much greater. And the number of mass shootings? Also not good for us. So if we want to reduce our own absurd death toll and make recurrences of that sort of thing less likely we should enact serious and universal gun laws designed toward that end using the working models we have in abundance.

Stop making laws against people who aren't the problem.

Rather, stop declaring truths not in evidence and trying to avoid the clear and empirical truth that universal gun laws, intelligently applied, work to do precisely what we should all be interested in doing, reducing gun violence and senseless death among us.

And recognize that even if you take guns away from everyone, the crime will continue until you fix the problem in the big cities.

So will teen pregnancies. But you can't cure every social ill with laws designed to address one. And, for who knows how many times now, I'm all for seriously addressing inner city problems, most of which are heavily tied to poverty.

A good place to start would be correlating problems. Cleaning up gangs, black markets, and broken homes. We know of things we can do that will help fix these problems that aren't hard to do. And they would even make these same problems, to the extent they are in places outside of big cities, better as well. And it is not a matter of fixing poverty, although getting rid of these problems results in less poverty as one of the unseen benefits.

Again though, those are complicated issues we've been trying to address for generations. We shouldn't give up, but our track record indicates we aren't going to fix a wide assortment of social ills any time soon. In the meantime we can and should attack this problem with the resources/laws we have every objective reason to understand will work, and make the whole of it better when and if we begin to unravel that other knot.

It's a win-win-win, even in the unseen.

Since I'm fairly sure almost no one on the right has been seriously active in addressing inner city social issues beyond cutting funding to programs attempting to do that, it mostly seems like a distract-fail from that side of it.

Your way is lose-lose

Every Western nation that isn't us puts the lie to that statement.

and you haven't said anything yet to show otherwise (and I'm not ignoring your gun data)

In order, I absolutely have and you absolutely are.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have to admit that I made this reply in a rather emotional state. My 15 year old was reading it and he started to laugh. I tried to be mature and model a measured, reasonable, unemotional response, but his laughter was infectious and by the time I was done with this we were both laughing at TH's antics hard enough to make our sides hurt. Please, TH, change your attitude so we can discuss this rather important topic in a calm and productive way.

Using the chart:


Almost every category has gone down

Except that they went up. All of them. After the ban. It took at least 6 years for the numbers to start going down again. And the numbers were already trending down BEFORE the ban.


You can't say taking the guns away would take at least 6 years to show an effect and ignore all other factors, especially when the rates were already going down due to other factors. And ESPECIALLY since a correlation *was* seen right after the ban (in the wrong direction).

Right, where most people are. There are also more heart attacks, cancer, births, etc.

I realize it is a bit off topic, but this seems like a pretty extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence. What is your evidence that the heart attack, cancer, and BIRTHS (of all things!) are at a greater rate in urban areas. Not having taken the time, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that people have bigger families outside of urban areas.


And this is the foundation of your argument. It's why it's so obvious that your confirmation bias has you completely paralyzed.

In order, I absolutely have [proved my point with the data] and you absolutely are [ignoring the data].

I think we'll find from the immediately above that I'm right and you are wrong. But let's see the data on those cancer rates, heart attack rates, and birth rates.


We'll be back to gangs, black markets, and broken families later. But I just have to see that rate data first.

 

[Interplanner]

MSNBC madness strikes and no one sees it!

MSNBC's "terrorist expert" was mad at Trump this week! (To them that's the news). Trump had said the Uzbheki should get the death penalty, but the Las Vegas shooter got no such suggestion from Trump.

Apparently no one at MSNBC knew what became of the LV shooter.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo,

Whether or not those being decieved understand they are being lied to does not change dishonesty into honesty.

I understand that.

I understand the socialist mindset pretty well. The duplicity started with Marx and it has never ceased, nor even declined. They take their mindset from him.

Well, then we all know from whom he got it also. The father of lies.

I came out of the liberal/progressive mindset a few decades ago, and I did it because I finally started looking at the dishonesty. That people told me I was being lied to was the first step along the way. The dishonest people won't care if they are lied to because it is no big deal to them. The honest people will appreciate that they are being told to look out for the lies because they find lying to be a big deal. They are the ones we have to reach.

:think: OK. I will consider your point here. :e4e:

 

[jgarden]

Are more guns helpful? In Wal-Mart shooting, armed shoppers hinder police investigation

..... Most shoppers crouched behind checkout counters or bolted toward the back exit. But as a gunman fired inside a Wal-Mart store in a Denver suburb, some patrons took a more defensive approach: They grabbed their own guns.

They were the proverbial "good guys with guns" that gun rights advocates say have the power to stop mass shootings.

But police in Thornton, Colo., said that in this case the well-intentioned gun carriers set the stage for chaos, stalling efforts to capture the suspect in the Wednesday night shooting that killed three people.

None of the armed civilians fired their weapons, and the suspect managed to flee the store.

Police began combing through store security camera footage to identify him and determined whether he had an accomplice.

"Once the building was safe.... we started reviewing that [surveillance video] as quickly as we could," Victor Avila, a spokesman for the Thornton Police Department, told reporters.

But the videos showed several people in the store with their guns drawn. That forced detectives to watch more video, following the armed shoppers throughout the store in an effort to distinguish the good guys from the bad guy, Avila said.

..... The assessment by police that armed civilians hampered their investigation is being embraced by gun control advocates, who argue that more guns on the scene of a shooting add up to more problems.

..... In a 2014 FBI report, researchers examined more than 100 shootings between 2000 and 2012 and found that civilians stopped about 1 in 6 active shooters - usually by tackling the gunman, not shooting him.

..... Bystanders shouldn't pull their weapons unless they're members of law enforcement, or used to be, she said, because without training they can't properly assess the situation and could end up causing more deaths.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/worl...er-police-investigation/ar-AAuqi8U?li=AAggFp5

Contrary to NRA "logic," bystanders who pull their weapons during a crime, make it impossible for the police and other bystanders to discern the "good guys" from the "bad guys!"

When bystanders do stop the commission of a crime, it usually occurs when they "tackle" the gunman, and not by another member of the public someone armed with a gun!

 

[Town Heretic]

Except that they went up. All of them. After the ban. It took at least 6 years for the numbers to start going down again. And the numbers were already trending down BEFORE the ban.

Almost every one of the stats was trending up prior to 1996. Once you ban certain weapons, clips and aids and even in the face of dramatic eliminations of them, you still have a great many in circulation, especially among those who weren't inclined to register or surrender them, criminals. But they become harder to replace and obtain because of those laws. Scarcity will eventually win out where there's no ready supply.

And that's what you see in Australia, along with the absence of another Port Arthur, which was the motivation.

You can't say taking the guns away would take at least 6 years to show an effect and ignore all other factors

Actually, I could but the time to begin counting isn't 1996. The buy back didn't begin until around the midpoint of 1996 and ended in 1997. So 1998 was the first actual year to feel even the first real impact of laws meant to reduce the number of particular weapons. But the better course is to look for the long term impact of supply on demand and use.

Does your chart doesn't actually specify the type of homicide? I don't see a breakdown between homicides by gun and homicides else.

I realize it is a bit off topic, but this seems like a pretty extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence. What is your evidence that the heart attack, cancer, and BIRTHS (of all things!) are at a greater rate in urban areas.

I didn't say rate. I said you'd find greater numbers. Fewer people live outside of cities and they tend to be better armed than the populace of cities. That's what you've advanced. And you think that illustrates that more guns equals less crime. Is there less crime in rural areas per capita?

Here's a link to a Time article from 2013 noting a study in Annals of Emergency Medicine "...The risk of firearm-related death showed no difference across the rural-urban spectrum for the population as a whole, but varied when divided up by age — firearm deaths were significantly higher for children and people ages 45 and older, while for people ages 20 to 44, the risk of firearm deaths were much higher in urban areas."

And this is the foundation of your argument.

No, my argument is that every other Western country with universal gun laws does a better job of protecting their citizens from firearm violence and death, that we can do a better job and that the disparity between our violence and theirs is a call to arms, so to speak.

I've already set out the disparity comparing the U.S. with those Western democracies. It's not even close.

 

[Stripe]

Almost every one of the stats was trending up prior to 1996.

No, they weren't.

Making things up was not the way to go.

And that's what you see in Australia, along with the absence of another Port Arthur, which was the motivation.

There wasn't "another Port Arthur" before 1996.

The better course is to look for the long term impact of supply on demand and use.

Is that why you declared that a tiny snippet of that already condensed data determined a trend?

Does your chart doesn't actually specify the type of homicide? I don't see a breakdown between homicides by gun and homicides else.

And this is why you continue to get called out: The fallacy of moving the goalposts.

Y's response was to your declarations that other nations are safer.

Every other Western country with universal gun laws does a better job of protecting their citizens from firearm violence and death.

When you ban guns, people can't use them.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

No, they weren't.

Sure they were. There were 8 categories. Prior to 1996:

1. Murder had moved from 1.6 in 1994 to 1.8 in 1995, trending up prior to 1996.
2. Manslaughter remained constant at .2 in that same approach.
3. Total homicides had gone from 1.8 to 2 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
4. Sexual assault had gone from 71 to 72 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
5. Armed robbery had gone from 28 to 29 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
6. Unarmed robbery had gone from 50 to 51 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
7. Total robberies had gone from 78 to 80 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
8. Kidnapping and abduction went down.

Making things up was not the way to go.

I wouldn't know.

There wasn't "another Port Arthur" before 1996.

See, that's the sort of nonsense that has me wishing you'd stuck to your :wave2: guns. There's only one Port Arthur mass shooting in Australian history. So when I write that you see the impact of scarcity over time in relation to the impact of their gun laws and that you don't see another Port Arthur (massacre) the intelligent reading is that I'm using Port Arthur as a representative of mass shootings, which happened a number of times in the years prior to those gun laws and not at all in the twenty plus years since they were instituted.

Is that why you declared that a tiny snippet of that already condensed data determined a trend?

So when you guys insiste a thing has to happen in a year it's fine and when I note an uptick between the most recent two of three it's something else? :chuckle:

Four of the categories uptick regardless. One remains constant. One increases. And two go down in 1993 then up from 1994 to 1995. So any claim about most decreasing prior to 1996 is just factually deficient.

And this is why you continue to get called out: The fallacy of moving the goalposts.

Which I didn't do. I asked a question on a category that is actually trending up before 1996, noting a problem that doesn't alter my position but which would be helpful for everyone involved to know and you try to make it into something it isn't.

Y's response was to your declarations that other nations are safer.

It wasn't a declaration. It's an empirically verifiable fact that we do the worst job of protecting our citizens from gun related violence among Western democracies and compared to them with their universal gun laws.

When you ban guns, people can't use them.

Right. And when you ban particular guns and devices that can transform guns into instruments better suited for use in mass shootings you have fewer of them and less gun violence over time. A very good idea.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

And yet people like you keep praying for clouds.

 

[Stripe]

Sure they were. There were 8 categories. Prior to 1996:

1. Murder had moved from 1.6 in 1994 to 1.8 in 1995, trending up prior to 1996.
2. Manslaughter remained constant at .2 in that same approach.
3. Total homicides had gone from 1.8 to 2 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
4. Sexual assault had gone from 71 to 72 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
5. Armed robbery had gone from 28 to 29 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
6. Unarmed robbery had gone from 50 to 51 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
7. Total robberies had gone from 78 to 80 in that same period, trending up prior to 1996.
8. Kidnapping and abduction went down.

Those aren't trends.

See, that's the sort of nonsense that has me wishing you'd stuck to your :wave2: guns.

:darwinsm:

I'm supposed to keep waving goodbye when you renege on your promise to leave me alone?

I'm using Port Arthur as a representative of mass shootings.

Then you've missed "more Port Arthurs" that happened post-1996.

They happened a number of times in the years prior to those gun laws and not at all in the twenty plus years since they were instituted.

Only if you ignore the shootings that did happen.

So when you guys insiste a thing has to happen in a year it's fine and when I note an uptick between the most recent two of three it's something else? :chuckle:

Nice equivocation. We never declared a trend.

You need to learn to respond to what people say, not what you wish they had said.

Four of the categories uptick regardless. One remains constant. One increases. And two go down in 1993 then up from 1994 to 1995. So any claim about most decreasing prior to 1996 is just factually deficient.

Only if we stick to your preferred range of data.

Which I didn't do.

Sure, you did.

Your assertion was that nations are safer because of gun laws, then when called on it, you downgrade to "fewer shootings."

It wasn't a declaration.

Just some vague muttering then.

It's an empirically verifiable fact that we do the worst job of protecting our citizens from gun related violence among Western democracies and compared to them with their universal gun laws.

And the nation that bans cars has a lower road toll.

When you ban particular guns and devices that can transform guns into instruments better suited for use in mass shootings you have fewer of them and less gun violence over time.

Nope. You just have more regulations.

A very bad idea.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Those aren't tends.

You aren't a dictionary. An increase noted over two years (especially when there are only three prior years given) is as much of one as can be managed with the data provided.

I'm supposed to keep waving goodbye when you renege on your promise to leave me alone?

Bizarre. You came back to the conversation. I even gave you the last goofy word.

Then you've missed "more Port Arthurs" that happened post-1996.

Not according to Australia. And, again, compare our mass shootings to any Western Democracy with universal gun laws.

Of course, you won't. It doesn't serve your cause.

Your assertion was that nations are safer because of gun laws, then when called on it, you downgrade to "fewer shootings."

No, the conversation I was and am having was always about gun violence, in keeping with the thread topic.

As I summed it to Nihilo last month:

I'm mostly interested in a less philosophical, more pragmatic discussion about limiting the loss of life and injury with relatively simple, intelligent regulations of how we process things. If you want to possess a lethal instrument you should be able to handle it responsibly and it's a compelling interest of your neighbors that you understand that prior to pointing it in the direction of their property and persons. If you're mentally ill you shouldn't be permitted to own it. There's no reasonable justification for large clips, semi and automatic weapons that isn't overwhelmed by the negatives, both in potential and historical frameworks, but where we draw the lines and how should be part of a large and open discussion.

Nope. You just have more regulations.

You're worse than irrational. You can't even follow your own premise to a logical conclusion.

 

[Stripe]

You aren't a dictionary. An increase noted over two years (especially when there are only three prior years given) is as much of one as can be managed with the data provided.

You're not supposed to look for trends in such data.

Bizarre. You came back to the conversation. I even gave you the last goofy word.

Nope. Never left.

You're the one who consistently leaves the discussion.

Maybe one day you'll stick to a vow to leave.

Not according to Australia.

And what would you know about Australia?

People there were shocked by the severity of that incident and would say there has been nothing like it before or after when it comes to lone gunmen.

What we need from you is consistency. But no, you declare that "Port Arthurs" had been happening when there was nothing on that scale and did not happen after when there were shootings.

You're utterly ignorant, won't consider any details given to you and have the temerity to call me names.

:kook:

Compare our mass shootings to any Western Democracy with universal gun laws.

Compare your road toll to a nation with no cars.

Of course, you won't. It doesn't serve your cause.

No, the conversation I was and am having was always about gun violence, in keeping with the thread topic.

Then quit with the generalizations about all violent crime.

You're worse than irrational. You can't even follow your own premise to a logical conclusion.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Meanwhile, Sunday a man dressed in tactical gear and apparently using an assault type weapon fired at and entered a church in Texas, killing twenty-six churchgoers before he was done.

In Australia today no mass shooting has been reported. A thing true for over twenty years in the wake of passing universal and tough gun laws.

Are those laws the singular reason for that astonishing difference? I don't believe that's reasonable to assert. Some long range statistical trends were indicating a decline in violent crimes to begin with and I'm sure that plays into the figures. But as even the staunch opponents of tough, universal gun laws admit that when you remove something from circulation it can't be used. Similarly, when you remove most of the weapons and aids that easily facilitate mass shootings you necessarily diminish the likelihood of mass shootings occurring.

And when you couple that with mandated safety courses, psychiatric evaluations and other particulars we can find in the workings of every other Western democracy addressing the problem you get, unsurprisingly, a significant comparative reduction in firearm related homicides and mayhem.

Some people will try to tell you that is a coincidence.

Those people can't be trusted to operate a spoon.

Don't be like those people. Support intelligent and universal gun control.

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, Sunday a man dressed in tactical gear and apparently using an assault type weapon fired at and entered a church in Texas, killing twenty-six churchgoers before he was done.

In Australia today no mass shooting has been reported. A thing true for over twenty years in the wake of passing universal and tough gun laws.

Are those laws the singular reason for that astonishing difference? I don't believe that's reasonable to assert. Some long range statistical trends were indicating a decline in violent crimes to begin with and I'm sure that plays into the figures. But as even the staunch opponents of tough, universal gun laws admit that when you remove something from circulation it can't be used. Similarly, when you remove most of the weapons and aids that easily facilitate mass shootings you necessarily diminish the likelihood of mass shootings occurring.

And when you couple that with mandated safety courses, psychiatric evaluations and other particulars we can find in the workings of every other Western democracy addressing the problem you get, unsurprisingly, a significant comparative reduction in firearm related homicides and mayhem.

Some people will try to tell you that is a coincidence.

Those people can't be trusted to operate a spoon.

Don't be like those people. Support intelligent and universal gun control.

Of course, TH is lying to you about the incidents in Australia, while in the US, people have some liberty to be able to respond appropriately in such situations.

And his regulations would change nothing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Tambora]

You're not supposed to look for trends in such data.

Nope. Never left.

You're the one who consistently leaves the discussion.

Maybe one day you'll stick to a vow to leave.

And what would you know about Australia?

People there were shocked by the severity of that incident and would say there has been nothing like it before or after when it comes to lone gunmen.

What we need from you is consistency. But no, you declare that "Port Arthurs" had been happening when there was nothing on that scale and did not happen after when there were shootings.

You're utterly ignorant, won't consider any details given to you and have the temerity to call me names.

:kook:

Compare your road toll to a nation with no cars.

Of course, you won't. It doesn't serve your cause.

Then quit with the generalizations about all violent crime.

You're worse than irrational. You can't even follow your own premise to a logical conclusion.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

:first:

 

[Yorzhik]

Almost every one of the stats was trending up prior to 1996.

No, the trend was down. And the trend continued (although it wasn't the trend itself after 96) rather smoothly after 96.
View attachment 26017

I didn't say rate.

Yes you did. When you said:

"curing cancer wouldn't necessarily do anything for diabetes, but that's no argument against curing cancer."

that's referring to disease rates. How do we know? Because if you cure cancer, the other diseases don't go up like other kinds of violent crime do when guns are banned, and you'd get a disease rate reduction by necessity.

When you said:

"Where you ban certain types of guns you get dramatic results improving public safety."

that's referring to safety rates. How do we know? Because any improvement in public safety requires lower rates. And you even claim "dramatic" lower results.

Is there less crime in rural areas per capita?

So we can agree there are more guns per capita in areas outside of urban areas? I'm not dodging your question, but I'll answer after we lock down this part of the data.

Here's a link to a Time article from 2013 noting a study in Annals of Emergency Medicine "...The risk of firearm-related death showed no difference across the rural-urban spectrum for the population as a whole, but varied when divided up by age — firearm deaths were significantly higher for children and people ages 45 and older, while for people ages 20 to 44, the risk of firearm deaths were much higher in urban areas."

What all is included in "firearm-related death" in this article?

No, my argument is that every other Western country with universal gun laws does a better job of protecting their citizens from firearm violence and death, that we can do a better job and that the disparity between our violence and theirs is a call to arms, so to speak.

I've already set out the disparity comparing the U.S. with those Western democracies. It's not even close.

It doesn't matter the method of violence. It would be more honest of you to show us how banning guns reduces crime overall. Or do you already concede that it doesn't?

 

[Town Heretic]

No, the trend was down.

I used your graphic for the information and listed it. I literally set out each of the 8 categories and noted the numbers.

Dramatically better?
Noting Australia; most everything bad went up after the gun ban:
View attachment 26011

And the trend continued (although it wasn't the trend itself after 96) rather smoothly after 96.

Also not what the chart you put in play showed. Some of the numbers kept going up for a couple.

Yes you did. When you said: "curing cancer wouldn't necessarily do anything for diabetes, but that's no argument against curing cancer." that's referring to disease rates.

No, it isn't. It's actually noting that curing cancer would be a good idea even if it didn't cure anything else, which is my way of turning back to the real point of eliminating large clips, bump stocks, etc. Negatively impacting mass shootings. It doesn't have to cure any other ill.

But way to avoid the argument to really chew on the finer points of imaginative interpretation of syntax. lain:

When you said: "Where you ban certain types of guns you get dramatic results improving public safety." that's referring to safety rates. How do we know? Because any improvement in public safety requires lower rates. And you even claim "dramatic" lower results.

I'm not saying you can't make correlations that translate to rates over time. But I'm not talking about statistical trends with that. I'm speaking directly to the product of universal gun laws, intelligently applied.

So we can agree there are more guns per capita in areas outside of urban areas?

I can tell you that the NRA believes that's true.

What all is included in "firearm-related death" in this article?

As with your data, the Times article didn't distinguish the particulars, only noted gun related deaths, which could encompass everything from homicide to suicide, to accidental death, I suppose.

It doesn't matter the method of violence.

I don't know what you're trying to say with that line. It matters that guns provide a distanced and powerful instrument for killing a great many people in short order. And laws relating to them can seriously impact the likelihood of additional and numerous mass shootings. Can they stop it? No. But then seat belts and air bags don't stop every automotive related injury, but they stop enough to make them worth our while.

It would be more honest of you to show us how banning guns reduces crime overall.

Honest is the wrong word in a bully sentence. What I mean is that I've been talking about the need for reducing the likelihood of mass shootings of the sort we saw in Florida not long ago, in Vegas more recently, and in Texas the other day. Will that impact crime overall? I don't have the data. I suppose Europe would produce the data, but I don't have studies on hand and I can't take a position without them. I'd expect it to depend on the crime.

Or do you already concede that it doesn't?

I'd have to be arguing for gun control as a means to that end before concession would enter into it. I related a bit about Australia on the point, but my concern and certainty is with impacting massacres by gun. That I know we can impact and diminish. And the alternative, more nothing in hopes of a miracle, is just too Congressy (to coin) for me to get behind.