Today was the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook.

[pondwater]

Well the problem is that people buy guns in States with lax gun laws, and bring them into states/cities that have tough gun restrictions.  What's needed is tougher National guidelines, but that infringes upon States' rights.

Harvard gun study seems to disagree with this notion, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/. Also, since national firearm violence has been cut in half in the last 20 years without tough national gun laws in place and that it's mostly the liberal stronghold cities with tough gun laws usually lead the list in firearm violence, common sense would dictate that strict gun laws are ineffective in their intended purpose. Anyhow, I'll trust a Harvard study over liberals with an agenda, even though Harvard is Liberal. I guess they didn't get the memo, or maybe some liberals actually have some integrity, go figure.

[Dave Gray]

it's mostly the liberal stronghold cities with tough gun laws usually lead the list in firearm violence

This is a logical fallacy.  Please stop using it.  This is clearly correlative, not causative.

[Phishfan]

I don't think he is saying it is a cause as much as the practice has not been effective in reducing violence (which was excluded from your copying of his quote). That is something that needs to be part of this conversation since the conversation itself is how some think stricter laws will reduce gun violence.

[Spider-Dan]

Harvard gun study seems to disagree with this notion, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/. Also, since national firearm violence has been cut in half in the last 20 years without tough national gun laws in place and that it's mostly the liberal stronghold cities with tough gun laws usually lead the list in firearm violence, common sense would dictate that strict gun laws are ineffective in their intended purpose.

The 1994 Assault Weapons ban (which was passed, um, 20 years ago) was a national gun law.  Maybe you're just saying it wasn't tough enough for your tastes?

Anyway, this bogus, non-peer-reviewed "Harvard study" has already been thoroughly debunked.  You'll forgive me if I quote myself from another forum:

[T]hat link that you posted isn't actually a study; it's an article from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy that was not subject to peer review.  And that article surely would have benefited from some peer review,  given that one of the star examples in that article, Luxembourg (a nation that has banned handguns), was prominently and repeatedly cited with a homicide rate (9.0 per 100k) TEN TIMES higher than it actually was (0.9).  Gary Mauser, one of the authors of that article, corrected that data point in one of his later writings on the subject.

Now, what do you suppose happens when Harvard produces actual peer-reviewed studies on the subject?  Well, you tend to get results that look like this:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

and this:

1-2. Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide (literature reviews).
Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. The relationship between firearms and suicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 1999; 4:59-75.
Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. Gun prevalence and the risk of suicide: A review. Harvard Health Policy Review. 2001; 2:29-37.

3. Across states, more guns = more suicide (cross sectional analyses)
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. Epidemiology. 2002; 13:517-524.
--


There are literally dozens more Harvard studies where that came from (that was not an exhaustive list).  Suffice it to say that you will not find the the conclusions any more agreeable.

Given your apparently newfound trust in the reliability of studies from Harvard (and the fact that the studies I cited are actually, you know, studies from Harvard, instead of unreviewed opinion pieces), I look forward to your prompt reversal of opinion on this issue.

[pondwater]

This is a logical fallacy.  Please stop using it.  This is clearly correlative, not causative.

I don't think he is saying it is a cause as much as the practice has not been effective in reducing violence (which was excluded from your copying of his quote). That is something that needs to be part of this conversation since the conversation itself is how some think stricter laws will reduce gun violence.

You only call it logical fallacy because you disagree with it and no I won't stop using it because it's common sense. And Phish is half correct. The main point is that if the strict gun laws in the liberal stronghold cities were effective, then firearm violence in those places wouldn't be so high. The second half of the equation is causative. Just because you have strict gun laws doesn't mean that the criminals won't have guns. The people who won't have the guns is the general law abiding citizens. In that situation, the criminals have nothing to fear and no one to stop them. Therefore, gun violence will rise. The same reason most of the mass shootings happen in gun free zones. Lots of guns at gun shows and police stations. Why no mass shootings? Because soft targets are easy and no one is shooting back.

[pondwater]

The 1994 Assault Weapons ban (which was passed, um, 20 years ago) was a national gun law.  Maybe you're just saying it wasn't tough enough for your tastes?

Are you saying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban was responsible for a 50% reduction in firearm violence?

Anyway, this bogus, non-peer-reviewed "Harvard study" has already been thoroughly debunked.

And who did this debunking?

[Spider-Dan]

If gun bans don't work, why aren't we seeing more crimes committed with Tommy guns, M-16s, and other machine guns that are banned via the 1934 National Firearms Act?

Is it a coincidence that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed with guns that are legal to buy and sell in (at least some) American jurisdictions?

Are you saying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban was responsible for a 50% reduction in firearm violence?

You claimed that crime dropped over the last 20 years without a tough national gun law in place.  In point of fact, a national gun law was enacted 20 years ago.

And who did this debunking?

Every single blue word in my previous post is a link.  One of those links is a subsequent paper from one of the authors of your cited "study," in which he corrects his data from the 10x inflated value in said study.

[bsmooth]

If gun bans don't work, why aren't we seeing more crimes committed with Tommy guns, M-16s, and other machine guns that are banned via the 1934 National Firearms Act?
You claimed that crime dropped over the last 20 years without a tough national gun law in place.  In point of fact, a national gun law was enacted 20 years ago.

AR-15, M-16, M-4, are the same platforms. The primary difference between civilian and military models is the burst setting.
The use of "assault" rifles in crimes has never risen much above the 1-2% thresh hold. The majority of gun violence is committed with pistols and shotguns...neither of which are affected by these two laws.
If you read Freakonomics, they present a logic case that Roe v Wade had more to do with the decrease in crime in the mid 90's, than any piece of legislation.

[Spider-Dan]

AR-15, M-16, M-4, are the same platforms. The primary difference between civilian and military models is the burst setting.

So why don't we see fully automatic machine guns frequently used in the commission of crimes, as we did before the 1934 law outlawing them was passed?

If it's still easy to get guns after they've been outlawed, why are nearly all of these mass shootings being committed with weapons that are available legally?  Why aren't they being committed with more deadly military-grade weaponry that is not available to the public?

[Dave Gray]

You only call it logical fallacy because you disagree with it

Nope.  I haven't even weighed in on this thread.  But it's absolutely a logical fallacy and it hurts the overall discussion, which I've been enjoying reading.


People who use lawnmowers most tend to have longer grass.  Therefore, lawnmowers cause longer grass.  That's a causation fallacy.

[pondwater]

The 1994 Assault Weapons ban (which was passed, um, 20 years ago) was a national gun law.  Maybe you're just saying it wasn't tough enough for your tastes?

Are you saying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban was responsible for a 50% reduction in firearm violence?

You claimed that crime dropped over the last 20 years without a tough national gun law in place.  In point of fact, a national gun law was enacted 20 years ago.

A simple yes or no would answer the question. You don't have to deflect by restating what I said. I know what I said and didn't say. Now, are you implying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban is the reason for a 50% reduction in firearm violence over the past 20 years? Is that your position, yes or no?

[Fau Teixeira]

A simple yes or no would answer the question. You don't have to deflect by restating what I said. I know what I said and didn't say. Now, are you implying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban is the reason for a 50% reduction in firearm violence over the past 20 years? Is that your position, yes or no?

I think legalization of abortion in the 70s is a factor in the general decrease in crime over the past 20 years

[Spider-Dan]

A simple yes or no would answer the question. You don't have to deflect by restating what I said. I know what I said and didn't say. Now, are you implying that the now expired Assault Weapon ban is the reason for a 50% reduction in firearm violence over the past 20 years? Is that your position, yes or no?

You made the claim that "national firearm violence has been cut in half in the last 20 years without tough national gun laws in place."  I pointed out that said claim is false.  If you're asking me whether the Assault Weapons ban contributed to a reduction in firearm crime, my answer is yes.

But since we're insisting that people answer questions: if gun bans don't work, why aren't more crimes being committed with military-grade machine guns that are illegal for the public to own?

[pondwater]

You made the claim that "national firearm violence has been cut in half in the last 20 years without tough national gun laws in place."  I pointed out that said claim is false.

If you're asking me whether the Assault Weapons ban contributed to a reduction in firearm crime, my answer is yes.

The claim is not false. Crimes with Assault weapons account for 1-2% of firearm crimes. How is that a tough national law if it's only affecting 1-2% of crime by firearms? Also, what accounted for the other 48-49% drop in firearms crime? It wasn't the Assault Weapons ban.

[Fau Teixeira]

i answered that .. it was abortion