Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[Edman85]

Fine all those things happened the same time and shootings started to increase. By the same logic as those charts, they are therefore the cause.

Also, I turned drinking age around that time and shootings started to increase. That is therefore a cause.

Justin Verlander became a major league pitcher around that time and shootings started to increase. That is therefore a cause.

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Fine all those things happened the same time and shootings started to increase. By the same logic as those charts, they are therefore the cause.

Also, I turned drinking age around that time and shootings started to increase. That is therefore a cause.

Justin Verlander became a major league pitcher around that time and shootings started to increase. That is therefore a cause.

So what about prior to the ban? You're only focusing on the after. Deaths were elevated prior to the signing of the assault weapon ban, declined during the assault weapon ban, and increased immediately after the ban was lifted. What social media existed prior to 1993? Why was the Iraq war more impactful on assault weapon deaths than Vietnam or the Gulf War? What is it than specifically during that 10 year stretch from the mid 90's to mid 00's, which happens to be the exact same time the ban was in effect, that would explain the decrease and then subsequent rise if the ban just happened to be a correlation? Oh wait, I'm suppose to prove this for you.

[Tiger337]

13 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

So what about prior to the ban? You're only focusing on the after. Deaths were elevated prior to the signing of the assault weapon ban, declined during the assault weapon ban, and increased immediately after the ban was lifted. What social media existed prior to 1993? Why was the Iraq war more impactful on assault weapon deaths than Vietnam or the Gulf War? What is it than specifically during that 10 year stretch from the mid 90's to mid 00's, which happens to be the exact same time the ban was in effect, that would explain the decrease and then subsequent rise if the ban just happened to be a correlation? Oh wait, I'm suppose to prove this for you.

Before the ban, deaths were only 15 higher. That could just be random variation, but again you have to take into consideration more variables than just time.    

[Motown Bombers]

6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Before the ban, deaths were only 15 higher. That could just be random variation, but again you have to take into consideration more variables than just time.    

That was also an over 20% decrease.  22% decrease on the current number would roughly be 40 deaths. There are always variables but one constant through the entire 40 years were assault weapons. There was a period of 10 years in which deaths by assault weapons were 20% less than than any other decade. In 1993 there were 14 deaths from assault weapons and in 94, 95, 96, and 97 there were zero. 1999 was an abnormally high year in which 36 were killed. You remove that statistical outlier of a year, and the number of deaths decline significantly. Other than that outlier year, the most in a given year was 7. Between 1983 and 1993, the 5 years in which more than 7 people were killed. In 13 years after the ban was lifted, there were 11 years in which more than 7 people were killed and 5 years in which more than 36 people were killed. I'm curious what other variables existed between 1983 and 1993 and went away from 1994 to 2004 only to return in 2005? In 2004 there were zero deaths. in 2005 there were 9, so the first year the ban went into effect there was an immediately decrease. The year after the ban was lifted there was an immediate increase. What variables suddenly changed in 1994 and 2004?

[Tiger337]

29 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

That was also an over 20% decrease.  22% decrease on the current number would roughly be 40 deaths. There are always variables but one constant through the entire 40 years were assault weapons. There was a period of 10 years in which deaths by assault weapons were 20% less than than any other decade. In 1993 there were 14 deaths from assault weapons and in 94, 95, 96, and 97 there were zero. 1999 was an abnormally high year in which 36 were killed. You remove that statistical outlier of a year, and the number of deaths decline significantly. Other than that outlier year, the most in a given year was 7. Between 1983 and 1993, the 5 years in which more than 7 people were killed. In 13 years after the ban was lifted, there were 11 years in which more than 7 people were killed and 5 years in which more than 36 people were killed. I'm curious what other variables existed between 1983 and 1993 and went away from 1994 to 2004 only to return in 2005? In 2004 there were zero deaths. in 2005 there were 9, so the first year the ban went into effect there was an immediately decrease. The year after the ban was lifted there was an immediate increase. What variables suddenly changed in 1994 and 2004?

I don't know.  15 deaths over 10 years doesn't seem like a lot.  Was it deaths per year?  By the way, I do think that banning weapons probably decreases deaths, but I don't think that the analysis is at all robust.  

Another thing I'd like to see is deaths for each year listed rather than clumps of 10 years.  There could be one year with a bunch of deaths that is driving it.  

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Tiger337

[Motown Bombers]

7 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't know.  15 deaths over 10 years doesn't seem like a lot.  Was it deaths per year?  By the way, I do think that banning weapons probably decreases deaths, but I don't think that the analysis is at all robust.  

Another thing I'd like to see is deaths for each year listed rather than clumps of 10 years.  There could be one year with a bunch of deaths that is driving it.  

 

Like I said, in 1999 there were 36 and every other year was 7 or less between 1994 and 2004 with 6 years having no deaths.

[buddha]

somebody just assassinated shinzo abe during a campaign speech.

[Jim Cowan]

22 minutes ago, buddha said:

somebody just assassinated shinzo abe during a campaign speech.

That's shocking.  I have not heard that he died though...have you?

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

That's shocking.  I have not heard that he died though...have you?

Nothing official. Paramedics said he had no signs of life.

[buddha]

37 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

That's shocking.  I have not heard that he died though...have you?

nothing official.  as cm said, he had "no signs of life".

[romad1]

The tweets I saw indicated shotgun.  Two of those at close range and I can imagine this result.

[mtutiger]

21 hours ago, ewsieg said:

In my theme of "one man's tyrant is another man's savior", both sides believe the other side does this, when it suits their beliefs. Additionally the other side is doing it because of bad intentions.

I believe Tucker Carlson is doing it because he has a history of doing it.

Not sure why he deserves the benefit of being treated in good faith given his line of work.

Edited July 8, 2022 by mtutiger

[romad1]

Ok, I'm beginning to question the assassin's motives.

[romad1]

My one non-snarky speculation about the possible motive of the assassin is that the Aum Shinrikyo cult members were as crazed and violent as the Manson family (much more violent in fact).   I wonder if this was a Squeaky Fromme type after-shock.

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

The tweets I saw indicated shotgun.  Two of those at close range and I can imagine this result.

Some discussion I saw on line last night showed it looked like a homemade weapon. Much like a shotgun

[CMRivdogs]

Just now, CMRivdogs said:

Some discussion I saw on line last night showed it looked like a homemade weapon. Much like a shotgun

 

[ewsieg]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I believe Tucker Carlson is doing it because he has a history of doing it.

Not sure why he deserves the benefit of being treated in good faith given his line of work.

Certainly wasn't giving Carlson any benefit of the doubt.  In fact I wasn't even talking about benefit of the doubt, just mentioning if one side is adamant X should be done, it seems the other side questions why is X being proposed, not the merits of X, not possible con's with alternate solutions, just that obviously the other side wants to do it in order to get to some "bad" Y outcome.

[Hongbit]

My condolences to all of Japan for the senseless attack.

My condolences to everyone in America for having to endure the ridiculous MTG/MAGA cult rhetoric as they will use this tragedy to tell us guns aren’t an American problem. 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Hongbit

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I believe Tucker Carlson is doing it because he has a history of doing it.

Not sure why he deserves the benefit of being treated in good faith given his line of work.

Carlson is doing it because he's being paid to do it.  

[1776]

Two points:

The first being that if someone is determined to take another person’s life they will likely find a way to do it. It may take awhile, but if the hate is strong enough….Hate is hate. 
 

Secondly, the assassin in this case literally had to build this weapon with whatever he could get his hands on, a tape job to say the least. Although this person succeeded in taking Abe’s life, it wasn’t as easy as going to your local 5 & 10 store and buying a weapon that could take out a classroom full of kids. So from this perspective, even in light of this tragedy, a sober person can argue that gun regulations do make a difference. 
 

just my humble opinion.

[Motown Bombers]

Japan had one gun homicide in all of 2021. A country of over 120 million. Yeah, I would say gun regulation does make a difference. 

[chasfh]

See? The media showing the actual person being shot works. When was the last time you heard of a shooting at a ballgame?

[1776]

16 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Japan had one gun homicide in all of 2021. A country of over 120 million. Yeah, I would say gun regulation does make a difference. 

The overriding difference is the glaring difference in the two cultures. From a strictly political perspective, our politicians on both ends of the spectrum suggest and encourage…and condone…violence against anyone that disagrees with his or her point of view, what more can be expected. 
So, have our politicians created this societal jungle, or has the societal jungle created out politicians? I imagine someone above my pay grade could give a qualified answer to that. 

[Motown Bombers]

LOL don't both sides this. I mean, a former prime minister was just assassinated so apparently something in the political culture is going on there.

 

[chasfh]

10 minutes ago, 1776 said:

The overriding difference is the glaring difference in the two cultures. From a strictly political perspective, our politicians on both ends of the spectrum suggest and encourage…and condone…violence against anyone that disagrees with his or her point of view, what more can be expected. 
So, have our politicians created this societal jungle, or has the societal jungle created out politicians? I imagine someone above my pay grade could give a qualified answer to that. 

This societal jungle has its roots in the violent founding and genocidal expansion of this country, liberally seasoned with post-expansion apartheid.