General New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
Based off the definition of 4 victims shot within a 24 hour period, seems to be in line with other reports.
"The US saw 418 mass shootings and 15,395 deaths due to gun violence in 2019"
" Even though mass-shooting deaths represented just a tiny fraction of total firearm deaths in 2019 (465 out of the 39,485, according to the Gun Violence Archive), the horror of mass shootings means these events have "disproportionately influenced the public discourse on firearms ownership and legislation," according to Fridel."

so there were 418 incidents where 4 or more people were shot, which resulted in 465 deaths (1.1 deaths per incident), but the horror of these incidents (where firearms are < 25% lethal) is so devastating that we have to limit the firearms people can own and make concealed weapons more difficult to license. Despite the clear empirical evidence in places where those solutions are already in place and the rate of gun violence is some of the highest in the US (LA, Chicago, NYC)

Two things to consider: do you see the intellectual dishonesty in how mass shootings are framed in this research?

And how do you reconcile the fact that the proposed solutions have already been demonstrated to, at the very least, have no positive impact on homicides per capita and other metrics?
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,743
"The US saw 418 mass shootings and 15,395 deaths due to gun violence in 2019"
" Even though mass-shooting deaths represented just a tiny fraction of total firearm deaths in 2019 (465 out of the 39,485, according to the Gun Violence Archive), the horror of mass shootings means these events have "disproportionately influenced the public discourse on firearms ownership and legislation," according to Fridel."

so there were 418 incidents where 4 or more people were shot, which resulted in 465 deaths (1.1 deaths per incident), but the horror of these incidents (where firearms are < 25% lethal) is so devastating that we have to limit the firearms people can own and make concealed weapons more difficult to license. Despite the clear empirical evidence in places where those solutions are already in place and the rate of gun violence is some of the highest in the US (LA, Chicago, NYC)

Two things to consider: do you see the intellectual dishonesty in how mass shootings are framed in this research?

And how do you reconcile the fact that the proposed solutions have already been demonstrated to, at the very least, have no positive impact on homicides per capita and other metrics?
I think you might be confused. I am not arguing one way or another, I seen the study and thought it would be an interesting discussion.

Regardless of the author stance on mass shootings, that doesn’t influence the overall statement of the study, does it?
- States with loose carry concealed laws face higher rates of gun homicides.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
I think you might be confused. I am not arguing one way or another, I seen the study and thought it would be an interesting discussion.

Regardless of the author stance on mass shootings, that doesn’t influence the overall statement of the study, does it?
- States with loose carry concealed laws face higher rates of gun homicides.
there are at least two giant gaps in the research...

there's been no correction for other sources of variances. Without understanding the mechanism of variability, you can't pin it on a single source as causal. Because the proposed solutions fly in the face of other empirical data that is well-known, the author has to explain the mechanism to show, or in some other way explain, why this cause is understood in a way that also encompasses that data.

assuming that if you make a law it will happen and will have the intended effect, and only the intended effect. The idea that there's a legislative solution, when over 90% of gun crimes are committed by people with criminal records in the commission of crimes seems to indicate that only law-abiding people are restricted in their access to firearms.

so the fact that the author makes a couple errors of reasoning on the way to some "tried and failed" solutions means that they probably started from conclusion and worked their way back to the measurement.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
high and tights are out of regulation
" Hair above the ears and around the neck must get tapered from the lower natural hairline upwards at least 3/4 inch and outward not greater than 3/4 inch in order to blend with the regular hairstyle. "


WTF?! these touch-feely suede-necks are going to fuck up and summon Zombie Chief Chesty to square their shit away.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,127
So defund the police and turn in your gun. More Utopian bullshit... I wish it worked like that.

And no, I do not own a gun.

Even if this research is right, did they consider the violent crime rates as well?
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
So defund the police and turn in your gun. More Utopian bullshit... I wish it worked like that.

And no, I do not own a gun.

Even if this research is right, did they consider the violent crime rates as well?
no, only 'gun violence'.