Heroin now kills more people than guns:

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

 

How is this any different than what Oriz said about deaths from motor vehicles?

To some, it's night and day different.  To others, they can see the disparity.  It's simpler to get emotional about gun deaths because, well, guns.  But you never see any rage or dramatic posts about the drug overdoses, car crashes, drink driving, or medical error deaths.  Each of which outnumber mass murders.  In fact, someone will probably come along soon and say it's a straw man argument (which is blatantly false).  Been done in other threads several times.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, LionessDeon said:

They call it white china here.  I personally know 4 people (including my nephew whose funeral is tomorrow, age 27) who have died from heroin ODs.    I agree is it a huge epidemic with middle class whites 18-40.

Sorry to hear the it involves your family.  That's a lot of people to know personally.  

Edited March 14, 2018 by IDWAF

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

To some, it's night and day different.  To others, they can see the disparity.  It's simpler to get emotional about gun deaths because, well, guns.  But you never see any rage or dramatic posts about the drug overdoses, car crashes, drink driving, or medical error deaths.  Each of which outnumber mass murders.  In fact, someone will probably come along soon and say it's a straw man argument (which is blatantly false).  Been done in other threads several times.

I'm not saying gun deaths isn't different than motor vehicles. I'm asking how is bring up motor vehicle deaths different than bringing up heroin/opioid deaths.

 

We have three issues at play -

 

Gun deaths

Heroin/Opioid deaths

Motor vehicle deaths

 

When Oriz brought up comparing Gun deaths vs. Motor vehicle deaths you called it a "straw man" argument

When you bring up comparing Gun deaths vs. Heroin/Opioid deaths how is that any different?

 

All three are separate issues, and can each be addressed individually (for the most part). We don't have to ignore one just because the other two exist.

Edited March 14, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm not saying gun deaths isn't different than motor vehicles. I'm asking how is bring up motor vehicle deaths different than bringing up heroin/opioid deaths.

 

We have three issues at play -

 

Gun deaths

Heroin/Opioid deaths

Motor vehicle deaths

 

When Oriz brought up comparing Gun deaths vs. Motor vehicle deaths you called it a "straw man" argument

When you bring up comparing Gun deaths vs. Heroin/Opioid deaths how is that any different?

 

All three are separate issues, and can each be addressed individually (for the most part). We don't have to ignore one just because the other two exist.

My comment to Ori was sarcasm based on certain antics by other members.

 

I think they all bear examining and working towards reducing.  But when you look at the raw numbers, the far fewer number of mass murders in the US.... since little is done about all the other causes, do you really think much will be done about so-called gun control?  I don't think it will.  And I'll go one step farther and say that if something is done, it will be for the wrong reasons.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IDWAF said:

My comment to Ori was sarcasm based on certain antics by other members.

 

I think they all bear examining and working towards reducing.  But when you look at the raw numbers, the far fewer number of mass murders in the US.... since little is done about all the other causes, do you really think much will be done about so-called gun control?  I don't think it will.  And I'll go one step farther and say that if something is done, it will be for the wrong reasons.

No I don't really think anything will be done either. Just making sure we are on the same page, which it seems like we are.

 

When we talk about gun control here a lot of times people bring up "other problems" that are "worse". Those are all straw man arguments (or "whataboutism") since no one who supports gun control is arguing we should ignore opioid related deaths, or motor vehicle related deaths. We aren't voting on what we think should take top priority. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

No I don't really think anything will be done either. Just making sure we are on the same page, which it seems like we are.

 

When we talk about gun control here a lot of times people bring up "other problems" that are "worse". Those are all straw man arguments (or "whataboutism") since no one who supports gun control is arguing we should ignore opioid related deaths, or motor vehicle related deaths. We aren't voting on what we think should take top priority. 

You are one of the more practical and less emotional discussers of the gun issue,  and that makes it easier to discuss the issue.

 

The problem is that most people who cry out for "gun control" have no idea what they are really asking for.  You see it here, when folks talk about the non-existent "gun show loophole", and wanting to require registering a purchased firearm.

 

There are things in place already, not all of which are super effective.   And some of the things we all want (like mental health checks) will never happen.  What COULD happen is better handling of known criminal and mental data that already exists.

 

All major causes of death need looking into.  The health ones, for the most part, are.  Until a particular cause of death becomes large enough to require external controls, it will remain a talking point, I suspect.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

You are one of the more practical and less emotional discussers of the gun issue,  and that makes it easier to discuss the issue.

 

The problem is that most people who cry out for "gun control" have no idea what they are really asking for.  You see it here, when folks talk about the non-existent "gun show loophole", and wanting to require registering a purchased firearm.

 

There are things in place already, not all of which are super effective.   And some of the things we all want (like mental health checks) will never happen.  What COULD happen is better handling of known criminal and mental data that already exists.

 

All major causes of death need looking into.  The health ones, for the most part, are.  Until a particular cause of death becomes large enough to require external controls, it will remain a talking point, I suspect.

I'll take the first part as a compliment, though I think the reality is I'm just fairly ignorant on a large portion of the topic and don't claim to know more than I do. I've heard of the "gun show loophole" but I honestly haven't read enough or learned enough to know whether or not it exists. I do see lots of billboards advertising gun shows though where I live

 

I do think it is sad how with almost every mass gun shooting event there is always something on the person's record that would suggest that they were unstable. Domestic violence, history of depression etc... Similar to how with many "terrorist attacks" it turns out these people were being monitored, and we were at least partially aware of them. There are opportunities that exist that get passed up.

 

I think that would be a reasonable place to start. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'll take the first part as a compliment, though I think the reality is I'm just fairly ignorant on a large portion of the topic and don't claim to know more than I do. I've heard of the "gun show loophole" but I honestly haven't read enough or learned enough to know whether or not it exists. I do see lots of billboards advertising gun shows though where I live

 

I do think it is sad how with almost every mass gun shooting event there is always something on the person's record that would suggest that they were unstable. Domestic violence, history of depression etc... Similar to how with many "terrorist attacks" it turns out these people were being monitored, and we were at least partially aware of them. There are opportunities that exist that get passed up.

 

I think that would be a reasonable place to start.

Just like the stabbing teen in FL... too little, too late (new topic about it).  I agree that murderous intent is rarely unknown,  and rarely spontaneous.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

I figured people would, but it really bugs me sometimes when I set out to write a sentence and I either leave out words or write an incorrect word because I don't spend the time needed to check what I wrote, before posting.

 

I do the same sometimes,  only It don't bother me much 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Sorry to hear the it involves your family.  That's a lot of people to know personally.  

Not really.  He knows many many people. S larger sampling  size

 

[TBoneTX 45,293]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Death by assault riffle

Another dealer in a Vegas or Atlantic City casino has lost control of his deck-shuffling and wantonly murdered an innocent gambler?!  Ban assault riffles!  Ban cards!  Ban gambling!  Ban casinos*!

 

*although the chiefs of the Casino Indian tribe will certainly object

[TBoneTX 45,293]

15 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

It don't bother me much 

So we see, see man...

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

The problem is that most people who cry out for "gun control" have no idea what they are really asking for.  You see it here, when folks talk about the non-existent "gun show loophole", and wanting to require registering a purchased firearm.

I've gone and educated myself a little more on background checks at gun shows vs not gun shows. Two interesting articles -

 

1. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxyhost.library.tmc.edu/pubmed/26972843 - Cross-sectional study of state laws and firearm related deaths

Of 25 different types of firearm related laws - 9 were associated with lower firearm related mortality

The three most significant associations were -

1. Universal background checks for firearm purchases (Which, I assume, would close the "loophole" whether or not it exists) - RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.23 - 0.67)
2. Ammunition background checks - RR 0.18 (95% CI 0.09 - 0.36)
3. Identification requirement for firearms - RR 0.16 (95% CI 0.09 - 0.29)

Applying those three laws to the federal level, with those three relative risk reductions, would decrease the national firearm mortality rate from 10.35 per 100,000 to 0.16 per 100,000

 

2. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxyhost.library.tmc.edu/pubmed/27842178 - Systematic review on gun laws (This may be the actual scientific paper related to that large review we talked about in a different thread last week)

 

The above study (#1) is in line with other studies that have looked at the same issue, as described in the systematic review -

 

"Four studies^21,38,40,42 focused exclusively on background check requirements for firearm purchasers. All found that more inclusive background checks were associated with lower firearm homicide rates, especially in states with more comprehensive background check laws." (Note that one of those studies, reference 21, is the study I linked under #1 above, so there are three additional studies).

 

I do have a bit of an issue with their language I must admit, since the study does not exclusively focus on background checks. But that is just an issue with how the systematic review categorized studies, not with the actual content. They reference the study in other sections (appropriately, since the study looked at many types of laws) so I don't know why they said it exclusively focused on background checks here. It must have been a typo/error that wasn't picked up in editing. 

 

------------------------

Quick primer on Relative Risk (RR) and Confidence Intervals -

 

Relative risk is a ratio of the probability of an event when exposed over the probability of the event when not exposed. So in this situation a RR of 0.39 means that firearm related deaths in states with universal background checks were 39% of the firearm related deaths in states without universal background checks (Not 39% less, which would be absolute risk reduction). So if the rate was 10 per 100,000 in states without, it was 3.9 per 100,000 in States with. The particular study in question makes a little more complicated because they are adjusted relative risks, which means they are adjusting for confounding variables (like the presence of the other laws).

 

The confidence intervals are measure of how "sure" they are that the RR is correct. It states that there is 95% confidence that the true RR is between 23% and 67% (For the Universal background checks). Two important factors are whether the CI crosses 1 (which would create uncertainty regarding whether the effect is true since you can't be 95% confident that the relative risk lies on one side), and how narrow the CI is. Generally speaking the larger the population in your study, the more narrow your CI can be. That is most important if it crosses 1 because then further studies may be able to make a tighter degree of confidence and confirm or deny whether a result is real. When the CI entirely lies on the left, then you have to ask whether anything in that range is clinically (or in this case socially?) significant. I'd say even if the RR was 67% that would still be a practically significant decrease (As opposed to say, a RR of 1% which you could argue isn't such a big deal).

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

I've gone and educated myself a little more on background checks at gun shows vs not gun shows. Two interesting articles -

 

1. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxyhost.library.tmc.edu/pubmed/26972843 - Cross-sectional study of state laws and firearm related deaths

Of 25 different types of firearm related laws - 9 were associated with lower firearm related mortality

The three most significant associations were -

1. Universal background checks for firearm purchases (Which, I assume, would close the "loophole" whether or not it exists) - RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.23 - 0.67)
2. Ammunition background checks - RR 0.18 (95% CI 0.09 - 0.36)
3. Identification requirement for firearms - RR 0.16 (95% CI 0.09 - 0.29)

Applying those three laws to the federal level, with those three relative risk reductions, would decrease the national firearm mortality rate from 10.35 per 100,000 to 0.16 per 100,000

 

2. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxyhost.library.tmc.edu/pubmed/27842178 - Systematic review on gun laws (This may be the actual scientific paper related to that large review we talked about in a different thread last week)

 

The above study is in line with other studies that have looked at the same issue, as described in the systematic review -

 

"Four studies^21,38,40,42 focused exclusively on background check requirements for firearm purchasers. All found that more inclusive background checks were associated with lower firearm homicide rates, especially in states with more comprehensive background check laws."

 

------------------------

Quick primer on Relative Risk (RR) and Confidence Intervals -

 

Relative risk is a ratio of the probability of an event when exposed over the probability of the event when not exposed. So in this situation a RR of 0.39 means that firearm related deaths in states with universal background checks were 39% of the firearm related deaths in states without universal background checks (Not 39% less, which would be absolute risk reduction). So if the rate was 10 per 100,000 in states without, it was 3.9 per 100,000 in States with. The particular study in question makes a little more complicated because they are adjusted relative risks, which means they are adjusting for confounding variables (like the presence of the other laws).

 

The confidence intervals are measure of how "sure" they are that the RR is correct. It states that there is 95% confidence that the true RR is between 23% and 67% (For the Universal background checks). Two important factors are whether the CI crosses 1 (which would create uncertainty regarding whether the effect is true since you can't be 95% confident that the relative risk lies on one side), and how narrow the CI is. Generally speaking the larger the population in your study, the more narrow your CI can be. That is most important if it crosses 1 because then further studies may be able to make a tighter degree of confidence and confirm or deny whether a result is real. When the CI entirely lies on the left, then you have to ask whether anything in that range is clinically (or in this case socially?) significant. I'd say even if the RR was 67% that would still be a practically significant decrease (As opposed to say, a RR of 1% which you could argue isn't such a big deal).

 

Quickly... 1 & 3 already exist.   2 will probably exist in CA soon.

 

Most states use the NICS via the FBI in order for a FFL to sell a gun.

[bcking 3,157]

14 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Quickly... 1 & 3 already exist.   2 will probably exist in CA soon.

 

Most states use the NICS via the FBI in order for a FFL to sell a gun.

1 and 3 already exist nationwide? Of course they exist at the state level, that is how the study compared states that had the laws and those that didn't.