Hillary Clinton: Santa Fe School Shooting Should Inspire ‘Soul Searching,’ Gun Control

[bcking 3,157]

17 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Really. You never been to the Philippines have you. Lots and lots of hand made guns.  

I'd rather compare us to slightly more similar countries...Hopefully that isn't the most similar country you can come up with (No offense to the Philippines).

 

Are criminals building guns in Australia, Canada, UK, or the rest of Europe? They may be, I just haven't heard of it. Despite the fact that "criminals will just bypass laws", the number of firearms in those countries (even in the hands of criminals) seems to be much lower than America. Funny how that works?

 

59 minutes ago, javadown2 said:

I'm sorry to say it but you could put every gun law you can think of out there but it won't do much good because a criminal will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun/pistol and ammo...you can't enforce someone at their home (ie a trigger safety lock/gun safe..etc) 

Education is great, even if it saves one life...nothing wrong with that

Making someone go to a psych doctor to get evaluated...I don't see that happening either...crazy idea(pun intended)

Recertification....again there are aspects that can't be inforced...gun safes and locks at home....making you get a psych evaluation (not a bad idea I suppose). 

 

But in reality your missing the big picture: CRIMINALS WILL BYPASS ALL OF THIS....if you want to do a crime there isn't much stopping you from figuring out a way to get a weapon. 

But the flip side is....taking away the guns in America will NEVER happen (and this is the only gun control that would work to stop mass shootings, no guns=no shootings). But again..this will never happen (and I think it's irrational and I don't even own a gun). 

 

 

Other countries require some of those. At least Norway, and possibly other countries in the area, require a safe and require some level of education to own a gun (you need to be a member of a club and complete a certain number of hours, IIRC). Other countries require proof of purchase of a safe, or even a home visit. Many countries have waiting periods (Australia - 28 days), which seems perfectly fine for me considering there is really never an "emergent" need for a gun. Some places require mental health surveys (Japan, Brazil, Israel), or references (Canada). Many countries require a much more thorough "background check" by the police, and many require police interviews (Germany, Japan, Britain etc...). Oh and also limits on ammunition would be great (Israel). No one should be reasonably expecting a massive shoot out at their home, so you shouldn't need more than a small number of bullets at a time.

 

Will that stop everyone bad from getting guns? No of course not but in many countries with a lot of these regulations in place, even criminals have far less firearms. Obviously it's not zero but nothing is ever 100% effective and you would never expect it to be. The most important part of all of this is that these laws don't limit responsible gun owners from owning guns. If you are truly a responsible gun owner, you should be able to pass these requirements and therefore you should have nothing to worry about. 

 

People really need to stop the ridiculously silly "Criminals will bypass laws" argument. It is truly pointless. Criminals will bypass any law, so why bother having? Murderers still murder, despite it being illegal. People will still speed, so why bother with speed limits? Just because criminals are going to ignore laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

1 hour ago, Sonea said:

I'm sorry.

 

Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.0964abd1e9a9

 

Scroll down about 2/3rd where they plot each attack on the timeline. It was a real eye opener for me when I first saw this last year (they continue to update it but its actually getting to be an older article).

Very interesting timeline. Of course that doesn't necessary show that media attention from one attack leads to more. There could be any number of confounders (many of which we have discussed here) that have increased with time.

 

There is also no statistically evaluation comparing the mass shootings with the suicide data. So while again I like the Austrian study it is a low level of evidence to suggest a similar protocol for mass shootings would make a difference. You have regional differences, and differences in the types of actions (suicides vs. mass shootings) so there are significant concerns regarding applicability still. It's also just one study, as much as I like it.

 

Despite the lack of evidence though I'd gladly stop media reporting on the attacker. We've had enough events to start taking some action in Congress, and yet nothing has happened. More events, more descriptions of the killers, are unlikely to change the minds of the people who make decisions. Unfortunately are discussions here are also going to make little difference.

Edited May 22, 2018 by bcking

[Sonea 138]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'd rather compare us to slightly more similar countries...Hopefully that isn't the most similar country you can come up with (No offense to the Philippines).

 

Are criminals building guns in Australia, Canada, UK, or the rest of Europe? They may be, I just haven't heard of it. Despite the fact that "criminals will just bypass laws", the number of firearms in those countries (even in the hands of criminals) seems to be much lower than America. Funny how that works?

 

Other countries require some of those. At least Norway, and possibly other countries in the area, require a safe and require some level of education to own a gun (you need to be a member of a club and complete a certain number of hours, IIRC). Other countries require proof of purchase of a safe, or even a home visit. Many countries have waiting periods (Australia - 28 days), which seems perfectly fine for me considering there is really never an "emergent" need for a gun. Some places require mental health surveys (Japan, Brazil, Israel), or references (Canada). Many countries require a much more thorough "background check" by the police, and many require police interviews (Germany, Japan, Britain etc...). Oh and also limits on ammunition would be great (Israel). No one should be reasonably expecting a massive shoot out at their home, so you shouldn't need more than a small number of bullets at a time.

 

Will that stop everyone bad from getting guns? No of course not but in many countries with a lot of these regulations in place, even criminals have far less firearms. Obviously it's not zero but nothing is ever 100% effective and you would never expect it to be. The most important part of all of this is that these laws don't limit responsible gun owners from owning guns. If you are truly a responsible gun owner, you should be able to pass these requirements and therefore you should have nothing to worry about. 

 

People really need to stop the ridiculously silly "Criminals will bypass laws" argument. It is truly pointless. Criminals will bypass any law, so why bother having? Murderers still murder, despite it being illegal. People will still speed, so why bother with speed limits? Just because criminals are going to ignore laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

Very interesting timeline. Of course that doesn't necessary show that media attention from one attack leads to more. There could be any number of confounders (many of which we have discussed here) that have increased with time.

 

There is also no statistically evaluation comparing the mass shootings with the suicide data. So while again I like the Austrian study it is a low level of evidence to suggest a similar protocol for mass shootings would make a difference. You have regional differences, and differences in the types of actions (suicides vs. mass shootings) so there are significant concerns regarding applicability still. It's also just one study, as much as I like it.

 

Despite the lack of evidence though I'd gladly stop media reporting on the attacker. We've had enough events to start taking some action in Congress, and yet nothing has happened. More events, more descriptions of the killers, are unlikely to change the minds of the people who make decisions. Unfortunately are discussions here are also going to make little difference.

Its fairly hard to study mass shooting data as it is because, not to be callous, from a statistical stand point there aren't enough mass shootings per year to  have empirical evidence of anything so I agree with you there. I do disagree with your skepticism regarding the relations between suicide and mass shootings given the elevated occurrence of suicide at the end of a mass shooting by the attacker. I would conclude that the majority of mass shooters are in fact suffering from depression and suicidal actions. I also find it interesting that you would highlight regional differences here but seem to not accept regional differences in relation to the US and gun violence. Or maybe I misinterpreted your earlier posts?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Sonea

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Its fairly hard to study mass shooting data as it is because, not to be callous, from a statistical stand point there aren't enough mass shootings per year to  have empirical evidence of anything so I agree with you there. I do disagree with your skepticism regarding the relations between suicide and mass shootings given the elevated occurrence of suicide at the end of a mass shooting by the attacker. I would conclude that the majority of mass shooters are in fact suffering from depression and suicidal actions. I also find it interesting that you would highlight regional differences here but seem to not accept regional differences in relation to the US and gun violence. Or maybe I misinterpreted your earlier posts?

What do you mean by regional differences? You mean differences between countries? Absolutely there are differences, and I think they are worthwhile investigating. I don't believe that easy access to firearms is the only thing separating us from the UK. I'm sure there are other differences (I learn more about them the more I live with my wife). I think they all warrant investigation into why their firearm violence and overall violence is lower than ours, and in particular in regards to this situation why their school children are generally safe. My wife wouldn't think twice about sending kids to school in the UK. She is seriously afraid to have children in America over the fear of having to send them to school. I'd all for figuring out why we are so messed up compared to other places.

 

I don't disagree with your hypothesis about media and mass shootings, and the fact that there has been an association found for suicides supports it, but only weakly so. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support a change to how our media reports on these events. This is one of those cases where I would take low grade evidence and still advocate for a change (that's not always the case). In medicine when guidelines are written they should (more organizations are doing this) have two parts to their assessment/statement. The first is the strength of evidence (weak or strong), and the second part is the strength of the recommendation. Sometimes you can have weak evidence, but a strong recommendation (based on limitations in how you acquire the evidence, and based on expert opinion).

 

As you said, it would be a hard thing to study and therefore we wouldn't want to wait until we had stronger evidence. I just like to always be clear when our evidence is weak or strong. 

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

What do you mean by regional differences? You mean differences between countries? Absolutely there are differences, and I think they are worthwhile investigating. I don't believe that easy access to firearms is the only thing separating us from the UK. I'm sure there are other differences (I learn more about them the more I live with my wife). I think they all warrant investigation into why their firearm violence and overall violence is lower than ours, and in particular in regards to this situation why their school children are generally safe. My wife wouldn't think twice about sending kids to school in the UK. She is seriously afraid to have children in America over the fear of having to send them to school. I'd all for figuring out why we are so messed up compared to other places.

 

I don't disagree with your hypothesis about media and mass shootings, and the fact that there has been an association found for suicides supports it, but only weakly so. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support a change to how our media reports on these events. This is one of those cases where I would take low grade evidence and still advocate for a change (that's not always the case). In medicine when guidelines are written they should (more organizations are doing this) have two parts to their assessment/statement. The first is the strength of evidence (weak or strong), and the second part is the strength of the recommendation. Sometimes you can have weak evidence, but a strong recommendation (based on limitations in how you acquire the evidence, and based on expert opinion).

 

As you said, it would be a hard thing to study and therefore we wouldn't want to wait until we had stronger evidence. I just like to always be clear when our evidence is weak or strong. 

Yes, when you mentioned regional differences I assumed you meant by country. I think the UK and US are very interesting comparisons for one particular reason. We can actually go back in time and view both countries prior to either country having gun control laws.

 

The US has had three phases of gun control - 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s.

 

The UK started major gun control after WW1 and achieved current US laws by the 1930s.

 

So we can look at the period prior to WW1 when both countries had free and open access to firearms to see what the homicide rates were. This should show cultural differences more clearly than today because both countries were under the same regulations (or lack there of in this case).

 

(Caveat this is England & Wales...does not include NI or scotland) - 1900s - 0.96 per 100k

USA - 1900s - 4.6 to about 4.9 per 100k

 

England & Wales - 2010s Hovering right  at 1 per 100k

USA - 2010s   4.4 to about 4.9 per 100k

 

So despite radically different approaches to firearms both countries are about where they were before gun control.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Yes, when you mentioned regional differences I assumed you meant by country. I think the UK and US are very interesting comparisons for one particular reason. We can actually go back in time and view both countries prior to either country having gun control laws.

 

The US has had three phases of gun control - 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s.

 

The UK started major gun control after WW1 and achieved current US laws by the 1930s.

 

So we can look at the period prior to WW1 when both countries had free and open access to firearms to see what the homicide rates were. This should show cultural differences more clearly than today because both countries were under the same regulations (or lack there of in this case).

 

(Caveat this is England & Wales...does not include NI or scotland) - 1900s - 0.96 per 100k

USA - 1900s - 4.6 to about 4.9 per 100k

 

England & Wales - 2010s Hovering right  at 1 per 100k

USA - 2010s   4.4 to about 4.9 per 100k

 

So despite radically different approaches to firearms both countries are about where they were before gun control.

We aren't talking about general homicide here though, we are talking about mass shooting events. 

 

What were the US rates for mass shootings in the 1900's compared to now? As you have already shown in WaPo article you linked, the frequency here has been rising in the past decades. 

 

Has the UK seen a similar rise? Not that I'm aware of. So perhaps in that setting the gun control has had a protective effect when it comes to avoiding mass shootings.

 

I'd also want to know more about the demographics of the homicides. I wonder what the rate of adolescent/young adult homicides were in the 1900's in UK vs US and compare that to now as well. What were the rates of school shootings in both places, compared to now?

 

Just raw "homicide" numbers can hide a lot of detail that may be interesting for particular problems. 

[bcking 3,157]

Also - honest question here - what happened in the US in 1905? Your numbers only work when you start at 1905. 1900 to 1901 the homicide rate was 1.2-1.3 for several years in a row.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#cite_note-nchs1900-4

 

I'm not saying you are wrong about overall homicide rate, I'm just genuinely curious around 1905.

 

It may sound cruel but my bigger concern/question is about the demographics of the homicide. My immediate concern is whether people in my shoes, or my children are at risk. As you've shown "random" "mass shootings" have increased in frequency over the past few decades. That hasn't happened in other places. While media play a role, the UK still gets media coverage of American attacks (obviously not nearly as much) but they still do. They also had their own mass shooting and there wasn't a subsequent increase in those events there. What protected them?

 

I want it to be safe to send my future children to school in the United States, but given our options (leaving) I have a hard time convincing myself.

[Sonea 138]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

We aren't talking about general homicide here though, we are talking about mass shooting events. 

 

What were the US rates for mass shootings in the 1900's compared to now? As you have already shown in WaPo article you linked, the frequency here has been rising in the past decades. 

 

Has the UK seen a similar rise? Not that I'm aware of. So perhaps in that setting the gun control has had a protective effect when it comes to avoiding mass shootings.

 

I'd also want to know more about the demographics of the homicides. I wonder what the rate of adolescent/young adult homicides were in the 1900's in UK vs US and compare that to now as well. What were the rates of school shootings in both places, compared to now?

 

Just raw "homicide" numbers can hide a lot of detail that may be interesting for particular problems. 

The problem is that those statistics likely do not exist to answer those questions. All I have access to is the broad homicide rate which, again not to be callous, is statistically more significant than mass shootings in the US.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 hours ago, Boiler said:

So basically the same a getting a driving licence.

Getting an ID is racist and meant to suppress minority votes.Unfair argument 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I'd rather compare us to slightly more similar countries...Hopefully that isn't the most similar country you can come up with (No offense to the Philippines).

 

Are criminals building guns in Australia, Canada, UK, or the rest of Europe? They may be, I just haven't heard of it. Despite the fact that "criminals will just bypass laws", the number of firearms in those countries (even in the hands of criminals) seems to be much lower than America. Funny how that works?

 

Other countries require some of those. At least Norway, and possibly other countries in the area, require a safe and require some level of education to own a gun (you need to be a member of a club and complete a certain number of hours, IIRC). Other countries require proof of purchase of a safe, or even a home visit. Many countries have waiting periods (Australia - 28 days), which seems perfectly fine for me considering there is really never an "emergent" need for a gun. Some places require mental health surveys (Japan, Brazil, Israel), or references (Canada). Many countries require a much more thorough "background check" by the police, and many require police interviews (Germany, Japan, Britain etc...). Oh and also limits on ammunition would be great (Israel). No one should be reasonably expecting a massive shoot out at their home, so you shouldn't need more than a small number of bullets at a time.

 

Will that stop everyone bad from getting guns? No of course not but in many countries with a lot of these regulations in place, even criminals have far less firearms. Obviously it's not zero but nothing is ever 100% effective and you would never expect it to be. The most important part of all of this is that these laws don't limit responsible gun owners from owning guns. If you are truly a responsible gun owner, you should be able to pass these requirements and therefore you should have nothing to worry about. 

 

People really need to stop the ridiculously silly "Criminals will bypass laws" argument. It is truly pointless. Criminals will bypass any law, so why bother having? Murderers still murder, despite it being illegal. People will still speed, so why bother with speed limits? Just because criminals are going to ignore laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

 

Very interesting timeline. Of course that doesn't necessary show that media attention from one attack leads to more. There could be any number of confounders (many of which we have discussed here) that have increased with time.

 

There is also no statistically evaluation comparing the mass shootings with the suicide data. So while again I like the Austrian study it is a low level of evidence to suggest a similar protocol for mass shootings would make a difference. You have regional differences, and differences in the types of actions (suicides vs. mass shootings) so there are significant concerns regarding applicability still. It's also just one study, as much as I like it.

 

Despite the lack of evidence though I'd gladly stop media reporting on the attacker. We've had enough events to start taking some action in Congress, and yet nothing has happened. More events, more descriptions of the killers, are unlikely to change the minds of the people who make decisions. Unfortunately are discussions here are also going to make little difference.

You didnt ask us to name a specfic kind of country,  you just name s place where guns are hard to get and people make them. I did. You keep moving the goal post when you don't like the answer. 

 

Many parts of the pi are more 1st world than most of the high crime areas in the US 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Sonea said:

The problem is that those statistics likely do not exist to answer those questions. All I have access to is the broad homicide rate which, again not to be callous, is statistically more significant than mass shootings in the US.

You have gone from talking about how we've had a statistically significant increase in mass shootings and suicides, to now saying we have had statistically no change in homicide rate. Both of those things can be true, and I thought this thread was about the former not the latter. 

 

Overall homicide rate may be steady, but my concern is the demographics of people that are getting killed are changing. You've provided evidence of that by talking about the increasing frequency of mass shootings and arguing that is significant. 

[Sonea 138]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Also - honest question here - what happened in the US in 1905? Your numbers only work when you start at 1905. 1900 to 1901 the homicide rate was 1.2-1.3 for several years in a row.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#cite_note-nchs1900-4

 

I'm not saying you are wrong about overall homicide rate, I'm just genuinely curious around 1905.

 

It may sound cruel but my bigger concern/question is about the demographics of the homicide. My immediate concern is whether people in my shoes, or my children are at risk. As you've shown "random" "mass shootings" have increased in frequency over the past few decades. That hasn't happened in other places. While media play a role, the UK still gets media coverage of American attacks (obviously not nearly as much) but they still do. They also had their own mass shooting and there wasn't a subsequent increase in those events there. What protected them?

 

I want it to be safe to send my future children to school in the United States, but given our options (leaving) I have a hard time convincing myself.

Regarding the pre - 1905 numbers, I've read elsewhere that data was collected differently and so in all likelyhood it was being under reported.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

You didnt ask us to name a specfic kind of country,  you just name s place where guns are hard to get and people make them. I did. You keep moving the goal post when you don't like the answer. 

 

Sorry if it seemed I didn't "like" the answer. I'm not looking for information I like, I'm just looking for factual information. I'm sure you are right with your answer, and yes I admit I was thinking something that I didn't clearly ask. 

 

I haven't heard of people frequently making "home made" guns in any country that is frequently compared with the United States, particularly economically or our education system. People were talking about how it is a failure of our education system that we don't teach that....that is just silly. That's not the standard here, nor is it the standard anywhere like us. I'm guessing it's been a very long time since it ever was standard (if ever).

[Sonea 138]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

You have gone from talking about how we've had a statistically significant increase in mass shootings and suicides, to now saying we have had statistically no change in homicide rate. Both of those things can be true, and I thought this thread was about the former not the latter. 

 

Overall homicide rate may be steady, but my concern is the demographics of people that are getting killed are changing. You've provided evidence of that by talking about the increasing frequency of mass shootings and arguing that is significant. 

I'll clarify. Mass shootings are not statistically significant against the overall homicide rate. 

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Sonea said:

I'll clarify. Mass shootings are not statistically significant against the overall homicide rate. 

What do you mean by "against the overall homicide rate". The difference between mass shootings and overall homicide rate is not statistically significant? If the homicide rate has stayed the same, but mass shootings have increased...they most likely ARE statistically significant if you compare the differences between 1900 and 2000.

 

We are talking about two rates. Homicide rate has had no statistically significant difference comparing 1900 to 2000 (I didn't do an actual student's t test but just looking at the numbers it's pretty clear). You've already argued that mass shootings are statistically significantly increased in recent years.

 

Sorry but I think you are using the word "statistically" very loosely, and in this case incorrectly.

 

EDIT: Perhaps showing a bit of your math for your statistics may help clarify what you mean.

Edited May 23, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Sorry if it seemed I didn't "like" the answer. I'm not looking for information I like, I'm just looking for factual information. I'm sure you are right with your answer, and yes I admit I was thinking something that I didn't clearly ask. 

 

I haven't heard of people frequently making "home made" guns in any country that is frequently compared with the United States, particularly economically or our education system. People were talking about how it is a failure of our education system that we don't teach that....that is just silly. That's not the standard here, nor is it the standard anywhere like us. I'm guessing it's been a very long time since it ever was standard (if ever).

I think we can all agree "it's complicated "