@freemo
I am not against with rights of having guns, but I think the numbers of mass shooting in a year will rise.

@snow Yes, but the number of overall murders and violent crimes will go down. So will be a good thing overall.

Let me try to use an analogy to help you realize why your logic is self-defeating. The following statement is technically true yet misleading for the same reason as your own:

"After people started receiving vaccines the number of vaccine related deaths increased!"

The reason it is deceiving is that despite being true it ignores the fact that it is cherry picked and that the real statistic we care about is overall death and not vaccine related. The number of deaths from vaccines will be far less than the number of people saved by vaccines, much like with guns.

@freemo @snow How are the numbers of overall murders and violent crimes going down when you allow for guns? Would you think that allowing for guns now in Utrecht will lead to murders and violent crimes going down?

Also, a faulty comparison between vaccines and guns, yes statistically vaccine related deaths went up when introduced, but every vaccine preventable death went down and has been going down since. Guns never have a positive impact as they are not designed to do so.

@ff0000

The actual statistics directly contradict your claims and support my own.

The way we data scientists analyze situations like this is very specific. We look at countries where guns are legal and there is a significant legal change banning guns, then we look at the overall homicide rate or violent crime rate and see if it spikes up or down. We do this across many countries and see if there is a trend.

We also do the converse where we look at relaxed restrictions.

The cause-effect here is very strong, we almost always with only a few exceptions see a huge spike in homicide rates and violent crime rates following a gun restriction law. This spike tends to last on average about a decade before falling back down to almost pre-ban levels but usually never fully recovering.

I provide two attached examples as reference, i can provide more from additional countries if youd like.

@snow

@freemo @snow When looking up your data, i get to this quote. (source: crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murd).

So, it seems to me, and correct me if i'm wrong. We are really only talking about countries that allowed for citizens to have firearms and were then at some point banned. This did not result in a lowering of homicides but after a peak it fell down to almost pre-ban levels. This still does not say that a ban doesn't help, it is just that after a ban it is still easy to keep / get a firearm.

@freemo @snow Because how would this compare to a country that 'always' had a firearm ban in place.

nationmaster.com/country-info/

Just comparing the Netherlands to the US seems to me that if firearms never have been a problem, they can't become one. When firearms are a problem, it is very hard to get rid of that problem, even with banning.

Follow

@ff0000

Also comparing absolute crime rate is **not** considered a scientifically valid method of comparison. We would consider that debunked on any sort of data we might analyze. The reason should be obvious, you have no way to isolate the causative factor in such a case. There are **many** reasons that the USA could have a high crime rate none of which have anything to do with guns. Furthermore it doesnt satisfy statistical tests for causation, thus why we dont use that sort of comparison.

All the data I gave you was explicitly chosen because it satisfies causation (the criteria for scientific validity), it is data designed to pass the granger causality test.

@snow

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.

No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful

We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.