@kingannoy @freemo @frank87 I think something that isn’t mentioned in this debate is how rare are the scenarios of « someone is trying to destroy my car » versus how often are guns related incident such as school shootings, suicides, gun violences etc.

Like is one broken car (that we could collectively have repaid through government and taxes) worse than hundreds of lives that are lost because of laxist gun control laws. (That cannot be brought back)

@louisrcouture

Guns used for protecting life and property are the overwhelming majority of incidents and school shootings and mass shootings in general are a very small percentage relative to that.

As for suicides, I leave that out. A person has a right in my mind to commit suicide and a person commiting suicide with a gun or anything else is their right to do, so in no way would I ever include that in the figures. In fact I'd go so far to say if someone wants to commit suicide they have a right to do so by whatever means they feel is best for then.

Some numbers:

percentage of times a gun is used as defense vs homicide is a whopping 81%

Percentage of people killed by guns in mass shootings (that is defined as 3 or more people so a very loose definition of mass shooting)... <1%

@kingannoy@octodon.social @frank87

@freemo @louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87 what percentage of these crimes and cases of self-defense wouldn't have guns involved at all if they had become rare, like in the Netherlands?

"If only criminals had guns" it'd be 100% violent crimes. But that doesn't mean it's worse. Because if the total is less than the value 19% here, you'd be better off anyway.. (that's ignoring that the cops may also go into the pie chart)

@jasper

The problem is your assumptiont hat the total amount of crime would go down is wrong. In fact it would go up, by a lot.

@louisrcouture @kingannoy@octodon.social @frank87

@freemo @louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87

ugh finding good plots online fucking sucks.(and then we're not even interpreting what the numbers represent)

Also think it's a bit monomaniacal looking at these particular statistics at countries and when they put in this kind of legislation, while in fact lots of things were happening.

1: that's around the time the troubles in Ireland started. Probably the confiscation relates to that.
2. (ireland again) dunno about Jamaica

(1/2)

@freemo @louisrcouture @kingannoy @frank87
3. Dunno, does the graph show a connection? Also this graph https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020 shows quite a decline after. (though i can't quite match them)
4. This is as-a-fraction of violent crime. Here is one https://illinoisnewsroom.org/by-the-numbers-chicago-murder-count-through-the-years/ ... not a clear change looking at a similar time range, overall. (2/2)

@jasper

The problem with arguing "the legislation was put into place because its when trouble started" is that the point of legilsation is a pivot point. We dont see the trouble rising and then the legislation happens and it continues to rise. In most cases we see it rising slowly or being flat line, legilsation kicks in, and after the grace period (usually a year or two) the rate of violence suddenly and significantly spikes never to return.

As for your other comments, that largely has to do with how statisticians handle granger causality. AS a general rule we care about the immediate years following, usually the grace period + a few years. Once you go too far into the future you are no longer looking at granger causality but rather correlation as other factors begin to become dominant. Even then though if you do you will almost always find the numbers never or rarely falls below pre-law baseline.

@louisrcouture @kingannoy@octodon.social @frank87

@freemo @jasper @louisrcouture @kingannoy The "troubles" is an euphemism for the war in Ulster/Northern Ireland...
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)