All of the studies are about reducing death (some firearm, others general death rates), and I used a simple example for ya. Do you want me to lie and say that only "firearm death" was reduced, or do you want me to be accurate that death was reduced?
A study that claims "reducing X, reduces X-related deaths" is an exercise in tautology. Presenting that study as "reducing X, reduces related deaths" is disingenuous.
Correct. Reducing the number of guns in a community obviously reduces gun-related deaths. That finding doesn't matter much. What does matter is that it also reduces the overall rate of death in that same community (which shows that people don't switch to other weapons to hurt or kill others or themselves).
That's why I'm not saying only "firearm-related deaths," but rather "deaths"
What does matter is that it also reduces the overall rate of death in that same community (which shows that people don't switch to other weapons to hurt or kill others or themselves).
Perhaps you can resolve this claim against the data from Australia. There was a relatively steady decline in Australia's homicide rate in the years leading up to the 1996 Port Arthur shooting. After passing their NFA, that relatively slow decline continued unabated, as if nothing had happened. If there were a cause-effect relationship, as you claim, then we'd expect a sustained discontinuity in the homicide rate.
Stats from the U.K (before and after Dunblane) show the same pattern.
Meanwhile, over the same period of time and without draconian gun-control, the U.S. homicide rate fell faster.
Your first source was superceded by more modern statistical techniques (which I linked before), and the second found that gun control measures have a strong impact in the US (but they were unsure of an impact in AU).
Statistical techniques don't change very rapidly. Statistics have been around a very long time. You can't claim they used more modern statistical methods simply by date they are published.
And yeah, my bad, it was one of 17 links. You know that's an abstract right. Do you have access to the full paper? Have you read the full paper? I'm guessing not. Without doing so, it's impossible to assess the data they used, the techniques they employed, and/or their conclusions.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21
It's interesting that you pick one link out of 16 (way down the list I might add) to use in your defense.