A kid was recently shot and killed by a 'homeowner' in DC.
The rightwing Supreme Court helped do this. The Fed Soc has blood on their hands.
DC tried to ban guns. But the FedSoc judges—Scalia, Roberts, Clarence Thomas—overturned DC's gun ban in Heller v. DC.
FedSoc judges are chosen because they are willing to flood our streets with guns (for votes and to help billionaires.) But here if as alleged, it’s even worse: Scalia and Thomas allowed this killer to have that gun.
🇳🇱
@protecttruth I am no fan of the right in general.. but we already know well from past bans on guns in america that it has had the unfortunate result of increasing homicides.. Not banning guns is the reason more people arent murdered.
Yes there is a problem that needs to be addressed with crime and homicies.. banning guns has never been shown to be the solution however, and only results in more deaths. Lets look for real, science-based solutions.
@freemo No.
Fewer guns means fewer gun homicides.
Here's a paper that shows that. This is science showing fewer guns means fewer homicides and fewer deaths.
Ban handguns and weapons of war. Like Canada does.
https://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/fewer-guns-mean-fewer-gun-homicides
@protecttruth Thats like saying "fewer vaccines means fewer vaccine death", while technically true its also very poor logic. Sadly no, banning guns generally means more homicides overall.
Also who said anything about Canada. Sadly the body of the american data on this clearly disagrees with the assesment.
Here is an image of ther effects of one such gun ban within Jamaica.. sad to say this isnt na isolated pattern. If you really want to get into the nitty gritty I can show a dozen or two similar charts across many countries. The pattern is quite obvious sadly.
@rrb @protecttruth As an expert int he field I'd be happy to pick apart studies and go back and forth if thats what your after? There are quite a few rather fundemental problems with these studies, namely that they arent attempting in any way to show causation, only point out certain correlations. We do causation through the analysis of granger causality as a starting point which we arent seeing here.
For example take a simple study like your first one that seems to claim owning a gun wich *cause* you to be more likely to die in a violent death. Yet it doesnt address quite a few things:
1) it is just as likely people in high risk areas with violence tend to buy guns. Therefore it is not that having tyhe gun puts you at risk but rather being at risk tends to cause you to buy a gun.
2) It doesnt analyze the overall effect on society.. The underlying explanation for why guns reduce overall homicides is because the whole of society benefits, people are more reluctant to engaged in violence, even against unarmed people, when they dont know who or who is not armed in the first place.
3) As I stated no attempt was made to do causality analysis where one can use techniques like granger causality to suggest the cause-effect relationship
@freemo @protecttruth
My other question would be that economists often use "natural experiments" comparing similar states in the USA with different laws and seeing how things evolve.
Do you have data on that? I am curious. I have been following Daniel Webster at Hopkins' work and he seems to draw different conclusions than you.
My understanding, I am not an economist, is that they look for states with similar trends and social make up until the law implementation. Then they see how the trends progress in the two states after the change.
That seems to me to make sense.
As long as they are comparing a state against itself both pre-law change and post, and they do that analysis correctly, then yes that would be fine science.
@rrb
thats just bad science.. To get accurate date you must monitor the same state before and after a law change.. comparing similar states results in us statisticians doing our best to guess at what "similar" even means and even if can define all the datapoints you the states will be far from identical and simply not the way we do this sort of science.. again, the only way you can truly show causation is with stuff like granger causality.
@protecttruth