Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[arewethereyet]

DUH - why didn't I think of that.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Most gun control studies use the following methodology: look at the homicide rates in some city before some gun control law is passed in that city, and look at the homicide rates after that gun control law is passed, and conclude based on which one is larger whether that gun control law is effective or counter-productive. That methodology is seriously flawed: the vast majority of gun control laws only affect the sales of new guns, so they can affect at most around 1% of the total guns in existence. By comparison, homicide rates change by around 6% from one year to the next. So, the signal-to-noise ratio is at most 1:6. If somebody thinks he has found a statistically significant result of some gun control law, he is almost certainly calculating the p-value incorrectly, or not at all.

And more desperate prattle to defend a terrible study by a hack. 

[FlatAssembler]

IKR, these terrorists keep shooting people up with antique guns.  How could laws that only affect new gun sales have an effect on people who prefer to shoot up malls with their mosin nagant?

The palpable fear of gun control in the terrorist demographic is not based on their belief that such regulations would not work, but very specifically that they would.  Not to reduce mass shootings, mind you, but to reduce their access to weapons central to their identities.  Ironically, taking weapons away from terrorists and preventing them access to more weapons has a pretty clear relationship with their ability to commit terror attacks.  Thankfully, for them, the american public in general...to include lawmakers...are extremely uncomfortable with the sort of targeted regulations that might actually make their fears a reality.  One does have to wonder how many of the half a million armed lunatics gleck observed are in this demo.

Why exactly would you need some high-tech weapon to commit mass shooting? I understand why you would need a high-tech weapon, which can shoot very fast and with high precision, to stop a mass shooting: if the weapon you are trying to stop the shooting (by injuring the shooter) with is not precise, you might harm innocent people while trying to do that.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh my god the stupid of this statement 

[The Grand Nudger]

Should I toss that one back so you can move the words around and make an ounce of sense? I'd love to be able to answer your question I'm just not sure what you're asking. Like..theoretically, do you really need an ar for a mass shooting? OFC not, any number of weapons will do, and ofc in the general there's always bombing - which they also employ? Here in the us, the black rifle is just their thing, the same way an ak has shown up on so many republics flags. To restrict it is to restrict both their most effective tool in direct terrorist action...and a symbol of their counter-cultural identity.

[FlatAssembler]

Most gun control studies use the following methodology: look at the homicide rates in some city before some gun control law is passed in that city, and look at the homicide rates after that gun control law is passed, and conclude based on which one is larger whether that gun control law is effective or counter-productive. That methodology is seriously flawed: the vast majority of gun control laws only affect the sales of new guns, so they can affect at most around 1% of the total guns in existence. By comparison, homicide rates change by around 6% from one year to the next. So, the signal-to-noise ratio is at most 1:6. If somebody thinks he has found a statistically significant result of some gun control law, he is almost certainly calculating the p-value incorrectly, or not at all.

And more desperate prattle to defend a terrible study by a hack. 

Sorry, but we need to work with the data we have. A terrible study is still better than a-priori reasoning, and a-priori reasoning is better than intuition.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sorry, but we need to work with the data we have. A terrible study is still better than a-priori reasoning, and a-priori reasoning is better than intuition.

Sorry but it's a garbage study written by a hack 

[The Grand Nudger]

And more desperate prattle to defend a terrible study by a hack. 

Sorry, but we need to work with the data we have. A terrible study is still better than a-priori reasoning, and a-priori reasoning is better than intuition.

The data that says there are a half a million lunatics accosting people and linguistics is a sham? If that's true, then we need to do something about guns and linguists?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How on Earth can Kleck determine how man people would have died if they hadn’t had a gun?

As being approximately equal to the number of people who have actually seen the attacker and think having a gun saved their life.

Kleck claims to have interviewed 5000 people (and adult males are grossly over-represented). Even allowing for the most generous statistical extrapolation, concluding that there were 300 000 lives saved is a base supposition.

There are - very roughly - 1.2 million violent crimes reported in the US every year. The notion that there are more than twice that many unreported crimes which involve firearms is untenable. You (and Kleck) are describing a dystopian nightmare that would make Mad Max quake in his motorcycle boots.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Should I toss that one back so you can move the words around and make an ounce of sense?  I'd love to be able to answer your question I'm just not sure what you're asking.  Like..theoretically, do you really need an ar for a mass shooting?  OFC not, any number of weapons will do, and ofc in the general there's always bombing - which they also employ?  Here in the us, the black rifle is just their thing, the same way an ak has shown up on so many republics flags.  To restrict it is to restrict both their most effective tool in direct terrorist action...and a symbol of their counter-cultural identity.

My point is that banning high-tech guns (which can shoot with high precision) would disable the people who can potentially stop a mass shooting much more than potential mass shooters. To injure a mass shooter before he kills many people, you need to shoot very quickly and with high precision. That's way easier to do with high-tech guns than with regular guns. And mass shooting can just as easily be done with a regular gun.