fbtcu1998 t1_ir90m9e wrote on October 6, 2022 at 6:09 AM

Reply to comment by MountNevermind in Reported Shooting at University of Arizona by OakTeach

>You are most assuredly reading it wrong if you're using the second source I just cited

I used the first link, it showed specifically firearm homicides/suicides. You claimed firearm homicides were not trending down, but they were until 1996 when they spiked, because of the mass shooting. But I was wrong, that one event didn't inflate the homicides by 10% it was more like 30%.

>The overall homicide rate was more or less constant until a few years after 1996

Fair enough, point conceded. I was going from memory and got it wrong. Might have been thinking of non firearm related suicides, they seemed to go up but either way I was wrong about homicides shifting to other causes. But I was refuting your claim that FIREARM homicides were not declining before 96, more so than trying to support my claim of the shift. the first link you provided shows they were declining prior to 96 (table 2). Keep in mind, you initially said firearm homicide rates, I replied to that.

>They simply insert the word "only" to diminish the importance

So one study says yes, the other studies say 'not sure', but we're supposed to take the one study and ignore the others? Also they didn't use the word to diminish the importance, they used it signify there was only one study that supported the claim of a causal effect, the others did not.

as far as your issues with the conclusions they came up with or their methodology, or language, etc. take it up with them. I'm sure you trust your sources, over me. And I'll take Rand over you. And they say that only ONE study showed a causal link, the others did not. That was the heart of my argument when you said the results were obvious. Yes they saw a decline post 96, but they were already seeing a decline so you can't say the NFA caused the decline.

MountNevermind t1_ir914xd wrote on October 6, 2022 at 6:16 AM

Look. If you are going to mislead like that we are done here. The source in question clearly shows no downward trend in firearm deaths of any real note. The spike has nothing to do with it. Ignore it if you like.

This is getting silly.

fbtcu1998 t1_ir9186z wrote on October 6, 2022 at 6:17 AM

It was your source. Are you saying the numbers are wrong?

MountNevermind t1_ir92186 wrote on October 6, 2022 at 6:28 AM

I'm saying what the source says is plain. What you're doing with the numbers is beneath you and not worth my time to point out.

This isn't in good faith clearly and is a waste of further effort.

EDIT: What you're doing isn't difficult or honest. We're done here.

fbtcu1998 t1_ir92k2s wrote on October 6, 2022 at 6:35 AM

Well, you linked it…it showed firearm homicide rates declining from 91-95, sharp rise in 96, then declining 97-01. Your own link refuted your claim that they were not declining before the NFA. The only reason spiked was an anomaly that vastly drove the number in 96. But sounds like you don’t want to acknowledge it was an anomaly, which I find disingenuous so yeah, guess we’re both done