Mmmmkay. You have a nice day.

When you're gouging people, you can afford nice things.

That's a consequence of the problem, not the cause.

Or an example of competition in no way benefitting the consumer.

What year was this article from? What location?

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22650920/leaded-gasoline-eradicated-public-health

Their eyes need a certain amount of time to fix on an object while they are moving. That bob is the only means they have to get a fix on something for the 20 milliseconds or so it takes since their eyes don't move like ours do. With the visual information they get by doing this over and over, their brain can put together a view of the world on the ground that is steady and makes sense for them.

Brains, be they pigeon or human, form a visual awareness by selectively picking and choosing from all the information that comes from the eyes and even filling in the gaps with "guesses" and reducing visually confusing things like the effects of eye/head motion. It's not like a monitor hooked up to a raw camera feed that shows everything, including the movement involved when the camera moves around. The birds likely don't "notice" the movement visually too much.

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.

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.

So you're citing something that says simply that from these studies it is difficult to estimate a causal effect of the law to mean that the studies found that it didn't have a causal effect for the very distinct effect (that it fully recognizes) that followed. That's misreading several important aspects of that sentence.

You are most assuredly reading it wrong if you're using the second source I just cited. That's not firearm homicides for one. I specifically chose that source in response to your claim. You made a claim that the effect of other types of homicides increased as a result of the drastic firearm homicide rate decrease. I cited a source that showed whether that's true or not, the overall homicide rate went down, dramatically...so I'm not sure what your point was. I mean your point was clearly to suggest other homicide causes went up as gun causes went down negating the effect. But that's not even remotely the case. Again, you're throwing a bunch of talking points out there that appear to make sense...but they just don't upon inspection. To then baselessly claim I'm the one misusing data is rich.

The overall homicide rate was more or less constant until a few years after 1996. There was no general trend of its decrease as you've claimed. You can claim otherwise, but again, I've just cited a straightforward source showing you're wrong about that. Your own source is consistent with my source on this topic.

Again, there was no real trending down of firearm homicides or homicides (beyond a very slight one four years prior to 1996 if you squint at that logarithmic chart real closely), that's simply not the case, as I've already cited. I ceded that there was a trending down of firearm suicides the predated making firearms 20% less available to Australians. As cited, it went down even more rapidly after that. You tried to lump in homicide deaths trending down to suggest it applied to firearm homicides beforehand...but that's again misuse of information. There was an overall decreased in suicides that started previously, which accounted for pretty much any change in "firearm deaths" prior to 1996.

>The greater declines in nonfirearm homicides led the authors to doubt whether any changes can be attributed to the NFA.

How does it follow that nonfirearm homicides declining as well as firearm homicides declining means that the changes can't be attributed to the NFA? The authors don't explain this hunch at all they simply toss it out there. An unsupported assertion is all that it is, one that doesn't logically follow. Guns are a force multiplier. They make the use of deadly force far easier than other available forms of homicide. This is why they are useful militarily and for self-defense. It would be entirely expected that the overall homicide rate would drop as a result of making firearms less available. These authors, without further comment suggest the opposite. That's horseshit.

>Overall conclusion: Only one study (McPhedran, 2018) provides convincing statistically significant evidence that firearm homicides changed after implementation of the NFA—specifically, that there was an absolute reduction in female firearm homicide victimization.

Notice the loaded language here. Their overall conclusion makes sure to state that the study in question provides CONVINCING STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT FIREARM HOMICIDES CHANGED AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NFA. They simply insert the word "only" to diminish the importance. They found NO statistically significant evidence that firearms homicides did NOT change after implementation of NFA. A study that finds nothing is not the same thing, particularly if the authors aren't claiming it was more rigorous than the study they describe as convincing and statistically significant.

It's ridiculously clear from their own graph that the downward trend they manage to claim for firearm related homicides for a period of like 4 years before 1996 accelerated quickly afterward. They make no claim as to what that trend might be due to nor do they mention it was all of 4 years which hardly makes for much of a substantive trend, or why it should be continuing for decades. The pre-1996 trend on their own graph amounts to a very small dip right before 1996 not some sort of long lasting downward trend and certainly not at the degree the trend continues after 1996.

>Overall conclusion: Suicide rates, and particularly firearm suicide rates, decreased more rapidly after the NFA and the 2003 handgun buyback program compared with before passage of the law. This finding, along with the finding that firearm suicide rates declined more in regions where more guns were turned in, is consistent with the hypothesis that the NFA caused suicide rates to decline. However, these effects took place during a time of generally declining suicide rates in Australia. The fact that the observed reductions in suicide do not appear to be limited to firearm-related suicides raises questions about whether declines in suicides are primarily attributable to the NFA or whether other social forces, such as those contributing to pre-NFA declines, account for these changes.

So again your source states plainly that it's overall conclusion is consistent with the hypothesis that the NFA caused suicide rates to decline.

It then throws mud over that by saying there was already a general decline in suicide rates. What it does NOT say is that is has any evidence to suggest this previous trend is responsible for the decline seen post-NFA. It merely tosses it out there after being straightforward about confirming that it's investigations support the NFA effect on suicides. It just says it "raises questions"...which is not a scientific or objective statement about the data analyzed. You could say just about anything "raises questions". Raising questions is not a significant finding. You can find people raising questions about whether the Earth is round.

This study's greatest contribution comes from this beautiful phrase in its main conclusion:

>Most other studies have examined the NFA in its entirety and have examined changes in the trend of outcomes and whether the NFA caused a change in the trend. From these studies, it is difficult to estimate a causal effect of the law. This is because, from a design perspective, there is no adequate comparison group to serve as a proxy counterfactual; that is, what would have happened had Australia not adopted the NFA?

Wow. Thanks, we can't understand an effect because we can't measure a alternate universe where the NFA didn't happen. That's some ground breaking analysis. It's kind of hard to take this seriously. The authors make no effort to examine any other effects relevant to this issue. They are merely concerned with as they say "raising questions". Which was enough for you to cite it uncritically as something offering evidence that the NFA had no effect....

But it doesn't hold water. Not at all.

The firearm deaths by suicide were trending down before 1996, the firearm homicides were decidedly not.

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi269

It's obvious what the long term impact was.

But I completely believe in people's ability to explain things away to themselves.

The homicide rate has dropped precipitously since the change had time to take effect.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/murder-homicide-rate#:~:text=Australia%20murder%2Fhomicide%20rate%20for,a%209.57%25%20decline%20from%202016.

At a certain point, you have to look the obvious in the face. Thanks for bringing Australia up. It's an excellent example.

Interesting that you didn't continue to discuss Australia, since you brought it up.

Because assuming a 1:1 ratio is conservative next to Australia's experience.

They experienced a 57 percent drop in firearm suicides and a firearm homicide rate drop by about 42 percent.

From reducing access by 20 percent. Similar results would save around 25 thousand lives per year in the US.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/hub/sbnu_logo_minimal/441/touch_icon_iphone_retina_1000_yellow.755.png

The TSA budget is 7.68 billion a year for what amounts to security theatre.

Calling this kind of actual leadership a drop in the bucket is just objectively wrong especially considering what we waste money on.

Gun violence costs the US an estimated 557 billion a year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/gun-violence-costs-the-us-economy-557-billion-a-year-hits-company-revenues

If it achieved what it achieved in Australia it would pay for itself many times over.

It's already a crime to possess a firearm under numerous conditions, so apparently, that's not the case. The rest is arguing details.

Reducing gun deaths by 20 percent is pretty close to ten thousand lives a year. Or roughly 90s level.

Doesn't seem like something best characterized by barely making a dent.

The US spends a lot more on a lot less useful things.