Tautology: a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words; a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
Once again there’s a mass shooting (Orlando) and once again, there are calls for stricter gun control laws or outright bans.
For the inside story on the socio-political implications of what happened—including the irony of one special, tender darling of the left (a Muslim) murdering 52 (at last count) and wounding 50 others of another special, tender darling of the left (gays)—see this by that marvelous faggot himself, Milo Yiannopoulos.
Rather than focus on their little ideo-politico dilemma, I’ll focus instead on what they chose to pass it all off: guns (again).
…Those familiar with the dietary wars will recall that one trick often used is to focus in on a single statistical variable rather than a batch of them, or all of them. For instance, if you wish to demonstrate a benefit to lowering saturated fat or cholesterol in the diet, you find a beneficial association with some bad disease, such as coronary heart disease. So, ‘reducing saturated fat and cholesterol is associated with less risk of death by heart attack.’
But what about just…death? Now, you might have an irrational fear of dying from a heart attack over, say, cancer or dementia—that’s your business—but unless you can demonstrate a benefit in all-cause mortality, you’re just shuffling diseases around and cherry picking the ones where you can make an association in order to grab headlines and a grant, since “further study is [always] required.”
And so it is in the great gun-control debates. But the astute ought to recognize that finding an association between a particular gun-control law or a ban and some reduction in shootings or death by gun is the same thing as we just saw above. Unless you can show a significant reduction in homicide in general, you’ve accomplished nothing. You’re just shuffling various means of homicide around and picking one means that offers some social or political leverage for you.
But there’s a distinction to make. In the former case, such associations don’t always hold true, even in cherry picked diseases. Depending on which group or population you study, you can find either no such association or, even an inverse (falsifying) association. But in the latter case, it stands to logical reason that if you take my guns away, I’m unlikely to kill someone…with a gun.
That’s why it’s tautological, which can be a logical fallacy. Tautologies have their place, however, the classic examples being existence exists and A is A …axiomatic, metaphysical starting points in philosophical inquiry. Not the case, here. It’s just a damn logical fallacy in the service of Leftist narrative expediency.
‘Guns have been banned and physically taken away, and that has been strongly associated with a substantial decrease in homicide by guns.’ Clever, eh?
Let me show you how.
In 1996, both the UK and Australia enacted watershed gun legislation. A ban in the UK, and a hugely costly buy-back in Australia. In the UK, homicides had run 1.1 – 1.3 per 100,000 annually since 1990. After the ban, homicides increased steadily until reaching a peak of 1.8 in 2003. By 2010, the rate had come back to “normal” at 1.1. In Australia, about the same thing.
Here’s a bunch of statistics and analysis, if you wish. The source is biased (who isn’t?), but at least provides sufficient data that alternate avenues of analysis are possible beyond a children’s bedtime story narrative—or that of a hopeless dilettante.
There are other things I could bring up as well, one of the larger issues being that since the gun ban in the UK, home invasion rates there have increased to levels far higher than in the US (disputes over statistics and changes in methods abound). A home invasion is when a predator or burglar breaks into your home, when you’re home. It doesn’t take a logistician to form an Occam’s Razor hypothesis or two as to why this might have come about.
For those who wish to dig deeper into actual data and analysis, here’s John Lott on the Australia gun situation, The Federalist with its leftist-hopes dashing piece, and whoa! an actual formal study, which concludes:
This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the NFA on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects—that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.
Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, two other shooting incidents have attracted much media attention in Australia. An incident on October 21, 2002 at Monash University, in which a gunman killed two people and wounded five, prompted the National Hand- gun Buyback Act of 2003. Under this scheme that ran from July to December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of approximately A$69 million. Another shooting on June 18, 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour, renewed calls for tougher gun controls. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
…They’re saying that not only has all-homicide not been affected, but not even firearm cause in any meaningful way.
I’m not finished.
If the foregoing isn’t enough, then how about a simple analysis of gun-ownership rates against all-homicide rates? After all, I’ve kinda set the premise bar, above, so let’s have no fear and test it using available data. Cool?
The beauty of this sort of analysis is that hands down, US inhabitants have more fucking guns per person than anyone, and by wide margin. It’s more than a 1-1 ratio. Wrap your mind around that. Here’s the top 10.
No denying we’re a bunch of gun-luvin’ mutherfuckers. And I see constantly…fucking CONSTANTLY…how Australia, a country of 23 million, bought 650,000 guns for a half billion A$ and bla bla. Try collecting 300 Million guns, morons (that’s an x461 magnitude problem for the maths challended). Try it. And there isn’t even a proportional argument to make. In australia, 650K guns amongst 23 million people equates to 1/5 of a gun per person, or one of 5 people owned a gun. In the US, either every single person owns 1.3 guns, or a lot of mutherfuckers own a fuck of a lot of guns.
I own three, currently. I had six a year ago but unloaded three of them before going to Mexico. Now I’m back, I’m looking at acquiring two more. Two I own are heirlooms that go in my cremation chamber with me…the Colt .38 snub nose revolver that was on my grandmother’s bedside table growing up, and the Ruger single-action .22 revolver I got to carry on my hip like a cowboy on hunting trips, from when I was 10 (yes, it was loaded and I could shoot shit at will).
The other is a little cheapo .380 semi-auto with a 10-round magazine (with a spare), ideal for concealed carry. In terms of what I acquire next, not being a gun nut by any means, it’s a .45 ACP and a tactical 12-guage shotgun. If I ever take up game hunting again, I’ll add a .243 rifle and scope.
So, keeping your mind in the data after my personal narcicistic diversion, given that America just overwhelms the whole rest of the world in terms of absolute number of guns and guns per capita, what about—not gun murders—all homicide?
There are 218 nations that offer statistics. Those statistics run from zero homicide to 84 per 100,000. Well, the US doesn’t hold that top spot. Honduras does, with its 6.2 guns per 100 people (US with 112 guns per 100). Here’s the top ten.
There must be some mistake, because while #1 Honduras only has 6 guns per 100 homies, and #10 Guatemala has only 13—about 1-in-10 of America’s rate—and since more guns = more homicide, where is America?
I’ll show you.
Yep, we’re 124 out of 218, not even in the top half. And yet, we have way, way more guns than anyone, and almost double the country in 2nd place.
I can show you that, too. America is an enormous, prosperous, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic melting pot of a glorious, wonderful mess—so long as people are free to mess with it all. It turns out, actually, that in the most gun-nut central place—places in Texas, for example…places where they have 5-10 guns per person to make up for the ignorant and afraid leftie urbanites so we can arive at 1.2 guns per every person…there you find the homicide rates the lowest. Plano, TX, for example, has a homicide rate of about 0.4 per 100,000, which if it was a country, would come in #7th lowest, behind Iceland.
Now, compare that to various places in the US that have been under the rule of crook-criminal-Democrats for decades and have the strongest gun control legislation in the country. Here’s how some Democrat, gun-control strongholds rank amongst the top 50 deadliest gun-homicide cities in the world.
I ask again, what gives? If these gun-controlled, Democrat-infested municipalities were countries, they’d rank about 4-7 in the world for most murderous.
There is really only one or more of three logical conclusions. From the left, democrat, gun-control sycodouche, you are dealing with ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty. There is no other alternative, so take the pick of which you’re most comfortable with.
Finally, here’s a video by Bill Whittle from a year or so ago that basically covers this second section of the post in a 6-minute video. Great for sharing, especially for your reading-comprehension challenged democrat acquaintances.
Don’t be stupid out there. Too much of it already.