P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Before 1824? Okay. Or are you referring to The Crossbows Act of 1541?
Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
Before 1824? Okay. Or are you referring to The Crossbows Act of 1541?
Trausti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,398
The first significant UK gun law was in 1920.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8224/
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I post a sourced scientific paper from the high-impact peer-reviewed journal Injury Prevention and you respond with an unsourced paper published on (checks) johnrlott.tripod.com.
Yeah, that's how to argue.
You're better than this art. How "not" to argue is to avoid fallacious argument (you, of course, know this). Arguing against the source without checking the actual source could be described as a genetic fallacy. Again, knowing the body of your word, you're probably aware of this fallacy.
The source of the paper referenced by Trausti is the Contemporary Economic Policy journal. Here's a look at how reliable it is and how it matches your requirements.
| Contemporary Economic Policy is a reliable academic journal because it is peer-reviewed and published by Wiley, a reputable publisher. Its reliability is supported by its rigorous standards, which include a peer-review process, author guidelines on ethical standards, and its publication by the Western Economic Association International (WEAI). The journal has also published work from notable economists, including Nobel laureates |
It, the journal, has a scimago h index of 59*. Scimago ratings measure cites, it is influenced by output of course. It has an impact factor of 1.7*. I would consider the paper to be within the discipline of Political Science/Public policy where, although relative, a score of 1.5 -3 is generally good.
The paper was written by Wang-Sheng Lee who is an associate professor at the Centre for Development Economics and Sustainability at Monash University. He has a personal scimago rating of 20 and co-authored by Sandy Suardi who is Professor Faculty of Business and Law, School of Business, Wollongong. He has a personal scimago rating of 23. This shows that their peers aren't ignoring them and their work is considered reliable.
But the big question relating to my answer to your fallacious response is how do the two compare? Here you go.
Yours -
The 2024 Impact Factor for Injury Prevention is 2.0. The 5-year Impact Factor is 3.4. Other metrics include a CiteScore of 5.7 and a Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) of 0.74.
|
Trausti's
The 2024 Impact Factor for Contemporary Economic Policy is 1.868, as calculated by exaly.com. Other sources list a similar 2024 Impact Factor of 1.7, notes a 2025 Impact Score of 1.6, a 2-year Impact Factor of 1.5, a 5-year Impact Factor of 1.4, and a CiteScore of 3.6.
|
I would make the case that journal lags behind your source but can be relied upon.
Now that we've got that out of the way let the general sniping in favour of considering factual data re-commence.
*Research.com - specifically
plague311
Great minds think...
Then why not link to the study, why link to someone's interpretation of it?
I mean, neat catch and all, but...
I don't understand? What study do you want me to link to that hasn't already been posted? The one that art was responding to? Surely not?
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
Despite quoting you, it was more of a general question. The stats you quoted are from a study, right? Right. So if the stats are from that study, why link to "johnrlott.tripod.com"? If I were Arth I wouldn't have clicked on that ◊◊◊◊ either. That's a completely reasonable action to take, especially in today's age. I have no reason to trust that site, and not trusting it isn't an ad hom. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cybersecurity lol.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Please learn how to multiquote.
That's all you've got? I wanted to respond to plauge331's post point by point and the forum software kept breaking responses into those individual "boxes". I'll make deal with you though, I'll try and do better if you follow suit. How does that sound?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. That's what we want it to do. Please let it do it.
All this because I pointed out the flaw in your, "Yeah that's how to argue" jibe. Classic diversionary tactics following #2224.
I'll back out, having said my piece, to prevent further derail.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
To be clear, I wasn't attempting to counter your argument.
If you think I'm trying to rebut your response to me, you are wrong. I accept your analysis. I did not do the research. But, it has to be said, neither did Trausti. If he had posted the link to the original paper, rather than a link to a PDF without a landing page on some dude's blog, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.
Anyway, I lived through 1996 and I saw the response to the Port Arthur massacre unfold on television. I watched as political will rallied around the shock and horror of the atrocity. I saw the anti-gun-control protests, I watched as Tim Fischer argued his case in the rural constituencies and I saw gun owners across the country come around to the necessity of gun control. I have lived through it.
And the fact remains, since we're in the thread specifically about mass shootings, there were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before 1996, and absolutely zero in more than ten years after. Huge drops were recorded in the rates of firearm deaths of all kinds following the reforms. These are statistical facts. Gun control works. Restricting ownership of semiautomatic and pump-action weapons works. Tight regulations around who is allowed to own a firearm and for what purpose works. The only reason the occasional, very rare mass shootings occur in Australia today is that those tight restrictions have over time been eroded, usually by politicians influenced by the American gun lobby.
Also, it has to be said, this one event in Australia triggered a massive push for gun law reform. How many massacres have there been in the US since 1996 and how has the government and the public responded? Thoughts and prayers.
Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.
This
Is how
You do a multiquote
Reply.
If you think I'm trying to rebut your response to me, you are wrong. I accept your analysis. I did not do the research. But, it has to be said, neither did Trausti. If he had posted the link to the original paper, rather than a link to a PDF without a landing page on some dude's blog, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.
Anyway, I lived through 1996 and I saw the response to the Port Arthur massacre unfold on television. I watched as political will rallied around the shock and horror of the atrocity. I saw the anti-gun-control protests, I watched as Tim Fischer argued his case in the rural constituencies and I saw gun owners across the country come around to the necessity of gun control. I have lived through it.
And the fact remains, since we're in the thread specifically about mass shootings, there were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before 1996, and absolutely zero in more than ten years after. Huge drops were recorded in the rates of firearm deaths of all kinds following the reforms. These are statistical facts. Gun control works. Restricting ownership of semiautomatic and pump-action weapons works. Tight regulations around who is allowed to own a firearm and for what purpose works. The only reason the occasional, very rare mass shootings occur in Australia today is that those tight restrictions have over time been eroded, usually by politicians influenced by the American gun lobby.
Also, it has to be said, this one event in Australia triggered a massive push for gun law reform. How many massacres have there been in the US since 1996 and how has the government and the public responded? Thoughts and prayers.
Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.
OK.
I can't understand why I went the route I did? Of course I know how to multi-quote. Thanks for the kick up the arse!
Why thank you.
Fair enough but I feel that a little bit of effort on your part wouldn't have hurt. Did you/will you ever read the paper?
A point not in contention by me.
plague311
Great minds think...
I can't even respond to your post because of how you posted it, but wow did you ever read a lot into it. Holy ◊◊◊◊. First off, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care about the childishness that this thread has become and I don't care at all about whoever it is at tripod.whatever. I'm a network security guy that manages 600 users and not clicking on weird ass links is step 1. That's literally network security 101.
My entire point was that if someone were quoting stats from a study, then just use the study and link to the study. Some random guys blog isn't a reliable source, but I've already invested more in this than I care to.
Grats on learning how to use the software. Have a good one.
My entire point was that if someone were quoting stats from a study, then just use the study and link to the study. Some random guys blog isn't a reliable source, but I've already invested more in this than I care to.
Grats on learning how to use the software. Have a good one.
Trausti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,398
It's your cargo cult thinking that drives us mad.
Last edited:
Trausti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 2,398
Thermal
August Member
Most people can handle their guns responsibly. Then we have a Sandy Hook, and these same responsible people think "hey you know this isn't really working out, what with that one in a million that shoots up a school. I think the socially responsible thing to do is let myself be more heavily regulated as a precaution against those who are not responsible".
I like guns, and that's where I'm at.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
As the great philosopher Jim Jeffries said:
"There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And this is the argument: '◊◊◊◊ off. I like guns.' It's not the best argument, but it's all you've got."
"There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And this is the argument: '◊◊◊◊ off. I like guns.' It's not the best argument, but it's all you've got."
Dabop
Master Poster
The stupid thing is that so many yanks think gun control just means 'they're comin to take mah gunzzzz'- when what it is about is regulation and control....
Ironically when I was still living in NSW, AFTER Port Arthur and the gun buybacks, there were MORE gun owners per capita than most of the US (and still is lol)- what you dont see a lot of is the 'gun fondlers' - you can still get a rifle or shottie (hell its not impossible to get a pistol licence even)
What we DO have however is regulations (that mostly work) that restrict free and easy access at any time to basically anyone... you need to have proper storage and security, pass the backgrounds checks and you can get licenced ...
Ironically its the 'free guns for all' nutters that have caused the most impact on gun ownership in Australia in recent times- those who import illegally and have illegal and unregistered weapons (and have so often been the ones going on shooting rampages in recent times)- which ironically leads to public backlash and pushes BY THE PUBLIC to tighten gun laws further...
Its the 'sovcits' and the like that have been behind most of the recent shootouts with police in the last few years (still countable on a single hand in the last decade mind you lol- FAR less than the US and its 'shootout a day') that have had people agitating for complete bans- good work morons.... (and why they likely weren't allowed to legally own guns in the first place...)
Personally I would be happy for the regs allowing ownership to stay as they are here- but possession of an unregistered/illegal weapon should be bumped up and put in the same category as premeditated murder....
Lock em up and throw away the keys....
Ironically when I was still living in NSW, AFTER Port Arthur and the gun buybacks, there were MORE gun owners per capita than most of the US (and still is lol)- what you dont see a lot of is the 'gun fondlers' - you can still get a rifle or shottie (hell its not impossible to get a pistol licence even)
What we DO have however is regulations (that mostly work) that restrict free and easy access at any time to basically anyone... you need to have proper storage and security, pass the backgrounds checks and you can get licenced ...
Ironically its the 'free guns for all' nutters that have caused the most impact on gun ownership in Australia in recent times- those who import illegally and have illegal and unregistered weapons (and have so often been the ones going on shooting rampages in recent times)- which ironically leads to public backlash and pushes BY THE PUBLIC to tighten gun laws further...
Its the 'sovcits' and the like that have been behind most of the recent shootouts with police in the last few years (still countable on a single hand in the last decade mind you lol- FAR less than the US and its 'shootout a day') that have had people agitating for complete bans- good work morons.... (and why they likely weren't allowed to legally own guns in the first place...)
Personally I would be happy for the regs allowing ownership to stay as they are here- but possession of an unregistered/illegal weapon should be bumped up and put in the same category as premeditated murder....
Lock em up and throw away the keys....