Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

I think we can assume that since the total number (noncriminal + criminal) has increased, each category separately has also increased.

Never assume.
Has the total number of people with firearms also increased?
If it has then the total number of non criminal injuries would also rise.

[Jaxi]

Today, let us look at numbers and facts provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

In 2009 —

-An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 22% of all incidents of violent crime.
-Offenders used firearms to commit 8% of violent crime incidents in 2009.
-Robberies (47%) were the most likely crime to involve an armed offender.
-Firearms (28%) were the most common weapons used in robberies.
-Most rapes and assaults did not involve the use of a weapon.

Additionally, from 1993-1997, of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Interpret as you will.

More information: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43

[TZucchini]

Never assume.
Has the total number of people with firearms also increased?
If it has then the total number of non criminal injuries would also rise.

The point is we don't have to assume.

Oh. And studies take population into effect when creating rates. That's sorta 101.

[Kellhound]

The point is we don't have to assume.

Oh. And studies take population into effect when creating rates. That's sorta 101.

Given the study is based on assumptions, yes, we do have to assume things.

[TZucchini]

Given the study is based on assumptions, yes, we do have to assume things.

What assumptions is the study based on?

[Kellhound]

What assumptions is the study based on?

Based on what I read on the CDC website, quite a bit.

[Grizzly Willy]

Based on what I read on the CDC website, quite a bit.

"Quite a bit" is rather vague.

[TZucchini]

Based on what I read on the CDC website, quite a bit.

Give me a specific assumption that the CDC study is based on. Just one.

[Kellhound]

Give me a specific assumption that the CDC study is based on. Just one.

"Each year, approximately 500 nationally representative hospitals provide data on a sample of patient visits to selected outpatient clinics, emergency service areas, and, since 2009, ambulatory surgery locations. Sample data are collected over a 4-week reporting period which varies by facility. These data are weighted to produce national estimates which are widely used by health care researchers, policy analysts, congressional staff, the news media, and many others to improve our knowledge of medical practice patterns."

You are looking at a 4 week period and saying it will represent the entire year, and there is the assumption the weight adjustment is correct. There are tons of variables now that cannot be accounted for, so you have to assume your estimation will hold true.

[TZucchini]

"Each year, approximately 500 nationally representative hospitals provide data on a sample of patient visits to selected outpatient clinics, emergency service areas, and, since 2009, ambulatory surgery locations. Sample data are collected over a 4-week reporting period which varies by facility. These data are weighted to produce national estimates which are widely used by health care researchers, policy analysts, congressional staff, the news media, and many others to improve our knowledge of medical practice patterns."

You are looking at a 4 week period and saying it will represent the entire year, and there is the assumption the weight adjustment is correct. There are tons of variables now that cannot be accounted for, so you have to assume your estimation will hold true.

Great. You figured out the methodology. Where's the assumption?

It's pretty hilarious watching people criticize the methodology of the CDC, and claim it makes assumptions because "there's too many variables!" That doesn't even make sense.

They have the absolute best methodology for determining the estimated number of non-fatal firearm injuries. The only reason you're questioning their conclusion is because you disagree with it.

The NEISS hospitals are a stratified probability sample of all U.S. hospitals (including U.S. territories) that have at least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency services. The NEISS-AIP data are collected at 66 of the 100 NEISS hospitals, which represent the nation's range of hospital settings. NEISS and NEISS-AIP hospitals include very large inner-city hospitals with trauma centers as well as large urban, suburban, rural, and children's hospitals.

[jugzilla]

There are more shootings in the summer, I could really swerve some statistics if I took a Chicago area hospital in July, and balanced it with a Montana hospital in January. But whatever, people trust whatever the government will throw at you when your party is in power i guess.

I know a lot of folks here assume firearm ownership is a disease, but why is the CDC investigating firearm incidents anyway? Heck lets just give this job to the NTSB or the VA.

[obdigore]

There are more shootings in the summer, I could really swerve some statistics if I took a Chicago area hospital in July, and balanced it with a Montana hospital in January. But whatever, people trust whatever the government will throw at you when your party is in power i guess.

I know a lot of folks here assume firearm ownership is a disease, but why is the CDC investigating firearm incidents anyway? Heck lets just give this job to the NTSB or the VA.

The CDC is tasked with investigating causes of deaths in the US and attempting to control them, not just Diseases. It investigates traffic safety and other things as well.

[PhaelixWW]

Again. They are measuring two completely different things.

A crime committed with a firearm vs. non-fatal injury resulting from a firearm discharge.

I see what you're getting at. I disagree with "completely different" though. They're completely overlapping things. One is a vast majority subset of the other.

What would expect the non criminal discharge injuries vs criminal discharge injuries to look like? Percentagewise.

Well, the CDC data puts it at 25%/75%. But I'd guess it's really closer to 10%/90%. After all, the ratio of accidental to intentional firearm homicide is around 7%/93%. I'd guess the non-fatal to be roughly in the same ballpark.

[Kellhound]

Great. You figured out the methodology. Where's the assumption?

It's pretty hilarious watching people criticize the methodology of the CDC, and claim it makes assumptions because "there's too many variables!" That doesn't even make sense.

They have the absolute best methodology for determining the estimated number of non-fatal firearm injuries. The only reason you're questioning their conclusion is because you disagree with it.

Because injury is not constant throughout the year, and it does not (as far as I can see) take into account the marked decrease in ERs over the years.

[Eroginous]

People don't buy "a lot of things" for self defense. They buy a gun because it's the most effective.

People buy a lot of different things for self defense. Pepper spray, tazer, folding baton, knife, martial arts lessons, ect. Some people even keep a baseball bat in their closet. Those people who choose to buy a gun for self defense, are not doing so solely because it's 'most effective.' They are doing so because it fulfills their self defense needs. Some people just don't feel comfortable owning/handling a gun or having a gun in their home.

This idea that guns are only for killing or harming is no more truthful than saying baseball bats are only for hitting baseballs.

[TwoNineMarine]

It's hard to legislate responsibility. But people shouldn't have to die for other people's lack thereof either.

And I would argue that by legislating in laws that disarm or further restrict the people is irresponsible, in that, it would hinder my ability to protect my boys and wife.

[TZucchini]

This idea that guns are only for killing or harming is no more truthful than saying baseball bats are only for hitting baseballs.

Of course guns aren't only for killing. However, what was the intention and purpose of the firearm when it was invented? Killing. Whether animal or human. That's really all that matters. The blatantly obvious historical purpose of the firearm is for killing.

[TwoNineMarine]

Of course guns aren't only for killing. However, what was the intention and purpose of the firearm when it was invented? Killing. Whether animal or human. That's really all that matters. The blatantly obvious historical purpose of the firearm is for killing.

You could certainly argue that.

But is it wrong to kill in defense of your children, or wife, or friends?

I own weapons for three reasons. The main purpose is for self defense. There is nothing I take more seriously then the safety of my family. The second reason is for recreational shooting. And the third is for hunting (when I can find the time lol).

[Mosotti]

Of course guns aren't only for killing. However, what was the intention and purpose of the firearm when it was invented? Killing. Whether animal or human. That's really all that matters. The blatantly obvious historical purpose of the firearm is for killing.

Whatever it was its purpose "in history", you can't deny the FACT that the vast majority of the guns TODAY are not "for killing", but for defense and for intimidation. 300 million guns in US or so, and according to Wikipedia in 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. That's a pretty fucking low percent if you ask me.

Also most of the guns in the world, like those in the armies are not used offensively, they are there JUST IN CASE.

If you throw away your guns, because they are "for killing", then you, my friend, are fucked. Be lucky that you live in a country that allows you to PROTECT YOURSELF. I live in a country where if I get a burglar with a knife I can protect myself with a frying pan.

[TZucchini]

There is nothing I take more seriously then the safety of my family.

That's certainly commendable. I also take the safety of my family very seriously. Do you have carbon monoxide detectors in every single bedroom? A central station burglary and fire alarm? Fire extinguishers on every floor placed no more than 50 ft apart? Are they inspected and certified annually? Have you put child safety locks on cabinets containing poisonous liquids?

These threats are much more likely to occur, and if you say no, to any of those questions, then your just using your families safety as an excuse to justify your firearm ownership.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever it was its purpose "in history", you can't deny the FACT that the vast majority of the guns TODAY are not "for killing", but for defense and for intimidation.

Defense/intimidation go hand in hand with the objects capacity to kill. Otherwise no one would be intimidated.