Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Wells]

http://www.examiner.com/article/poss...-not-more-safe

[Deadvolcanoes]

I find this statistic to be pretty crazy:

Harvard researchers have found that fatality rates for suicide attempts with a gun are over ninety percent while rates for cutting, piercing, and drug overdoses (the other most common methods used to attempt suicide) are under five percent.

I mean it makes sense, but still a scary statistic.

[mrwingtipshoes]

http://www.examiner.com/article/poss...-not-more-safe

A blog site that's known for lack of editing an spotty, at best, sourcing.

[Wells]

A blog site that's known for lack of editing an spotty, at best, sourcing.

Everything is cited. Feel free to spend more than 10 seconds correcting your lack of knowledge.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Everything is cited. Feel free to spend more than 10 seconds correcting your lack of knowledge.

Pretty much, lots of citations to outside sources. It's a far cry better than a lot of the rant blogs that CITE THEMSELVES that have been posted on the other side.

[PhaelixWW]

http://www.examiner.com/article/poss...-not-more-safe

Yeah, a better source is required.

This article contains the statement:

Homes with guns are a dozen times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.The odds are much greater that the gun will be used against you or a loved one than that it will be used against an armed assailant or an intruder.

It links this from another article which simply states:

Homes with guns are 12 times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.

And yet, this article provides absolutely no source for this statistic.

On the contrary, one of the links in this secondary article provides the following statement:

Contrary to the opportunity model, the accessibility of firearms does not produce more homicide or suicide when other known factors are controlled for.

And on top of all of this, the article fails to mention (probably because the data is impossible to verify) how many times a life is saved in a house with a firearm by the presence of said firearm. Even if houses with guns are more likely to have a shooting, it doesn't take into account the fact that people living in an area where home invasions and/or shootings are more likely to occur are similarly more likely to purchase a gun for self-defense.

In other words, the causality may be reversed. Just like you counter arguments about cities/states with stiff gun control laws being more rife with gun crime, the same logic applies here, no?

So, yeah. Sorry, Wells. You're going to have to try better to prove this one. How's that for more than 10 seconds? Care to find another source?

[Wells]

Frankly I've met my burden of proof. If pro gun people are so ignorant of the statistics behind the issue I'm more interested in this game of Age of Empires.

[PhaelixWW]

Frankly I've met my burden of proof. If pro gun people are so ignorant of the statistics behind the issue I'm more interested in this game of Age of Empires.

Frankly, no you haven't. And the fact that you can't provide another source after I've shown that your article doesn't have any way to back up its claim is telling.

But have fun playing your game.

[Grizzly Willy]

Here's one of the studies that was referenced in one of the references on the Examiner article: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...t=john_donohue

Edit: This reference links to a study, but I don't have access to the full PDF: http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/...isk-ambiguity/

[Wells]

Frankly, no you haven't. And the fact that you can't provide another source after I've shown that your article doesn't have any way to back up its claim is telling.

But have fun playing your game.

Its almost like I expect basic knowledge from people who want to engage in a debate.

[Grizzly Willy]

Oh, also this: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_...ession-safety/

Phaelix, did you actually go through the article? It is sourced. Why didn't you find any of this?

[PhaelixWW]

And these studies continue to fail at recognizing key aspects of the issue.

For example, from the UPenn study:

The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

This study only counts instances in which a shooting actually occurred, which neatly ignores the multitude of instances where the presence of a gun deters the crime without ever needing to be fired. I mean, if a criminal is faced with a gun and still attempts to continue with the crime, then probably either the criminal is similarly or more heavily armed, or the defender holding the gun demonstrates a lack of capability with said gun. Regardless, it also once again ignores the idea that people who own guns may do so because they are already at heightened risk of home invasion due to other circumstances.


The work of the Donahue essay, (which itself is merely a response piece to another study), talks specifically about states' CCW permit laws and the corresponding robbery rates around the timeframe of the shall-issue law's commencement. First of all, a CCW isn't necessary for home defense, so this study is sort of on a different tangent already. Second, the main claim of the study is that states without a shall-issue law experienced a larger drop in robbery related crime rates post-1992, even though they acknowledge that the crime rates in those states were exorbitantly higher than the shall-issue states. It also fails to acknowledge that prior to the decline post-1992, the robbery crime rate in those states jumped up about 25% between 1987 and 1992, whereas states with long-established shall-issue laws, for example, rose only 10% during the same time period.

Basically, this study doesn't show anything other than a nice across-the-board decline in crime after 1992, which we already knew.


And finally, the ArsTechnica piece. This article states:

Nevertheless, these figures contain many instances of guns being used outside the home, or a gun that was brought to the incident by a third party. While most suicides with firearms do take place at home, most homicides do not, and generally the victim is not shot with their own gun. Thus, "the results have limited relevance concerning whether a gun in your own home increases or reduces your own risk of homicide," the review notes."

It goes on to say that:

Still, in cases where a homicide occurs in a home, the presence of a gun there is correlated with increased risk, even after controlling for things like drug use and previous arrests.

While controlling for drug use and previous arrests is laudable, it also goes even farther than the UPenn piece and only counts instances of homicide, not even just shootings. Once again, that ignores a whole class of successful home defense situations where the presence of a gun deters the crime completely.


I mean, seriously, if we want to have a more objective view of this, why aren't we seeing studies comparing successful home defense situations with a gun present and successful home defense situations without a gun? I mean, that still wouldn't be proof, since it's impossible to determine whether, without said firearm, the defender might have ended up dead, but it would certainly seem to be scientifically more complete in addition to the multitude of studies about failed home defense situations.

[belfpala]

The presence of a person deters the crime completely in most cases (not counting the breaking and entering part).

[Kalas]

I'm curious; do people really believe that banning specific types of weapons will have any impact on the overall amount of violence committed in the country?
And if that is tried and doesn't work out, what next? At what point do you stop banning weapons or potential weapons for a stronger illusion of security? (Never mind that almost anything can be a weapon if the need exists.)
I'm genuinely trying to understand the mindset of people that believe this so that I can better argue my own opinion.

[Deleted]

I'm curious; do people really believe that banning specific types of weapons will have any impact on the overall amount of violence committed in the country?
And if that is tried and doesn't work out, what next? At what point do you stop banning weapons or potential weapons for a stronger illusion of security? (Never mind that almost anything can be a weapon if the need exists.)
I'm genuinely trying to understand the mindset of people that believe this so that I can better argue my own opinion.

More laws = less guns. Even if the black market sales increase it won't fill up the void completely. And by more laws I mean efficient federal laws, not the regional inefficient laws ala "Chicago gun ban laws" where you can drive down the block and bypass the law.

I don't see how it couldn't work out, logic says that if you reduce amount of guns you will reduce amount of murders/killings. As for other weapons we'll take that discussion when you get rid of the most dangerous one first.

[Atrea]

I do acknowledge that fact that I have the slim possibility that someone not attempting to cause me harm may be harmed when I draw my weapon. However, I am a responsibly armed individual; it kind of comes with the job. I know my own personal limitations, I know my weapons limitations, and I know at what point I feel the need to draw my weapon.

Beyond that one of the basic tenants of responsible fire arm use is to know your target and know what's beyond your target. Hence the reason I keep a small LED flashlight in the same drawer safe as my 9mm and why I am required to carry one when on the job, be it on my gun belt (if uniformed) or just in a pocket (if plainclothes.)

That's the problem. You aren't the one who should be assuming risk on behalf of others.
If your behaviour is a risk to yourself, that's one thing - but when your ownership of a gun comes with the risk that your cheese may slide off your cracker one day, and you go on a killing spree that kills me or one of my loved ones - that's when your 'right' needs to be revoked.

[Dillon]

That's the problem. You aren't the one who should be assuming risk on behalf of others.
If your behaviour is a risk to yourself, that's one thing - but when your ownership of a gun comes with the risk that your cheese may slide off your cracker one day, and you go on a killing spree that kills me or one of my loved ones - that's when your 'right' needs to be revoked.

When you come forward asking me to give up my right, you will need to come up with something more substantial than half-baked hysteria.

That he might "one day" lose his marbles isn't sufficient, for any standard, anywhere, anytime.

As far as statistics saying that I'm more likely to be injured by my own gun than if it didn't exist, I would assume so, because if it didn't exist there would be no probability in the first place. An educated, responsible gun owner isn't going to have these problems.

[Deleted]

An educated, responsible gun owner isn't going to have these problems.

To bad american gun laws allow uneducated, irresponsible people to get a gun then...

[Nadiru]

That's the problem. You aren't the one who should be assuming risk on behalf of others.
If your behaviour is a risk to yourself, that's one thing - but when your ownership of a gun comes with the risk that your cheese may slide off your cracker one day, and you go on a killing spree that kills me or one of my loved ones - that's when your 'right' needs to be revoked.

I can already do that, though. No human being requires a gun to harm another human being, and murder is already illegal. Americans don't have a right to violence, but they do have a right to defense. If your argument is that people no longer have a right to defend themselves, you simply advocate for a world where people who ignore those laws can do whatever the hell they want. So we have to figure out what "violence" is aside from "defense." Where the line is drawn between these two is point of contention that rages on today. If you have an answer to it, feel free to step up to the podium.

[Kalas]

I don't see how it couldn't work out, logic says that if you reduce amount of guns you will reduce amount of murders/killings.

I agree with you that automatic firearms are pretty high up on the most deadly list but there's a breakdown in your logic right here.
Why do you assume that, by making a specific type of weapon harder to obtain, people who would kill would suddenly lose motivation to kill rather than simply use another type of weapon? It is illogical to assume that such a law would make people decide not to commit/continue committing violent crime.
And another note of the same issue: what of all the automatic weapons that are already in the hands of citizens, law-abiding or otherwise? Maybe some upstanding citizens will freely hand over their expensive rifles if possession is outlawed, but I doubt most will and I KNOW not all will.
You say such a law would mean less guns (of a certain type) in the country but simply outlawing their sale does little to address the ones already obtained, legally or otherwise, and making their possession illegal is hardly enforceable on a national scale outside of voluntary events where citizens can turn in now-illegal weapons.