THE PUZZLE OF MURDER-BY-GUN STATISTICS

[_Robert_Participant]

I see your point unseen. Murder rate is probably dependent on everything from temperature to culture, with gun “access” not “ownership” being just one factor. And a single factor like the drug war in Mexico can have a huge skewing effect.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

I see your point unseen. Murder rate is probably dependent on everything from temperature to culture, with gun “access” not “ownership” being just one factor. And a single factor like the drug war in Mexico can have a huge skewing effect.

Then we have the issue of…The Bahamas???

[Simon MathewsParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

That’s an unusual question related to basically a statement of a bunch of statistics. Do you ask Davis what his agenda is for his posts on Pluto?

I’m just pointing out that when you start to look for correlations between guns per capita and gun murders, you enter a morass that seems to be beyond interpretation. My agenda, if you will, was to point that out.

Fair enough.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by  Simon Mathews.

[FreekParticipant]

The Bahama’s seem to be an outlier due to their relatively small population (murder rate of 20 with only 111 murders) and large tourism – assuming killed tourist are counted amongst the murders.

Additionally, the Caribean and Central America are popular drug routes, boosting the numbers as well

[SteveInCOParticipant]

Fingerprint readers on guns

Very different animal from computers, a gun is a (conceptually simple) mechanical device (no computerization or electronics whatsoever unless you’ve added some sort of fancy sighting system). You’d have to add a bunch of electronics and a solenoid to remove the trigger block. This is more shit that breaks (I have a fingerprint reader on one of my computers, and it broke–but before this it was very finicky, I had to have perfectly clean hands for it to work) or refuses to cooperate when you need the gun badly… and when you need the gun badly, you need the gun really, really, really badly.

The overwhelming majority of gunowners I know would never accept such a device, they’d be afraid of it failing to work, or worse, getting locked out of their gun by a hacker. Would the manufacturer of the lock put a back door in that allows someone else to control the lock remotely?

Nope. Keep ’em simple. There’s enough things that can go wrong was it is.

I won’t argue about our asinine drug and liquor laws. However, I’ll point out that many states have laws against purchasing guns until 21, or (if they have a concealed carry permit system) exclude under 21 from it. The US is a crazy quilt of state and local gun laws.

Speaking of which: Strega, not only can people openly carry in Vermont without a license, none is needed to conceal, either, so it’s quite possible many of your fellow hominids out and about are packing. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. The question to ask yourself is: is there a possible connection here? Is the naive expectation of more guns->more crime actually backwards and it’s more guns->less crime (at least, provided the law abiding have access; more guns in the hands of gangbangers alone, because they won’t pay attention to gun control laws and the law-abiding will, would obviously not work out too well).

As for ownership rates, most people I talk to who I know own guns (because I see them shooting them at a range) say they’d never cop to owning a gun to an anonymous surveyor calling them on the phone. Such data would be unreliable, and is conjectural at best. I’ve seen guesses anywhere from 1/3 to 60 percent thrown around. Unseen is right about multiple ownership; most people who are shooting enthusiasts (as opposed to owning just one for the nightstand) own ten guns or more, all sorts of different types, rifles, shotguns, pistols, all with their own specialized uses and characteristics. It’s a hugely complicated area highlighted by the inside joke, “what do you need another gun for?” asked by someone who doesn’t know how different they are.

As far as the crime rates go, I’m told (but haven’t confirmed for myself) that if inner cities’ gang warfare is dropped from our statistics, we start looking comparable to those western European countries. If so, the problem is not the guns, but the inner cities, and I think it’d be wrong to punish ALL of America for what goes on in the inner cities.

[StregaModerator]

@steveinco. It is eminently possible that since there is a lot of genuine hunting available up here in VT, that guns are thought of as food collecting tools rather than self defense ones. No idea, but that’s a guess. We don’t really have cities in VT that compare to those in other states. Not a lot of us about, basically.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

@strega 90 percent of the time, hunting uses a long gun (a shotgun or a rifle) that would be very difficult to conceal. Handguns can take deer but they’re suboptimal to say the least. Smaller animals can certainly be dispatched readily with the tiniest of handguns shooting a mere .22 LR round–but how many of your neighbors subsist on squirrels and rabbits? And when hunting there’s just no need to conceal it, the animal doesn’t realize what it is. Conclusion: if someone is hunting, 90% of the time you’ll know it instantly.

Concealing is a tactic useful only when dealing with fellow hair-impaired apes. If someone is concealing, he’s either a predator, or interested in self defense (and doesn’t want to alarm the muggles), most likely the latter.

A long time ago, it was considered underhanded to conceal a gun, but honest upright folks carried openly. The constitution here (written in 1876) states that one’s right to bear arms shall not be called into question (a provision Denver violates because they fucking feel like it), BUT it also goes on to say that that statement should not be construed as allowing the carry of concealed guns. In other words, carry whatever you want openly, but we don’t have to allow you to conceal it; that’s a shady thing to do.

Fast forward 140 years and open carry, even though absolutely legal everywhere in Colorado except Denver, is considered edgy by many, so honest people not wanting to scare the muggles conceal it–after getting the license that is required. A pronounced cultural shift.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by  SteveInCO.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

Strega wrote:

@steveinco. It is eminently possible that since there is a lot of genuine hunting available up here in VT, that guns are thought of as food collecting tools rather than self defense ones. No idea, but that’s a guess. We don’t really have cities in VT that compare to those in other states. Not a lot of us about, basically.

…and when I re-read what you wrote, I think that perhaps I missed your point. You might be alluding to a culture where guns are normal and not primarily used for either offense (criminal) or defense (lawful). But in a way, I did hit it, in describing the cultural shift that happened in Colorado (which almost certainly parallels that in other states). Guns were certainly not thought of as anything malignant or shady…so your only motivation for concealing them had to be “up to no good.”

[UnseenParticipant]

SteveInCO wrote:

As far as the crime rates go, I’m told (but haven’t confirmed for myself) that if inner cities’ gang warfare is dropped from our statistics, we start looking comparable to those western European countries. If so, the problem is not the guns, but the inner cities, and I think it’d be wrong to punish ALL of America for what goes on in the inner cities.

And gangsters will be the last ones to comply with any gun control law. This is a major reason why I’m the lonely liberal who opposes gun control. (Actually, I’m a libertarian at the liberal end of the libertarian spectrum.)

[UnseenParticipant]

SteveInCO wrote:

Concealing is a tactic useful only when dealing with fellow hair-impaired apes. If someone is concealing, he’s either a predator, or interested in self defense (and doesn’t want to alarm the muggles), most likely the latter.

I’m more of a knife person: I collect what most people would call pretty scary and dangerous knives. One of the rules of self-defense with a knife is to use it before the other guy knows you have it. I would think a similar rule would apply to self defense with a pistol. Why let the aggressor know your defense, allowing him to adjust his approach in light of it?

Why be fair with someone who could very well end up killing you?

• This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by  Unseen.

[StregaModerator]

When I first came over, I was staying with my fiancée (now wife). She had two teens, now older of course. I wonder if you can imagine how I felt in the morning when half-asleep, I slid my arm up under my pillow, only to find my hand curling around the cold metal of a handgun handle with the thing roughly aimed at my head. I sat up waving it yelling, “what the fcuk!”.

Turns out it was a bright orange BB gun that she had confiscated from the boy and hidden under the pillow my side, and forgotten. I can honestly say I was totally awake at that point, irrespective of the fact that I was pre-coffee. Scared the crap out of me.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

I’m more of a knife person: I collect what most people would call pretty scary and dangerous knives. One of the rules of self-defense with a knife is to use it before the other guy knows you have it. I would think a similar rule would apply to self defense with a pistol. Why let the aggressor know your defense, allowing him to adjust his approach in light of it?

The hope, in carrying openly, is to make the guy “adjust his approach” in the direction of going somewhere else entirely. It’s a deterrent effect. (I am sure it doesn’t work a hundred percent of the time, but it’s also fairly clear based on what I’ve seen and heard (and yes I know the hazards in that) that far more often than not, a bad guy scurries away at the mere sight of a gun, even if he has already begun the attack.) They’d much rather pick a safe (defenseless) target. The best fight is one that’s entirely avoided.

The other advantage is it’s quicker to draw, possibly much quicker if the concealment mode is under a tucked-in shirt. That half second counts tremendously, an attacker can easily cover twenty feet in less than a second, from a standing start.

I’ve taken a small amount of knife training; that’s a huge and complex area as well.

[UnseenParticipant]

SteveInCO wrote:

The hope, in carrying openly, is to make the guy “adjust his approach” in the direction of going somewhere else entirely. It’s a deterrent effect. (I am sure it doesn’t work a hundred percent of the time, but it’s also fairly clear based on what I’ve seen and heard (and yes I know the hazards in that) that far more often than not, a bad guy scurries away at the mere sight of a gun, even if he has already begun the attack.) They’d much rather pick a safe (defenseless) target. The best fight is one that’s entirely avoided.

Recently, I saw an article where an openly carrying guy lost his gun to someone also had a gun but liked the victim’s gun better. LOL

Anyway, I certainly have knives that if I flashed them would make an unarmed aggressor think twice about attacking me, but one never knows what resources the other party has, so surprise becomes my friend. That’s where the “use it before he knows you have it” rule comes in. And, of course, use it decisively with lots of follow up to end the attack and neutralize the aggressor.

SteveInCO wrote:

The other advantage is it’s quicker to draw, possibly much quicker if the concealment mode is under a tucked-in shirt. That half second counts tremendously, an attacker can easily cover twenty feet in less than a second, from a standing start.

It sounds like you’re referring to the so-called 21-foot rule which tells police to keep a 21-foot distance between him and a knife-wielding aggressor. Well, knife wielding is stupid and very “Hollywood.” A serious and smart attacker is going to seem friendly and harmless until the cop reduces the distance to less than 21 feet. Knives are best used when the opponent is within reach, of course. I was talking about weapons with an ex-Navy Seal once and he said, “When you’re nose to nose with a guy, I’ll take a knife over a gun.”

SteveInCO wrote:

I’ve taken a small amount of knife training; that’s a huge and complex area as well.

Getting into a classic knife-vs-knife fight can get you killed, even if you “win” the fight. If you can’t use your knife to good and final effect, run like all fuck. The first rule of knife fighting goes “Don’t get into a knife fight.” The second rule, I’ve already given: “Use it before he knows you have it.” The third rule I’ve obliquely referenced, “Once you use it, be sure to eliminate the threat with finality.”

Now, I’m not a knife fighter. I haven’t studied knife fighting. And I think that for most people who aren’t in the military, it’s a waste of time because real life encounters aren’t like the ones you rehearse in the gym or dojo.

Here are some videos that might interest you featuring Doug Marcaida, a Philippine-born proponent of Filipino martial arts (Kali) who is also a knife defense (and attack) instructor for both military and police organizations. He’s the most intelligent, proficient, and practical trainer I’ve seen and even if you don’t study knife fighting, you’ll find these videos instructive.

[ToniDaTygaParticipant]

I live in Louisville, Kentucky and we are an open carry state. However, if just a thread of clothing goes over the gun, and you don’t have a conceal carry permit, you are breaking the law. So I saved myself the trouble, and got the permit. LEO’s, can be very unfriendly towards citizens that carry guns and in light of all this aggressive police behavior lately, I’ve been leaving my gun home. Now I’m in California temporarily for a job, and I left my gun home in Kentucky. I’ll take my chances with the criminals. Maybe I’ll invest in a stun gun and some training later on.

[ToniDaTygaParticipant]

Those videos are awesome!

[Author]

Posts