THE PUZZLE OF MURDER-BY-GUN STATISTICS

[StutzParticipant]

Usually you have to be 21 for handguns, 18 for long guns.

And re. fingerprint scanners: that would be a nearly impossible sell without a huge leap in technology. The most important and sought-after feature in firearms is reliability. I have to clock in with a fingerprint scanner at work, and it’s absolutely horrible. On a gun it would take up tons of space, add weight, and be a failure-prone battery-dependent component. Unless it worked instantaneously and with 100% reliability, it would be a liability for self-defense.

[ToniDaTygaParticipant]

Stutz wrote:

Usually you have to be 21 for handguns, 18 for long guns.

And re. fingerprint scanners: that would be a nearly impossible sell without a huge leap in technology. The most important and sought-after feature in firearms is reliability. I have to clock in with a fingerprint scanner at work, and it’s absolutely horrible. On a gun it would take up tons of space, add weight, and be a failure-prone battery-dependent component. Unless it worked instantaneously and with 100% reliability, it would be a liability for self-defense.

Yeah I agree. That would take away those precious seconds one has to defend themselves.

[StregaModerator]

@stutz great to see you :).

I had a fingerprint scan on my last laptop, which then meant I totally forgot the administrator password for it, and after a messy session involving a tube of gorilla glue and some recalcitrant dragon statue parts, I discovered it would have been a smart idea to have registered my pinkie finger as a fallback. The glue obliterated my fingertip pattern and it was several hours before I could get into the damn laptop again.

I see your and others point regarding the technology required to scan&shoot in one go. I shal go back to the metaphorical drawing board, and revert if inspired further.

[StutzParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

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.)

We’re pretty similar in this way, Unseen. I wouldn’t oppose some additional gun control measures as long as responsible citizens are still able to own what they wish, though. But I’ve been a gun owner most of my life and have a carry permit.

This is an interesting topic. Just last night I was thinking about the example of Australia, where there haven’t been mass shootings since their gun control overhaul in 1996. But I wondered, how did it actually affect the murder rate? Per some Aus gov’t statistics I hastily looked up, it didn’t seem like it had much effect. The murder and manslaughter rate fluctuates a lot but the trend shows a slow, steady decline from the early 90s through today, with no noticeable difference in slope after 1996.

It seems to me that gun control merely lowers gun deaths. That does NOT necessarily mean that it reduces overall deaths, or lowers the murder or suicide rates.

And there’s the comparison to alcohol and cigarettes that I think about sometimes, as well. Nobody NEEDS alcohol or cigarettes. They exist merely for pleasure. And alcohol- and smoking-related annual deaths far, far outpace gun deaths. I think this is a better comparison than, for example, automobile deaths, because car transportation is fundamental to our economy and our freedom of movement.

[StutzParticipant]

@strega Thanks, good to be here. Been a while and I’m shocked at the redesign. Did everyone have to re-register? Is all the history lost? Seems like there should be a FAQ or notification of some kind.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by  Stutz.
• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by  Stutz.

[StregaModerator]

@stutz, it’s not bad once you get used to it. There’s a Group here called Atheist Zone (same as the site name) where members can and are posting comments and suggestions and complaints, etc.

when @Umar first set up the site, he did it at basic level so that we all could have a say in which plug-ins he looks for and installs and in what order. As a result, AZ is in its early stages, with Umar adding, tweaking and amending as the members come up with ideas.

There are also a few answers there to questions you may well already have, so the Group is a kind of evolving FAQ as members add their posts.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by  Strega.

[UnseenParticipant]

Stutz wrote:

Just last night I was thinking about the example of Australia, where there haven’t been mass shootings since their gun control overhaul in 1996. But I wondered, how did it actually affect the murder rate? Per some Aus gov’t statistics I hastily looked up, it didn’t seem like it had much effect. The murder and manslaughter rate fluctuates a lot but the trend shows a slow, steady decline from the early 90s through today, with no noticeable difference in slope after 1996.

Not familiar with Australia, but perhaps we can learn something from their experience. What appears to have happened is that their gun control had an affect on multiple kills, which are always a small part of the overall statistics. What their experience implies is that, generally speaking, someone overtaken by an impulse to kill will use a fireplace poker if there’s no firearm around.

Ending multiple shooting may have an unexpected unintended negative consequence. At least with mass shootings in the US, they make national news, putting the spotlight on gun deaths. Most days, the workaday gun deaths go almost unnoticed and don’t result in any sort of public outcry. So, eliminating what is a miniscule portion of the overall mayhem may have the unintended effect of lulling the public into acceptance of the vast majority of gun homicide.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by  Unseen.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

@unseen

There’s no denying knives have an important role to play in self defense. (If I hadn’t realized this, I would not have bothered with that class. Unfortunately, they never offered a follow up class for that one. I still want to get that Chris Reeve knife the instructor recommended someday.) However I tend to think at bad-breath distance, the advantage probably depends more on the individual than the nature of the tool. (If, for example, you’re frail, or even just not as buff as the average recently-released prison convict, you’ll probably want a gun even at that distance. (Just precisely what the fvck are we doing providing strength building equipment to incarcerated thugs?))

Now one thing that’s just absolutely stupid is attacking a knife-wielder from behind.

Your cited instance of an open carrier having his gun taken away from him was noted in the gun community. It stood out, because it’s actually a rarity. (By the way there’s a huge argument there over the wisdom of open carry, and the anti crowd is starting to lose ground…I think.) I think the relevant difference that might make a gun different from a knife in regards to the wisdom of open versus concealed carry is, a knife can only be used at close range; if the guy is in range, he’s in range to disable it. A gun can still be used at a range far greater than “grab range.”

[StregaModerator]

@unseen. Are there comparable statistics available for accidental deaths per capita from gun related incidents?

[SteveInCOParticipant]

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:

The conclusion I’ve driving toward is obvious: there is NO RELATION WHATSOEVER between the rate of gun ownership and the murder rate when you look at the big picture.

That is, except for statistics from 27 countries (a rather big picture) which show a relationship between more firearms and more firearm deaths. The clinical research study published in the American Journal of Medicine concluded that more guns strongly and independently predict more gun deaths regardless of the causal relationship. From the study:

CONCLUSION
“The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.”

We’ve had a similar conversation at least once before about the gun lobby’s ‘NO RELATIONSHIP’ disinformation campaign.

Yeah, well Unseen said “murder rate” instead of “firearms deaths” so you haven’t in fact rebutted his point.

I fail to understand why so many people insist on focusing on the firearms death rate rather than the overall murder rate. Are other kinds of death somehow less horrific?

[UnseenParticipant]

Strega wrote:

“The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.”

That conclusion flies in the face of the studies I showed.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

You’re still trying to equate firearms deaths…i.e., any homicide with a firearm, including self defense and suicide as well as murders, with murders committed by any means, firarms, baseball bats, poison, which is what Unseen was talking about. “Murders” vs. “deaths by firearm” are two distinct things, each with elements not in the other set (murders with a baseball bat, and suicides by firearms, would be respective examples), with only some overlap between them (murders by firearm). You can’t compare them.

When Unseen makes the claim that the presence of firearms doesn’t seem to affect the murder (by all methods) rate, pointing to a stat that shows that firearms deaths correlate to the presence of firearms doesn’t rebut his point, because his point is not about firearms deaths, it isn’t even about firearms murders. It’s about murders by all means. Reducing firearms, if he is to be believed, would simply increase the rate of murder by other means.

That conclusion, actually, would be consistent with BOTH of your points.

[UnseenParticipant]

SteveInCO wrote:

There’s no denying knives have an important role to play in self defense. (If I hadn’t realized this, I would not have bothered with that class. Unfortunately, they never offered a follow up class for that one. I still want to get that Chris Reeve knife the instructor recommended someday.) However I tend to think at bad-breath distance, the advantage probably depends more on the individual than the nature of the tool. (If, for example, you’re frail, or even just not as buff as the average recently-released prison convict, you’ll probably want a gun even at that distance. (Just precisely what the fvck are we doing providing strength building equipment to incarcerated thugs?))

I actually disagree. I think there is little point in learning how to defend oneself against a knife attack, unless, like a SEAL Team member, you get to rehearse and rehearse over and over again until the responses are in muscle memory. Also, it’s been pointed out many a time that real life attacks seldom bear much resemblance to the situations rehearsed in a gym or dojo. Go to youtube and search on “truth about knife attacks” and watch some actual knife attacks and compare them with any training you had. They a sudden, unexpected, come out of nowhere, and you’re probably too perforated so many times that you can’t be saved in the ER. Knife attack are very often fatal and if the wounds are numberous, almost impossible to treat effectively, unlike, for example, a single gunshot wound (depending a lot upon where the person has been shot, of course).

SteveInCO wrote:

Now one thing that’s just absolutely stupid is attacking a knife-wielder from behind.

Not entirely sure what you mean by that. Did you mean to say “the front” instead of “behind”?

SteveInCO wrote:

Your cited instance of an open carrier having his gun taken away from him was noted in the gun community. It stood out, because it’s actually a rarity. (By the way there’s a huge argument there over the wisdom of open carry, and the anti crowd is starting to lose ground…I think.) I think the relevant difference that might make a gun different from a knife in regards to the wisdom of open versus concealed carry is, a knife can only be used at close range; if the guy is in range, he’s in range to disable it. A gun can still be used at a range far greater than “grab range.”

Nose to nose, if you have a drop on the guy with the gun, I’m told it’s fairly easy to neutralize the gun hand while inflicting a large number of slashes and stabs. A guy who’s trying to get his gun out may forget to protect his neck. One slash to the side of the neck and the person is out in a matter of a few seconds and dead shortly thereafter.

My “defense” against knife attack is I basically plan on not getting into one of the face off variety. If I have to, I’ll apply the three rules I mentioned.

[SteveInCOParticipant]

Well let’s go back to what you first wrote, where I will add some emphasis:

Gallup’s Mirror wrote:

That is, except for statistics from 27 countries (a rather big picture) which show a relationship between more firearms and more firearm deaths. The clinical research study published in the American Journal of Medicine concluded that more guns strongly and independently predict more gun deaths regardless of the causal relationship. From the study:

And your quote from the study:

CONCLUSION
“The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.”

The study claims to have found a link between firearms ownership rates and “firearm-related death,” not the aggregate murder rate.

Furthermore, that is what you yourself wrote the first time around, but now you are trying to claim otherwise.

[Gallup’s MirrorParticipant]

That conclusion [published in a clinical research study in the American Journal of Medicine] flies in the face of the studies I showed.

You did not produce a study. You referred to data on two Wikipedia pages, one showing homicide rates by country and the other showing gun ownership rates by country. The analysis and explanation of what they mean is your own. That is why your conclusion is wrong.

As I write this I am the only one in this discussion who has produced an actual study published in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Author]

Posts