THE PUZZLE OF MURDER-BY-GUN STATISTICS

Homepage Forums Small Talk THE PUZZLE OF MURDER-BY-GUN STATISTICS

This topic contains 91 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  Rebel 5 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1399

    Unseen
    Participant

    @Gallup’s Mirror

    You’re appealing to authority. I don’t go to doctors for gun statistics. You still haven’t refuted the comparison I made. You might actually address the comparison I was making of gun ownership by country and murder rate by country. I invite you to justify the correlation you think exists. Go ahead. Try.

    #1402

    Strega
    Moderator

    “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.

    I SO did not!!! @unseen

    #1403

    Unseen
    Participant

    I SO did not!!! @unseen

    I misattributed somehow. As moderator, you have my permission to clean things up, if you can.

    #1404

    Unseen
    Participant

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

    Sorry. I’m getting old and am still having trouble parsing the question. LOL

    So, I guess the answer is “I don’t know” for now.

    #1405

    SteveInCO
    Participant

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

    And that is why it refutes Unseen’s claim that there is no “NO RELATION WHATSOEVER between the rate of gun ownership and the murder rate”.

    You’re not suggesting that “firearm related deaths” exclude murder or that such murders are not part of the aggregate murder rate?

    Please.

    I make no such claim. But I also do not assume that the ratio of firearms related deaths and firearms murders is fixed, nor do I assume that the ratio of firearms murders to murders is fixed…an assumption that must be made if you want to claim that an increase in one necessarily means an increase in the other.

    I take that back… I do make the claim that “firearms related deaths” exclude some murders. I also claim that they include a lot of non-murders.

    But you cannot claim that a (hypothetical) doubling of firearms related deaths means a doubling of firearms related murders. It may be that the entire increase is explained by accident, self-defensive shootings, and suicides.

    Likewise, a hypothetical doubling in the number of firearms murders–a number not even given here, so this isn’t even touched on–cannot be taken as implying the murder rate doubled; it could be that it stayed exactly the same but for some reason twice as many people chose to use guns instead of something else.

    the study makes NO CLAIM about firearms ownership rate being related to murder. They very carefully phrase it “firearms related death” with consistency–because the two aren’t the same thing and no linear relationship between them has been established. They seem to realize this even if you are being obtuse about it.

    You saying that they have shown that firearms ownerships rates are correlated with murder rates is the actual lie; you’ve put words in their mouth as they’ve said nothing of the kind.

    #1410

    Strega
    Moderator

    @unseen I see there are stats for gun deaths. Is there a breakdown between intentional (murder) and accidental, like a gun backfiring and killing the shooter, or toddler accidents?

    #1414

    Unseen
    Participant

    @unseen I see there are stats for gun deaths. Is there a breakdown between intentional (murder) and accidental, like a gun backfiring and killing the shooter, or toddler accidents?

    I don’t know. My statistics were about homicides and I suspect didn’t include accidents.

    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  Unseen.
    #1416

    Unseen
    Participant

    @steveinco, police are instructed to keep a 21-foot distance between them and a knife wielding attacker, but that situation may happen from time to time, where they are confronted with someone brandishing a knife. But in the few contacts I’ve had with police they were usually far closer than 21 feet, their weapon was holstered, and they weren’t expecting an attack. In other words, they were 100% vulnerable. A lot of body armor provides limited protection from knife stabs at best, and of course some of the most vulnerable parts of the body aren’t protected by body armor anyway (e.g., face, neck, inner thigh). An officer can’t do much with a belligerent person without getting up close and personal anyway, bringing them into the danger zone.

    The 21-foot rule is virtually useless in the vast majority of risky situations.

    #1422

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    What I was trying to reference when I talked about an attacker coming up behind you is the case where, say, someone comes up behind you while you’re at an ATM; if you have access to a knife it’s a simple matter to stab backwards. He’s making the mistake of assuming you’re defenseless. and, if you had either nothing or a gun in a side holster instead of the knife, he’d be correct. (There is one case, Arizona I think, where someone with a concealed shoulder holster (where the barrel points backwards) was robbed at gunpoint in this way; he “reached for his wallet” and pulled the trigger, one dead bad guy. But it’s the exception that proves the rule.)

    If he comes up to you to backstab you rather than because he wants something he needs you alive for, (for the moment) you’re almost certainly dead meat.

    I don’t disagree about the 21 foot rule. I make the point, myself, to demonstrate to people that they really need to stay alert and have their defensive weapon (whatever it is) readily available, not in a briefcase or buried under a bunch of junk in a backpack or purse.

    There’s a much larger point. It’s a simple fact that the only reason any of us is alive is that no one has wanted to kill us badly enough to target us and plan ahead. It’s impossible to guard against all threats, hell, a rifle capable of accurately hitting a person from 200 yards, or more, away, either center of mass OR in the head is easily obtainable, and not just in the US, and how can you guard against that?

    #1423

    Stutz
    Participant

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

    And that is why it refutes Unseen’s claim that there is no “NO RELATION WHATSOEVER between the rate of gun ownership and the murder rate”.

    You’re not suggesting that “firearm related deaths” exclude murder or that such murders are not part of the aggregate murder rate?

    Please.

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

    I did not claim otherwise.

    Before we start using terms like “liar”, it really seems like there’s a misunderstanding. You seem to be conflating murder in general with murder by a specific method. Removing one method of committing murder does not necessarily prevent those murders, since there are clearly alternative methods. I found the same thing in my brief review of murder in Australia, where the murder rate trend seemed unaffected by gun control.

    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  Stutz.
    #1426

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    I’ve already done it. The correlation is between higher rates of firearm ownership and higher rates of firearm related death.

    Well at least this time you’ve accurately characterized what the study concluded.

    But even if the study is correct (and I’ve no particular reason to believe it isn’t, I’m just covering my bases here), it still doesn’t refute Unseen’s very different statement that gun ownership does not correlate with the (overall) murder rate.

    “Firearms related death” and “murder” are two very different things.

    diagram

    They overlap, of course (note, though, that both sets have elements outside the other set), but such overlap doesn’t allow one to carry a correlation involving one over to claiming a correlation involving the other; there’s nothing showing that the overlapped area correlates, much less anything showing that the other set as a whole correlates. I’d almost be willing to bet that professionals at such things have a name for this fallacy.

    #1427

    Unseen
    Participant

    The correlation is between higher rates of firearm ownership and higher rates of firearm related death. My justification is the scientific research I previously posted based on data from 27 countries.

    chart

    So, this chart showing rate of homicides in various countries should also function as a chart of rate of gun ownership. So, then, Swiss residents will have far fewer guns than residents of the US or Brazil, right?

    Here is a chart that combines gun homicides and gun ownership in the same chart. See any correlations there:

    chart2

    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 5 years ago by  Unseen.
    #1428

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    Before we start using terms like “liar”, it really seems like there’s a misunderstanding. You seem to be conflating murder in general with murder by a specific method. Removing one method of committing murder does not necessarily prevent those murders, since there are clearly alternative methods. I found the same thing in my brief review of murder in Australia, where the murder rate trend seemed unaffected by gun control.

    It’s worse than that, Stutz. He’s conflating murder in general with all deaths (including suicides, defensive shootings, and accidents) using a specific type of device. Actually, he seems to understand the difference but doesn’t see that you can’t carry a correlation from one to the other.

    #1431

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    @unseen

    Even aside from the ownership rates (which can be difficult to pin down, as I mentioned quite some time ago) this chart shows the level of gun restrictions doesn’t have much to do with homicide rates either.

    In Brazil, it’s generally illegal to carry a gun outside the home (if Wikipedia is to be believed)–so if there’s any correlation Brazil should be safe. In the US it’s at least technically legal in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia, though some are far more restrictive than others. (It’s virtually impossible to get a permit in New Jersey. At the other end of the scale, it’s impossible to get one in Vermont too, but none is required, so no such thing ever existed.)

    #1437

    Unseen
    Participant

    Even aside from the ownership rates (which can be difficult to pin down, as I mentioned quite some time ago) this chart shows the level of gun restrictions doesn’t have much to do with homicide rates either.

    In Brazil, it’s generally illegal to carry a gun outside the home (if Wikipedia is to be believed)–so if there’s any correlation Brazil should be safe. In the US it’s at least technically legal in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia, though some are far more restrictive than others. (It’s virtually impossible to get a permit in New Jersey. At the other end of the scale, it’s impossible to get one in Vermont too, but none is required, so no such thing ever existed.)

    I just showed this chart to GM which compares rates of gun ownership with rates of gun homicide. I don’t see any kind of correlation in it.

    chart

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 92 total)

The topic ‘THE PUZZLE OF MURDER-BY-GUN STATISTICS’ is closed to new replies.