If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Money spent on gun buybacks has a negligible effect on crime   (usatoday.com) divider line 73
    More: Interesting, street crimes, assault weapons  
•       •       •

4575 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2013 at 8:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 08:28:01 AM
Thieves steal guns to sell legally to the cops.
 
2013-01-14 08:32:33 AM
Posting in a...
 
2013-01-14 08:33:19 AM
The point of gun buybacks tend to fall in with the dangerous materials day my city holds. You can turn in paint, batteries, toxic cleaners, old pharmaseuticals, herbicides, pesticides, etc for no charge and no questions asked. Everything is disposed of properly and people get the crap they don't want out of their house.

Reducing crime (if at all) is a secondary benefit.
 
2013-01-14 08:35:46 AM
FTA: "You're only going to reduce the likelihood of gun crimes if you reduce the number of guns used in crimes."


uh, O.K.
 
2013-01-14 08:36:50 AM
But for P.R., gun buybacks* are wonderful. "We're really doing something! See all of the guns we're getting off of the street? We're posing with evil guns that won't hurt anyone anymore. Well, they weren't before, but now they're not a danger."


*They aren't buying anything back, after all, because the government isn't generally in the business of selling guns to American civilians.
 
2013-01-14 08:39:24 AM

stevarooni: They aren't buying anything back, after all, because the government isn't generally in the business of selling guns to American civilians.


They reserve that for the Mexican cartels.
 
2013-01-14 08:39:57 AM
How come they don't show us the door that was forced open at the Con. school shooting or any video around or in the school?
 
2013-01-14 08:41:08 AM
1. Sell gun to Cops
2. Use money to buy a better gun
3. ???
4. Profit!
 
2013-01-14 08:43:42 AM
I am outraged how dare
 
2013-01-14 08:44:07 AM
FTFA: Dwight Young, the director of BLOC Ministries, said he knows statistics show buybacks don't put a dent in serious street crime. But he said the effort is worthwhile because, even if it doesn't address the big problem, it still might save a few lives.

So...it's ineffectual and costs far more than what it's worth, "but if it saves just one life...." That's ridiculous. Mandatory school gun safety training (not, much as I'd like it, safe operation of guns, but just safety about guns) would save many more lives.
 
2013-01-14 08:50:12 AM
"The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)
 
2013-01-14 08:51:06 AM
Negligible effect on crime, this is true. But if buybacks get guns out of the hands of people that would otherwise not have the wherewithal to store and secure the firearm, and otherwise be the victim of having their weapon stolen, then i'm OK with it.
 
2013-01-14 08:53:34 AM
Good photo-ops have a positive effect on gun crime.
 
2013-01-14 08:54:48 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)


And the problem with those studies is that the researchers doing the studies often rely on biased sources and poorly reported data, thus producing reports which are skewed and don't accurately reflect reality.

Let's say that only HIV infections among gay men were reported with any frequency. A person does a study, and based on this faulty dataset, publishes a report saying that HIV only affects gay men, and is not an issue among straight men/couples/etc. This was the case for a long time.

I'm not saying studies shouldn't be done, but I am saying that often times the research is done in such a way as to support a prior position and is faulty.
 
2013-01-14 08:56:59 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)


Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."
 
2013-01-14 09:29:14 AM
But they make people who are afraid of guns feel so much safer, and really, isn't that all anyone really wants?
 
2013-01-14 09:31:03 AM
Have you ever seen a photo from one of these things? Just a long line of gangbangers and school shooter candidates waiting patiently to turn in their evil, killy AR15 death rays.

Just kidding, it's Grandma turning in Grandpas muzzleloader after he died. That thing was so rusty it could have been used in a mass tetanus-ing.
 
2013-01-14 09:33:15 AM

Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)

Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."


I agree, Vice President Biden needs to focus on his violent mental illness.
 
2013-01-14 09:43:00 AM

Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)

Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."


Well if the research is faulty, let the peer-review process show that it is -- don't stop it from even happening in the first place.

And I completely agree that we have to focus on mental illness and the violence in our culture. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on how to effectively reduce the number of guns out there. The correlation between the number of guns and the incidence of gun violence is too strong for there not to be a relationship. There is some good evidence, that needs to be further validated, that increasing gun ownership makes us less, rather than more, safe -- but unless researchers are allowed to study it, we'll never know -- don't we want to know?
 
2013-01-14 09:44:54 AM
It gets guns off the street...the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

So are they on the streets or in the hands of citizens?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've found the streets to be a very poor place to keep my fire arms. They tend to disappear. Or at least attract a lot of attention. I tried keeping them in my hands, but it started getting really cumbersome when I got up to about 15 guns. Now I just keep them in a gun safe. Much easier on my back that way.
 
2013-01-14 09:51:07 AM
The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens people bring in some old gun that they found in their dead father's attic that is incredibly rare and valuable, and trade it in for a $75 gift card. And instead of reselling the firearm to a collector and raising some money for the department, the gun is destroyed.

I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.
 
2013-01-14 09:52:53 AM

Kit Fister: Negligible effect on crime, this is true. But if buybacks get guns out of the hands of people that would otherwise not have the wherewithal to store and secure the firearm, and otherwise be the victim of having their weapon stolen, then i'm OK with it.


It seems like a "no questions asked" policy for any firearm turned over to police could achieve the same effect without the added expense. I guess if the buyback programs are privately funded, I don't have a problem with them, but if they are publicly funded I think it's a waste of money. I realize that it's not a huge amount, but it's still a waste.
 
2013-01-14 09:54:02 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)

Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."

Well if the research is faulty, let the peer-review process show that it is -- don't stop it from even happening in the first place.

And I completely agree that we have to focus on mental illness and the violence in our culture. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on how to effectively reduce the number of guns out there. The correlation between the number of guns and the incidence of gun violence is too strong for there not to be a relationship. There is some good evidence, that needs to be further validated, that increasing gun ownership makes us less, rather than more, safe -- but unless researchers are allowed to study it, we'll never know -- don't we want to know?


Except if you look at the FBI's data directly, while the number of guns out there has gone up, violent crime has decreased, more than 40% in the past decade. So, if the raw numbers bear that out, how do you believe suddenly that there's a correlation between guns and incidence of gun violence, when it appears, based on raw data, to be an inverse relationship?
 
2013-01-14 09:54:07 AM

MythDragon: The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens people bring in some old gun that they found in their dead father's attic that is incredibly rare and valuable, and trade it in for a $75 gift card. And instead of reselling the firearm to a collector and raising some money for the department, the gun is destroyed.

I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.


Legal issues may be encountered if residents of other states attempt to take advantage of your offer.
 
2013-01-14 09:54:23 AM
I don't think that gun buybacks do a damn thing, except buy guns. I heard a story about this on NPR the other day.....first off, quit buying back old guns that don't work. What the hell is that all about? It's like they're saying, Yeah, we know this doesn't do a thing, just look at this rusted 80-year-old pistol we just paid money for. Point and laugh!

Millennium: But they make people who are afraid of guns feel so much safer, and really, isn't that all anyone really wants?


Did you do a study about that? You know that for a fact? I mean, do you even know anything about people who are "afraid of guns" (I don't anyone who is 'afraid' of guns, so you're pretty special if you know a bunch of these people.) I'd guess not. Just another troll running your mouth. Kind of like all those guys who like to brag about their firearms, like NOT being afraid of a firearm is a special quality that not all of us can master.
 
2013-01-14 09:55:42 AM

mod3072: Kit Fister: Negligible effect on crime, this is true. But if buybacks get guns out of the hands of people that would otherwise not have the wherewithal to store and secure the firearm, and otherwise be the victim of having their weapon stolen, then i'm OK with it.

It seems like a "no questions asked" policy for any firearm turned over to police could achieve the same effect without the added expense. I guess if the buyback programs are privately funded, I don't have a problem with them, but if they are publicly funded I think it's a waste of money. I realize that it's not a huge amount, but it's still a waste.


I agree
 
2013-01-14 09:56:57 AM
I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.

Good luck with that. Enjoy your visit from ATF.
 
2013-01-14 09:59:23 AM

drewogatory: I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.

Good luck with that. Enjoy your visit from ATF.


Why would the ATF do that? Private sale is legal, and if he's not reselling the guns, then he's broken no laws by buying them?
 
2013-01-14 10:02:38 AM

Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)

Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."

Well if the research is faulty, let the peer-review process show that it is -- don't stop it from even happening in the first place.

And I completely agree that we have to focus on mental illness and the violence in our culture. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on how to effectively reduce the number of guns out there. The correlation between the number of guns and the incidence of gun violence is too strong for there not to be a relationship. There is some good evidence, that needs to be further validated, that increasing gun ownership makes us less, rather than more, safe -- but unless researchers are allowed to study it, we'll never know -- don't we want to know?

Except if you look at the FBI's data directly, while the number of guns out there has gone up, violent crime has decreased, more than 40% in the past decade. So, if the raw numbers bear that out, how do you believe suddenly that there's a correlation between guns and incidence of gun violence, when it appears, based on raw data, to be an inverse relationship?


Obviously, the National Rifle Association has pressured the Federal Bureau of Investigations to alter reported crime data.
 
2013-01-14 10:08:00 AM

MythDragon: The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens people bring in some old gun that they found in their dead father's attic that is incredibly rare and valuable, and trade it in for a $75 gift card. And instead of reselling the firearm to a collector and raising some money for the department, the gun is destroyed.

I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.


People stand outside of the buy backs and purchase firearms. Generally that's legal. Check your local laws first. Most who turn in these firearms know little about them and just want to get rid of them. For example, somebody might have an old rifle worth $500. The buy back gives them $100. The private person can look at the firearm and offer them say $200 or $300 or more.
 
2013-01-14 10:09:13 AM

Dimensio: Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)

Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."

Well if the research is faulty, let the peer-review process show that it is -- don't stop it from even happening in the first place.

And I completely agree that we have to focus on mental illness and the violence in our culture. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on how to effectively reduce the number of guns out there. The correlation between the number of guns and the incidence of gun violence is too strong for there not to be a relationship. There is some good evidence, that needs to be further validated, that increasing gun ownership makes us less, rather than more, safe -- but unless researchers are allowed to study it, we'll never know -- don't we want to know?

Except if you look at the FBI's data directly, while the number of guns out there has gone up, violent crime has decreased, more than 40% in the past decade. So, if the raw numbers bear that out, how do you believe suddenly that there's a correlation between guns and incidence of gun violence, when it appears, based on raw data, to be an inverse relationship?

Obviously, the National Rifle Association has pressured the Federal Bureau of Investigations to alter reported crime data.


Most likely since firearm ownership is increasing and firearm murders are decreasing. Or are we suppose to believe that more guns cause more murders?
 
2013-01-14 10:13:54 AM

MythDragon: The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens people bring in some old gun that they found in their dead father's attic that is incredibly rare and valuable, and trade it in for a $75 gift card. And instead of reselling the firearm to a collector and raising some money for the department, the gun is destroyed.

I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.



......THIS...needs to become a thing. Maybe NRA sponsored.
 
2013-01-14 10:15:18 AM

Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: Kit Fister: PlusCestLaMeme: "The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither. ....Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky ..."

Part of the problem it's so tricky is that the gun lobby interferes with any research showing the effectiveness of gun control policies, leaning on universities to stop the research, etc. And prohibiting the NIH and CDC from studying it as a public health issue. (NPR story from this morning)

Also, ftfa:

"We have to get to the cause of it: mental illness, the violence in our culture," he says. "Those are the things that I think Vice President Biden ought to be focusing on."

Well if the research is faulty, let the peer-review process show that it is -- don't stop it from even happening in the first place.

And I completely agree that we have to focus on mental illness and the violence in our culture. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on how to effectively reduce the number of guns out there. The correlation between the number of guns and the incidence of gun violence is too strong for there not to be a relationship. There is some good evidence, that needs to be further validated, that increasing gun ownership makes us less, rather than more, safe -- but unless researchers are allowed to study it, we'll never know -- don't we want to know?

Except if you look at the FBI's data directly, while the number of guns out there has gone up, violent crime has decreased, more than 40% in the past decade. So, if the raw numbers bear that out, how do you believe suddenly that there's a correlation between guns and incidence of gun violence, when it appears, based on raw data, to be an inverse relationship?


Could be all of these statements are true -- they say completely different things. In my first statement I was referring to international comparisons, not comparisons within the US over time. In my second, I was referring to research that suggests that guns in households tend to be used against other members of the household, or in suicides, rather than against armed intruders.

Could be that violent crime IS going down, while gun ownership IS going up, but that the cause of violent crime going down is something completely different, such as environmental lead levels . Are you suggesting that violent crime is going down because criminals are being shot by citizens? How much is that actually happening? Or are you suggesting that criminals are increasingly afraid of being shot by armed citizens and so they are choosing not to commit as many crimes? Do we have any evidence for that?
 
2013-01-14 10:15:38 AM
Look at it this way... There seems to be an aweful lot of weaponry out there that is doing no one any good whatsoever. Most people don't know how to dispose of dangerous toys like those. And in many cases, those guns were found, or inherited, or otherwise obtained, and there may not be a legal way for someone to register and make them legal. So, the buy-back program gives them the opportunity to get rid of them.

It may not do a helluva lot to curtail crime. But it's a good, safe way to get those things taken care of. So, for that, I see it as a benefit.
 
2013-01-14 10:17:00 AM
Buy two irreparable guns from pawn shop for $20 a piece.  Trade in both for $500.  Buy brand new Glock 19 for $500.  Total spend: $20.  Can't wait for one of these to come to my town.
 
2013-01-14 10:19:17 AM
I just realized that in all my years, I have never seen a gun on the street.

Which street are they keeping them off of?
 
2013-01-14 10:19:26 AM

Kit Fister: Except if you look at the FBI's data directly, while the number of guns out there has gone up, violent crime has decreased, more than 40% in the past decade. So, if the raw numbers bear that out, how do you believe suddenly that there's a correlation between guns and incidence of gun violence, when it appears, based on raw data, to be an inverse relationship?


How can you know that the FBI isn't just reporting a subset of crime as gun related? See also:

Kit Fister: And the problem with those studies is that the researchers doing the studies often rely on biased sources and poorly reported data, thus producing reports which are skewed and don't accurately reflect reality.



Fact is the NRA has been cockblocking efforts to study gun related injury and death. Any and all gun-related statistics are therefore suspect by your own argument. You can't dismiss an argument from statistics in one breath and try to use the exact same statistical base in the next if you actually care about being honest.

I'd be especially suspect of any statistics that corroborate the NRA's talking points... because if the actual statistics did that, there would be no need for the NRA to interfere with the research and data collection...
=Smidge=
 
2013-01-14 10:22:08 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The point of gun buybacks tend to fall in with the dangerous materials day my city holds. You can turn in paint, batteries, toxic cleaners, old pharmaseuticals, herbicides, pesticides, etc for no charge and no questions asked. Everything is disposed of properly and people get the crap they don't want out of their house.

Reducing crime (if at all) is a secondary benefit.


Um; 90% of the guns buy backs bring in are non-functioning trash, the rest is comprised of stolen guns, guns used in crimes and priceless pieces of history.

My favorite gun buy back story is some guy collected a bunch of trash, sold it at the gun buy back and with the proceedes, bought single shot, bolt action .22s for a youth camp.
 
2013-01-14 10:28:04 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: Could be all of these statements are true -- they say completely different things. In my first statement I was referring to international comparisons, not comparisons within the US over time. In my second, I was referring to research that suggests that guns in households tend to be used against other members of the household, or in suicides, rather than against armed intruders.


Okay, I'll concede that proximity and access increases the likelihood of use. If I own and have a chainsaw, I'm likely to use it. However, I think including suicide by gun in the statistics is misleading and does nothing but inflate the numbers, since people who are likely to commit suicide, will still commit suicide, even if they don't have a gun handy, the gun just makes them able to do it with a gun. Are we saying that suicide, then, is only bad when it's done with a gun?

Could be that violent crime IS going down, while gun ownership IS going up, but that the cause of violent crime going down is something completely different, such as environmental lead levels . Are you suggesting that violent crime is going down because criminals are being shot by citizens? How much is that actually happening? Or are you suggesting that criminals are increasingly afraid of being shot by armed citizens and so they are choosing not to commit as many crimes? Do we have any evidence for that?

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, nor am I drawing conclusions. I'm pointing out that number of guns have gone up, violent crimes have gone down. Correlation != Causation.
 
2013-01-14 10:28:11 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: In my second, I was referring to research that suggests that guns in households tend to be used against other members of the household, or in suicides, rather than against armed intruders.


I think you're referring to the Kellerman study, which was flawed in a key way: he compared (incidents of firearms-related deaths of a resident due to any cause [including suicide, which you mention]) vs. (incidents of firearms-related death to an intruder, when shot by a resident in self-defense). Attackers are only killed by law-abiding people a few hundred times per year, but guns may be much more frequently used in self-defense to injure or frighten away an attacker.

This page at the Wikipedia sums up the the issue as well as citing several different sources. Evidently defense gun use seems to be under-reported, so estimates range from 55,000 incidents of defensive gun use every year up to around 2.5 million.
 
2013-01-14 10:34:05 AM

Smidge204: Kit Fister: Except if you look at the FBI's data directly, while the number of guns out there has gone up, violent crime has decreased, more than 40% in the past decade. So, if the raw numbers bear that out, how do you believe suddenly that there's a correlation between guns and incidence of gun violence, when it appears, based on raw data, to be an inverse relationship?

How can you know that the FBI isn't just reporting a subset of crime as gun related? See also:


I don't know. However, I know that the FBI's statistical data on violent crime is corroborated by other sources, making their data on violent crime fairly accurate. CDC and NIH both indicate the same stats as the FBI in their reports.

Kit Fister: And the problem with those studies is that the researchers doing the studies often rely on biased sources and poorly reported data, thus producing reports which are skewed and don't accurately reflect reality.


Fact is the NRA has been cockblocking efforts to study gun related injury and death. Any and all gun-related statistics are therefore suspect by your own argument. You can't dismiss an argument from statistics in one breath and try to use the exact same statistical base in the next if you actually care about being honest.

I'd be especially suspect of any statistics that corroborate the NRA's talking points... because if the actual statistics did that, there would be no need for the NRA to interfere with the research and data collection...
=Smidge=


The NRA's so-called "cockblocking" of efforts to study gun related injury and death does not change the reported stats by several sources as raw data. Conclusions based on that raw data are your own. The raw data speaks for itself.

Personally, I think that the raw data showing that 60%-ish of gun-related death in this country is Suicide cases shows that we have a major issue with suicide and mental health treatment. I think that studies aimed at showing that people who own guns might be injured by guns, or who own guns would be subject to other related issues are irrelevant studies that are the height of misleading and should rightly be blocked. Gun owners are more likely to buy ammo and holsters and cases and gun safes and go to target ranges than people without guns. What does that prove? That the introduction of a gun also introduces a chance for said gun to be misused or such?

I'd be willing to bet you that if you studied it, a person who owns a car is statistically more likely to be involved in a car-related accident resulting in injury, and someone who cooks for themselves are statistically more likely to injure themselves with cooking knives or hot food/stoves/pots and pans. Are any of these stats useful to determining something that isn't painfully and blatantly obvious?
 
2013-01-14 10:37:04 AM

heypete: PlusCestLaMeme: In my second, I was referring to research that suggests that guns in households tend to be used against other members of the household, or in suicides, rather than against armed intruders.

I think you're referring to the Kellerman study, which was flawed in a key way: he compared (incidents of firearms-related deaths of a resident due to any cause [including suicide, which you mention]) vs. (incidents of firearms-related death to an intruder, when shot by a resident in self-defense). Attackers are only killed by law-abiding people a few hundred times per year, but guns may be much more frequently used in self-defense to injure or frighten away an attacker.

This page at the Wikipedia sums up the the issue as well as citing several different sources. Evidently defense gun use seems to be under-reported, so estimates range from 55,000 incidents of defensive gun use every year up to around 2.5 million.


QFT
 
2013-01-14 10:37:28 AM

Smidge204: Fact is the NRA has been cockblocking efforts to study gun related injury and death. Any and all gun-related statistics are therefore suspect by your own argument. You can't dismiss an argument from statistics in one breath and try to use the exact same statistical base in the next if you actually care about being honest.


Isn't that what the Kellermann research determined? He basically said that a firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. So he determined that having a firearm in your home made you more likely to be killed. Except that if you use his same statistical means of analysis, that you were 99 times more likely to be killed in your home by something other than a firearm.
 
2013-01-14 10:38:14 AM

MythDragon: I wonder if I could do my own buyback program. I'll put out an advertisement saying I'll take any gun, no questions asked, and offer up some cheap prizes or something. I'm bound to get some worthwhile guns, and the crappy ones I'll just re-sell.


I guy here in Denver did something like that a while back. He went to a buy-back and put up a sign offering 150%* over the cops price. He's got about a dozen pictures of him talking to some very not happy police officers who at the end of the day were mostly unhappy about not finding anything to charge him with, and nothing they could use to send him away.

*I forget what his actual offer was.
 
2013-01-14 10:38:19 AM

Smidge204: How can you know that the FBI isn't just reporting a subset of crime as gun related?


I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You might be interested in this page from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports that breaks down the weapons used in homicides in the US from 2007-2011 (they have data for other years too, that's just the most recent). They've got a ton of really informative information on their site.

To address your other point, as a scientist I agree that more honest studies are needed but there's a lot of interest from both sides of the discussion to publish data that, while true, doesn't really address the issue. For example, there was some research during the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban that claimed that the during the ban the police seized fewer guns that were defined as "assault weapons" by the law than before the ban. I'm not questioning that statement, but it seems somewhat misleading: perhaps the police seized fewer guns of any type during the time period or perhaps criminals weren't really using those types of guns very much anyway. Even with fewer banned guns being seized, was there any effect on crime rates? Sure, it's nice to separate criminals from their guns but if criminals weren't really using the then-banned guns very much in the first place, was there really a point? That wasn't really made clear, yet there were several gun-control groups and politicians that used such studies to promote more restrictions.

I'd like to see better, less-misleading studies...but it's hard to find someone who doesn't have a metaphorical dog in this particular fight.
 
2013-01-14 10:46:09 AM

heypete: PlusCestLaMeme: In my second, I was referring to research that suggests that guns in households tend to be used against other members of the household, or in suicides, rather than against armed intruders.

I think you're referring to the Kellerman study, which was flawed in a key way: he compared (incidents of firearms-related deaths of a resident due to any cause [including suicide, which you mention]) vs. (incidents of firearms-related death to an intruder, when shot by a resident in self-defense). Attackers are only killed by law-abiding people a few hundred times per year, but guns may be much more frequently used in self-defense to injure or frighten away an attacker.

This page at the Wikipedia sums up the the issue as well as citing several different sources. Evidently defense gun use seems to be under-reported, so estimates range from 55,000 incidents of defensive gun use every year up to around 2.5 million.


Thanks, that's very helpful. I am still making up my mind about a lot of this gun control stuff.

Wow, this John Lott guy sounds like pretty much a hired gun for conservative causes, though.
 
2013-01-14 10:50:45 AM

Kit Fister: Correlation != Causation.

Yeah, yeah, except that when there's a strong correlation it behooves us to look into whether there's a theory that will explain the correlation. Just saying they're not equal is the equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and shouting lalala I can't hear you.
 
2013-01-14 10:53:22 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: Kit Fister: Correlation != Causation.
Yeah, yeah, except that when there's a strong correlation it behooves us to look into whether there's a theory that will explain the correlation. Just saying they're not equal is the equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and shouting lalala I can't hear you.


Well, based strictly on the raw data, more firearms == less crime. Why that is? I don't know. Someone should study that. But that's how the data goes.
 
2013-01-14 10:55:26 AM

PlusCestLaMeme: Could be that violent crime IS going down, while gun ownership IS going up, but that the cause of violent crime going down is something completely different, such as environmental lead levels . Are you suggesting that violent crime is going down because criminals are being shot by citizens? How much is that actually happening? Or are you suggesting that criminals are increasingly afraid of being shot by armed citizens and so they are choosing not to commit as many crimes? Do we have any evidence for that?


Controversial evidence.
Most burglaries in the US occur during the daytime rather than at night, as they do in the UK.
Most mass shootings don't happen at the biggest venue, but the ones with gun free zones established.

To me it would suggest the criminal/crazy element is changing their method to deal with the risk of armed citizens.
The guy breaking the law obviously wants to be successful in his law breaking, not end up as a fark headline.

Violent crime is also affected by the drug war (gang warfare, etc...) and the rise of video games (more kids staying home) and cell phones (cops alerted sooner, more evidence gathered).
Its difficult to say how much of an effect the guns are having, but they don't seem to be creating more crime.
That should be an important point when deciding what kinds of law enforcement methods matter most.

/If I was the cops, I'd organize gun buys with the local gun shops.
/Put the tables side by side, have them sort out the trash from the treasure, only spend rewards on leftovers adjusted to the actual value of what's turned in.
/Get more guns for the buck and working guns get resold through FFL anyway.
/Spend that money fighting domestic violence, which is a big source of murders.
 
2013-01-14 11:00:14 AM

way south: PlusCestLaMeme: Could be that violent crime IS going down, while gun ownership IS going up, but that the cause of violent crime going down is something completely different, such as environmental lead levels . Are you suggesting that violent crime is going down because criminals are being shot by citizens? How much is that actually happening? Or are you suggesting that criminals are increasingly afraid of being shot by armed citizens and so they are choosing not to commit as many crimes? Do we have any evidence for that?

Controversial evidence.
Most burglaries in the US occur during the daytime rather than at night, as they do in the UK.
Most mass shootings don't happen at the biggest venue, but the ones with gun free zones established.

To me it would suggest the criminal/crazy element is changing their method to deal with the risk of armed citizens.
The guy breaking the law obviously wants to be successful in his law breaking, not end up as a fark headline.

Violent crime is also affected by the drug war (gang warfare, etc...) and the rise of video games (more kids staying home) and cell phones (cops alerted sooner, more evidence gathered).
Its difficult to say how much of an effect the guns are having, but they don't seem to be creating more crime.
That should be an important point when deciding what kinds of law enforcement methods matter most.

/If I was the cops, I'd organize gun buys with the local gun shops.
/Put the tables side by side, have them sort out the trash from the treasure, only spend rewards on leftovers adjusted to the actual value of what's turned in.
/Get more guns for the buck and working guns get resold through FFL anyway.
/Spend that money fighting domestic violence, which is a big source of murders.


I'm glad you mentioned the drug war. IMO, legalizing marijuana might go a long way toward 1) reducing the motivation for violent crime and 2) reducing the # of hardened criminals our prison system creates.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report