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.

(The Raw Story)   In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   (rawstory.com) divider line 214
    More: Obvious, Missouri, handguns, murders, licensing laws  
•       •       •

4592 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-17 11:08:37 AM  
Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?
 
2014-02-17 11:18:34 AM  
I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."
 
2014-02-17 11:18:47 AM  
Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.
 
2014-02-17 11:21:17 AM  

dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?



Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?
 
2014-02-17 11:27:18 AM  

Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.


Blues_X: dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?


Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?


I thought the law Obama proposed would extent these regs to unlicensed sellers as well, no? That would imply there are no current fed laws on this.
 
2014-02-17 11:40:14 AM  
private sales in most states do not require background checks...
 
2014-02-17 12:26:12 PM  

Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.


I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48


Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near the average, and it only took me a few minutes to figure out with publicly available data that there is something funny going on statistically.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-02-17 12:26:31 PM  
Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.  A couple are just batshiat crazy and think everyone should have a gun and just shoot anyone who commits a crime.
 
2014-02-17 12:29:37 PM  

NFA: Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.


I'm not in favor of universal background checks, and while opinions may vary somewhat, I am reasonably sure that I'm not batshiat crazy.
 
2014-02-17 12:30:50 PM  

Blues_X: dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?


Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?


You mean "private individuals"?
 
2014-02-17 12:37:00 PM  
I would be in favor of background checks if they actually kept criminals from getting guns...they of course don't...
 
2014-02-17 12:42:58 PM  

dittybopper: Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):


Seems pretty open and shut.
 
2014-02-17 12:59:48 PM  

DamnYankees: dittybopper: Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Seems pretty open and shut.


In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49   
       ----------  -----
       23,268,357 1,552    6.67 <------ 4 year prior average rate

2008    5,923,916    474    8.00  <-- First year bump.

2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48
       ----------  -----
       23,988,152  1,612    6.72 <------ 4 year post average rate.


That's an increase of 6.72-6.67 = 0.05 per 100,000 a year, so an extra 3 people per year at the 2012 population level.  Maybe.  That number is so small, I doubt it is statistically significant and it would be swallowed up by the normal "noise".
 
2014-02-17 01:05:19 PM  

dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?


Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.
 
2014-02-17 01:10:51 PM  

DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.


OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.
 
2014-02-17 01:13:41 PM  

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.


No.
 
2014-02-17 01:14:46 PM  

DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.


Yes.
 
2014-02-17 01:15:03 PM  

dittybopper: That's an increase of 6.72-6.67 = 0.05 per 100,000 a year, so an extra 3 people per year at the 2012 population level. Maybe. That number is so small, I doubt it is statistically significant and it would be swallowed up by the normal "noise".


That crazy devil... always hiding in the details.
 
2014-02-17 01:29:17 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near t ...


There's something going on, and without any more information it's probably best to assume it's fishy, but a view of the study might prove it's on the up and up.
The researchers have probably modeled the rate of homicides assuming the law was not passed, and concluded it would have been about 50 or 60 lower a year. That's not necessarily a bad way to do things, it's the same thing you do to show something like a Cox 2 inhibitor is bad for your heart, for example. The same sort of technique- you don't do that with raw rates. So it can be convincing if it's done right, but it's always a safe bet that sociologists farked up the math.
 
2014-02-17 01:35:21 PM  
I wonder how the jumps in 2005 and 2008 correlate with any pseudoephedrine control laws.

But anyway, the numbers don't even tell us that a gun was used in the murders.
 
2014-02-17 01:40:56 PM  

violentsalvation: I wonder how the jumps in 2005 and 2008 correlate with any pseudoephedrine control laws.

But anyway, the numbers don't even tell us that a gun was used in the murders.


I *COULD* do that, if the CDC would get off their collective asses and update the WISQARS site so that individual states are covered for post 2007 data.   Currently, they only go up to 2010, and the data is either national, or by region (ie., southeast, northwest, etc.).

Data from 2007 and before can be done at the state level.
 
2014-02-17 01:48:05 PM  

dittybopper: I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):


It's hard to say exactly what the authors of the study are claiming, because as far as I can tell the study is not yet published anywhere (and the author mentioned in TFA has nothing on his website).

I did go and find some "Crime In Missouri" reports after digging around the links you provided, which provides a better breakdown of types of offenses and the weapons used. I could only find reports going up to 2011, the data below is aggregated from Table 4.1.7 in each report.

Firearms used by murder offenders in Missouri, 2005-2011

Year    # Firearms    % Of Total Weapons

2005   307                 69.0
2006   260                 70.8
2007   259                 67.4
2008   345                 72.3
2009   287                 69.0
2010   321                 74.3
2011   325                 75.8

The average for the 2005-2007 span is 275.3, the average for 2009-2011 is 311, which corresponds to a 13 percent increase in the number of firearms used in offenses. It does appear that firearms are being used more frequently in murders, however as you pointed out, the number of total homicides does not appear to be that much different.

Sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2011CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2010CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2009CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2008CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2007CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2006CrimeInMO.pdf
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/pdf/2005CrimeInMO.pdf
 
2014-02-17 01:51:20 PM  
Good. Conservatives should suffer the consequences of their idiotic policies.
 
2014-02-17 01:51:41 PM  
That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.
 
2014-02-17 01:52:23 PM  
LOL
 
2014-02-17 01:52:35 PM  
I thought East St. Louis was in Illinois?
 
2014-02-17 01:53:18 PM  
It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.
 
2014-02-17 01:53:31 PM  
I should also point out that the data from the links above reveal that throwing someone out a window was used as a murder weapon four times between 2005 and 2011.
 
2014-02-17 01:55:14 PM  

Rapmaster2000: That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.


Right.  Get government out of the way of business.  The market will regulate itself.  Guns that shoot children and relatives or discharge accidentally into your groin will be a thing of the past once technology catches up to the demand.

How can we NOT support this??
 
2014-02-17 01:55:31 PM  

plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."


I'm guessing it's in equal proportion to the number of people that have met my ex.
 
2014-02-17 01:55:51 PM  
Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time
 
2014-02-17 01:57:06 PM  
I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.
 
2014-02-17 01:57:33 PM  

plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."


Since many shootings are crimes of passion, the thought process seems more likely to be, "Hey, I have a gun.  I could totally kill that guy."
 
2014-02-17 01:57:55 PM  

Fubini: I should also point out that the data from the links above reveal that throwing someone out a window was used as a murder weapon four times between 2005 and 2011.


We need Defenestration Regulation!
 
2014-02-17 01:58:26 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near t ...


Could be that the researchers neglected the lessons of Anscombe's quartet.
 
2014-02-17 01:59:32 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: There's something going on, and without any more information it's probably best to assume it's fishy, but a view of the study might prove it's on the up and up.
The researchers have probably modeled the rate of homicides assuming the law was not passed, and concluded it would have been about 50 or 60 lower a year. That's not necessarily a bad way to do things, it's the same thing you do to show something like a Cox 2 inhibitor is bad for your heart, for example. The same sort of technique- you don't do that with raw rates. So it can be convincing if it's done right, but it's always a safe bet that sociologists farked up the math.


Well, see, here is another warning sign from the article:

In the study which will be published in an issue of the Journal of Urban Health, a team of researchers led by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research Director Daniel Webster found that between 55 to 63 more people were murdered each year after Missouri repealed its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law in 2007.

They aren't talking about rates, they are talking about numbers.

Also, I think I see what they did.

If you take the 3 years after repeal (2008, 2009, 2010) you get a rate of 7.33 per 100,000.  The 5 years prior to repeal (2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002) you get an overall rate of 6.38 per 100,000.

That's a difference of nearly 1 per 100,000, and in a population of 6 million, that would equate to roughly 60 people.

That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.
 
2014-02-17 02:00:43 PM  
This study includes all murders. For the study to be accurate we need to see the percentage of murders, by handguns bought after the law changed. If one  bought a handgun in 2005 and one did not kill anyone until 2012, one just skewed the numbers
 
2014-02-17 02:02:32 PM  

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Potato
 
2014-02-17 02:02:48 PM  

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Only on Tuesdays.
 
2014-02-17 02:03:27 PM  
images2.dailykos.com

/obligatory
 
2014-02-17 02:04:00 PM  

Fast Moon: plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."

Since many shootings are crimes of passion, the thought process seems more likely to be, "Hey, I have a gun.  I could totally kill that guy."


Actually, relatively few shootings are "crimes of passion".  Most are because of criminal activity (drug trade, gang membership, etc.).
 
2014-02-17 02:04:36 PM  
They repealed the requirements to get a background check done by your county of residence... which was the exact same background check that you would get from the Feds. You still have to get your federal background check.
 
2014-02-17 02:04:43 PM  

mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time


I think you might have a point.

 I was just wondering what might've happened in 2008 that caused the jump, since it wasn't repeated in later years (where the law was presumably still repealed).
 
2014-02-17 02:04:57 PM  
So I guess not only outlaws have guns.
 
2014-02-17 02:05:17 PM  
Hey now! Correlation does not imply causation!

Yes, I know, there is most likely a causal link; but, we'd also have to eliminate other factors. What else happened in 2008 that may have caused a rise in violent crime? Could it be a bunch of people losing their jobs had some effect?
 
2014-02-17 02:05:38 PM  
Just the kind of bald faced BS we've come to expect from the good folks at RAWSTORY!
 
2014-02-17 02:05:59 PM  

Rapmaster2000: That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.


Wait for the 3D printer revolution.

Sure, there'll be laws, but if the guy who walks out and murders a guy doesn't give a shiat about gun laws now, wait until he can grab any gun he likes in whatever state of mind he's in.

And then at that point the whole "By the way, you have between 50 and 90 million gun owners who aren't evil.  Stupid and occasionally drunk, yes, evil no.  And many of them are quite willing and happy to shoot back when that pissed off guy with the gun shows up (for better or for worse).  And they'll save an average of 11 lives in the process." idea starts making way more sense.
 
2014-02-17 02:06:47 PM  

Chummer45: I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.


I concur; I, too, am amused by the "kneejerk" response of actually researching the relevant statistics and pointing out the demonstrable fact that the increased rate of homicides in 2008 was an outlier not observed in any subsequent year, as though an actual analysis of data is somehow more valid than a cherry-picking of a single result in deriving meaningful conclusions.
 
2014-02-17 02:08:04 PM  

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Look, this isn't an argument!
 
2014-02-17 02:08:17 PM  

dittybopper: That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.


Bloomberg has given Johns Hopkins over $1 billion dollars over the years, so you do have to consider the source.  Not calling JHU a mouthpiece for MAIG, but $1,000,000,000 is a lot of dosh.
 
2014-02-17 02:08:24 PM  
NFA: nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks

Well, in cases of selling to strangers it might be nice to get a thumbs up from some background check. You assume the average person is average, but the psychopath with a plan to buy up some guns and go on a spree looks perfectly normal until he doesn't. Oh wait, that background check only tells you if the person has a record. The psychopath is only in front of you right now because he knows he's succeeded in not making a record so far.
 
2014-02-17 02:08:30 PM  

mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time


Distinctly probable.
 
2014-02-17 02:08:34 PM  
dnrtfa...

So based on the headline this blows the assumption Chicago uses that all the guns are coming from neighboring states?
 
2014-02-17 02:09:43 PM  

ciberido: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.

Look, this isn't an argument!


I told you once.
 
2014-02-17 02:11:53 PM  

flak attack: mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time

Distinctly probable.


I thought about that, but there is a problem:  The economy was still in the tank in 2009, but the homicide rate dropped back down to normal-ish levels.
 
2014-02-17 02:12:25 PM  

mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time


They compared the data to neighboring states. I would strongly suspect an economic influence on crime, but in this case other states nearby did not show an increase in gun murders.

And yes, the study looked at murders committed with firearms:
"That upward trajectory did not happen with homicides that did not involve guns; it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite - it was trending downward; and it was not specific to one or two localities - it was, for the most part, state-wide," he told BBC News.

The linked BBC article has a little more information.
 
2014-02-17 02:12:27 PM  
If we just shoot everyone who gathers and reports gun violence statistics, the published rate of gun violence will be zero!!
 
2014-02-17 02:13:19 PM  

iheartscotch: Hey now! Correlation does not imply causation!

Yes, I know, there is most likely a causal link; but, we'd also have to eliminate other factors. What else happened in 2008 that may have caused a rise in violent crime? Could it be a bunch of people losing their jobs had some effect?


Maybe it has something to do with the President turning black.
 
2014-02-17 02:14:35 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near t ...


The population of Missouri keeps going up so it can't be that big a problem...
 
2014-02-17 02:17:12 PM  
Popcorn, get your popcorn here!!

25 cents a bag!

Popcorn!!
 
2014-02-17 02:18:10 PM  

NFA: Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.  A couple are just batshiat crazy and think everyone should have a gun and just shoot anyone who commits a crime.


I'm also a gun owner, and have no problems with UBC's either. The issue that I do have is the Dr/patient confidentiality that may be breached by the Government to "save the children". There has NEVER been compromise given regarding firearms from the left, it has always been a "well, we just won't take as much from you, if....".  I can very easily see people being denied their 2A rights simply because they had a DWI 5 years ago and had to do a month of booze counseling, or was in Detox for a weekend. This would be very bad (unless you lean hard left).

That being said, when I sell a gun, I make sure I get a Bill of Sale where I copy down the purchasers' Permit to Purchase (or Carry) ID and DL info. If this info doesn't match, and the person, no sale. Also, the BoS has a paragraph where the purchaser signs attesting that he/she is eligible to purchase a gun. A very big CYA thing to have, and I would expect any law abiding gun owner/seller to do the same. I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I did what I could to prevent an issue.

Also, you'd think that it being 2000+14, that the Federal Government would have something similar to a NICS website where general people could verify Purchase/Carry permits, but that'd be another issue itself.
 
2014-02-17 02:18:25 PM  

Dimensio: Chummer45: I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.

I concur; I, too, am amused by the "kneejerk" response of actually researching the relevant statistics and pointing out the demonstrable fact that the increased rate of homicides in 2008 was an outlier not observed in any subsequent year, as though an actual analysis of data is somehow more valid than a cherry-picking of a single result in deriving meaningful conclusions.


This.

Although it would be interesting to see what the actual study says and not just a RawStory summary that may or may not be anywhere close to correct.

/Has anyone notices how reasonable and rational this thread has been so far
//Especially for a topic that requires lots of popcorn
 
2014-02-17 02:19:32 PM  
Doesn't say who's getting shot but sounds like more gangbangers getting hit.
 
2014-02-17 02:19:43 PM  

Resident Muslim: Popcorn, get your popcorn here!!

25 cents a bag!

Popcorn!!


Butt-scratcher?
 
2014-02-17 02:19:49 PM  

Highly suspect data.


That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.


Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.


Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated

 
2014-02-17 02:20:04 PM  
So, now that we've confirmed that the study and its results appear legitimate, at least according to the linked BBC article, what's the next step? Do we
a) Acknowledge that, perhaps, the gain in freedom isn't worth the statistical increase in murders and reverse the ill-implemented law;
b) Acknowledge that, perhaps, the gain in freedom is worth the statistical increase in murders and leave the law intact; or
c) Quibble over the statistical increase in murders, call each other names, and not actually acknowledge the issue itself?
 
2014-02-17 02:20:11 PM  

Gaddiel: Dimensio: Chummer45: I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.

I concur; I, too, am amused by the "kneejerk" response of actually researching the relevant statistics and pointing out the demonstrable fact that the increased rate of homicides in 2008 was an outlier not observed in any subsequent year, as though an actual analysis of data is somehow more valid than a cherry-picking of a single result in deriving meaningful conclusions.

This.

Although it would be interesting to see what the actual study says and not just a RawStory summary that may or may not be anywhere close to correct.

/Has anyone notices how reasonable and rational this thread has been so far
//Especially for a topic that requires lots of popcorn


I did notice that, actually. I came expecting to already see total degeneration, but nooooooooooo
 
2014-02-17 02:20:21 PM  

dittybopper: Fast Moon: plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."

Since many shootings are crimes of passion, the thought process seems more likely to be, "Hey, I have a gun.  I could totally kill that guy."

Actually, relatively few shootings are "crimes of passion".  Most are because of criminal activity (drug trade, gang membership, etc.).


Still, I'm curious to see if there are any statistics for how many criminals commit gun crimes with a gun they specifically obtained to commit that crime, vs. gun crimes committed by someone using a gun they already had.
 
2014-02-17 02:21:40 PM  
ic.pics.livejournal.com

'Bout sums it up, I think
 
2014-02-17 02:23:25 PM  

patrick767: mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time

They compared the data to neighboring states. I would strongly suspect an economic influence on crime, but in this case other states nearby did not show an increase in gun murders.

And yes, the study looked at murders committed with firearms:
"That upward trajectory did not happen with homicides that did not involve guns; it did not occur to any neighbouring state; the national trend was doing the opposite - it was trending downward; and it was not specific to one or two localities - it was, for the most part, state-wide," he told BBC News.

The linked BBC article has a little more information.


Thanks to you and others replying The obvious bit about surrounding states was a gaping hole in my "idea". May have been a factor, but certainly not the main reason. I will look in here again later.
 
2014-02-17 02:23:39 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: There's something going on, and without any more information it's probably best to assume it's fishy, but a view of the study might prove it's on the up and up.
The researchers have probably modeled the rate of homicides assuming the law was not passed, and concluded it would have been about 50 or 60 lower a year. That's not necessarily a bad way to do things, it's the same thing you do to show something like a Cox 2 inhibitor is bad for your heart, for example. The same sort of technique- you don't do that with raw rates. So it can be convincing if it's done right, but it's always a safe bet that sociologists farked up the math.


I don't think it's so much farking up the math but that most sociological "research" is more about "proving" the researcher's bias.

mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.


This is far more likely the answer than anything to do with gun regs.  We saw a one year jump and then pretty much the status quo.

dittybopper: Actually, relatively few shootings are "crimes of passion".  Most are because of criminal activity (drug trade, gang membership, etc.).


And note the misleading "acquaintance" numbers in the murder stats.  You can be acquainted with fellow criminals.
 
2014-02-17 02:29:22 PM  

justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated



Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

i2.cdn.turner.com

TMYK
 
2014-02-17 02:31:58 PM  

dittybopper: Fast Moon: plmyfngr: I often wonder how many people sit around and think "I'd really like to kill that guy...if only I could legally get a handgun..."

Since many shootings are crimes of passion, the thought process seems more likely to be, "Hey, I have a gun.  I could totally kill that guy."

Actually, relatively few shootings are "crimes of passion".  Most are because of criminal activity (drug trade, gang membership, etc.).


aren't a little over half of all 'gun deaths' suicide?  I seem to recall looking that up before and being surprised by that...  something like 32,000 gun deaths in the US per year and almost 18,000 of those being self-inflicted suicide.   most of the rest are gang/drug/crime related...
 
2014-02-17 02:32:03 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners people who will admit they own guns over the phone

 
2014-02-17 02:32:07 PM  

ciberido: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.

Look, this isn't an argument!


Yes, it is.
 
2014-02-17 02:35:29 PM  

The Muthaship: Fubini: I should also point out that the data from the links above reveal that throwing someone out a window was used as a murder weapon four times between 2005 and 2011.

We need Defenestration Regulation!


When windows are outlawed, only outlaws will have windows.
 
2014-02-17 02:36:42 PM  

Fast Moon: Still, I'm curious to see if there are any statistics for how many criminals commit gun crimes with a gun they specifically obtained to commit that crime, vs. gun crimes committed by someone using a gun they already had.


The short answer is that most crime guns are specifically bought for that purpose through straw purchasing or illegal arms trade.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
 
2014-02-17 02:38:17 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

TMYK


Check out that source:  Violence Policy Center.  They are anti-individual gun ownership, period.  You don't get a more biased source than them.

The actual number according to a comparatively non-biased source is about the same as it's been for the last 20+ years, but with a recent uptick:

content.gallup.com

I'd still take it with a grain of salt, though, and assume it's higher.  See that big drop between 1994 and 1996?  If that was *TRUE*, that's tens of millions of people getting rid of their guns in just over 2 years.  But there was something else going on at the time:  The Brady Law, and the original Assault Weapons Ban.  Gun owners started getting wary about telling strangers they owned guns, because it looked like the government might  be coming to take them away soon.  I'm not saying that's necessarily rational, but it likely explains a large part of that 14 percentage point drop in 2 years.
 
2014-02-17 02:38:48 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

TMYK


That's an interesting facet of the conversation.

With that firmly in mind, I suspect they may award guns the right to vote in the near future.
 
2014-02-17 02:39:10 PM  

Fark It: dittybopper: That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.

Bloomberg has given Johns Hopkins over $1 billion dollars over the years, so you do have to consider the source.  Not calling JHU a mouthpiece for MAIG, but $1,000,000,000 is a lot of dosh.


www.jhsph.edu
Edited by the author of this "study", foreword by guess who.
 
2014-02-17 02:40:36 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

TMYK


Yeah i realized i should have phrased that correctly right after i posted it. I was giving more credence to an invalid argument than i should have
 
2014-02-17 02:43:29 PM  

Infernalist: That's an interesting facet of the conversation.


It's from the same people who want to ban common bolt-action hunting and target rifles as "sniper rifles".

Don't believe me?

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf

Given the virtual identity of the core systems, the outright equivalence
accorded the sniper and varmint model by the experts, and Remington's own
emphasis on the inclusion of military and police technology in its advertising, we
include the Remington Model 700 Varmint Special on this list of civilian sniper rifles.


The "core system" is the Remington Model 700 bolt action, sold for 50+ years as a target and hunting rifle, and the military adopted the Model 700 because of its inherent accuracy, not the other-way 'round.
 
2014-02-17 02:45:34 PM  

violentsalvation: Fark It: dittybopper: That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.

Bloomberg has given Johns Hopkins over $1 billion dollars over the years, so you do have to consider the source.  Not calling JHU a mouthpiece for MAIG, but $1,000,000,000 is a lot of dosh.

[www.jhsph.edu image 650x373]
Edited by the author of this "study", foreword by guess who.


ddoublep.files.wordpress.com

I am shocked.
 
2014-02-17 02:46:47 PM  
It is unfortunate that we don't have better data about these issues.
That's because in 1996 the NRA successfully shut down Federal level research about gun violence.

The good news is that 1n 2013, the CDC could resume research on gun violence and the causes of said violence.
Maybe in a couple years of sifting through the incomplete data sets, that nobody since 1996 was required by any agency to file or report on, some semblance of what has been happening with guns and gun violence in these past 18 years.

Hopefully the statistical signifigance of nearly 5,700,000 people who have been killed for whatever reason/motive/situation by guns in this country over the past 18 years, will give us some insight into ways to correct, decrease and diminish the annual slaughter that is part of the current American cultural landscape.

Of course they have to interview the king of misinformation from the anti-gun lobby - Kellermann. However, his statements don't detract about the news that it has been 17 years since federal level research about the issue has been actively funded and pursued in any truly intellectual way.

It would be nice to see that year 1 after the reinstatement of federal funding will produce some meaningful insight that can lead to informed legislation about how to proceed to protect rights while also reducing deaths by firearms. However, given the horrible data sets they have access to, it would probably take several more years of real complete data sets to even establish trends that would be meaningful in most areas of the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-scientists-can-again-r e search-gun-violence/2013/01/17/19d959fc-60e5-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_st ory.html
 
2014-02-17 02:47:47 PM  

dittybopper: Infernalist: That's an interesting facet of the conversation.

It's from the same people who want to ban common bolt-action hunting and target rifles as "sniper rifles".

Don't believe me?

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/snipcov2.pdf

Given the virtual identity of the core systems, the outright equivalence
accorded the sniper and varmint model by the experts, and Remington's own
emphasis on the inclusion of military and police technology in its advertising, we
include the Remington Model 700 Varmint Special on this list of civilian sniper rifles.

The "core system" is the Remington Model 700 bolt action, sold for 50+ years as a target and hunting rifle, and the military adopted the Model 700 because of its inherent accuracy, not the other-way 'round.


I'm sorry, I seem to have given the impression that I'm involved in the conversation.  I've already made up my mind and moved into 'snarky comment' territory.

Sorry for the mis-communication.
 
2014-02-17 02:50:03 PM  

mutterfark: Hopefully not wading into a popcorn filled thread, but does anyone think that there may have been and economic factor in the 2008 jump? That was the year that the recession really started to hurt, and I seem to remember a study with a more significant correlation to the economy and crime than many other factors.

/ no need to respond if no one thinks the idea worth the time


Listen here buddy, you take your logic and shove it up your arse. There is some serious hand wringing to be had here.
 
2014-02-17 02:51:11 PM  
I agree that these statistics seem suspect. Statistics can be used honestly.... but, they can also be used dishonestly to prove a point.

But, because this thread might be more fun if it degenerates....... I think I'll try to sidetrack it :)

I wanted to point out how cheap and easy guns are to get on the black market. I was raised in a trailer park and surrounded by felons and drug dealers as a kid. I've seen working handguns traded away in lieu of payment on $20 worth of pot. Criminals have so many guns because guns are so common here.

If we didn't have 300 million guns in our country, then guns would be rare and expensive for criminals to get. Criminals would rarely have guns.

Wouldn't that be a good thing?
 
2014-02-17 02:51:18 PM  

Acravius: Hopefully the statistical signifigance of nearly 5,700,000 people who have been killed for whatever reason/motive/situation by guns in this country over the past 18 years,


wut
 
2014-02-17 02:52:55 PM  
In 1921 Missouri passed a law requiring handgun purchasers to get a "Permit To Purchase" from their local sheriff.   I'm not going to say the justification for the law was racist, but yeah, it was racist.


This permit requirement applied to all sales, private or through a dealer, and definitely reduced handgun sales due to the complexity and cost of getting the permit (same effect as suggested happens with Voter-ID, make it difficult to exercise a right and many people will just give up trying).  In the years leading up the repeal of the permit law, it was often abused.  A few Missouri Sheriffs (e.g. Sheriff Glen Hendrix) would not issue the permit to purchase at all, other sheriffs went out of their way to make the process inordinately difficult, for everybody or just for people with the wrong ethnic background.

It would be interesting to see more statistics for Missouri handgun sales before and after 2007.   Specifically, buyer demographics would be interesting, but lead to politically incorrect conclusions.
 
2014-02-17 02:58:27 PM  
My error, the 5,700,000 number should have also included injured/shot the actual death toll is around 570,000 over the past 18 years.
 
2014-02-17 02:59:49 PM  

Acravius: It is unfortunate that we don't have better data about these issues.
That's because in 1996 the NRA successfully shut down Federal level research about gun violence.


Actually, they shut down any research by the CDC into gun violence. The Department of Justice, ATF, FBI, and other agencies were not barred from doing research. Why?

In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice. While that funding was later reinstated, it was re-designated for medical research on traumatic brain injuries.

There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control.  This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC's parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been "...to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership", starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century."

Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: "This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America...Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense."


TL:DR
 Many Federal agencies have been conducting research and gathering data on violent crime, including those committed with guns - just not the CDC.
 
2014-02-17 03:01:09 PM  

cuzsis: I was just wondering what might've happened in 2008 that caused the jump, since it wasn't repeated in later years (where the law was presumably still repealed).


Maybe someone didn't like the election results
 
2014-02-17 03:01:34 PM  

Sniffers Row: NFA: Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.  A couple are just batshiat crazy and think everyone should have a gun and just shoot anyone who commits a crime.

I'm also a gun owner, and have no problems with UBC's either. The issue that I do have is the Dr/patient confidentiality that may be breached by the Government to "save the children". There has NEVER been compromise given regarding firearms from the left, it has always been a "well, we just won't take as much from you, if....".  I can very easily see people being denied their 2A rights simply because they had a DWI 5 years ago and had to do a month of booze counseling, or was in Detox for a weekend. This would be very bad (unless you lean hard left).

That being said, when I sell a gun, I make sure I get a Bill of Sale where I copy down the purchasers' Permit to Purchase (or Carry) ID and DL info. If this info doesn't match, and the person, no sale. Also, the BoS has a paragraph where the purchaser signs attesting that he/she is eligible to purchase a gun. A very big CYA thing to have, and I would expect any law abiding gun owner/seller to do the same. I want to be able to sleep at night knowing that I did what I could to prevent an issue.

Also, you'd think that it being 2000+14, that the Federal Government would have something similar to a NICS website where general people could verify Purchase/Carry permits, but that'd be another issue itself.


Illinois managed to implement it. Can't imagine that it would be much more difficult for the ATF.
 
2014-02-17 03:02:01 PM  

Sofa King Smart: aren't a little over half of all 'gun deaths' suicide?  I seem to recall looking that up before and being surprised by that...  something like 32,000 gun deaths in the US per year and almost 18,000 of those being self-inflicted suicide.   most of the rest are gang/drug/crime related...


IIRC (and uh, rounding errors will abound),

It's 28K deaths, at which it's roughly 11K homicides and 17K suicides.

At that point, about half of your 11K is gang-related.  So it's 6K normal homicides, and 5K "This would happen everyday" homicides. Oh, and some of those 6K would happen anyways, just not with guns (Let's pull a number out of our ass and say half).   As far as the suicides are concerned, I *think* that there's a somewhat elastic number (IE: If you take away their guns, most, but not all of them will try some other way and some of those will succeed).  So I think it was 3-5K fewer suicides last time I did the math.

So taking away the guns, you get 3K fewer murders and 5K fewer successful suicides.


Now on the other side of the coin is defensive gun uses.  Statistics on this are hard to find (mostly because everyone's definition of *defensive gun use* is different), but even the Brady Group is willing to cop out to 80-100K (and that's using a study that both does NOT ask "Did you use your gun in self-defense?" but then also required participants to identify themselves to a member of the government before asking about any violent crime they had been involved in.).  So figure adding an order of magnitude which just coincidentally ends up putting you in the bottom range of the actual studies.  So call it 800K defensive gun uses.

To further call that out, keep in mind that defensive gun use is VERY situational. IE: Crazy homeless guy heads in my general direction, point out that I have gun, crazy homeless guy goes off to be crazy homeless somewhere else, but crazy homeless guy was never a threat, he just looked like one.  Or "Roommate's ex-boyfriend is a psycho, she hears noises outside her window at 2AM, and asks me to go outside and check it out (and I really wish that I had a gun.   Serious utter psycho)".  No threat, nothing happened, but hey, we're all happy that we had a gun.  So cut that number in half and call it 400K violent crimes prevented.  And then there is a small, but there correlation between "everyone has a gun" and "I'm not going to invade a house tonight because I might get shot." that I'm completely ignoring.

So the price that you pay for 8K deaths (or even 21K if you take the whole suicide + non-gang murder group) is 400K prevented violent crimes.  Whether accepting the deaths of a small town is worth preventing the murder, mugging, and rape of a mid-sized city is up to you.

/Note, I'd also love to see someone fisk this post by replacing my pulled-from-ass numbers with actual numbersand cites.
 
2014-02-17 03:03:08 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

TMYK


You know, that's always the one stat that makes me laugh every single time.

That statistic is solely from telephone and in-person polling. Do you REALLY think, as concerned about registration and confiscation as most gun owners are in this nation, that they're going to answer truthfully? The number of households with firearms is much higher than that graph.

dittybopperdoes a fantastic job of pointing this out in his post from a much less biased source than yours. Add in again, that this is a voluntary poll and the numbers are actually going to be much, much, much higher. I was called recently for a poll about firearms ownership. Know what I answered? "Nope, not a single gun in this house." Meanwhile there's a 14 rifle safe in the basement plus a pistol safe and shotgun safe in the master bedroom. I also have my 03FFL, so yeah, I'm pretty sure that if I answered that way, plenty of others did too.
 
2014-02-17 03:03:27 PM  

Fark It: Acravius: Hopefully the statistical signifigance of nearly 5,700,000 people who have been killed for whatever reason/motive/situation by guns in this country over the past 18 years,

wut


LOL.  By that standard MO must be doing something right with a gun homicide rate 15 times less than the national average. WUT indeed.
 
2014-02-17 03:03:27 PM  
The only true thing I get out of this is that if you ever want a cheap green light, mention guns and/or NRA. Throw in Zimmerman and/or Florida and you will be fast-tracked.
 
2014-02-17 03:03:31 PM  
Sounds like Missourah made a real Winters Boner!
 
2014-02-17 03:03:59 PM  

Acravius: My error, the 5,700,000 number should have also included injured/shot the actual death toll is around 570,000 over the past 18 years.


Still sounds like a gross, Brady Campaign-fueled exaggeration, that would mean there are over 300,000 gunshot victims every year.
 
2014-02-17 03:09:01 PM  

Fark It: Acravius: My error, the 5,700,000 number should have also included injured/shot the actual death toll is around 570,000 over the past 18 years.

Still sounds like a gross, Brady Campaign-fueled exaggeration, that would mean there are over 300,000 gunshot victims every year.


Nah, that sounds about right.  Maybe a factor of 2.

Modern medicine is REALLY GOOD.  For every dead person, there's about 5 or 6 injured people.  http://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_afghanxdeadxwound.htm   And that's in combat where they have artilery and IED's and something better than .22's*, and continuous running gunfights.

Gang fights in the hood?  Yeah, 10 to 1 sounds about right.

*Though from everything I've heard about 5.56, it's not that much better.
 
2014-02-17 03:09:36 PM  

tallen702: Born_Again_Bavarian: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

TMYK

You know, that's always the one stat that makes me laugh every single time.

That statistic is solely from telephone and in-person polling. Do you REALLY think, as concerned about registration and confiscation as most gun owners are in this nation, that they're going to answer truthfully? The number of households with firearms is much higher than that graph.

dittybopperdoes a fantastic job of pointing this out in his post from a much less biased source than yours. Add in again, that this is a voluntary poll and the numbers are actually going to be much, much, much higher. I was called recently for a poll about firearms ownership. Know what I answered? "Nope, not a single gun in this house." Meanwhile there's a 14 rifle safe in the basement plus a pistol safe and shotgun safe in the master bedroom. I also have my 03FFL, so yeah, I'm pretty sure that if I answered that way, plenty of others did too.


The only people who would know if I had guns in my house would be my friends and family, my girlfriend (who lives with me and occasionally shoots), and people I'm required to notify by law. As of now, the ISP know I can own guns, and hopefully the ATF will send me back my C & R license here shortly. Then they will know I can own guns and probably do. I'd never tell a phone survey. I have virtually no way of knowing if it's legitimate, and reverse phone # looks up aren't hard to do.
 
2014-02-17 03:11:54 PM  

lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.


I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.
 
2014-02-17 03:13:08 PM  

meyerkev: Gang fights in the hood? Yeah, 10 to 1 sounds about right.


That would suggest 80k gun injuries a year (plus the 20k or so suicides), giving you around 100k total GSWs in a year.  I would say 5,700,000 is off by a factor of at least three.
 
2014-02-17 03:16:27 PM  

justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


Is your assertion that those willing to commit suicide wouldn't if only they had to go through a background check?
 
2014-02-17 03:18:50 PM  

MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.


I don't fear driving, or guns.  I fear idiots who drive and idiots who use guns.

As for swimming pools, hellz yeah I am scared.  Last week a swimming pool walked into a school and drowned a bunch of innocent students.
 
2014-02-17 03:19:27 PM  

meyerkev: Sofa King Smart: aren't a little over half of all 'gun deaths' suicide?  I seem to recall looking that up before and being surprised by that...  something like 32,000 gun deaths in the US per year and almost 18,000 of those being self-inflicted suicide.   most of the rest are gang/drug/crime related...

IIRC (and uh, rounding errors will abound),

It's 28K deaths, at which it's roughly 11K homicides and 17K suicides.

At that point, about half of your 11K is gang-related.  So it's 6K normal homicides, and 5K "This would happen everyday" homicides. Oh, and some of those 6K would happen anyways, just not with guns (Let's pull a number out of our ass and say half).   As far as the suicides are concerned, I *think* that there's a somewhat elastic number (IE: If you take away their guns, most, but not all of them will try some other way and some of those will succeed).  So I think it was 3-5K fewer suicides last time I did the math.

So taking away the guns, you get 3K fewer murders and 5K fewer successful suicides.

Now on the other side of the coin is defensive gun uses.  Statistics on this are hard to find (mostly because everyone's definition of *defensive gun use* is different), but even the Brady Group is willing to cop out to 80-100K (and that's using a study that both does NOT ask "Did you use your gun in self-defense?" but then also required participants to identify themselves to a member of the government before asking about any violent crime they had been involved in.).  So figure adding an order of magnitude which just coincidentally ends up putting you in the bottom range of the actual studies.  So call it 800K defensive gun uses.

To further call that out, keep in mind that defensive gun use is VERY situational. IE: Crazy homeless guy heads in my general direction, point out that I have gun, crazy homeless guy goes off to be crazy homeless somewhere else, but crazy homeless guy was never a threat, he just looked like one.  Or "Roommate's ex-boyfriend is a ...


I have several friends who are responsible gun owners...... what I've noticed, is that anytime they are faced with an even mildly unpredictable situation (ie: homeless person, drunk people arguing with each other, somebody dressed in a way they don't like, etc.), they will either hang out near the trunk of their car, where their gun is locked up..... or they will lament that they don't have their gun on them. If they hear a noise at night, they will grab their gun and go to "check it out".

Long story short, something happens to them weekly where they are glad they had a gun.

I often wonder if they think it's some kind of miracle that I'm still alive even though I don't own a gun.
 
2014-02-17 03:20:33 PM  
Let's not confuse the issue with "numbers" and "statistics".  The important thing is that people who want a gun can get one as easily as possible.  5 deaths, 8 deaths, 100 deaths, or whatever is irrelevant. The All Holy Constitution says so.  America!

Besides, all the so-called "murdered" people were probably bad guys who were killed by innocent people standing their ground and protecting their land and women-folk.
 
2014-02-17 03:22:17 PM  

MyRandomName: What about guns scare you so much.


The fact that gun enthusiasts are resentful losers who dream about the day they get to kill somebody.
 
2014-02-17 03:22:57 PM  

meyerkev: Now on the other side of the coin is defensive gun uses. Statistics on this are hard to find (mostly because everyone's definition of *defensive gun use* is different), but even the Brady Group is willing to cop out to 80-100K (and that's using a study that both does NOT ask "Did you use your gun in self-defense?" but then also required participants to identify themselves to a member of the government before asking about any violent crime they had been involved in.). So figure adding an order of magnitude which just coincidentally ends up putting you in the bottom range of the actual studies. So call it 800K defensive gun uses.


I didn't read the rest of your post, but please don't ever 'cite' DGU. It's a made up stat, with no bearing in reality. There's only roughly over a million violent crimes per year in the US. To think that nearly 100% of them have DGU is at best incredibly dishonest, and at worst, as stupid as is humanly possible.

Allow me to repeat that. The correct thing to do is not to 'assume even the guy's against me are low,' but to instead realized that a flawed methodology, with no actual data to support it is ALL invalid and cannot be used to create an argument at all.

Here's some non-invalid, fact based stats. Total justifed gun-homicides in the US in 2010 - 232.

Gun homicides outrank justified gun homicides by roughly 50 to 1.

Argue against that.
 
2014-02-17 03:23:03 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


Gun owners own more guns than before but there are fewer gun owners.

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

TMYK


Wrong.  The percentage of gun owners has gone down, not the number...whether there are greater or fewer gun owners doesn't make them right or wrong.
 
2014-02-17 03:24:02 PM  

justtray: Allow me to repeat that. The correct thing to do is not to 'assume even the guy's against me are low,' but to instead realized that a flawed methodology, with no actual data to support it is ALL invalid and cannot be used to create an argument at all.


You mean like TFA?
 
2014-02-17 03:26:45 PM  

tallen702: That statistic is solely from telephone and in-person polling. Do you REALLY think, as concerned about registration and confiscation as most gun owners are in this nation, that they're going to answer truthfully? The number of households with firearms is much higher than that graph.


Sorry, the same people arguing against telephone and in person polling are the ones who are citing 'defense gun use' as arguments. Doesn't get anymore hypocritical.

And while I see an incentive to lying about when you used a gun to defend yourself using your same logic, I DONT see one in thinking that somehow by saying you, as an anonymous person owns a gun could possibly have any negative consequence.

But please, proceed with your faulty logic. This thread needs more.

By the way, what do you think those true ownership numbers are, and how do you support that belief?
 
2014-02-17 03:27:02 PM  

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Seems pretty open and shut.

In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49   
       ----------  -----
       23,268,357 1,552    6.67 <------ 4 year prior average rate

2008    5,923,916    474    8.00  <-- First year bump.

2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48
       ----------  -----
       23,988,152  1,612    6.72 <------ 4 year post average rate.

That's an increase of 6.72-6.67 = 0.05 per 100,000 a year, so an extra 3 people per year at the 2012 population level.  Maybe.  That number is so small, I doubt it is statistically significant and it would be swallowed up by the normal "noise".


Considering the events, record foreclosures, record unemployment, that happened in 2008 I'm not convinced the changes in background check law was the driving force in the 2008 spike.

I'd be interested to see what social/economic stresses were in play during that time before I think anyone can claim A->B.
 
2014-02-17 03:27:38 PM  

deadlyplatypus: Wrong.  The percentage of gun owners has gone down, not the number...whether there are greater or fewer gun owners doesn't make them right or wrong.


Actually, the percentage has stayed relatively even, and there are some recent signs it's climbing, for instance, for the first time in decades, the number of hunting licenses sold in the US has started increasing.
 
2014-02-17 03:28:06 PM  

meyerkev: Rapmaster2000: That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.

Wait for the 3D printer revolution.

Sure, there'll be laws, but if the guy who walks out and murders a guy doesn't give a shiat about gun laws now, wait until he can grab any gun he likes in whatever state of mind he's in.

And then at that point the whole "By the way, you have between 50 and 90 million gun owners who aren't evil.  Stupid and occasionally drunk, yes, evil no.  And many of them are quite willing and happy to shoot back when that pissed off guy with the gun shows up (for better or for worse).  And they'll save an average of 11 lives in the process." idea starts making way more sense.


That's why I advocate a weapons giveaway program. It's like one of those government programs. Just come and farkin' get anything you want. We're gonna give away all the farkin' automatic weapons. All the side-loaders, clip-loaders, shoot-em-backs... Saturday night specials... Colt. 45s, shotguns. Anything you want, chains, knives, straight razors... bottles, brick bats, baseball bats... and big kind of slanted jagged kind of things. I wanna see a goddamn big motherfarkin'... shoot 'em up, kill 'em, bang, stab 'em, crush... slice, kill, motherfarkin' boilin' oil. Catapults throwin' rocks and shiat and blowin' up. Undercover shiat, yeah. So I wanna see people putting secret things in farkin' cars... and farkin' explodin' and see the people explodin'. I wanna see knife cuttin', slice cuttin' choppin' and blowin' up. Hah-aaah yeah. That's right. A free farkin' weapons give away program. I see it. Gonna solve all these goddamn problems.
 
2014-02-17 03:28:33 PM  

dittybopper: deadlyplatypus: Wrong.  The percentage of gun owners has gone down, not the number...whether there are greater or fewer gun owners doesn't make them right or wrong.

Actually, the percentage has stayed relatively even, and there are some recent signs it's climbing, for instance, for the first time in decades, the number of hunting licenses sold in the US has started increasing.


in addition to the rising number of CCW permits and NICS checks.
 
2014-02-17 03:28:37 PM  

jaytkay: MyRandomName: What about guns scare you so much.

The fact that gun enthusiasts are resentful losers who dream about the day they get to kill somebody.


So I'm a loser who wants to kill someone, huh?
 
2014-02-17 03:32:01 PM  

jaytkay: MyRandomName: What about guns scare you so much.

The fact that gun enthusiasts are resentful losers who dream about the day they get to kill somebody.


I thought you owned a gun. It was either that or your family did. Pardon me if I am mistaken. I thought I remembered something about you shooting your .45 at the same range where the guy committed suicide in the Chicago burbs.
 
2014-02-17 03:33:56 PM  

Fark It: Acravius: My error, the 5,700,000 number should have also included injured/shot the actual death toll is around 570,000 over the past 18 years.

Still sounds like a gross, Brady Campaign-fueled exaggeration, that would mean there are over 300,000 gunshot victims every year.


According to the CDC (morbidity data, Table 16, last row), there were 10.1 firearms deaths per 100,000 people in the US in 2010. At the current population level, that's about 31,700 firearms deaths.

According to CDC nonfatal injury reports, there were 25.9 nonfatal firearms injuries per 100,000 people in the US in 2012. At the current population level, that's about 81,400 firearms injuries. If you include BB gun and pellet gun injuries, that rate rises to 31.4 per 100,000.

Combining those two numbers, including BB and pellet gun injuries, we can estimate a total of 41.5 firearms injuries (both lethal and nonlethal) per 100,000 people in the US, or about 130,000 people total per year under the current data.

Note that this is data derived from reporting by hospital ERs, so there are some number of injuries that go unreported every year, but probably not enough to get up to 300,000.
 
2014-02-17 03:34:17 PM  

jaytkay: MyRandomName: What about guns scare you so much.

The fact that gun enthusiasts are resentful losers who dream about the day they get to kill somebody.


So you're scared of stuff you make up in your head?  Neat.  Irrational but neat.
 
2014-02-17 03:34:55 PM  
"Statistics, how the @#$% do they work"  in a way that makes it so the "facts" are on my side...
 
2014-02-17 03:36:55 PM  

Chummer45: I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.


Because people always post statistics that back them up when making knee jerk reactions, or something.
 
2014-02-17 03:37:59 PM  

justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


It's far from unregulated, but thanks for the hyperbole.

People do understand that, that is actually one of the reasons that many people carry.

I assume that you believe in your heart that if the gov't asked everyone to turn in their guns, that criminals would que up and do the right thing.
 
2014-02-17 03:38:19 PM  

MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.


I love guns.  But I'm also not an idiot.
 
2014-02-17 03:40:25 PM  

Fubini: Note that this is data derived from reporting by hospital ERs, so there are some number of injuries that go unreported every year, but probably not enough to get up to 300,000.


The other thing to consider is that the majority of those injuries are minor and may not even be from projectiles.  Have your hand too far forward on a revolver?  Get M-1 thumb?  Prematurely eject a hang-fire and it goes "BANG!" in front of your face?  Shoot with an obstruction in the barrel and it blows up?  All are injuries that are gun related but not gunshot wounds.

Heck, I once sliced my thumb on a flint in my flintlock.  Didn't need a doctor, but if it was worse and I needed a stitch or two?  Gun injury.
 
2014-02-17 03:43:18 PM  
I found a different set of statistics here.

According to that info, the murder rate in those years for MO was:


Year    Rate/100k
----       ---------
1997    7.9
1998    7.3
1999    6.6
2000    6.2
2001    6.6
2002    5.8
2003    5
2004    6.2
2005    6.9
2006    6.3
2007    6.5
2008    7.7
2009    6.5
2010    7.0
2011    6.1
2012    6.5

Mississippi, right above Missouri on the same chart, had a similar spike in 2008 - to 8.1 from 7.1 in 2007.  Is the theory that those folks drove up to MO for the handguns, or can we just accept that with numbers this small, a certain amount of noise will be present in the data?

In fact, no need to look to other states to show that point. Holy hell, from 2003 to 2005, the murder rate skyrocketed from 5.0 to 6.9!  Perhaps they were time travelling handgun purchasers recently returned from their 2008 shopping spree?
 
2014-02-17 03:44:40 PM  
Yes it seems that I added three numbers together that were simply restructured data in three separate locations.

I chose a different search and data source:  WISQARS
For 2012 81,396 firearm injuries
For 2010 31,672 firearm deaths

So amalgamated between those two years roughly ~113,000 people were shot/injured and 31,672 of them died (all intents reported)

As per the definition given by WISQARS
Firearm gunshot
: A penetrating force injury resulting from a bullet or other projectile shot from a powder-charged gun. This category includes gunshot wounds from powder-charged handguns, shotguns, and rifles. This category does not include injury caused by a compressed air-powered paint gun or a nail gun, which falls in the "other specified" category.

/(un) surprisingly there were 17,369 injuries from bb and pellet guns in 2012. These are seperated and are not included in any of the gun injuries/deaths noted above this long slashie
 
2014-02-17 03:44:42 PM  

dittybopper: justtray: Allow me to repeat that. The correct thing to do is not to 'assume even the guy's against me are low,' but to instead realized that a flawed methodology, with no actual data to support it is ALL invalid and cannot be used to create an argument at all.

You mean like TFA?


Yes. I think both sides to this argument largely agree to that.

Rapmaster2000: That's why I advocate a weapons giveaway program. It's like one of those government programs. Just come and farkin' get anything you want. We're gonna give away all the farkin' automatic weapons. All the side-loaders, clip-loaders, shoot-em-backs... Saturday night specials... Colt. 45s, shotguns. Anything you want, chains, knives, straight razors... bottles, brick bats, baseball bats... and big kind of slanted jagged kind of things. I wanna see a goddamn big motherfarkin'... shoot 'em up, kill 'em, bang, stab 'em, crush... slice, kill, motherfarkin' boilin' oil. Catapults throwin' rocks and shiat and blowin' up. Undercover shiat, yeah. So I wanna see people putting secret things in farkin' cars... and farkin' explodin' and see the people explodin'. I wanna see knife cuttin', slice cuttin' choppin' and blowin' up. Hah-aaah yeah. That's right. A free farkin' weapons give away program. I see it. Gonna solve all these goddamn problems.


Ok. Now I'll really play devil's advocate. (I know that I was arguing against gun rights previously......)

But, Switzerland.....

Switzerland has a Gun giveaway program (sort of). Every male in the country, between the ages of 20-30, who is mentally and physically able to use a gun, gets conscripted into the national militia and handed firearms to keep at their house. Switzerland has one of the world's highest rates of gun ownership. It also gets to brag that it has one of the world's lowest homicide rates.

I would argue that we are doing things wrong (obviously) in the US. But, it is possible to preserve gun rights and still solve our violent crime problems.

I do however believe that our gun laws are not helping.
 
2014-02-17 03:46:02 PM  

Fubini: I should also point out that the data from the links above reveal that throwing someone out a window was used as a murder weapon four times between 2005 and 2011.


Gotta watch out for those defenstration nuts, man.
 
2014-02-17 03:46:22 PM  
Out of everybody in Missouri, I guarantee you that nobody owns anywhere close to as many guns as the government. So, naturally, let's start with the REAL "gun nuts" first.
 
2014-02-17 03:46:46 PM  

Acravius: Hopefully the statistical signifigance of nearly 5,700,000 people who have been killed for whatever reason/motive/situation by guns in this country over the past 18 years,


lol
 
2014-02-17 03:47:46 PM  

plmyfngr: I would be in favor of background checks if they actually kept criminals from getting guns...they of course don't...


7/10. Not bad.
 
2014-02-17 03:48:42 PM  

Infernalist: With that firmly in mind, I suspect they may award guns the right to vote in the near future.


Unlikely. Most guns are black.
 
2014-02-17 03:49:17 PM  

redmid17: I thought you owned a gun. It was either that or your family did. Pardon me if I am mistaken. I thought I remembered something about you shooting your .45 at the same range where the guy committed suicide in the Chicago burbs.


I've rented guns at that range, yes.

By gun enthusiasts I mean people whose sense of identity revolves around guns.
 
2014-02-17 03:51:06 PM  

Sniffers Row: I'm also a gun owner, and have no problems with UBC's either. The issue that I do have is the Dr/patient confidentiality that may be breached by the Government to "save the children". There has NEVER been compromise given regarding firearms from the left, it has always been a "well, we just won't take as much from you, if....". I can very easily see people being denied their 2A rights simply because they had a DWI 5 years ago and had to do a month of booze counseling, or was in Detox for a weekend. This would be very bad (unless you lean hard left).


Yeah.  I have a problem with running rampant over our civil liberties in the name of background checks.  (Although, actually, I object to background checks on a technical basis--I believe it should be done on a license basis instead.  Same procedure, but it gets you a permit to buy.  It's done once rather than once per gun.)

Sofa King Smart: aren't a little over half of all 'gun deaths' suicide? I seem to recall looking that up before and being surprised by that... something like 32,000 gun deaths in the US per year and almost 18,000 of those being self-inflicted suicide. most of the rest are gang/drug/crime related...


What form of suicide is not self-inflicted???

justtray: Allow me to repeat that. The correct thing to do is not to 'assume even the guy's against me are low,' but to instead realized that a flawed methodology, with no actual data to support it is ALL invalid and cannot be used to create an argument at all.

Here's some non-invalid, fact based stats. Total justifed gun-homicides in the US in 2010 - 232.

Gun homicides outrank justified gun homicides by roughly 50 to 1.

Argue against that.


Most defensive gun uses don't result in dead attackers.  Thus this ratio has no bearing on the issue.
 
2014-02-17 03:51:39 PM  

dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that the majority of those injuries are minor and may not even be from projectiles.  Have your hand too far forward on a revolver?  Get M-1 thumb?  Prematurely eject a hang-fire and it goes "BANG!" in front of your face?  Shoot with an obstruction in the barrel and it blows up?  All are injuries that are gun related but not gunshot wounds.


The non fatal data I gave above is for 'gunshot wounds'. I don't know specifically for the fatal data, but I have a hard time imagining a fatal accident involving a firearm that does not involve a gunshot wound.
 
2014-02-17 03:52:01 PM  
I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.  The news likes to drag out the same old tired line of "we won't give an inch", but what do real people feel about it?  I'm on the fence myself.

Even though Fark is full of snark, I still think it is a good blending of different mindsets.
 
2014-02-17 03:52:33 PM  
The problem with not owning a gun is that you don't have anything to shoot all those pesky gun owners with.
 
2014-02-17 03:52:38 PM  
I bet Missouri has also seen an increase in tax revenue from gun sales, so they have that going for them.
 
2014-02-17 03:58:07 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.


1. Wear item
2. Replaceable wear item.

Might as well stamp a serial number on the paper of a belt sander.
 
2014-02-17 03:58:09 PM  
justtray:
I didn't read the rest of your post, but please don't ever 'cite' DGU. It's a made up stat, with no bearing in reality. 
Here's some non-invalid, fact based stats. Total justifed gun-homicides in the US in 2010 - 232.

Gun homicides outrank justified gun homicides by roughly 50 to 1.

Argue against that.


I'll take the bait; right on your link it states that these numbers are "The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen." So it by definition excludes what we could otherwise call a justified homicide, to wit:

A non-felon stabs a private citizen, in the course of defending their life the citizen shoots and kills the attacker; does not count by the method you quote.
A non-felon stabs a private citizen, in the course of defending their life the citizen shoots and stops but does not kill the attacker; does not count by the method you quote.
A non-felon stabs an off-duty law enforcement officer not acting in official capacity(at home watch Netflix), in the course of defending their life the citizen shoots and kills the attacker; does not count by the method you quote.
etc.

In short, your citation demands that the attacker be a felon , that the defender be a private citizen, and that the encounter end in death. This is a much narrower definition of a Defensive Gun Use, which encompasses a much wider set of activity.

TL:DR Your numbers may be correct in their narrow context, but are used deceptively to advance a statement that they do not support.
 
2014-02-17 03:59:46 PM  

dittybopper: deadlyplatypus: Wrong.  The percentage of gun owners has gone down, not the number...whether there are greater or fewer gun owners doesn't make them right or wrong.

Actually, the percentage has stayed relatively even, and there are some recent signs it's climbing, for instance, for the first time in decades, the number of hunting licenses sold in the US has started increasing.


I don't disagree with you, but remember those hunting licenses likely also include archery tags (though I don't have the numbers you have).
 
2014-02-17 04:01:32 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.  The news likes to drag out the same old tired line of "we won't give an inch", but what do real people feel about it?  I'm on the fence myself.

Even though Fark is full of snark, I still think it is a good blending of different mindsets.


I was beaten to the punch, but essentially its magic technology well beyond the reach of our metallurgy and manufacturing.

Past that, lets assume that in a magic land, it does work. To what end? Unless you have Bobby Burglar, Felina Fence, and Garry Gangster registering their guns it won't lead you to much.
 
2014-02-17 04:04:41 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.  The news likes to drag out the same old tired line of "we won't give an inch", but what do real people feel about it?  I'm on the fence myself.

Even though Fark is full of snark, I still think it is a good blending of different mindsets.


1) I don't think that micro-printed numbers are going to last long on the head of a firing pin.

2) Even if the metallurgical aspect can be made to work, fouling and other contaminants would make this unreliable.

3) The firing pin only strikes the back of a cartridge, not the bullet itself. Most gun homicides are not gunfights, so an assailant can spare a moment or two to pick up cartridges and take the evidence with them.

4) It would be a moment's work with fine-grit sandpaper to remove the micro-printed serial number.

5) It would be a moment's work to construct an entirely new firing pin for most firearms (which is typically just a solid metal rod).

6) It's only a moment's work to swap out the firing pin on most guns. This would effectively require the government to regulate each and every firing pin like it was the entire gun. The firing pin is perhaps the part of the gun that undergoes the most force and wear, and is one of the most likely things to break. You would have to turn what is currently a $20-50 repair into an ordeal that requires the careful control and distribution of regulated firing pins.

From a crime fighting perspective, it makes far more sense to serialize the ammunition, or to somehow mark the gunpowder with a chemical or mechanical additive.
 
2014-02-17 04:05:41 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.  The news likes to drag out the same old tired line of "we won't give an inch", but what do real people feel about it?  I'm on the fence myself.

Even though Fark is full of snark, I still think it is a good blending of different mindsets.


I see it as more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else. It wouldn't be cheap to implement, but that's not really a disqualifier. Firing pins can't be switched out relatively easily, and either intentional wearing or normal wear and tear would likely render the microstamping illegible. NAS took a look at it and said that it was of undetermined use back in 2008 but merited more research. I'd like to see something much more definitive before it's mandated on all guns. Oh and don't exempt law enforcement from it. All the reasons that apply to us also apply to them.
 
2014-02-17 04:06:29 PM  

iheartscotch: Resident Muslim: Popcorn, get your popcorn here!!

25 cents a bag!

Popcorn!!

Butt-scratcher?


Butt-scratcher!!

/I'd by lying if I said that didn't come to mind while I was typing my comment.
//it's sad that that is the only reference that comes to our 'modern' minds when it comes to hawking wares.
///Family slashies
 
2014-02-17 04:07:02 PM  

This text is now purple: MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.

1. Wear item
2. Replaceable wear item.

Might as well stamp a serial number on the paper of a belt sander.


Yup, done in one.  Thanks for the insight.
 
2014-02-17 04:07:31 PM  

Fubini: dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that the majority of those injuries are minor and may not even be from projectiles.  Have your hand too far forward on a revolver?  Get M-1 thumb?  Prematurely eject a hang-fire and it goes "BANG!" in front of your face?  Shoot with an obstruction in the barrel and it blows up?  All are injuries that are gun related but not gunshot wounds.

The non fatal data I gave above is for 'gunshot wounds'. I don't know specifically for the fatal data, but I have a hard time imagining a fatal accident involving a firearm that does not involve a gunshot wound.


Having the gun blow up in your face because of a barrel obstruction could do it, though I'm sure that's fairly rare.   I've seen guns that had their barrels split open because of it, but never personally heard of anyone suffering a really serious injury or death because of it.
 
2014-02-17 04:08:34 PM  

dittybopper: I've seen guns that had their barrels split open because of it, but never personally heard of anyone suffering a really serious injury or death because of it.


Their underwear on the other hand.........
 
2014-02-17 04:08:53 PM  
Nice try libmitter
 
2014-02-17 04:09:36 PM  

This text is now purple: MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.

1. Wear item
2. Replaceable wear item.

Might as well stamp a serial number on the paper of a belt sander.


Not only that, it's trivially easy to take a file to the part and completely obliterate the markings in a few seconds, while still retaining functionality.

Oh, and it won't help for guns like revolvers that don't spew brass at the crime scene.
 
2014-02-17 04:10:25 PM  
jaybeezey:
I assume that you believe in your heart that if the gov't asked everyone to turn in their guns, that criminals would que up and do the right thing.

Who are you arguing against? The person you responded to never said everyone should be asked to turn in their guns. Almost no one advocates that. Lose the stupid straw man. Some people just want better regulations that are actually enforced to help keep guns out of the hands of the people most likely to commit crimes with them.

I don't want your guns. You're welcome to them. I just want you to get a background check before you can buy a gun. No exceptions.
 
2014-02-17 04:10:57 PM  

Fubini: MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.  The news likes to drag out the same old tired line of "we won't give an inch", but what do real people feel about it?  I'm on the fence myself.

Even though Fark is full of snark, I still think it is a good blending of different mindsets.

1) I don't think that micro-printed numbers are going to last long on the head of a firing pin.

2) Even if the metallurgical aspect can be made to work, fouling and other contaminants would make this unreliable.

3) The firing pin only strikes the back of a cartridge, not the bullet itself. Most gun homicides are not gunfights, so an assailant can spare a moment or two to pick up cartridges and take the evidence with them.

4) It would be a moment's work with fine-grit sandpaper to remove the micro-printed serial number.

5) It would be a moment's work to construct an entirely new firing pin for most firearms (which is typically just a solid metal rod).

6) It's only a moment's work to swap out the firing pin on most guns. This would effectively require the government to regulate each and every firing pin like it was the entire gun. The firing pin is perhaps the part of the gun that undergoes the most force and wear, and is one of the most likely things to break. You would have to turn what is currently a $20-50 repair into an ordeal that requires the careful control and distribution of regulated firing pins.

From a crime fighting perspective, it makes far more sense to serialize the ammunition, or to somehow mark the gunpowder with a chemical or mechanical additive.


I'd say that puts it to bed. Thanks.
 
2014-02-17 04:16:21 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.  The news likes to drag out the same old tired line of "we won't give an inch", but what do real people feel about it?  I'm on the fence myself.

Even though Fark is full of snark, I still think it is a good blending of different mindsets.


Actually, California is implementing such a thing:  All new handguns must have microstamped firing pins.  And as a result, Ruger, Smith&Wesson, and Glock are not going to sell any new models in California because they won't implement it, and there is pressure from their non-California customers for them to "pull a Ronnie Barrett"* and refuse to sell to police agencies in CA, who are naturally exempt from the law.

*When California banned .50 caliber rifles, Barrett sent a letter to the state saying that their business was no longer welcome, and that he wouldn't service the rifles they purchased from him, or sell them more.  To this day, he won't sell them to any government entity in CA.
 
2014-02-17 04:16:32 PM  

justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated


What you are missing there is that guns are overwhelmingly, by a very wide margin, used to protect lives and property, than they are used to commit a murder...    Your mistake is thinking that every justifiable homicide with a gun is the entirety of self-defence use data...
 
2014-02-17 04:17:15 PM  
www.venganza.org
 
2014-02-17 04:18:02 PM  

patrick767: jaybeezey:
I assume that you believe in your heart that if the gov't asked everyone to turn in their guns, that criminals would que up and do the right thing.

Who are you arguing against? The person you responded to never said everyone should be asked to turn in their guns. Almost no one advocates that. Lose the stupid straw man. Some people just want better regulations that are actually enforced to help keep guns out of the hands of the people most likely to commit crimes with them.

I don't want your guns. You're welcome to them. I just want you to get a background check before you can buy a gun. No exceptions.


Horseshiat, people advocate that all of the time, there are even "soft" confiscation laws on the books in NY, CT, etc (the ban on transfers means that the state confiscates your legally-registered weapons from your state upon your death, there's no inheritence).

"In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."
 
2014-02-17 04:19:46 PM  

Fubini: ) The firing pin only strikes the back of a cartridge, not the bullet itself. Most gun homicides are not gunfights, so an assailant can spare a moment or two to pick up cartridges and take the evidence with them.


Or use a revolver...
 
2014-02-17 04:28:46 PM  

stonicus: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I don't fear driving, or guns.  I fear idiots who drive and idiots who use guns.

As for swimming pools, hellz yeah I am scared.  Last week a swimming pool walked into a school and drowned a bunch of innocent students.


Stay away from doctors then. You have the same statistical chance of being harmed by them as you do guns.
 
2014-02-17 04:29:35 PM  

MyRandomName: stonicus: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I don't fear driving, or guns.  I fear idiots who drive and idiots who use guns.

As for swimming pools, hellz yeah I am scared.  Last week a swimming pool walked into a school and drowned a bunch of innocent students.

Stay away from doctors then. You have the same statistical chance of being harmed by them as you do guns.


Is it doctors or doctors in hospitals? I've read something about the latter but can't recall anything on the former.
 
2014-02-17 04:30:37 PM  

jaytkay: MyRandomName: What about guns scare you so much.

The fact that gun enthusiasts are resentful losers who dream about the day they get to kill somebody.


So you are fearful of your own strawman vision of what gun owners think. How sane of you.
 
2014-02-17 04:30:41 PM  

Fark It: patrick767: jaybeezey:
I assume that you believe in your heart that if the gov't asked everyone to turn in their guns, that criminals would que up and do the right thing.

Who are you arguing against? The person you responded to never said everyone should be asked to turn in their guns. Almost no one advocates that. Lose the stupid straw man. Some people just want better regulations that are actually enforced to help keep guns out of the hands of the people most likely to commit crimes with them.

I don't want your guns. You're welcome to them. I just want you to get a background check before you can buy a gun. No exceptions.

Horseshiat, people advocate that all of the time, there are even "soft" confiscation laws on the books in NY, CT, etc (the ban on transfers means that the state confiscates your legally-registered weapons from your state upon your death, there's no inheritence).

"In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."


Link
 
2014-02-17 04:31:09 PM  

Sammichless: Yes. I think both sides to this argument largely agree to that.


I don't re

Maul555: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated

What you are missing there is that guns are overwhelmingly, by a very wide margin, used to protect lives and property, than they are used to commit a murder...    Your mistake is thinking that every justifiable homicide with a gun is the entirety of self-defence use data...


This is very likely untrue, an irrelvant comparison to begin with, and completely unsupported by any valid data.

Lets say the data did exist (it doesn't). The correct comparison would be either to compare gun murders to justfied homicide (50 to 1 - fact) or to compare all crime to situations where a gun specifically stopped a crime. (not the invalid DGU statistics commonly thrown around here)

I'm making the only valid argument that can be made for this narrow debate, given the facts.
 
2014-02-17 04:34:28 PM  

Maul555: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated

What you are missing there is that guns are overwhelmingly, by a very wide margin, used to protect lives and property, than they are used to commit a murder...    Your mistake is thinking that every justifiable homicide with a gun is the entirety of self-defence use data...


Obviously. And every time a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime, they always kill somebody with it. They likely don't even want the clerk to hand over the cash..... they just want to satisfy their criminal bloodlust.
 
2014-02-17 04:38:41 PM  

justtray: Sammichless: Yes. I think both sides to this argument largely agree to that.

I don't reMaul555: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated

What you are missing there is that guns are overwhelmingly, by a very wide margin, used to protect lives and property, than they are used to commit a murder...    Your mistake is thinking that every justifiable homicide with a gun is the entirety of self-defence use data...

This is very likely untrue, an irrelvant comparison to begin with, and completely unsupported by any valid data.

Lets say the data did exist (it doesn't). The correct comparison would be either to compare gun murders to justfied homicide (50 to 1 - fact) or to compare all crime to situations where a gun specifically stopped a crime. (not the invalid DGU statistics commonly thrown around here)

I'm making the only valid argument that can be made for this narrow debate, given the facts.


The data does exist, and suggests that defensive gun use is at least as common as gun crime, though there are wide discrepancies in the results and the way the data is collected.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use- Th e-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence

It seems to me that you want to ignore the notion of a defensive gun use, or define it narrowly enough that you can tout your "50-1" polemic and continue to be intellectually dishonest.  Guns are commonly used by criminals in this country.  Guns (in the hands of private citizens) are commonly used to stop crimes as well.
 
2014-02-17 04:40:06 PM  

lordjupiter: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I love guns.  But I'm also not an idiot.


If you fear guns even knowing the statistical likelihood of them affecting you...
 
2014-02-17 04:47:28 PM  

MyRandomName: lordjupiter: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I love guns.  But I'm also not an idiot.

If you fear guns even knowing the statistical likelihood of them affecting you...


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

I know you don't care.  Links all over our face.
 
2014-02-17 04:49:11 PM  

lordjupiter: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I love guns.  But I'm also not an idiot.

If you fear guns even knowing the statistical likelihood of them affecting you...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

I know you don't care.  Links all over our face.


That's a mighty nice paywall website you linked to there.
 
2014-02-17 04:50:23 PM  
Statistic: Women who live in a house that has a gun in it, are 6 times as likely to be murdered.
 
2014-02-17 04:50:41 PM  

vernonFL: I thought East St. Louis was in Illinois?


It is but St Louis, Missouri is rapidly turning into East St Louis.

I wonder how many of those Missouri murders were committed in Kansas City or in St Louis?
 
2014-02-17 04:57:31 PM  

johncb76006: vernonFL: I thought East St. Louis was in Illinois?

It is but St Louis, Missouri is rapidly turning into East St Louis.

I wonder how many of those Missouri murders were committed in Kansas City or in St Louis?


http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/police/documents/police/annual_report _2 008.pdf
http://www.slmpd.org/crimestats/CRM0005-C_20081201.pdf

According to the numbers Ditty posted, just over 300 of the murders in 2008 were from KC and StL.
 
2014-02-17 05:03:44 PM  

This text is now purple: MajorTubeSteak: I am wondering what everyone thinks about micro-printing the gun's serial number on the firing pin.

1. Wear item
2. Replaceable wear item.

Might as well stamp a serial number on the paper of a belt sander.


3. Item that can be sanded down
4. Very common guns exist that do not drop shell casings
 
2014-02-17 05:05:53 PM  

redmid17: lordjupiter: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I love guns.  But I'm also not an idiot.

If you fear guns even knowing the statistical likelihood of them affecting you...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

I know you don't care.  Links all over our face.

That's a mighty nice paywall website you linked to there.


Not for me and I don't have a subscription.  Maybe you're not using noscript.

Here's something else:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090104223948AAyB7Z0


"Altogether, that's an average of 284 people killed or injured by firearms every day.
We can take this figure of 284 per day and multiply it by the number of days in a typical lifespan of 76 years, and the result is 7.9 million. Since the current US population is about 300 million, that means that the average person has a 2.6% chance of being injured or killed by firearms over the course of a lifetime."


What's really stupid is pretending little kids and drunks drowning in swimming pools is the same as, say, being shot in a mall or school while minding your own business.  It's funny that the same people who fault thugs in gangs for high risk behavior can suddenly reduce all activity to pure numbers and eliminate all other factors (even when the numbers don't say what they hoped they'd say).  Surely dropping a cheeseburger is as dangerous as mishandling a gun.  Obviously driving to work in traffic every day is no different than playing Russian roulette.

By my calculations we're talking about 103,000 shootings per year.  So per the implications of my original post, how many of those are against strangers in a life or death invasion or robbery?  See page 3 of my first link if you can get to the info.

And if you can get past the paywall script in the first link you'll find footnoted numbers about the normalized comparison of armed and unarmed societies vs other crime prevention methods, as well as comparisons of personal harm when contronting attackers with different methods.
 
2014-02-17 05:07:05 PM  
And Missouri tried to legalize machine guns last year.

Got vetoed by the Dem Governor.

So now they want to impeach him.
 
2014-02-17 05:14:37 PM  

justtray: Lets say the data did exist (it doesn't). The correct comparison would be either to compare gun murders to justfied homicide (50 to 1 - fact) or to compare all crime to situations where a gun specifically stopped a crime. (not the invalid DGU statistics commonly thrown around here)

I'm making the only valid argument that can be made for this narrow debate, given the facts.


You're making a silly argument because the number of justifiable homicides versus the number of homicides has nothing to do with whether or not Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns.

I'll make another valid, yet totally irrelevant argument.

There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. According to the CDC data we were talking about above, there are only 113,000 people who suffered gunshot wounds (fatal and nonfatal, excluding BB and air rifle wounds). Hence, only 0.04% of guns in the US will injure any person in a given year, and the total number of criminal homicides due to firearms is only a small fraction of that. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report (the same thing you cited above) Table 8, there were only 8,855 total homicide firearms in the US in 2012. Only 0.003% of guns are used in a homicide.

Clearly, the vast, vast majority of guns do not injure and will not injure anyone. Therefore, guns are safe.

For comparison, consider cars. According to the same CDC data sources as above, there were 35,000 deaths and 2,500,000 injuries to motor vehicle occupants in 2012, leading to a combined death/injury rate for motor vehicle occupants of 1016.2 per 100,000. Recall from before that there are only 36 firearm injuries per 100,000.

What's more, there are only about 250,000,000 cars in the US. Not only are you 28 times more likely to be injured  riding in a car than by a firearm, there are far fewer cars in the US, which means each individual car is statistically much more dangerous than each individual firearm. That doesn't even factor in deaths and injury caused by cars to non-vehicle occupants. (A fun point of statistical nonsense, walking is roughly 12 times more dangerous than driving, per miles traveled. What does that say about the lethality of shoes?)

All of that by itself doesn't say anything substantive for the gun debate, but it does elucidate one point that is somewhat damning to gun control advocates. Individual guns and gun owners are not particularly dangerous. Gun control advocates would love to claim that one out of ten guns or one out of twenty guns will end up killing someone. Reality is nowhere near that number. From 2001 to 2010, according to CDC sources, there were a total of 989,000 total gun injuries and gun deaths. If a separate gun was involved with each incident, it would still mean that less than one third of one percent of guns the guns in the US have actually hurt someone in the last 10 years, or less than 1 out of 300. (This of course is complicated by the fact that guns are created and destroyed all the time, but the point that any given gun is not dangerous, in the statistical sense, is still valid.)
 
2014-02-17 05:14:54 PM  

dittybopper: Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?


No, and whoever wrote this article is pretty clueless. The law referenced is "permit to purchase", where any weapon that COULD be concealed needs a permit to be purchased, not just carried. I'm in Missouri and just bought a Sig P226 on my lunch break this week - filled in the usual federal form, guy ran the background check which took about 3 minutes, I gave him a credit card, and walked out with the gun.

Also, I haven't been murdered, and no one I know has been murdered - so I really don't give a flying f*ck about 60 more dead people per year in a state of 6 million. Being able to buy a gun on my lunch break is quite worth the extra murders, thank you very much.
 
2014-02-17 05:23:27 PM  
I'm curious to know if these stats can be broken down by county. Something tells me the gang violence in St Louis and KC are skewing it for the whole state. Kinda like how Memphis gun violence makes all of Tennessee look bad.
 
2014-02-17 05:28:16 PM  

TerminalEchoes: I'm curious to know if these stats can be broken down by county. Something tells me the gang violence in St Louis and KC are skewing it for the whole state. Kinda like how Memphis gun violence makes all of Tennessee look bad.


http://www.fark.com/comments/8145772/89321681#c89321681
 
2014-02-17 05:28:32 PM  

ZeroPly: - so I really don't give a flying f*ck about 60 more dead people per year. Being able to buy a gun on my lunch break is quite worth the extra murders, thank you very much.


I agree that the numbers aren't statistical proof of anything......

But, whoa!!!! Your attitude almost made me throw up! I am really glad I don't live in MO. I would not want to be that close to you.
 
2014-02-17 05:44:49 PM  

Sammichless: But, whoa!!!! Your attitude almost made me throw up! I am really glad I don't live in MO. I would not want to be that close to you.


Risk is a part of life. Understand and accept that. The representatives of Missouri have made a policy decision that trades off gun availability and gun injuries. This literally happens all the time.

For example, the highway department can very accurately predict death and injury rates from traffic accidents as a function of speed limits. Every time the legislature wants to raise (or lower) the speed limits, they commission a report from the DoT on the impact. The DoT comes back and says this many hundred or so more people will die each year if you change the speed limits to X, Y, or Z. The legislature looks at the alternatives and the costs, and picks the one that they think best compromises the tradeoff between the convenience of having a higher speed limit and the cost of additional deaths and injuries.
 
2014-02-17 05:48:43 PM  

Fubini: Sammichless: But, whoa!!!! Your attitude almost made me throw up! I am really glad I don't live in MO. I would not want to be that close to you.

Risk is a part of life. Understand and accept that. The representatives of Missouri have made a policy decision that trades off gun availability and gun injuries. This literally happens all the time.

For example, the highway department can very accurately predict death and injury rates from traffic accidents as a function of speed limits. Every time the legislature wants to raise (or lower) the speed limits, they commission a report from the DoT on the impact. The DoT comes back and says this many hundred or so more people will die each year if you change the speed limits to X, Y, or Z. The legislature looks at the alternatives and the costs, and picks the one that they think best compromises the tradeoff between the convenience of having a higher speed limit and the cost of additional deaths and injuries.


60 people. With mothers and fathers and siblings and friends.

This guy probably didn't even save $1 in gas to pick his gun up later.

This is sick.
 
2014-02-17 05:55:37 PM  

Sammichless: 60 people. With mothers and fathers and siblings and friends.

This guy probably didn't even save $1 in gas to pick his gun up later.

This is sick.


This "study" has already been shown to be suspect.  Stop parroting it.

/and if you're advocating waiting periods, those have never been shown to have any effect on crime or violence
 
2014-02-17 06:04:08 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near the average, and it only took me a few minutes to figure out with publicly available data that there is something funny going on statistically.


It's almost as if people were in fire financial straits in 2008
 
2014-02-17 06:04:44 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near the average, and it only took me a few minutes to figure out with publicly available data that there is something funny going on statistically.


It's almost as if people were in dire financial straits in 2008
 
2014-02-17 06:07:41 PM  

Sammichless: 60 people. With mothers and fathers and siblings and friends.

This guy probably didn't even save $1 in gas to pick his gun up later.

This is sick.


People killed in car accidents also have mothers and fathers and siblings and children, and they're killed to save what for most trips will accumulate to a minute or two of total driving time.

Risk is a part of life. It'd be great if we could all drive Audis and no one ever died from anything, but the vast majority of people don't want to pay for it. It'd be great if everyone could always afford the best possible health care at every stage of life, but most people can't.

Every policy decision has an associated risk. Everything you do has an associated risk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
 
2014-02-17 06:24:59 PM  

dittybopper: NFA: Nearly all the gun owners I know (including myself) are in favor of background checks.

I'm not in favor of universal background checks, and while opinions may vary somewhat, I am reasonably sure that I'm not batshiat crazy.


No. You're batshiat crazy. I only ever bother to remember the handles of the batshiat crazy farkers.
 
2014-02-17 07:10:32 PM  

Arkanaut: dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back d ...


The study was 1999 through 2010.    Avg rate (using your #'s) from 1999 through 2007 is 6.36.  Avg rate 2008 through 2010 is 7.33)
(avg 2008 through 2012 is 6.98)
They also said that they used aged adjusted numbers (not sure why that was called for or how that worked)
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/2-12-13WebsterTestimony.pdf
 
2014-02-17 07:47:43 PM  
Studies show that murders jumped 150% in Chicago in the same time period, a city with the strictest gun laws in the country along with New York and California.

Repeal gun laws nationwide.
 
2014-02-17 07:57:44 PM  

Sammichless: Fubini: Sammichless: But, whoa!!!! Your attitude almost made me throw up! I am really glad I don't live in MO. I would not want to be that close to you.

Risk is a part of life. Understand and accept that. The representatives of Missouri have made a policy decision that trades off gun availability and gun injuries. This literally happens all the time.

For example, the highway department can very accurately predict death and injury rates from traffic accidents as a function of speed limits. Every time the legislature wants to raise (or lower) the speed limits, they commission a report from the DoT on the impact. The DoT comes back and says this many hundred or so more people will die each year if you change the speed limits to X, Y, or Z. The legislature looks at the alternatives and the costs, and picks the one that they think best compromises the tradeoff between the convenience of having a higher speed limit and the cost of additional deaths and injuries.

60 people. With mothers and fathers and siblings and friends.

This guy probably didn't even save $1 in gas to pick his gun up later.

This is sick.


People died to secure our freedoms.   The right to self defence is writen in blood so that genrations of americans might enjoy it, and I will be damned if I am going to let a little bit of blood end it.
 
2014-02-17 08:05:07 PM  

justtray: Sammichless: Yes. I think both sides to this argument largely agree to that.

I don't reMaul555: justtray: Highly suspect data.
That being said, its funny to see the same people arguing against it who argue that since murder has gone down while gun ownership up, that there must be a casual link.
Anyway, if gun nuts respected stats, they would have already accepted that homicides outweigh justified ones by 50:1, more likely to shoot a family member than intruder, that local by local more guns = more crime, all of which i have cited valid studies for multiple times. Since they are routinely ignored, I wont waste the effort again.
Some 10k gun homicides, 20+ suicides is just the price we have to pay so that some paranoid cowards can havet heir selfish hobby entirely unregulated

What you are missing there is that guns are overwhelmingly, by a very wide margin, used to protect lives and property, than they are used to commit a murder...    Your mistake is thinking that every justifiable homicide with a gun is the entirety of self-defence use data...

This is very likely untrue, an irrelvant comparison to begin with, and completely unsupported by any valid data.

Lets say the data did exist (it doesn't). The correct comparison would be either to compare gun murders to justfied homicide (50 to 1 - fact) or to compare all crime to situations where a gun specifically stopped a crime. (not the invalid DGU statistics commonly thrown around here)

I'm making the only valid argument that can be made for this narrow debate, given the facts.


"If it saves just one innocent life it will be worth it"(tm)
 
2014-02-17 08:15:24 PM  

redmid17: I see it as more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else. It wouldn't be cheap to implement, but that's not really a disqualifier. Firing pins can't be switched out relatively easily, and either intentional wearing or normal wear and tear would likely render the microstamping illegible. NAS took a look at it and said that it was of undetermined use back in 2008 but merited more research. I'd like to see something much more definitive before it's mandated on all guns. Oh and don't exempt law enforcement from it. All the reasons that apply to us also apply to them.


Depends greatly on the gun -- in many designs, the firing pin is trivial to swap out, no tools needed.   As mentioned, firing pins are a wear item, intentionally designed to be readily replaceable.

California's microstamping law, like nearly all other similar laws, has an exception for Law Enforcement.
 
2014-02-17 08:22:47 PM  

Sammichless: Fubini: Sammichless: But, whoa!!!! Your attitude almost made me throw up! I am really glad I don't live in MO. I would not want to be that close to you.

Risk is a part of life. Understand and accept that. The representatives of Missouri have made a policy decision that trades off gun availability and gun injuries. This literally happens all the time.

For example, the highway department can very accurately predict death and injury rates from traffic accidents as a function of speed limits. Every time the legislature wants to raise (or lower) the speed limits, they commission a report from the DoT on the impact. The DoT comes back and says this many hundred or so more people will die each year if you change the speed limits to X, Y, or Z. The legislature looks at the alternatives and the costs, and picks the one that they think best compromises the tradeoff between the convenience of having a higher speed limit and the cost of additional deaths and injuries.

60 people. With mothers and fathers and siblings and friends.

This guy probably didn't even save $1 in gas to pick his gun up later.

This is sick.


You'd slit your wrists open if you understood the risks involved with just about anything you do. Think of all the people who have died because you want to ride an amusement park ride, shave your face with a razor, drink alcohol, smoke a cigarette, buy a Chinese made ipod, fap to porn, vote for a certain candidate, send a letter through the mail. Omniscience would be too harrowing for the human mind.
 
2014-02-17 08:30:38 PM  
considerreconsider.com
origin.factcheck.org
2.bp.blogspot.com
www.moveleft.org


There are different stats... but on the conservative side guns are used to protect someone or something 40 times per every 1 gun crime.     The problem with gun control is that you cant just eliminate the bad, you eliminate the much bigger good as well...  Gun control is the real killer here.


www.guns.com
 
2014-02-17 08:32:35 PM  

ChicagoKev: redmid17: I see it as more of a solution in search of a problem than anything else. It wouldn't be cheap to implement, but that's not really a disqualifier. Firing pins can't be switched out relatively easily, and either intentional wearing or normal wear and tear would likely render the microstamping illegible. NAS took a look at it and said that it was of undetermined use back in 2008 but merited more research. I'd like to see something much more definitive before it's mandated on all guns. Oh and don't exempt law enforcement from it. All the reasons that apply to us also apply to them.

Depends greatly on the gun -- in many designs, the firing pin is trivial to swap out, no tools needed.   As mentioned, firing pins are a wear item, intentionally designed to be readily replaceable.

California's microstamping law, like nearly all other similar laws, has an exception for Law Enforcement.


That was a typo. Should have been "can be switched out easily."
 
2014-02-17 08:40:20 PM  

Sammichless: ZeroPly: - so I really don't give a flying f*ck about 60 more dead people per year. Being able to buy a gun on my lunch break is quite worth the extra murders, thank you very much.

I agree that the numbers aren't statistical proof of anything......

But, whoa!!!! Your attitude almost made me throw up! I am really glad I don't live in MO. I would not want to be that close to you.


Sorry, but a lot of people have that same attitude, mostly because we're fed up. We're tired of knee-jerk legislation, and people who are completely clueless about firearms telling us how they should be regulated, and how pistol grips are only for mass murder. Anyone who read the article knows that 60 additional murders in a population of 6 million represents an absolute increase of 0.001%. But I'm supposed to see the word "spike", and wait for it - that's 60 FAMILIES, with MOTHERS, and BROTHERS, and CHILDREN!!! OH THE F*CKING HORROR!!! PASS SOME LAW TO STOP IT NOW!!!

Nope, not interested. The 2nd amendment crowd has seen how well the government has done when trusted with the 1st amendment, or the 4th, or even the 5th. So you can't blame them for drawing a line in the sand and refusing to budge an inch.
 
2014-02-17 08:51:47 PM  
Background checks are unconstitutional and part of Obamas conspiracy to establish a police state because herp derp de derp.
 
2014-02-17 08:53:20 PM  

dittybopper: Magorn: Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.

I'm calling statistical shenanigans, though.
Here is the year, population, # of homicides, and rate for Missouri from 1997 to 2012 (last year I can find data for):

Year    Pop.         Hom.   Rate/100k
----    ---------    ---    ----
1997    5,481,193    387    7.06
1998    5,521,766    372    6.74
1999    5,561,950    329    5.92
2000    5,607,285    332    5.92
2001    5,641,142    399    7.07
2002    5,674,825    348    6.13
2003    5,709,403    319    5.59
2004    5,747,741    369    6.42
2005    5,790,300    417    7.20
2006    5,842,704    384    6.57
2007    5,887,612    382    6.49
2008    5,923,916    474    8.00
2009    5,961,088    402    6.74
2010    5,996,092    435    7.25
2011    6,008,984    385    6.41
2012    6,021,988    390    6.48

Data sources:
http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crim e_ 960grid.html (homicide numbers)
http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/estimates_by_age.shtml (population numbers)
Rate is calculated as (homicides/population)*100,000, rounded to nearest hundredth.

There seems to have been a significant jump in homicides in 2008, just after the law changed.  That may or may not be related, but the subsequent 4 years after (2009-2012) don't seem very different at all from 2004-2007, the years prior to when the law took effect on August 28th, 2007 (majority of 2007 was "need a permit")

In fact, the average rate from 2004-2007 is 6.67 per 100k, and from 2009 to 2012 it's 6.72, less than 1% higher.   I'm not even sure if that would be a statistically significant increase.

If the homicide rate had stayed up in the 8 per 100,000 range, or even consistently about 7 per 100,000, I'd say "Yeah, looks like there might be something to this, warrants further study".  But they didn't.  They dropped right back down to near the average, and it only took me a few minutes to figure out with publicly available data that there is something funny going on statistically.


Check stats for violent firearm deaths vs others. Others trended down, those trended up.
 
2014-02-17 09:03:49 PM  
What a trolling headline. I won't read the article or the thread, because I know they are both filled with bias bull shiat.

No state can trump the federal background check, morons.
 
2014-02-17 09:03:59 PM  

Rapmaster2000: That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.


You must be trolling sir.
 
2014-02-17 09:32:04 PM  
Am I missing something? Every site I have looked at has shown the murder rate dropping for the last five years, except for the dozens of pages cloning this same story.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mocrimn.htm
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/missouri/#.UwLBsPuO0nI

I particularly found this statistic interesting.

www.cityrating.com
 
2014-02-17 09:39:20 PM  

Fubini: Clearly, the vast, vast majority of guns do not injure and will not injure anyone. Therefore, guns are safe.

For comparison, consider cars. According to the same CDC data sources as above, there were 35,000 deaths and 2,500,000 injuries to motor vehicle occupants in 2012, leading to a combined death/injury rate for motor vehicle occupants of 1016.2 per 100,000. Recall from before that there are only 36 firearm injuries per 100,000.

What's more, there are only about 250,000,000 cars in the US. Not only are you 28 times more likely to be injured riding in a car than by a firearm, there are far fewer cars in the US, which means each individual car is statistically much more dangerous than each individual firearm. That doesn't even factor in deaths and injury caused by cars to non-vehicle occupants. (A fun point of statistical nonsense, walking is roughly 12 times more dangerous than driving, per miles traveled. What does that say about the lethality of shoes?)


This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.

Just FYI, a valid comparison in risk would look at the amount of time each of those items are used, not be based solely in absolute numbers. Almost every single man, woman, and child drives in their car, probably for at least an hour per day. Are each of those guns in use for an hour each day?

Your argument is stupid and you should feel bad for attempting to make it at all. I expect no less from the gun nut crowd, which appears to be entirely devoid of basic critical thinking and original thought. It is incredibly pathetic.
 
2014-02-17 09:42:05 PM  

Maul555: [considerreconsider.com image 547x192]
[origin.factcheck.org image 600x831]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x231]
[www.moveleft.org image 850x597]


There are different stats... but on the conservative side guns are used to protect someone or something 40 times per every 1 gun crime.     The problem with gun control is that you cant just eliminate the bad, you eliminate the much bigger good as well...  Gun control is the real killer here.


[www.guns.com image 660x750]


Wow another instant ignore. Take your propaganda elsewhere please. Your stats are 100% fabricated, I really hope you one day possess the intelligence required to see that.
 
2014-02-17 09:46:15 PM  

justtray: This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.


Of course you are, you ignore everyone who bothers to point out how stupid your talking points are.
 
2014-02-17 09:49:15 PM  

justtray: Take your propaganda elsewhere please. Your stats are 100% fabricated, I really hope you one day possess the intelligence required to see that.


Smells mighty rich in here all the sudden.
 
2014-02-17 09:49:32 PM  

violentsalvation: justtray: This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.

Of course you are, you ignore everyone who bothers to point out how stupid your talking points are.


which makes his zealous defense of CCW holders in other threads equally hilarious and trolltastic. Seriously follow him in a CCW or self-defense thread sometime. It's night and day.
 
2014-02-17 10:49:09 PM  

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Did either of you bother to read the article? The statistics were based on gun related homicides.
 
2014-02-17 10:58:03 PM  

justtray: This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.

Just FYI, a valid comparison in risk would look at the amount of time each of those items are used, not be based solely in absolute numbers. Almost every single man, woman, and child drives in their car, probably for at least an hour per day. Are each of those guns in use for an hour each day?

Your argument is stupid and you should feel bad for attempting to make it at all. I expect no less from the gun nut crowd, which appears to be entirely devoid of basic critical thinking and original thought. It is incredibly pathetic.


This is you missing the point. Go back and read that comment again.
 
2014-02-17 11:54:53 PM  

dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that the majority of those injuries are minor and may not even be from projectiles. Have your hand too far forward on a revolver? Get M-1 thumb? Prematurely eject a hang-fire and it goes "BANG!" in front of your face? Shoot with an obstruction in the barrel and it blows up? All are injuries that are gun related but not gunshot wounds.


Add burns from hot brass.
 
2014-02-18 01:36:49 AM  

justtray: Maul555: [considerreconsider.com image 547x192]
[origin.factcheck.org image 600x831]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x231]
[www.moveleft.org image 850x597]


There are different stats... but on the conservative side guns are used to protect someone or something 40 times per every 1 gun crime.     The problem with gun control is that you cant just eliminate the bad, you eliminate the much bigger good as well...  Gun control is the real killer here.


[www.guns.com image 660x750]

Wow another instant ignore. Take your propaganda elsewhere please. Your stats are 100% fabricated, I really hope you one day possess the intelligence required to see that.


You now appear in a lovely shade of red.  I think you and I both know what that means...
 
2014-02-18 01:45:13 AM  

Acravius: It is unfortunate that we don't have better data about these issues.
That's because in 1996 the NRA successfully shut down Federal level research about gun violence.

The good news is that 1n 2013, the CDC could resume research on gun violence and the causes of said violence.
Maybe in a couple years of sifting through the incomplete data sets, that nobody since 1996 was required by any agency to file or report on, some semblance of what has been happening with guns and gun violence in these past 18 years.

Hopefully the statistical signifigance of nearly 5,700,000 people who have been killed for whatever reason/motive/situation by guns in this country over the past 18 years, will give us some insight into ways to correct, decrease and diminish the annual slaughter that is part of the current American cultural landscape.

Of course they have to interview the king of misinformation from the anti-gun lobby - Kellermann. However, his statements don't detract about the news that it has been 17 years since federal level research about the issue has been actively funded and pursued in any truly intellectual way.

It would be nice to see that year 1 after the reinstatement of federal funding will produce some meaningful insight that can lead to informed legislation about how to proceed to protect rights while also reducing deaths by firearms. However, given the horrible data sets they have access to, it would probably take several more years of real complete data sets to even establish trends that would be meaningful in most areas of the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-scientists-can-again-r e search-gun-violence/2013/01/17/19d959fc-60e5-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_st ory.html


Ya know, they released the report on the last 30 years worth of violence of data back in June of 2013. What they concluded was that the majority of violence stems from access to alcohol and gun laws had no discernible impact on violence.
 
2014-02-18 12:31:49 PM  
 I know this sounds crazy, and it most certainly is.
unfortunately it's also true.
There are a large number of people pushing for weakening of gun laws not because of anything to do with guns and their access but because they actually want to create an atmosphere of chaos and force federal and state governments to crack down on gun ownership. Their ultimate goal is some kind of Turner Diaries race war sparked by gun confiscations and "black crime". I used to think these guys were just a few fringe nuts, but after witnessing the discussions on many different mainstream forums regarding Travon, Dunn, and the knock out game "phenomenon" it's pretty clear that there are either way more people who believe this narrative , or there are a few people working around the clock to push that narrative.  These people are Taliban elephant shiat nutty and are just waiting for any kind of social duress in this country to start coming out of the wood work.

//would totally suggest listening to the audio book for Turner Diaries
//as much as you can stomach.
//know your enemy
 
2014-02-18 02:09:39 PM  

MyRandomName: stonicus: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I don't fear driving, or guns.  I fear idiots who drive and idiots who use guns.

As for swimming pools, hellz yeah I am scared.  Last week a swimming pool walked into a school and drowned a bunch of innocent students.

Stay away from doctors then. You have the same statistical chance of being harmed by them as you do guns.


I will most definitely avoid idiot doctors.
 
2014-02-18 11:26:21 PM  
Maul555:
img.fark.net

...So, against what are all those people defending themselves?

/I smell messaged numbers.
 
2014-02-19 12:04:41 AM  

LoneWolf343: Maul555:
[img.fark.net image 400x231]

...So, against what are all those people defending themselves?

/I smell messaged numbers.


Failed People with guns?
People with knives?
People with fists?
People with [Insert all those wonderful OTHER things that a reasonably in shape person willing to commit violence can use]?

Plus of course the "I felt at threat, but actually wasn't, but I have no way of knowing that".
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report