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  In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   (rawstory.com ) divider line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

4620 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report