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  In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   (rawstory.com) divider line 214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

4590 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report