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  In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   ( rawstory.com) divider line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

4628 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (3 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 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
 
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





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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