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  In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   (rawstory.com) divider line 66
    More: Obvious, Missouri, handguns, murders, licensing laws  
•       •       •

4611 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-02-17 12:26:12 PM  
9 votes:

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After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.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.
2014-02-17 02:05:17 PM  
5 votes:
Hey now! Correlation does not imply causation!

Yes, I know, there is most likely a causal link; but, we'd also have to eliminate other factors. What else happened in 2008 that may have caused a rise in violent crime? Could it be a bunch of people losing their jobs had some effect?
2014-02-17 08:40:20 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:58:07 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:32:03 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:31:58 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:08:34 PM  
3 votes:
dnrtfa...

So based on the headline this blows the assumption Chicago uses that all the guns are coming from neighboring states?
2014-02-17 02:03:27 PM  
3 votes:
images2.dailykos.com

/obligatory
2014-02-17 05:14:37 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:58:09 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:34:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:43:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:38:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:06:47 PM  
2 votes:

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


I concur; I, too, am amused by the "kneejerk" response of actually researching the relevant statistics and pointing out the demonstrable fact that the increased rate of homicides in 2008 was an outlier not observed in any subsequent year, as though an actual analysis of data is somehow more valid than a cherry-picking of a single result in deriving meaningful conclusions.
2014-02-17 02:05:38 PM  
2 votes:
Just the kind of bald faced BS we've come to expect from the good folks at RAWSTORY!
2014-02-17 02:00:43 PM  
2 votes:
This study includes all murders. For the study to be accurate we need to see the percentage of murders, by handguns bought after the law changed. If one  bought a handgun in 2005 and one did not kill anyone until 2012, one just skewed the numbers
2014-02-17 01:59:32 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

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

Also, I think I see what they did.

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

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

That's probably what they did, ignoring the fact that the 2008 data was a temporary spike.
2014-02-17 01:35:21 PM  
2 votes:
I wonder how the jumps in 2005 and 2008 correlate with any pseudoephedrine control laws.

But anyway, the numbers don't even tell us that a gun was used in the murders.
2014-02-17 12:59:48 PM  
2 votes:

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

Seems pretty open and shut.


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

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

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

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


That's an increase of 6.72-6.67 = 0.05 per 100,000 a year, so an extra 3 people per year at the 2012 population level.  Maybe.  That number is so small, I doubt it is statistically significant and it would be swallowed up by the normal "noise".
2014-02-17 12:37:00 PM  
2 votes:
I would be in favor of background checks if they actually kept criminals from getting guns...they of course don't...
2014-02-17 11:21:17 AM  
2 votes:

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



Does that apply to unlicensed sellers?
2014-02-17 11:18:47 AM  
2 votes:
Federal law would not apply to the transfers in question:
After the law was repealed, unlicensed sellers were no longer required to perform background checks before selling their guns.
2014-02-17 11:08:37 AM  
2 votes:
Did the state of Missouri repeal the *FEDERAL* requirement for a background check?
2014-02-17 09:46:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


Of course you are, you ignore everyone who bothers to point out how stupid your talking points are.
2014-02-17 09:03:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:22:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:57:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:07:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:55:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:40:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:38:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:30:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:28:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:18:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:10:25 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:05:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:40:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:37:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:36:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:34:55 PM  
1 votes:
"Statistics, how the @#$% do they work"  in a way that makes it so the "facts" are on my side...
2014-02-17 03:28:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:27:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:24:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:19:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:13:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:11:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:03:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:59:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:46:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:39:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:36:42 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:23:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:08:17 PM  
1 votes:

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


Bloomberg has given Johns Hopkins over $1 billion dollars over the years, so you do have to consider the source.  Not calling JHU a mouthpiece for MAIG, but $1,000,000,000 is a lot of dosh.
2014-02-17 02:05:59 PM  
1 votes:

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


Wait for the 3D printer revolution.

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

And then at that point the whole "By the way, you have between 50 and 90 million gun owners who aren't evil.  Stupid and occasionally drunk, yes, evil no.  And many of them are quite willing and happy to shoot back when that pissed off guy with the gun shows up (for better or for worse).  And they'll save an average of 11 lives in the process." idea starts making way more sense.
2014-02-17 02:04:00 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Actually, relatively few shootings are "crimes of passion".  Most are because of criminal activity (drug trade, gang membership, etc.).
2014-02-17 01:57:06 PM  
1 votes:
I love the kneejerk disbelief expressed by the gun fetish crowd.  They just know, in their gut, that no regulations on guns could ever possibly reduce gun violence.  Evidence be damned.
2014-02-17 01:55:31 PM  
1 votes:

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


I'm guessing it's in equal proportion to the number of people that have met my ex.
2014-02-17 01:52:35 PM  
1 votes:
I thought East St. Louis was in Illinois?
2014-02-17 01:51:41 PM  
1 votes:
That's only because there are still too many onerous requirements on law-abiding gun purchasers.  We need to remove every single regulation, and then you will see that crime will go down to nothing.
2014-02-17 01:51:20 PM  
1 votes:
Good. Conservatives should suffer the consequences of their idiotic policies.
2014-02-17 01:15:03 PM  
1 votes:

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


That crazy devil... always hiding in the details.
2014-02-17 01:05:19 PM  
1 votes:

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


Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.
2014-02-17 12:42:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


Seems pretty open and shut.
2014-02-17 12:29:37 PM  
1 votes:

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.
NFA [TotalFark]
2014-02-17 12:26:31 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 66 of 66 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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