More Guns in the United States

[TerraPrime]

From FLOW:

If you read that USA Today article TP linked critically-- and I mean no offense to TP -- it is hot garbage. They site Slate as one source, toss around numbers attached to inexact terms like "children", and "young people" (which read to me in context like people other than teens and children), and throw out numbers that appear wildly inconsistent with other claims in the article. For example, the article claims that 58 children (whatever that means....) have been killed by guns since Newtown. 58 in 4 months. Are we really supposed to believe that less than 175 children a year die from cancer? Really? I didn't know we basically had beaten childhood cancer.

The "guns kill more children and young people" claim came from the article in New England Journal of Medicine. The Slate article is the source cited for the 58 children killed by guns since Newton. The discrepancy could be the difference between "children and young people" versus "children," as you noted. The two claims are not necessarily in conflict, unless we dig up each source and follow through.

Incidentally, I note with amusement that I at least took the effort to find some articles to challenge a claim which was not even supported by that much, namely, that it's important to have relatively unfettered access to owning firearms because firearms are important (essential?) to protect ourselves from many things, like being raped to death. I asked what the incidence rate of being raped to death is, and how it compares to other things that kill us, like accidental gun deaths for children. While I welcome a critical reading of the article I linked to, I cannot help but feel that the bigger point is missed - which is that I do not dispute the life-saving capacity of firearms in cases of self defense, but I raise the issue of the cost of this access. One can justify it and say the cost is acceptable (I do), but one should not dismiss by omission this cost. It'd be no more honest than to focus only on the social benefits of alcohol consumption and not talk about the personal and social cost of alcohol dependence in an argument to oppose banning alcohol.

[RWHamel]

Yes, more guns since 1970, but with fewer deaths from gun violence.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

From FLOW:

The "guns kill more children and young people" claim came from the article in New England Journal of Medicine. The Slate article is the source cited for the 58 children killed by guns since Newton. The discrepancy could be the difference between "children and young people" versus "children," as you noted. The two claims are not necessarily in conflict, unless we dig up each source and follow through.

Agreed, but I think that is indicative of incredible sloppiness on the part of the author. If you're going to use different studies and numbers to write persuasive article, then you better be comparing apples to apples. And it's sloppiness heavily weighted against guns.

Incidentally, I note with amusement that I at least took the effort to find some articles to challenge a claim which was not even supported by that much, namely, that it's important to have relatively unfettered access to owning firearms because firearms are important (essential?) to protect ourselves from many things, like being raped to death. I asked what the incidence rate of being raped to death is, and how it compares to other things that kill us, like accidental gun deaths for children. While I welcome a critical reading of the article I linked to, I cannot help but feel that the bigger point is missed - which is that I do not dispute the life-saving capacity of firearms in cases of self defense, but I raise the issue of the cost of this access.

To be fair, TP, there were articles/studies linked in prior interations of this thread regarding how frequently guns were used in self-defense. In many cases, simply brandishing the weapon was enough. Such incidents would not show up in self-defense shootings because the gun was not actually fired, even though it apparently halted the illegal invasion/attack, etc... I also posted a study of felons that showed felons are very worried about victims having guns, tend to avoid homes where they think guns are likely to be present, etc..

So it's not like "our side" hasn't offered that evidence.

[TerraPrime]

To be fair, TP, there were artciles/studies linke in prior interations of this thread regarding how frequently guns were used in defense, and in many cases, simply brandishing the weapons was enough. Such incidents would not show up in self-defense shootings because the gun was not actually fired, even though it apparently halted the illegal invasion/attack, etc... I also posted a study of felons that showed felons are very worried about victims having guns, tend to avoid homes where they think guns are likely to be present, etc..

So it's not like "our side" hasn't offered that evidence.

Have I disputed that claim? I accept that having guns in the home will increase your chance of successfully deterring or protecting yourself. Done.

My two points are: (1) Guns can be, but are not always, the best or the only option for security and protection and (2) there is a cost to these benefits, including accidental deaths of those who are around guns (owners or simply by-standers).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My two points are: (1) Guns can be, but are not always, the best or the only option for security and protection

True.

(2) there is a cost to these benefits, including accidental deaths of those who are around guns (owners or simply by-standers).

True as well.

The problem with the data, though, is that it is inherently speculative. We know that someone successfully defends themselves or their home with a gun -- we cannot know whether they would have been equally successful if they'd used something other than a gun, because every situation is different. We can know how often guns were used, and we can measure accidents. But we can't measure deterrence, because there's no way to measure how often a criminal chooses one victim over another, or exactly what crime would have happened if a gun had not been present. Moreover, some of the data is going to be unreliable because some folks may not want it to be known that they had a gun. Or some people may have lied in their responses in the other direction -- claiming in a survey that they used a gun when they really didn't. And those things are all inherently unknowable.

Data shows, for example, that the number of reported uses of guns to prevent a crime (hundreds of thousands/year) is much larger than the number of gun accidents causing injury (thousands). But how do you way what might have turned out to be just petty theft versus a fatal accident? How do you balance a rape victim defending herself against some Dick Cheney shooting a buddy?

[Phaing]

I'm pulling this post because, unlike so many others, THIS thread is off to a good start and what I had put up was too harsh.

By all means, continue!

This one looks promising.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

NM

[Jon Sprunk]

Data shows, for example, that the number of reported uses of guns to prevent a crime (hundreds of thousands/year) is much larger than the number of gun accidents causing injury (thousands). But how do you way what might have turned out to be just petty theft versus a fatal accident? How do you balance a rape victim defending herself against some Dick Cheney shooting a buddy?

That's the $64,000 question, my friend. You hit it right on the head, and it's something I wish more people at both ends of the topic spectrum would spend more time wrestling over.

[Phaing]

That's the $64,000 question, my friend. You hit it right on the head, and it's something I wish more people at both ends of the topic spectrum would spend more time wrestling over.

Agreed.

Its more than learning how to handle a gun, its about knowing when not to handle one.

I think that anyone who does not immediately back off from a terrified woman pointing a gun at them is begging to be the newest winner of the Darwin award. But it goes deeper than that...

100 years ago a higher percentage of households had guns and we had a much smaller rate of this sort of violence. In the interest of keeping the discussion elevated, I'll by-pass the reasons that have already been bandied about and put up a new theory;

People are grabbing guns and doing irrational things with them because they want to feel empowered.

Its not a small world, its monstrously huge, difficult to deal with and getting more impossible to understand with every passing day. The information explosion has become a deluge of counter-intuitive drivel. Everyone is making their own sphere more complex for the sake of preventing other people from knowing what they are up to. Math alone seems to indicate that civilization is headed for a crash but saying so gets you nothing but a tin-foil hat handed to you. Families and relationships are expected to fall apart and half of all college grads can't find work in their field of study.

And so, a handful of people grab a gun with the intention of being the most famous person in the country for a day.

In a different sort of society, this would not be happening.

The cure is not telling kids they are all special, or that they can do anything they want to. One day in the real world smothers that idea, and leaves them worse off than ever, and angry at the world.

Just my wandering thoughts on the matter, after a week of sleep deprivation. Goodnight!

[Jon Sprunk]

Agreed.

Its more than learning how to handle a gun, its about knowing when not to handle one.

I think that anyone who does not immediately back off from a terrified woman pointing a gun at them is begging to be the newest winner of the Darwin award. But it goes deeper than that...

100 years ago a higher percentage of households had guns and we had a much smaller rate of this sort of violence. In the interest of keeping the discussion elevated, I'll by-pass the reasons that have already been bandied about and put up a new theory;

People are grabbing guns and doing irrational things with them because they want to feel empowered.

Ex, for as many times as I've wanted to reach through the monitor and choke you, this makes me want to give you a bear-hug. This is what I've been saying for more posts than I can easily count. I know we have diametrically opposed ideas about how to address the problem, but -- wow -- I feel so much better after reading this.

[Robin Of House Hill]

People are grabbing guns and doing irrational things with them because they want to feel empowered.

Well, at least you didn't claim it was fact.

I'd argue with you, but on this subject, I've discovered that Einstein's definition of insanity, applies.

[RaceBannon42]

Ahh keep 'em coming Joe!

Aparently in the VP's world shotguns dont shoot through walls

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/11/biden-shotgun-assault-weapon/2073445/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+(News+-+Top+Stories)

"They make fun of my saying, 'Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home,'" Biden said during a roundtable discussion on gun control hosted by MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Guess what? Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home you don't kill your kids. Use an AR-15 (and the bullet) goes through a wall and can kill your kid in the bedroom.

[Phaing]

Ex, for as many times as I've wanted to reach through the monitor and choke you, this makes me want to give you a bear-hug. This is what I've been saying for more posts than I can easily count. I know we have diametrically opposed ideas about how to address the problem, but -- wow -- I feel so much better after reading this.

Huh, okay, thanks for that.

But I was thinking I would catch hell for that, and it comes in subtle forms-

Well, at least you didn't claim it was fact.

I'd argue with you, but on this subject, I've discovered that Einstein's definition of insanity, applies.

As I said, its a theory, and I'm probably not the first, or even the 1,000th to think of it.

If true, then the Gun issue is just the minuscule tip of an iceberg, one of dire portents.

What does it really mean when such a large proportion of a "free" society come to feel as if they not only have no real power, even over their own lives... but that they simply don't matter at all?

If history is any guide, it means the point of no return has been crossed.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Huh, okay, thanks for that.

But I was thinking I would catch hell for that, and it comes in subtle forms-

As I said, its a theory, and I'm probably not the first, or even the 1,000th to think of it.

If true, then the Gun issue is just the minuscule tip of an iceberg, one of dire portents.

What does it really mean when such a large proportion of a "free" society come to feel as if they not only have no real power, even over their own lives... but that they simply don't matter at all?

If history is any guide, it means the point of no return has been crossed.

I think it is rather that large segments of society have come to think that they are the only ones that matter.

You are almost assured that on any given issue, people will split 50-50. The only reason I've replied is for illustrative purposes. I have no expectation that anything I say on this issue, will change anyone's mind, nor will they change mine. Hence, I'm not insane...at least, not by Einstein's definition.

[Sturn]

Joe Biden:

"They make fun of my saying, 'Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home,'" Biden said during a roundtable discussion on gun control hosted by MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Guess what? Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home you don't kill your kids. Use an AR-15 (and the bullet) goes through a wall and can kill your kid in the bedroom.

When anti-gun folks (especially those in places of power) spit out nonsense showing they have no idea what they are talking about, it only adds fervor to the pro-gun side. This has been done over and over, the worst case lately being the unloadable magazine quote. While Joe's statement isn't as bad, it is still techncially false.

Even a shotgun shooting bird shot will go through a couple layers of sheet rock (typical single wall). That's ammo used for shooting birds. Shotguns firing man-killer ammo such as buck shot and slugs can go through walls even more easily (two walls if hitting only sheet rock). In fact, pretty much any firearm will shoot through a wall unless you hit something more solid (studs).

It's interesting that Joe compared shotguns to the AR-15 (5.56mm round). The trend in law enforcement is actually TOWARDS using the 5.56mm for SWAT entry teams since it goes through walls LESS then pistol rounds or shotguns equipped with buck shot or slugs. A 5.56mm tumbling round* actually fragments after going through it's first wall. Experts (as in not Joe) could make a good argument that the AR-15 is actually the safest firearm to fire inside a home. Keep talking Joe, you are so helping.

*Edit: To clarify, I'm not speaking of all 5.56mm types. Depending on the round used you will get varying degress of penetration.

(am I the only one who can no longer edit my text? I can't even put things in italics, let alone post a link. The entire editting bar is grayed over)

[Jon Sprunk]

Ahh keep 'em coming Joe!

Aparently in the VP's world shotguns dont shoot through walls

http://www.usatoday.... - Top Stories)

"They make fun of my saying, 'Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home,'" Biden said during a roundtable discussion on gun control hosted by MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Guess what? Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home you don't kill your kids. Use an AR-15 (and the bullet) goes through a wall and can kill your kid in the bedroom.

As I've said many times, the democrats have learned. This (above) is an example of politicians learning that facts don't matter. It doesn't matter if everything Biden says about guns is technically false. What matters, politically, is that he says it with conviction and that it speaks to his audience.

Most citizens (voters) don't know which goes through a wall more easily, but an AR-15 looks like a weapon of war while a shotgun is something you use to hunt quail, ergo the shotgun "must" be safer. It doesn't matter what the gun-rights side says about "gun truthiness." Neither political side is listening to the other.

[Toshio.Keepiru]

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

I think this TED talk is relevant to the issue. the U.S. is a country with one of the highest measures of inequality in terms of income.

Basically the more income inequality within a society the higher the occurrences of Social ills, such as crime, mental illness, ill health are.

Switzerland which arguably has more firearms amongst its population than other countries with the exception of the USA. Is in the middle of the pack in terms of income inequality. They have had very few mass shootings compared to the U.S.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ahh keep 'em coming Joe!

Aparently in the VP's world shotguns dont shoot through walls

http://www.usatoday.... - Top Stories)

"They make fun of my saying, 'Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home,'" Biden said during a roundtable discussion on gun control hosted by MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Guess what? Use a shotgun if someone is invading your home you don't kill your kids. Use an AR-15 (and the bullet) goes through a wall and can kill your kid in the bedroom.

He's not just a moron -- he's a disingenuous moron. The reason people made fun of him was because his advice was to take the shotgun and shoot it outside on the balcony.

"If there is ever a problem just walk out on the balcony and put that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/joe-biden-gun-violence-policies_n_2328556.html

Of course, firing both rounds from a double-barrelled shotgun would leave you with an unloaded weapon.... And if you're just shooting the damn thing outside and not aiming at anyone anyway, then the whole idea of shooting through your walls wouldn't even come into play.

This man doesn't just misspeak. He is legitimately stupid.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And just like it doesn't matter what I say, I won't be able to convince a FLoW or Lupis to support a national gun registry, it also doesn't matter what the gun-rights side says about "gun truthiness." Neither political side is listening to the other.

Jon, that's an unfair comparison. Do you really think myself and others here haven't listened to you? Of course we've listened -- our comments have addressed the issues you've raised very directly. We just disagree. That is different from those who are factually misinformed, and don't even bother listening enough to get the underlying facts straight.

BTW, from the little bit I've heard about the gun bill, I think I'm okay with it. Anyone want to make an argument why it's a bad idea?

My whole concern is that I do not want to have all gun transfers regulated, because that could be used to create legal presumptions of possession. This bill doesn't track all interpersonal sales, so it passes at least that test for me.

[IheartTesla]

I dont like the idea anyway of shooting at night in some unspecified direction where the distance the bullet will travel is at least an order of magnitude greater than how far your vision can see.