The Big Gun Control Thread

Malor wrote:

... If you fix that, there's no need to infringe on a whole country's Constitutional rights.

As a non-American, this is the bit I will never, ever, ever not ever understand. From the outside it's as logical as enshrining the right to own a rabid war dog because 200 years ago rabid war dogs helped overthrow the government. Of *all* the things that make America a great country, this is most emphatically not on the list.

Yonder, Wikipedia (yeah I know) linked to some studies that suggested gun safety programs might be a bad idea for reasons we haven't really touched on at all here.
My personal reservations on those programs rest on those issues. Specifically that the programs do not actually change behavior in children because their innate curiosity overcomes the training, and that in older groups it increases their interest in getting their hands on a gun (despite zero pro gun rhetoric).
If a program were devised that worked well I would support it immediately. And obviously these concerns could be invalid in which case I would support an existing program.

Until then I would encourage all that lobbying effort go into stricter license requirements for drivers, or passing laws to shut down the worst straw dealers (if you must go with guns)... or not driving like a smaktard.

On edit --
Or passing Realityhack's Gun Laws (tm)

Robear - I don't think Maylor was talking about police shooting drug dealers... more dealers/gangs shooting it out. Which would be in the homicide statistic (and some in the accidental because the guns are around).

Robear wrote:

In 2010, 31,076 people died in firearm homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. Of those, 11,078 were homicides; 19,392 were suicides; and 606 were unintentional shootings.

Police shooting data is not collected specifically, and some states don't report any justifiable homicide figures. From the ones that do, we get a number around 340-410 over the last decade or so. This includes the FBI's reporting of justifiable shootings during the commission of major crimes. So even if we double the figure to allow for under-reporting - and that's a generous number, I suspect - fatal law enforcement fatalities run a bit higher than accidental shootings in the overall statistics. They'd have to go up over ten times to reach the level of homicides, and more than 20 times to match suicides. That suggests that while the War on Drugs is idiotic and useless, our money would be better spent on reducing poverty, licensing and training gun owners, making safe storage devices widely available, and increasing our mental health treatment capabilities. Ending the WoD, while something that should have been done years ago, is not likely to greatly affect firearms mortality in the US. (It would instead have much more effect on decreasing police power and intrusiveness, which is a good thing overall at this point.)

Malor, this is not directed at you, nor is it the result of any desire on my part to validate authority lol. I've expressed a desire to see all this information collected in the past, and I favor mandatory firearms training and licensing over prohibition. I simply wanted to put some numbers to the discussion, because assertions are being made without data.

I, honestly, think that including suicide statistics in with the mix is a bit of dirty pool. Our suicide rates overall in this country are on par or lower than the rates of most industrialized countries and there isn't any reliable data indicating that the availability of firearms significantly increases that rate in any meaningful way. Now it may be the case that the US is some kind of magical place where we would off ourselves at half the rate of the UK if we suddenly just outlawed firearms, but that very much flies in the face of reason like a blind, drunk sparrow.

So, when we remove the nearly 2/3's of the gross statistics, we have a far more manageable number. Not pretty or insignificant, but certainly a lot less scary than the 30k+ bandied about on every scary web page advocating gun control.

Of the remaining 11k+, 600-odd are directly addressable using public firearm safety. That is significantly less than electrocution (~5000) and food poisoning (~6000), but not insignificant and probably warrants attention from the standpoint of public safety.

That leaves the 10K+ homicides. That is where I believe Malor's argument may have a good deal of merit.

In 2010, 31,076 people died in firearm homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. Of those, 11,078 were homicides; 19,392 were suicides; and 606 were unintentional shootings.

realityhack wrote:

Robear - I don't think Maylor was talking about police shooting drug dealers... more dealers/gangs shooting it out. Which would be in the homicide statistic (and some in the accidental because the guns are around).

I read it with an understanding of his position on police use of force. However, reading back, you're probably right. I'm happy to pull that part of the post.

Malor- Where is the information that backs up your statement? Simply stopping the war on drugs is going to result in world peace and unicorns? That seems awfully, ummmm unrealistic?

JC wrote:

Malor- Where is the information that backs up your statement? Simply stopping the war on drugs is going to result in world peace and unicorns? That seems awfully, ummmm unrealistic?

Check the link I posted.

I dunno, Paleo, doesn't this assume that the groups running drugs now, which are at the bottom local criminal gangs also committing other crimes, are just going to disband and leave each other alone? Many of them predate the War on Drugs... There's an implicit assumption that with drugs legal, they will have no more incentive to commit crimes.

Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, think that including suicide statistics in with the mix is a bit of dirty pool... there isn't any reliable data indicating that the availability of firearms significantly increases that rate in any meaningful way.

Of course you're right that it's not possible to entirely blame suicides on the availability of firearms. But suicide by firearm is far more effective than any other suicide method:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

And so firearm availability does actually increase the suicide rate:

Harvard School of Public Health wrote:

"Living in a home with a gun greatly increases the risk of suicide, and that increased risk is not because people who live in homes with guns or in areas where guns are more prevalent are more suicidal," Miller told Reuters Health.

"They're not. It's because when people make suicide attempts with guns, they're much more likely to die than when they make attempts with other commonly used methods."

Robear wrote:

I dunno, Paleo, doesn't this assume that the groups running drugs now, which are at the bottom local criminal gangs also committing other crimes, are just going to disband and leave each other alone? Many of them predate the War on Drugs... There's an implicit assumption that with drugs legal, they will have no more incentive to commit crimes.

We do have some data from other countries that have gone down that path.

In any event, ending the policy of sending drugs users to prisons (which amount to little more than compulsory graduate schools for criminality) as opposed to treatment would seem to be a positive step in ending the law enforcement industrial complex.

jonstock wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I, honestly, think that including suicide statistics in with the mix is a bit of dirty pool... there isn't any reliable data indicating that the availability of firearms significantly increases that rate in any meaningful way.

Of course you're right that it's not possible to entirely blame suicides on the availability of firearms. But suicide by firearm is far more effective than any other suicide method:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/

And so firearm availability does actually increase the suicide rate:

Harvard School of Public Health wrote:

"Living in a home with a gun greatly increases the risk of suicide, and that increased risk is not because people who live in homes with guns or in areas where guns are more prevalent are more suicidal," Miller told Reuters Health.

"They're not. It's because when people make suicide attempts with guns, they're much more likely to die than when they make attempts with other commonly used methods."

Again, the gross numbers just don't add up.

Our overall suicide rate is about 12/100,000 annually. To put that in perspective, the UK has a rate of 11.8, France's is 14.7, Belgium's is 17, South Korea's is 31.7, and Canada's is 11.5.

If the availability of firearms is that much more likely to result in suicide, one would naturally expect our numbers to be a wild outlier like South Korea or Greenland (83.0). It is not. In fact, among wealthy industrialized nations, we rank pretty low.

Now, again and as I mentioned above, I am willing to entertain the idea that we are some kind of magically optimistic nation that would normally have a suicide rate more similar to Mexico's (4) than Canada's (11.5) but for the availability of firearms, but as I mentioned above, it sort of flies in the face of reason and demands some pretty compelling evidence.

The Portuguese also invested in treating addicts, which we would need to do on a far larger scale in order to get similar results. Let's see... Is the House really going to create an entitlement program for narcotics addicts?

I don't think you can compare total gun deaths to the war on drugs.

That's like saying obesity is only caused by jelly filled donuts.

JC wrote:

I don't think you can compare total gun deaths to the war on drugs.

That's like saying obesity is only caused by jelly filled donuts.

I don't think total gun deaths is the problem we are trying to solve though. As I articulated above, the majority of them are suicides, which, seems to be a problem not really in evidence.

That's what Malor is suggesting.

Malor wrote:

If you want to actually reduce gun violence in this country, just stop the War on Drugs, and the great majority of homicides will just vanish.

Reading around, I'm finding no claims that Portugal's crime rate has been positively affected by drug decriminalization. Most claims have to do with reductions in drug addiction. BTW, trafficking is still illegal in Portugal, and apparently still a problem.

Violent crime rose significantly after decriminalization, with murder rising 40% (but still low overall). That suggests that the decriminalization has not had a direct effect on the crime rate to overcome other influences, at best. At worst, it may have contributed to it.

Between those two links it looked like blanket decriminalization might degrease drug abuse by 50% or so and that at absolute most half of gun crimes are drug related.
I am not sure I agree with a blanket decriminalization but regardless of that dealers would still exist (if maybe half as many) and their would still be police action against them.

I don't think most drug dealers would just go strait and get a degree. I think you are looking at the easiest way to make money. If that becomes carjacking, mugging, B&E, protection rackets, etc. I am guessing you get an increase in those areas. Not a 100% transition and some alternatives might be *less* likely to include firearm deaths.
As pointed out before gang crime would not likely disappear just based on decriminalization.

I support a lot of decriminalization, heavy cutbacks in the 'war' on drugs, and alternatives. But I despite having a definite positive effect on gun violence I wouldn't really consider it a solid gun policy by itself. I do think it could be part of a comprehensive effort though.

I agree with RH. There are a lot of moving parts in this problem.

JC wrote:

That's what Malor is suggesting.

Malor wrote:

If you want to actually reduce gun violence in this country, just stop the War on Drugs, and the great majority of homicides will just vanish.

My point is that suicides involving guns should be treated as a suicide problem. Not a guns problem. Seeing as our rate of suicides is indistinguishable from background, focusing on them as a guns problem seems rather dishonest. And seeing as they are all too commonly included in gun violence statistics seems ideologically motivated.

Paleocon wrote:

Now, again and as I mentioned above, I am willing to entertain the idea that we are some kind of magically optimistic nation that would normally have a suicide rate more similar to Mexico's (4) than Canada's (11.5) but for the availability of firearms, but as I mentioned above, it sort of flies in the face of reason and demands some pretty compelling evidence.

Suicide rates clearly vary a lot by country. Is it hard to believe that we both have a low overall rate and we could further decrease it by decreasing gun ownership? If we manage to get it down to Germany's rate (9.9) or even Italy's (6.3), that's thousands of lives saved every year.

I presented some specific evidence that gun availability does, in fact, increase our suicide rate. Here's a bunch more. What additional compelling evidence do you want?

I'm with Jonstock: If I was suicidal, a gun certainly seems like the fastest way to accomplish things. If I have a hard time getting a hold of a gun, that's going to make my suicide more difficult. Can I accomplish it? sure, but the options to do it are a lot less attractive.

Bottom line is that I don't think we're ever going to win the argument here in the US on more gun regulation. I can only imagine the atrocity that would have to be committed in order to overrule the NRA and other pro-gun lobbyists.

Hell, there's a greater fervor to prevent Shariah law than put in place some common sense rules and regulations.

I would very much like to see the trending data on overall suicides in Australia over a ten year period on either side of the ban. The study states that it reduced the number of firearm suicides by 80% while there was "little evidence of a lasting rise" in other methods. But if the overall suicide rate remained stable, the data would seem to challenge the study's conclusion.

Additionally, frankly, the inclusion of suicide statistics in a discussion on violent crime is, to me at least, deliberately deceptive. If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

Paleocon wrote:

If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

The obvious exception to this statement is children who have a parent commit suicide. Even if you ignore the emotional side of it, there is a measurable negative impact to their socioeconomic status.

Farscry wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

If suicide is a crime at all, it is a victimless one.

The obvious exception to this statement is children who have a parent commit suicide. Even if you ignore the emotional side of it, there is a measurable negative impact to their socioeconomic status.

That puts it on par with divorce.

Yonder wrote:
Bruce wrote:

You are allowed to try and solve both problems.

Not only that, but because 99% of the country CAN'T end the gun war, but CAN lobby their local school districts for gun safety classes with approximately a one million times higher chance of success, it makes sense to address that problem before ending a multi-decade, billion dollar industry.

What are the actual stats of children being killed by unintentional discharges of firearms?

The numbers I found from the CDC put it at about 369 for children under the age of 14. That included 208 homicides, 81 suicides, and 62 unintentional shootings.

For children 15 to 19 that number jumps considerably with a total of 2,331 dying from firearms. Of that number, 1,554 were from homicides, 668 were suicides, and 72 were unintentional shootings.

It's somewhat safe to assume that a gun safety program isn't going to do sh*t for the children who were murdered, so that leaves us with implementing a mandatory training gun program for 50+ million students to address less than 900 firearm-related deaths that might be preventable.

It seems it would be a hell of a lot better use of resources to institute in-depth mental health screenings so we can prevent the suicidal children from getting firearms to begin with (and this would have the beneficial side effect of catching some of the mass shooter crazies) and also mandate the safe storage of all firearms than to indoctrinate tens of millions of children.

This isn't rocket science. The blame for the child suicides and unintentional shootings doesn't lie with the education system. It lies with irresponsible firearm owners who fail to properly and safely store their firearms and for a broken firearm regulatory system that allows people to freely sell their firearms to anyone they want without any sort of screening whatsoever.

Having your parents get divorced is just like them killing themselves?
You know... for the kid, and the state?

It's the gun control thread. I think gun related suicide fits in just fine. Wither there is a real connection is of course up for study.

By way of where to spend limited energy, time, and political power I (partly) agree with OG. The focus should be on better gun laws and supporting legislation that reduces gun violence rather than on questionably effective safety training for kids.

DC Malleus wrote:
Malor wrote:

... If you fix that, there's no need to infringe on a whole country's Constitutional rights.

As a non-American, this is the bit I will never, ever, ever not ever understand. From the outside it's as logical as enshrining the right to own a rabid war dog because 200 years ago rabid war dogs helped overthrow the government. Of *all* the things that make America a great country, this is most emphatically not on the list.

As an American, I can tell you, it still weirds me out too, DC. I don't get why people consider it part of our country's DNA or something. I doubt I ever will. I get why they were integral in our nation's history, specifically it's founding, but, in this day and age... I dunno. Hunting, I get (provided it's for actual need/environmental stability... sport hunting, not so much). But this "it's the most important right" and "what if we need to overthrow the government again?" stuff? Not so much.