Skip to main content

View Diary: Statistics, Guns, and Wishful Thinking (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course my arguments will be dismissed. (0+ / 0-)

    Of course my arguments will be dismissed.  I said as much in the OP.

    My arguments will be dismissed as gun owners ignore the facts in favor of their beliefs and personal opinions.  Just like conservatives do with the facts on climate change.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 02:14:18 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your arguments are dismissed because your (9+ / 0-)

      premise is wrong. When the foundation is bad, the house isn't built correctly.

      Your 'belief' that less guns = less gun crime doesn't quite work when you take the liberalization of firearms laws over the course of the last 25 years and then look at the violent crime rate. I'm not saying more guns = less crime, but more guns != more crime.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 02:24:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You can't deny (0+ / 0-)

        You can not deny that 62,000 Americans died by fatal gunshot in 2008.  You can't deny that 67% of murders in the US are done using a gun.  You can't deny that the US has the highest rate of firearm-related deaths of all the westernized industrialized countries in the world.  You can not deny that American children are nine times more likely to die due to an accidental gunshot wound than children in other industrialized nations.

        We do not know if Less Guns = Less Gun Crime or if Less Guns != Less Gun Crime, because neither theory has never been rigorously tested.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, we can deny that. (4+ / 0-)
        •  Not contesting your figures (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          But without a breakout for the long guns that are used as tools, rather than for "protection" or similar your overall gun statistics aren't going to convince people who consider guns a normal part of life.

          They'll just say "yeah, a bunch of stupid city people who don't respect guns are shooting each other with handguns".  

          Lots of people die in automobile accidents too, but people who need a car to get to work aren't going to care about safety statistics compared to that of people who use the subways in New York.    Subways don't serve their needs, cars do.  So you can talk to them about safer cars, but threaten to take all cars away and they'll freak out.

        •  Contesting your figures (8+ / 0-)
          Table 10. Number of deaths from 113 selected causes, Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, drug-induced causes, alcohol-induced causes, and injury by firearms, by age:
          United States, 2008
          firearms accidents, 592
          "intentional self-harm by discharge of firearms," 18,223
          firearms homicides, 12,179
          "discharge of firearms, undertermined intent," 273

          then down below it says

          Injury by firearms | 31,593
          I'm not sure why the numbers don't add up, but in any case it isn't 62,000.  

          So yes, I can contest your figures.

          Ask your barista what her degree is in.

          by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 08:27:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your statistics are wrong. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hagagaga, theatre goon, 43north

          As shown in another reply to your comment.

          I've already suggested ways to bring down the negligent/accidental (I hate that term) firearm death rate.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 06:08:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You will be dismissed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, gerrilea, oldpunk

      because you make a premise that contradicts the reality of people who use guns as an everyday tool to kill undesirable wildlife or to put inexpensive meat on the table.

      The studies are usually bad at that level of detail, but from what I've seen is that handguns can be more reliably correlated to various bad outcomes.    The data on long arms is much more inconclusive.   The data on how much gun safety training helps is also rarely asked.

      (ideally, gun safety training should greatly reduce the accidental deaths in gun-owning households by household members.  How much is hard to tell.  Visitors to the house though, can't be trusted to have safety thus even responsible households may want to look at things like gun safes or trigger locks.)

      If you want to convince the typical responsible gun owner that gun restrictions are needed, you need to include that gun owner in your statistics and your argument.   Otherwise they'll just dismiss your concerns as "Untrained idiots who buy guns for dumb reasons and don't treat them with respect shoot each other stupidly.  You're gonna keep me from feeding my family meat in January when my hours get cut or from protecting my dog from the local coyote population because of those yahoos?"

      You have to acknowledge the legit uses of guns, and not just rail against the stupid uses, if you want a reasonable discussion.

      •  Do you have ANY data to back up your assertions? (0+ / 0-)

        I presented a number of studies to back up my statement that freely available firearms are associated with greater gun deaths.

        Again, you are free to ignore the data in favor of your own opinions, should you chose to do so.  

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 03:27:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, we do have data (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          However, you don't.

        •  Lots of studies say most deaths are handguns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          A quick search turns up several such studies
          read the introduction to this one (70% of gun deaths, 80% of suicides are handguns)

          For rural vs urban (washington state, 90s), see figure 2 - most deaths are still handguns, by a very large margin.  Of course one likely reason is the majority of gunshot deaths were suicides in this sample, with the rural suicide rate being especially high.

          Another study.   Section 7 says handguns are much more likely for suicide, also locked vs unlocked, unsurprisingly the harder it is to do, the less risk it is for suicide.  This tracks with other suicide studies - how long you have to remain suicidal matters.  Note how nearly every source other than section 7 doesn't distinguish between guns and long arms (so the "gun as tool" crowd is going to be skeptical)

          This history of canadian arms control has a homicide statistic, with long arms being 33% overall, but 62% of rural homicides.  (the chart is near the end).  

          One thing that strikes me in most of the studies is the vast majority of gunshot deaths are intentional (homicide or suicide).   I'd like to see crosstabs with injuries, I would expect there you'd see a larger % of injuries.

          Also even where they do break it out, there isn't any connection to gun ownership that breaks it down usefully (like the Canadian study - how many of those rifle/shotgun homicide folks owned a handgun?  If they owned both, which did they use? etc)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site