Gun Control in the US

[Zoraptor]

When firing on unarmed and unprepared targets all guns are equally deadly.

 

In short, it makes no difference whether the shooter comes with two glocks or one AK if he's shooting up people at 0-15 meters.

While close range negates a lot of advantages of a rifle over a pistol it doesn't negate all of them. A pistol round is typically lighter and slower than a(n assault) rifle round and (all other things being equal) is far less damaging, at any range. Even limited to just handguns there's huge variation in survivability, eg a .44 magnum is far more deadly than a 9mm round. In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round.

 

I've fired a .22, a .223NATO and a .303 (? Lee Enfield from WW2 anyway) and I have no doubt whatsoever that were I ever to be unfortunate enough to get shot I'd prefer the .22, at any range under the sun.

 

Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon. They're inherently less controllable and more dangerous to bystanders whatever the context. I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US. I'm pretty comfortable overall with the situation here where it's reasonably easy to get a rifle if you have a good reason (hunting qualifies) and can pass the licence for it (basically have people willing to say you aren't bonkers, do not have a drug or alcohol problem and do not have criminal convictions) and have good security such as a trigger lock/ safe/ rack plus keep ammo/ bolt separate from the gun.

[Diagoras]

I'm not familiar with the national academy of sciences, but US think tanks are notoriously biased and funded by special interests. They put out all manner of scientific reports, most of which adhere to academic standards but were only created because the results were expected.

 

Then I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the National Academy of Science before dismissing it. For example, it's not a think tank.

[Diagoras]

In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round.

 

He didn't have an AK. He had a Bushmaster .223

 

Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon.

 

They are effectively restricted in the US. They have not been used in a violent crime for the past twenty years.

 

I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US.

 

Could you expand? Why would you want handguns banned?

[Tsuga C]

 

Personally I don't see any reason at all why any civilian should own an automatic weapon.

 

Please scroll up.

 

They're inherently less controllable and more dangerous to bystanders whatever the context.

 

Fully automatic firearms have been severely restricted in the USA since 1934.

 

 

I also have no problem whatsoever with handguns being banned though that is practically impossible in the US.

 

Fine. You do without and I'll keep mine, thank you very much.

 

 

I'm pretty comfortable overall with the situation here where it's reasonably easy to get a rifle if you have a good reason (hunting qualifies) and can pass the licence for it (basically have people willing to say you aren't bonkers, do not have a drug or alcohol problem and do not have criminal convictions) and have good security such as a trigger lock/ safe/ rack plus keep ammo/ bolt separate from the gun.

 

The ownership of firearms is a privilege in the UK bestowed upon those subjects deemed worthy by the government, but in the USA it's a right for all non-felonious, non-whackjob citizens and we often keep them at the ready and carry them openly or concealed, depending on the location.

[pmp10]

There's vast amounts of evidence for the link, eg this from Harvard. It's linked mainly to the tendency of men to attempt suicide less than women but use far more immediate and effective methods.

 

I'd recommend that you review the National Academy of Science's meta-analysis, linked below. They address this issue specifically. Among other things, once you take into account international studies, firearm ownership and suicide are uncorrelated.

 

That's very interesting but the firearms effect on violence report posted some pages back said that outside US correlation is strong.

That's the problem with scientific research - anyone with money can have one done to say anything they desire.

[Diagoras]

There's vast amounts of evidence for the link, eg this from Harvard. It's linked mainly to the tendency of men to attempt suicide less than women but use far more immediate and effective methods.

 

I'd recommend that you review the National Academy of Science's meta-analysis, linked below. They address this issue specifically. Among other things, once you take into account international studies, firearm ownership and suicide are uncorrelated.

 

That's very interesting but the firearms effect on violence report posted some pages back said that outside US correlation is strong.

That's the problem with scientific research - anyone with money can have one done to say anything they desire.

 

Could you repost it? For example, the specific wording of conclusions is very important. You should also note that correlation is a necessary but insufficient condition for causation.

 

Noting that scientific research can be flawed (though I'd adopt a less cynical take in regards to motives) is no excuse for rejecting science. Or should we throw our hands in the air and declare that the evidence around global warming is irrelevant, as it is disputed by some people?

[Zoraptor]

I'd recommend that you review the National Academy of Science's meta-analysis, linked below. They address this issue specifically. Among other things, once you take into account international studies, firearm ownership and suicide are uncorrelated.

I've read it (or at least as much as I can read 50 pages of htmlised book) and I'm unconvinced, to say the least. In essence, it reads like one of those "there's no scientifically robust evidence that smoking causes cancer" reviews from the 80's, ie it's very good at picking holes in methodology.

 

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there was weaker- or even no depending on circumstances- correlation to suicide and firearm ownership for other western countries, as firearms are typically far less, er, 'convenient' outside the US (ie only rifles available, or having to store ammo etc separately, or not being available to those with histories of depression or mental illness, or more difficult to obtain illegally). People who really want to kill themselves will do so whether guns are available or not, most of the prevention stuff is just about giving people who might change their mind a chance to do so.

[Diagoras]

I've read it (or at least as much as I can read 50 pages of htmlised book) and I'm unconvinced, to say the least. In essence, it reads like one of those "there's no scientifically robust evidence that smoking causes cancer" reviews from the 80's, ie it's very good at picking holes in methodology.

 

Okay. What specific methodological critiques do you take issue with? Which do you think don't matter? You do note that the basis of its conclusion on suicide is not methodological concerns, but rather that on aggregate there is zero correlation between suicide and firearms, right?

 

People who really want to kill themselves will do so whether guns are available or not, most of the prevention stuff is just about giving people who might change their mind a chance to do so.

 

I'm confused - are you saying that you agree that there's not evidence of firearms causing suicide?

[Volourn]

"Noting that scientific research can be flawed (though I'd adopt a less cynical take in regards to motives) is no excuse for rejecting science. Or should we throw our hands in the air and declare that the evidence around global warming is irrelevant, as it is disputed by some people?"

 

I'd be careful labeling charts like this 'real' science. Its simialir but not quite. It's not the same as, say, putting two elements together and elarning what happens. That's science. This is 'research study'.

[Diagoras]

"Noting that scientific research can be flawed (though I'd adopt a less cynical take in regards to motives) is no excuse for rejecting science. Or should we throw our hands in the air and declare that the evidence around global warming is irrelevant, as it is disputed by some people?"

 

I'd be careful labeling charts like this 'real' science. Its simialir but not quite. It's not the same as, say, putting two elements together and elarning what happens. That's science. This is 'research study'.

 

Statistical science is a science.

[Zoraptor]

In the particular circumstances of this incident there might not be much difference, but if he had been interrupted there'd be more chance of surviving if hit by a 9mm glock bullet than by an AK round.

He didn't have an AK. He had a Bushmaster .223

I know, I was requoting Boo's example.

 

Could you expand? Why would you want handguns banned?

In the US, I don't really as it's both not really my business and impractical as there are already too many in circulation. I might do it if I were appointed Supreme Cosmic Being for a day and could hand wave it, but under those circumstances I'd probably just make people inherently less violent and tackle the root cause.

 

What I meant was that I would not change the policy here where handguns are very rare and there isn't any credible justification at all for them beyond I Want. For purposes such as hunting rifles and shotguns are perfectly sufficient and in most circumstances greatly superior to handguns anyway; and since there aren't many handguns in circulation there's little self defence argument.

The ownership of firearms is a privilege in the UK bestowed upon those subjects deemed worthy by the government, but in the USA it's a right for all non-felonious, non-whackjob citizens and we often keep them at the ready and carry them openly or concealed, depending on the location.

I'm not in the UK (though I am a citizen), and the situation I described (for New Zealand) is not the same as in the UK where to most practical purposes firearms are banned unless you're a farmer. Frankly, I'm pretty glad I'm not in the UK as I intensely dislike their successive government's Orwellian streak and their population's sheep like acceptance of it.

[Diagoras]

What I meant was that I would not change the policy here where handguns are very rare and there isn't any credible justification at all for them beyond I Want.

 

Right, but want argument is there against them?

[Volourn]

"Statistical science is a science."

 

That can be manipulated, twisted, and stretched so the researcher can get the result they want. Not the same as real science.

[Tsuga C]

...their population's sheep like acceptance of it.

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but to what do you attribute this phenomenon?

[Zoraptor]

No idea. Probably a combination of facile tabloid journalism, obsession with triviality, "for the children" isms, smug self satisfaction, paternalist "daddy knows best"/ white man's burden holdovers, an education system that is militantly opposed to critical thinking and a population that'll happily march but in the end equally happily accept being blithely ignored. Mind you, a choice between Call Me Dave, Call Me Dave's Poodle and A Milliband is enough to make me (relatively) happy about the choices available here.

What I meant was that I would not change the policy here where handguns are very rare and there isn't any credible justification at all for them beyond I Want.

 

Right, but want argument is there against them?

Dangerous, easy to conceal, used in crime. In the absence of any balancing positives since other tools do their job better and there's no counterbalance that demands legality I cannot see a good reason for them being legal. If you just like shooting handguns you can buy an airpistol or go to a paintball arena. In contrast, for something like knives or long barrel firearms while they have the same(ish) general negatives they also have counterbalancing positive uses which demand they should be available.

[Farbautisonn]

"Statistical science is a science."

 

That can be manipulated, twisted, and stretched so the researcher can get the result they want. Not the same as real science.

 

Would "real science" be akin to a "true scotsman"?

[Hurlshort]

One thing I would like to mention is that there is such thing as a long term policy change, which is probably what we are looking at here. Guns are too widespread at this time to simply say "turn in all your semi-auto weapons" in the US, but you can make changes to lower the amount of guns and gun use over time. I guess you could compare it to smoking regulations. It took generations for the rates to go down, and eventually they leveled off, but using a combination of public education programs, taxes, use restrictions and so on it has become less common.

[Farbautisonn]

Problem is that people will still want to kill eachother. Criminals will still be able to get military grade firearms. Terrorists will be able to get them. Breivik type "lone wolfs" will be able to get them. And kitchen knives will still top the statistics for most used murder weapon.

 

Having guns for home defense is a good idea in principle, however having a gun for home defense usually means that its a gun that has to be readily available, fast to reach, and not everyone decides to take the entire family to shooting ranges where security can be drilled into them. And kids will be kids. The bat****e insane and the calculating massmurderers will be the same. One might argue that a firearm makes you able to kill alot more, but then so does any number of homecooked crap contraptions and chemicals that you can find recepies for online in less than five minutes.

 

Even the nations with the most restrictive gunlaws have armed crime. In my home nation of Denmark, military grade and semi auto firearms have become increasingly prevalent in crime, and here a gun permit for a handgun takes two years of active membership of a gun club, plus cops can enter your house and search it at will. To own a shotgun or a hunting rifle you have to take extensive hunters licenses. A knife of a blade of more than 12 cm is banned for anything but hunters or "Professionals". Switchblades and bali songs are prohibited. Even gas / cap weapons are regulated as are airguns and paintball shooters. And still we have armed crime, we have the occasional person who either eats a bullet, puts his hunting rifle at his wife and kids, or the criminal who sprays automatic fire to the point where its a miracle than no civillian hasnt been hit yet.

 

 

Personally I think the laws in the US are a bit too easy going and I do not see the need for most civillians to own a gun. However I know the US tradition for firearms is a very strong one, and I recognize that many criminals in the US turn weapons on civillians in both home invasions and robberies. I myself would prolly own a handgun if I lived stateside. I do not see an easy or clear cut way out of this. But I do enjoy this discussion.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Farbautisonn

[Calax]

Okay. Do we see any evidence of this in crime statistics?

Not sure, I'm not willing to dig that deep into crime stats to sort it out but I do know that humans have a significant level of empathy. That empathy causes them not to want to do harm to another, and a gun will kill in one quick shot with little to no effort on the part of the shooter, as compared to a stabbing which requires a much closer range, a lot more physical work, and is overall much more personal.

 

Basically it's the same reasons that it's much easier to shoot a masked or hidden target than it is to shoot one with his face looking at you.

And how did the Supreme Court rule on that [abortion]?

and how has that been undermined with things like "trans-vaginal ultrasounds" and legislation that makes it so you can't get an abortion after a very short amount of time?

There's certainly evidence that spontaneous 'crimes of passion' (domestic violence primarily) and suicides are reduced by not having guns immediately available, as people will often think better of it if given time to reflect- as well as the psychological aspect and separation of using a gun. Those are usually crimes where someone just 'snaps' though, not stuff that requires planning.

 

The NAS meta-analysis noted no evidence that firearm ownership is correlated with either violent crime or suicide, let alone causated.

It's a matter of opportunity. Somebody with a gun can make a snap judgement and shoot themselves or somebody else in the head without effort. Like I said, if I owned a gun, I would have killed myself at least twice, because a gun basically doesn't have pain to it. I didn't go through with it, because OD'ing on my mood stablizers would be tough to pull off (requires a LOT more drugs, and if you screw up, your body rejects it's skin). And jumping in front of a train causes to much trauma to somebody unrelated to my issues.

What's not to get about "it takes more effort to stab 20 people to death with a pocket knife than using a gun"? It's so simple and yet somebody will always point out that it can't be proven because statistic X says...? *facepalm*

Are you rejecting the fundamental basis of the scientific method? Or is your concern more methodological?

I think he's rejecting the fact, based on actual evidence, rather than a statistical analysis which may or may not take into account all factors.

I've read it (or at least as much as I can read 50 pages of htmlised book) and I'm unconvinced, to say the least. In essence, it reads like one of those "there's no scientifically robust evidence that smoking causes cancer" reviews from the 80's, ie it's very good at picking holes in methodology.

Okay. What specific methodological critiques do you take issue with? Which do you think don't matter? You do note that the basis of its conclusion on suicide is not methodological concerns, but rather that on aggregate there is zero correlation between suicide and firearms, right?

You have no reading comprehension do you? He's saying that the study that you're refering to doesn't provide any evidence for their specific position, and instead tires to pick apart the methodology of other studies that don't agree with their information.

People who really want to kill themselves will do so whether guns are available or not, most of the prevention stuff is just about giving people who might change their mind a chance to do so.

I'm confused - are you saying that you agree that there's not evidence of firearms causing suicide?

No, he's saying that it's much easier to quickly shoot yourself, then to find a sharp knife and figure out how to cut, or any other particular method of suicide.

[Diagoras]

Not sure, I'm not willing to dig that deep into crime stats

 

"I'm not willing to examine data that might challenge my conclusions, so here are some vague generalities about human nature".

 

and how has that been undermined with things like "trans-vaginal ultrasounds" and legislation that makes it so you can't get an abortion after a very short amount of time?

 

You're dodging the question - is feeling uneasy sufficient grounds to restrict a Constitutional right, in the court's opinion?

 

It's a matter of opportunity. Somebody with a gun can make a snap judgement and shoot themselves or somebody else in the head without effort. Like I said, if I owned a gun, I would have killed myself at least twice, because a gun basically doesn't have pain to it. I didn't go through with it, because OD'ing on my mood stablizers would be tough to pull off (requires a LOT more drugs, and if you screw up, your body rejects it's skin). And jumping in front of a train causes to much trauma to somebody unrelated to my issues.

 

So, we should see a rise in the homicide rate and suicide rate. We don't. Why?

 

I think he's rejecting the fact, based on actual evidence, rather than a statistical analysis which may or may not take into account all factors.

 

What actual evidence? Random musings are not evidence. And what specific statistical issues do you have with the NAS meta-analysis?

 

Do you dismiss evidence for global warming because much of it is driven by statistical modeling?

 

You have no reading comprehension do you? He's saying that the study that you're refering to doesn't provide any evidence for their specific position, and instead tires to pick apart the methodology of other studies that don't agree with their information.

 

Did you even read what I said? You're just restating what he said, without answering any of the questions I raised.

 

It doesn't provide evidence for what position? The vast majority of it is analysis and evidence. Can you speak in anything other than vague generalities?

 

Is methodology irrelevant? You can't just say, "Those are methodological critiques" and call it a night - methodological critiques are what meta-analysis do. In fact, most of its conclusions have to do with suggestions to solve endemic methodological concerns. Do you know what methodology is?

 

No, he's saying that it's much easier to quickly shoot yourself, then to find a sharp knife and figure out how to cut, or any other particular method of suicide.

 

If so, why is this not reflected in the suicide data?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Diagoras

[Diagoras]

Dangerous, easy to conceal, used in crime.

 

But as their prohibition does nothing to reduce violent crime, homicide, or suicide rates, what advantage is gained by their prohibition? Especially as you're already allowing long guns to exist.

[Zoraptor]

It reduces all three, if you take severity of violent crime into account.

 

As always, the problem with statistical science is that people are people and thus complicated rather than a nice simple list of enumerable variables, so it is very easy to Aha! stuff statistically, an approach also used for the Cancer/ Smoking studies and climate change. "Here's a 200 page html doc, read it and get back to me with your Ph.D level rebuttal" is not a counterargument though, else simply bringing in another, later, study not covered by the NAS critique is automatic Win in the other direction unless you can do a similar rebuttal- and oddly enough the cite I made earlier is later than the NAS one, and thus not covered by it.

 

Of course, that isn't actually instant win, same as citing the NAS isn't.

[SophosTheWise]

As a guy from Switzerland, no one here has guns and nobody would ever need one. I mean, why would they? Most people here don't even know where to buy a gun or how that's supposed to work and nobody ever banters on about it. To be honest, I don't even know how gun control works here (I just know it's very, very liberal), but why should I? What I'm trying to say is, that in my Swiss perspective, Americans only want guns because there is a lobby who enforces the opinion that freedom is somehow related to having guns. If there was no such lobby, nobody cared.

 

 

(Well yeah, we have our army weapons [sIG 550] but that's only for people who serviced. Also that's gonna change soon.)

Edited December 21, 2012 by SophosTheWise

[Farbautisonn]

As a guy from Switzerland, no one here has guns and nobody would ever need one. I mean, why would they? Most people here don't even know where to buy a gun or how that's supposed to work and nobody ever banters on about it. To be honest, I don't even know how gun control works here (I just know it's very, very liberal), but why should I? What I'm trying to say is, that in my Swiss perspective, Americans only want guns because there is a lobby who enforces the opinion that freedom is somehow related to having guns. If there was no such lobby, nobody cared.

 

 

(Well yeah, we have our army weapons [sIG 550] but that's only for people who serviced. Also that's gonna change soon.)

 

You rate pretty hard in the statistics. Ofcourse with service weapons that jacks up the ratio, but its still a firearm held by a "civillian" even if he is a "semi reservist".

 

But then if you measure pr captia, guns are actually pretty prevalent in europe. And since the statistics only observe legal weapons, the true picture could be significantly different.

[Calax]

Not sure, I'm not willing to dig that deep into crime stats

 

"I'm not willing to examine data that might challenge my conclusions, so here are some vague generalities about human nature".

If you think that you're worth me going data mining just to satisfy your e-wang, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your position. By the same token, you're not giving statistics yourself, only a single study performed on a statistical analysis which may or may not be constructed to specifically not show the correlation that you say are there.

 

and how has that been undermined with things like "trans-vaginal ultrasounds" and legislation that makes it so you can't get an abortion after a very short amount of time?

 

You're dodging the question - is feeling uneasy sufficient grounds to restrict a Constitutional right, in the court's opinion?

Yes. Free speech can be taken away if it's used for threats, and a womans right to choose is very restricted (not fully removed however).

 

It's a matter of opportunity. Somebody with a gun can make a snap judgement and shoot themselves or somebody else in the head without effort. Like I said, if I owned a gun, I would have killed myself at least twice, because a gun basically doesn't have pain to it. I didn't go through with it, because OD'ing on my mood stablizers would be tough to pull off (requires a LOT more drugs, and if you screw up, your body rejects it's skin). And jumping in front of a train causes to much trauma to somebody unrelated to my issues.

So, we should see a rise in the homicide rate and suicide rate. We don't. Why?

Because we have weapons idiot. You can't say "we need to see a rise in the baseline if X is added" if your baseline already includes X.

What actual evidence? Random musings are not evidence. And what specific statistical issues do you have with the NAS meta-analysis?

Do you dismiss evidence for global warming because much of it is driven by statistical modeling?

the previously mentioned knife attacks in China? Where not a single person died?

 

And I have a feeling based on zor's posts, that the NAS "meta-analysis" is less "this is what we think" and more "what you're thinking is wrong, this way is right!" while doing nothing more than saying that minor quibbles with methodology invalidates the results.

 

Also, stats are VERY easy to manipulate... The number of dead caused by police during high speed persuits is OFFICIALLY low, but realistically it's damn high, because they only count those killed directly by a vehicle involved. So if you got hit by a cop car, thrown into a fruit stand, and then died in the hospital? You don't count for the "official" bodycount.

 

As to climate change? Yeah, I believe it. The statistical modeling is part of it, but more the fact that there are MANY MANY MANY studies that agree with the general assessment that the release of carbon into our atmosphere is causing it. You've offered one "Meta-analysis" and that's it.

Did you even read what I said? You're just restating what he said, without answering any of the questions I raised.

It doesn't provide evidence for what position? The vast majority of it is analysis and evidence. Can you speak in anything other than vague generalities?

Is methodology irrelevant? You can't just say, "Those are methodological critiques" and call it a night - methodological critiques are what meta-analysis do. In fact, most of its conclusions have to do with suggestions to solve endemic methodological concerns. Do you know what methodology is?

I asked because you said that Zor was bringing up the Methodological critiques. And if you actually read his post, he was saying that he found that the study in question was more just a giant critique of methodologies rather than actually doing scientific research and positing a result sorted out by evidence.

 

Basically the "creationist" stance that "Here's one problem that invalidates (not really) your argument! HA HA! THE ONLY ANSWER LEFT IS A HIGHER POWER!"

No, he's saying that it's much easier to quickly shoot yourself, then to find a sharp knife and figure out how to cut, or any other particular method of suicide.

If so, why is this not reflected in the suicide data?

What data? You're griping at me for not being specific, but you just say "DER DATA!" over and over like it's magically going to make you specific to a study or two that happen to support your evidence.