Science and gun violence: why is the research so weak?(boingboing.net)
boingboing.net
Science and gun violence: why is the research so weak?
http://boingboing.net/2013/02/26/firearms-science-and-the-mis.html
10 comments
Even though the contemporary Michael Moore (rightly, IMO) gets a bad rep, Bowling for Columbine is fundamentally all about the US's culture of violence, specifically comparing how it approaches violence compared to Canada. Guns are surely an important symbol of that culture in the movie and society, but the documentary is a genuinely thoughtful take on the broader and more salient issue.
You would say that Moore has a bad reputation or has gotten a bad reputation. "Bad rep" is a derivation of "bad rap" or "bum rap" which both mean to be falsely charged with something - no one rightly gets one.
I do agree that those interested in gun rights and gun violence will find BfC is worth watching.
I do agree that those interested in gun rights and gun violence will find BfC is worth watching.
True, and yet given that gun control is an important political battle of our time, data pertaining specifically to guns, not just violence in general, is important. (At least to the extent that data ever influences these kinds of public decisions.)
Granted there are knee-jerk partisans on both sides of the issue. But thinking people would benefit from solid data. There are intelligent people who believe that defensive gun use almost never occurs, and then there are intelligent people who believe it's far more common than criminal gun use. They cannot both be right, but I believe intelligent people could be persuaded to the truth, if science could establish what the truth was.
That being said, gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. So it is not just a scientific question, but also one of constitutional law.
Granted there are knee-jerk partisans on both sides of the issue. But thinking people would benefit from solid data. There are intelligent people who believe that defensive gun use almost never occurs, and then there are intelligent people who believe it's far more common than criminal gun use. They cannot both be right, but I believe intelligent people could be persuaded to the truth, if science could establish what the truth was.
That being said, gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. So it is not just a scientific question, but also one of constitutional law.
gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns
In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said:
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.
In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said:
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.
A concept that gun culture consistently fails to grasp is that a) technology is an enabler and b) humans, even the homicidal, are lazy. It's true guns don't kill people; but it's also true guns as an independent factor increase the probability of people killing people. The size of this effect is very much in need of empirical analysis. However the nra has behaved in bad faith on this issue.
Also Canada has less than half the per capita rate of firearm ownership compared to US.
Also Canada has less than half the per capita rate of firearm ownership compared to US.
so you need empirical evidence but are comfortable asserting what the outcome will be.
Another thing we don’t have is reliable, long-term data on where the guns that are actually used in crimes come from. One of the ways we legislate gun use is through registration programs and systems that limit who can buy a gun legally. But if we don’t know whether guns used in crimes are purchased legally, illegally, or purchased legally and then sold or given illegally to a third party, we have no idea how to craft those laws or even if they make any difference at all.
I consider this a huge problem. How can you have a well-regulated militia if you don't know who is in it?
How do we know any of our gun laws have any effect at all?
I consider this a huge problem. How can you have a well-regulated militia if you don't know who is in it?
How do we know any of our gun laws have any effect at all?
Because Republicans and the Gun Lobby have systematically shut down any attempt to collect and study any data about guns.
Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased. Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research':
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned."
He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.
"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly, and banned."
He had no interest in conducting unbiased research, he wanted to treat gun ownership like a disease, and did everything in his power to try and 'eradicate' it.
>The CDC isn't allowed to conduct research into gun violence because they didn't even try to hide the fact that they were horribly biased.
So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased?
>Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research':
An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack?
As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water.
Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
So just because the numbers didn't reach the conclusion that you agree with, they are automatically biased?
>Here's a quote from Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and the guy who led a personal crusade against guns under the guise of 'research':
An out of context quote - and an ad hominem attack?
As far as I can tell, your strategy at this point is to try and muddy the water.
Meanwhile, here are some useful numbers to contemplate.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
Citation needed.
Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.
Also, assuming that account is accurate, that's no reason for a legislative ban on such research - it's a reason to remove that person from a position of influencing the course and outcomes of said research. Unless you're of the opinion that considering firearms as dangerous is in and of itself an indication of bias, in which case you're beyond reason.
The militia is defined in US law by the Militia Act of 1792 and exists today with only minor modifications to the original (see: Title 10 Section 311 of the US Code).
Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law. There is no requirement that you own a weapon in the definition.
The government knows my age so, as a male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years, I am presumptively a member of the militia.
Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law. There is no requirement that you own a weapon in the definition.
The government knows my age so, as a male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 years, I am presumptively a member of the militia.
Very nice. But, as is common with laws, the devil's in the details.
First, you say, "Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law."
Curiously, you left out one conspicuous qualifier: white.
Here's the relevant text of the law[1]:
Also, note that according to the above-quoted text of the law, you're not automatically part of the militia, but have to be explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" and that only "within twelve months after the passing of this Act" -- meaning in 1793 at the latest.
That's because this is effectively a conscription act[2], enacted with the specific and limited purpose of defending the nation "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[1][2] It's quite debatable whether such a situation has existed at any time since World War 2, and certainly not now. Furthermore, it's clearly not intended that these so-called "militias" use guns to defend themselves against each other, much less against the US government (as some vocal American gun advocates would have it).
Also, according to the Militia Act of 1792:
Here's another important part of the Act:
In summary, according to the text and intent of the law, to be in the militia you'd have to be a white man who has been explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" by 1793 at the latest, your enrollment wouldn't last past 1794, and the intended arms for militiamen would be muskets and rifles, swords, hangers, and espontoons of the kind made up to 1794.
[1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
First, you say, "Every able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and less than 45 years of age who is not a member of the regular military is a member of the militia per US law."
Curiously, you left out one conspicuous qualifier: white.
Here's the relevant text of the law[1]:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the
respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of
eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is
herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled
in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company,
within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve
months after the passing of this Act.
Also, note that according to the above-quoted text of the law, you're not automatically part of the militia, but have to be explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" and that only "within twelve months after the passing of this Act" -- meaning in 1793 at the latest.
That's because this is effectively a conscription act[2], enacted with the specific and limited purpose of defending the nation "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe".[1][2] It's quite debatable whether such a situation has existed at any time since World War 2, and certainly not now. Furthermore, it's clearly not intended that these so-called "militias" use guns to defend themselves against each other, much less against the US government (as some vocal American gun advocates would have it).
Also, according to the Militia Act of 1792:
this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of
two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress
thereafter, and no longer.
Here's another important part of the Act:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months
thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a
sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four
cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each
cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a
good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited
to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder
In summary, according to the text and intent of the law, to be in the militia you'd have to be a white man who has been explicitly enrolled in the militia by "the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company" by 1793 at the latest, your enrollment wouldn't last past 1794, and the intended arms for militiamen would be muskets and rifles, swords, hangers, and espontoons of the kind made up to 1794.
[1] - http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Your response is a bit disingenuous in that you ignore the further modifications of the Militia Act that I obliquely referred to and which updated it to reflect the evolution of the country. If the purpose was to divert the discussion into the minutiae of the US Code and Common Law of 1792 I am capable of having that conversation but it is not relevant.
You did not invalidate my point -- all able males of a certain age are definitionally members of the militia in 2013 -- which was my purpose because it answered a specific question of the parent. That definition has a long history. The evolution of the Militia Act is both irrelevant and uninteresting in this context.
You did not invalidate my point -- all able males of a certain age are definitionally members of the militia in 2013 -- which was my purpose because it answered a specific question of the parent. That definition has a long history. The evolution of the Militia Act is both irrelevant and uninteresting in this context.
> Creating a system that allows scientists to gather that data might be objectionable to some people who own guns.
Sampling is the answer.
If the federal government is keeping really close tabs on 100% of non-criminal gun-related happenings, that's Orwellian supersurveillance.
If a randomly selected 1% of gun sales or local police blotter entries or whatever are selected for a scientific study, that's a lot less invasive of gun owners' privacy while still giving scientists enough data to work with.
Sampling is the answer.
If the federal government is keeping really close tabs on 100% of non-criminal gun-related happenings, that's Orwellian supersurveillance.
If a randomly selected 1% of gun sales or local police blotter entries or whatever are selected for a scientific study, that's a lot less invasive of gun owners' privacy while still giving scientists enough data to work with.
Not really. Gun ownership has externalities, just like car ownership. The government keeps "close tabs" on 100% of automobile related transactions, including licensing and insurance requirements. It's not Orwellian to force a consumer to fully realize the total cost to society of her consumption.
Because the data doesn't really back up the either side in USA.
USA is really violent for a western civilization
The only correlation is identified that poorer regions have more violence, regardless of guns.
Guns doesn't really play a big role at all, according to the statistics.
Of course one thing the statistics cannot account for that guns are available in any state.
USA is really violent for a western civilization
The only correlation is identified that poorer regions have more violence, regardless of guns.
Guns doesn't really play a big role at all, according to the statistics.
Of course one thing the statistics cannot account for that guns are available in any state.
Because partisans are not interested in solid science. They are interested in getting their way.
Exactly. No one on the pro-gun control side looks too closely at the statistics because they don't like what they see. Namely that the odds of someone who isn't suicidal and who isn't involved in criminal activity dying from a gunshot wound are about the same as the odds of being hit by a wayward meteor.
Come on now. The odds of being hit by a meteor (actually meteorite) are effectively nil [0]. Are you claiming that the 88 people shot in mass shooting last year [1] were all suicidal or criminals?
And really, while mass shootings get all the news attention, they are only a tiny part of the problem. The real tragedy is the way easy access to handguns has transformed communities like the South Side of Chicago, where kids are gunned down every week. This American Life recently did a remarkable report [3] on the conditions in and around one Chicago high school where in the past year 29 current and former students were shot. That reporting could have just as easily been done in Oakland, or Detroit.
This is not about ideology. People are dying every day, innocent people going about their lives, and our current strategy of doing nothing, of burying our heads in the sand, is accomplishing...nothing.
[0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/12/in...
[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootin...
[3] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/h...
And really, while mass shootings get all the news attention, they are only a tiny part of the problem. The real tragedy is the way easy access to handguns has transformed communities like the South Side of Chicago, where kids are gunned down every week. This American Life recently did a remarkable report [3] on the conditions in and around one Chicago high school where in the past year 29 current and former students were shot. That reporting could have just as easily been done in Oakland, or Detroit.
This is not about ideology. People are dying every day, innocent people going about their lives, and our current strategy of doing nothing, of burying our heads in the sand, is accomplishing...nothing.
[0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/12/in...
[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootin...
[3] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/h...
The real tragedy is the way easy access to handguns has transformed communities like the South Side of Chicago, where kids are gunned down every week.
Do you have any idea how many laws are already being broken when that happens? How are more laws going to help?
More to the point, how is registering my guns (in preparation for future confiscation, it's safe to say, because that's what's happened elsewhere) going to protect those kids?
Do you have any idea how many laws are already being broken when that happens? How are more laws going to help?
More to the point, how is registering my guns (in preparation for future confiscation, it's safe to say, because that's what's happened elsewhere) going to protect those kids?
The problem is, as I said, easy access to handguns. While Chicago has stringent gun laws, one need only step over into Indiana where gun shows or private "collectors" can sell unlimited numbers of guns to just about anybody. Effectively, there is no gun control in this country right now. Every step of this transaction is legal, until the guns are brought onto the street.
But oddly enough, I don't hear of the same thing happening in Indiana, at least not to the extent I hear about violence in Chicago.
Must not be the guns. Must be something else.
Must not be the guns. Must be something else.
easy access to handguns has transformed communities like the South Side of Chicago
There is just no evidence that easy access to handguns has done any such thing. There's easy access to handguns pretty much everywhere in the country. Why is it to blame in south Chicago, when it hasn't had the same effect elsewhere? If anything, it's harder to get a handgun in Chicago.
There is just no evidence that easy access to handguns has done any such thing. There's easy access to handguns pretty much everywhere in the country. Why is it to blame in south Chicago, when it hasn't had the same effect elsewhere? If anything, it's harder to get a handgun in Chicago.
So what do you want to do about the innocent people dying from drunk drivers?
Your comparison is a red herring.
Cars are useful and beneficial devices that enhance our lives. Guns are weapons intended to kill. They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. That leaves recreational hunting as the sole activity for which one could justifiably claim gun ownership as a necessity. You don't need a hand cannon or a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt deer.
Seriously, fuck guns.
Cars are useful and beneficial devices that enhance our lives. Guns are weapons intended to kill. They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. That leaves recreational hunting as the sole activity for which one could justifiably claim gun ownership as a necessity. You don't need a hand cannon or a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt deer.
Seriously, fuck guns.
Why do you want to rely on others for protection? You don't have to search very hard to find stories of peoples houses being broken into, they get assaulted, women raped, etc. I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don't need an AR-15 to do that, but I think I should be able to own a shotgun.
Furthermore, not everyone lives in an area where the police actually give a shit. There are plenty of bad areas in major cities where you are basically on your own (Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.).
Furthermore, not everyone lives in an area where the police actually give a shit. There are plenty of bad areas in major cities where you are basically on your own (Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.).
AR-15s actually make excellent home defense weapons. 30 rounds on tap, very effective ballistics. And people don't realize it, but 5.56 typically has less overpenetration issues than buckshot.
> Why do you want to rely on others for protection? You don't have to search very hard to find stories of peoples houses being broken into, they get assaulted, women raped, etc. I believe that I have the right to protect myself and my family. I don't need an AR-15 to do that, but I think I should be able to own a shotgun.
Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Focus on fixing that, not protecting your right to bear arms!
Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Focus on fixing that, not protecting your right to bear arms!
> Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe?
Just for the sake of argument, where is that not true? Are you aware that a Swedish prime minister was gunned down in the street (Olof Palme)? And in Norway, a mass murderer has just been sentenced to 21 years for gunning down 77 people.
I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim.
The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
Just for the sake of argument, where is that not true? Are you aware that a Swedish prime minister was gunned down in the street (Olof Palme)? And in Norway, a mass murderer has just been sentenced to 21 years for gunning down 77 people.
I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim.
The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
> I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim.
I never claimed abolishing guns would lead to absoute safety. As you point out, there's plenty of senseless violence all over the first world, including gun violence. The difference between America and other places such as Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ is that people elsewhere do not see gun ownership as a necessary prerequisite in order to feel safe.
> The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
The problem is that American society glorifies guns and gun violence. A good first step to changing that is to limit gun ownership to people who actually need them: farmers, police, and the military. A good second step is to limit the types of guns that are available; e.g. famers need shotguns, not semi-autos.
I never claimed abolishing guns would lead to absoute safety. As you point out, there's plenty of senseless violence all over the first world, including gun violence. The difference between America and other places such as Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ is that people elsewhere do not see gun ownership as a necessary prerequisite in order to feel safe.
> The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
The problem is that American society glorifies guns and gun violence. A good first step to changing that is to limit gun ownership to people who actually need them: farmers, police, and the military. A good second step is to limit the types of guns that are available; e.g. famers need shotguns, not semi-autos.
Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous
Not even remotely true.
Not even remotely true.
They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military.
These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone?
Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. Good thinking there, Tex.
These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone?
Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. Good thinking there, Tex.
Now now. Anyone named Tex would probably not hold such wrong-headed beliefs about guns :)
> These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone?
Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea.
The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Two points:
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Two points:
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped
Fine, that's a valid opinion. There's a process for that: work for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, please stop the passive-aggressive end runs around the Constitution. Your favorite part of the Bill of Rights may be next.
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
(Shrug) If you say so. History, including very modern history, suggests otherwise.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
No.
You move.
Fine, that's a valid opinion. There's a process for that: work for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, please stop the passive-aggressive end runs around the Constitution. Your favorite part of the Bill of Rights may be next.
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
(Shrug) If you say so. History, including very modern history, suggests otherwise.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
No.
You move.
> Guns are weapons intended to kill.
Mine must not be working right then. Do you think I could get a refund? Seriously though, what does it mean or matter to say that an inanimate object is "intended" to do anything?
And there are all kinds of legitimate uses. Target practice/sporting uses, hunting (as you mention), self defense, defense against tyranny...
Mine must not be working right then. Do you think I could get a refund? Seriously though, what does it mean or matter to say that an inanimate object is "intended" to do anything?
And there are all kinds of legitimate uses. Target practice/sporting uses, hunting (as you mention), self defense, defense against tyranny...
I'll give your posturing some thought when I see the arguments for banning alcohol. Around 1,500 murders a year are alcohol-fueled. Add in drunk driving, and it's even stronger. Nobody needs alcohol. Live by those principles and maybe people will give your cars/utility argument a second thought.
Cars and guns are both tools. Cars are tools for transportation. Guns are tools to help save your own life or the lives of others. Every day, both kinds of tools are used as intended to do good, and also used to do harm.
Thanks for proving the GP's point so nicely.
If hyperbole were a valid method of proof, I suppose the world would be a funnier place, perhaps even a less violent one. Maybe we could revisit the laws of rhetoric after we're done nerfing the Second Amendment.
Exactly. No one on the anti-gun control side looks too closely at the statistics because they don't like what they see. Namely that the odds of someone who isn't suicidal and who isn't involved in criminal activity dying from a gunshot wound are about the same as the odds of being hit by a wayward meteor.
see how silly you're being?
see how silly you're being?
[deleted]
I am extremely pro-science. However, I am angry about attempts to scientifically study gun ownership because I know the only reason is to try and violate my rights by restricting or banning ownership. It's just as offensive to me as a scientific study to decide if we should restrict or ban free speech. Unless you honestly think they undertake these studies to expand our firearm rights or strictly for scientific curiosity?
I don't think "pro-science" means what you think it means.
He's anti-scientism. Providing a scientific veneer of legitimacy to political claims. Are you claiming this doesn't happen all the time?
Nope.
Being against scientific studies because what they uncover may lead to measures you dislike is not anti-scientism. It's anti-science. Science, done correctly, inconveniently disregards your values and preferences, so it's perfectly rational to oppose its use in certain situations, but doing so is absolutely anti-science.
Being against scientific studies because what they uncover may lead to measures you dislike is not anti-scientism. It's anti-science. Science, done correctly, inconveniently disregards your values and preferences, so it's perfectly rational to oppose its use in certain situations, but doing so is absolutely anti-science.
unless choice of hypothesis is a hell of a lot more impartial and rigorous and null-results and replications actually get reported on NO science is not value free.
If you were studying gun use, and you wanted to know how often guns were used in self-defense, how would you categorize Charles Wellford’s experience?
Preemptive gun use. Bam, done. Any other categorisations required?
Preemptive gun use. Bam, done. Any other categorisations required?
Preempting what, exactly? Seems to me like objectively, in the given situation the only effect of the gun being present vs. not being present was to increase the likelihood of a tragic accident.
You are probably referring to the way the word is used in a computer programming context. I was talking about this:
"A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes."
"A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes."
And I was talking about the fact that in the example the gun was brought in preparation to an imagined but unspecific and actually not existing threat.
This illustrates the problem rather well. The case where I ready my weapon in preparation for violence vs. when I use my weapon to stop an anticipated threat are both preemptive uses of the weapon.
The definition is unclear and one researcher may use one definition while another might use the other. Both cases are distinct, however. In one case, I am actually preemptively using the weapon and in the other, I am merely carrying it in anticipation of use.
Part of the article is a discussion of the fact that such definitions are muddied and lost as statistics are looked at.
The definition is unclear and one researcher may use one definition while another might use the other. Both cases are distinct, however. In one case, I am actually preemptively using the weapon and in the other, I am merely carrying it in anticipation of use.
Part of the article is a discussion of the fact that such definitions are muddied and lost as statistics are looked at.
I would argue that you would need it to be finer-grained. As the story was told, Wellford's preemptive gun use was a response to a perceived threat that did not exist. You'd want to count those types of incidents separately from those in which the threat was real. And then you'd need a third category where the reality of the threat cannot be established after the fact.
You would also want to tag incidents based on 1) harm done to victim, and 2) harm done to criminal. These are two separate dimensions, and in reality there are incidents to fit into every region on that 2d plane.
You would also want to tag incidents based on 1) harm done to victim, and 2) harm done to criminal. These are two separate dimensions, and in reality there are incidents to fit into every region on that 2d plane.
>For instance, because of those differences in the definition of “defensive gun use” some researchers will tell you that Americans use a gun to defend themselves something like 1.5 million times every year. Others say it happens maybe 200,000 times annually.
That kind of variability does not create an environment where it is easy to craft evidence-based policy
fuck you, yes it clearly does, it just isn't the answer you want. Author has clearly written the bottom line first in this article. 20k deaths occur annually from gun violence discounting suicides. The lowest estimate for defensive uses of guns (which came from a study which only counted actual police reports) was the aforementioned 200k. This is an order of magnitude difference. Criminals in our country are going to have guns for a long time and no law is going to change that.
That kind of variability does not create an environment where it is easy to craft evidence-based policy
fuck you, yes it clearly does, it just isn't the answer you want. Author has clearly written the bottom line first in this article. 20k deaths occur annually from gun violence discounting suicides. The lowest estimate for defensive uses of guns (which came from a study which only counted actual police reports) was the aforementioned 200k. This is an order of magnitude difference. Criminals in our country are going to have guns for a long time and no law is going to change that.
Presumably the 200K "defensive uses of guns" includes uses that didn't result in a death.
It's largely because the United States has as part of its constitution that citizens be armed. Even if guns are determined to be harmful, they're unlikely to go away. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of promising categories of research, including sociological and criminal areas, in which, if effective means of improvement are found, changes may actually be implemented. The more strident of a utilitarian (the school of thought that favors less violence versus following the Constitution) a researcher is, the more the researcher will pursue the avenue that will do the most good and avoid a principled death on the hill of gun ownership and proliferation.
[deleted]
Given someone with critical thinking skills who is well versed in scientific methods, they would quickly move to asking why violence is a problem. Why are there so many violent crimes in the U.S. compared to Canada? With a huge number of guns in Canada, why aren't their gun violence stats similar to the U.S.? But very few people seem interested in that line of questioning. Instead, we get pro-gun vs. anti-gun arguments. And of course the media and the public feed into this as well. It's just so easy to think something as symbolic as guns must be the problem and/or solution. But this is a much deeper problem, and one that is in desperate need of more attention.