Firearms and their relation to crime figures

[DammitBoy]

Dammitboy, you have problem with looking at, for example, that case where a guy killed three young dudes because of a stolen xbox? Are you saying it didn't happen?

No, no problem at all. I'm sure it happened, people do stupid shit everyday all around the world.

The difference is I blame the kid and you blame the gun.

I suspect because you were raised to think like a victim, instead of as a responsible individual.

 

[MutantScalper]

No, no problem at all. I'm sure it happened, people do stupid shit everyday all around the world.

The difference is I blame the kid and you blame the gun.

I suspect because you were raised to think like a victim, instead of as a responsible individual.

This thread is about gun crime which is specifically a US problem so it's Americans who are victims.

High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines: The Common Thread That Runs Through Mass Shootings

 

[Sander]

Here's a study from JSTOR that proves that guns are a high mortality weapon and links guns to more dangerous crime.

That study convincingly argues that guns increase the lethality of violent crime, and an increase in crimes perpetrated against less vulnerable victims (although it fails to establish that that would increase the level of crime overall). It also notes that diminishing the legal availability of guns would also increase the vulnerability of possible victims, and hence lead to an increase in violent crime against those victims.

What it does not convincingly argue is that gun control - ie. restricting the legal availability of guns - is an effective measure in these cases, because it can't draw a relationship between legal availability of guns and violent crime committed with guns. And it acknowledges as much. In fact, it claims that "gun availability does not have much effect on the rates of robbery and aggravated assault", although it also claims that gun availability is directly related to the homicide rate, and the proportion of crimes directed at less vulnerable targets.

What it does do is specify some legal measures that would help alleviate these issues: increased punishment for use of guns in a criminal act, as that would deter criminals from using guns in situations where they don't need them (like burglaries, or robbing vulnerable people). Increased taxes on guns (and ammo, a conclusion they don't draw but one I do) will also make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons, as the re-sale of legally obtained handguns becomes unprofitable. Harder punishments for illegal sale of guns, and illegal ownership of guns will have a similarly deterrent effect.

None of these measures impact the private owner of guns beyond an increased price, but do impact the criminal.

All of this with the note that this study is now 27 years old and hence somewhat outdated.

By the way, it's a US study based on US data. It must be irrelevant for Europe then, right? Oh wait no, you only say that when it's not an anti gun-piece. Please stop ignoring this very fundamental point as you keep on doing.


A relevant study to determine how to combat illegal gun ownership is Underground Gun Markets, also by Philip J. Cook (and Jens Ludwig, Sudhir Venkatesh and Anthony Braga), published in The Economic Journal #117, F588-F618.

The basic conclusion of that piece is that police intervention in illegal markets is most effective in reducing illegal gun ownership, and that Chicago's emphasis on fighting illegal gun ownership is highly useful in restricting illegal gun ownership. At the same time, they also point out that an increase in gun prevalence results in more homicides, burglaries and suicides, lending credence to your thesis that even legal gun ownership increases violent crime.

If you're a pro gun-person then it's like trying to convince a religious person not to be religious. You will always claim that the pro gun studies are "of highest quality", regardles if you read them or not.

If you're an anti gun-person then it's like trying to convince a religious person not to be religious. You will always claim that the anti gun studies are "of highest quality", regardles if you read them or not.

I love both sides of this debate. DammitBoy thinks I'm a gun-hating liberal European douchebag. You think I'm a pro-gun nutjob. Here's a fact: I don't own guns, I don't want to own guns, I have no bone to pick in this debate. What I'm interested in is the truth.

Here's another fact: I used to be an anti gun-person. I'm not anymore. Because the studies I've seen and arguments I've read from pro gun-people were a lot more convincing.

Lastly, you're still not discussing the actual content of that study. Care to?

Did you read all of them? What exactly is a study, could you give me a precise definition?

Of course I didn't read all of them. You want to link me to a specific relevant study, I'll read it.

A study is not a collection of incidents. It's a piece written with a specific thesis, a consistent methodology applied to that thesis, and using sources and data to come to a conclusion regarding that thesis. And preferably such a study is published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.

Pointing out incidents without regard for volume and other factors is misleading and not any way to come to a conclusion. It's nothing more than an attempt to create moral outrage.

And as for the one linked to, the first one on the list, are you saying those incidents didn't take place?

No, I'm saying those incidents are irrelevant to the discussion. Because they're incidents.

How much legal gun crime is there? And when does a gun owner or a gun become "illegal", when a crime is committed with it? How convenient, doesn't that mean that there aren't any legal gun criminals because they turn into criminals when they commit a crime with a gun?

Jesus fucking Christ would you stop with the goddamned straw men already? I never claimed an illegal gun is a gun used to commit a crime with, but somehow you draw that conclusion. An illegal gun is a gun procured through illegal means. That means a gun owned/used by a person who did not buy that gun from a legal source.

Where do the illegal weapons appear from, out of thin air? They were legal at one point, especially in a nation like US where it is easier to get weapons from legal markets then it is to smuggle or manufacture them from scratch.

Then the issue should be to fight the illegal (re)sale of weapons more intensely. Restricting the sale of guns is an indirect measure, when you could be applying direct measures.

Also, a newspaper article is not a study.

A study about children's gun accidents, suicides and homicides.

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

214 unintentional firearm deaths in 1999. That's not a particularly high amount. THat guns are used in homicides and suicides is hardly relevant, as the most efficient tool is going to be used in those cases: a gun. That doesn't mean they won't occur if legal gun ownership is restricted.

From Freakonomics: "In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States [..]rougly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year. Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns.[..]roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns."
BAN SWIMMING POOLS!


Again, please stop citing incidents and 'moral panic' studies. People die in situations where guns are used. That's no news to anyone, nor is anyone denying that. The issue isn't whether that happens, the issue is whether fewer people would die overall if legal gun ownership was restricted. That's not a conclusion you can draw from 'people die because of firearms'.

Moreover, you consistently fail to provide base evidence for your thesis that restriction of legal gun ownership will lead to less harm to society overall. You provide plenty of instances where guns are involved in causing harm to society, but you generally fail to draw a causal relationship between (legally owned) guns and those incidents, and you fail to substantiate your thesis that more gun control would fix those issues.

 

[Wintermind]

as I'm reading that first link, the thing that comes across my mind is: People who buy guns, go to gun shows, or join the NRA ALSO by guns & ammo? My mind is fucking blown. But I'm still reading it, of course.

 

[MutantScalper]

Sander,

take a look at the other links I provided as well.

I'll read it.

Yea, right.

Here's one study that shows clearly, once again, how high US is in terms of gun violence. In fact, Finland has higher level of gun ownership per household but much lower gun violence level. Switzerland has only about half of Finlands gun ownership but more gun violence. Suicides are also more common with guns in the US then they are in Finland.

You have to scroll a little to find the graphic with the data.

http://www.ippnw.org/Resources/MGS/V7N1Cukier.pdf

 

[Sander]

Here's one study that shows clearly, once again, how high US is in terms of gun violence.

ere's a lot of gun violence in the US. The issue is whether or not that is caused by legal gun ownership.

Sander,

take a look at the other links I provided as well.

I'll read it.

Yea, right.

That's it? That's your response to the in-depth analysis I just posted, where I also showed that I actually read the articles you provided? Really? You can't be bothered to argue the detailed points made, but instead you have to insult me?

I'm done discussing this issue with you.

 

[MutantScalper]

You know as far as I've gathered you only seem to accept studies from JSTOR as the ultimate truth about guns and nothing else. Me, I don't really even look there when looking for credible studies.

I'm actually reminded of a debate I once had about whether male children should be routinely circumcised or not. My opponents found a study from a US medical databases and shouted that it is "PEER REVIEWED! PEER REVIEWED!" and thus the ultimate truth. I wasn't able to convince them that male children shouldn't be circumcised so its unlikely that I'll be able to convince you either on this matter.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

You know as far as I've gathered you only seem to accept studies from JSTOR as the ultimate truth about guns and nothing else. Me, I don't really even look there when looking for credible studies.

We have every right to question the validity of links you post from places such as the Brady Campaign, just as you would (and have) questioned sources from places such as the NRA.

 

[Sander]

You know as far as I've gathered you only seem to accept studies from JSTOR as the ultimate truth about guns and nothing else. Me, I don't really even look there when looking for credible studies.

I'm actually reminded of a debate I once had about whether male children should be routinely circumcised or not. My opponents found a study from a US medical databases and shouted that it is "PEER REVIEWED! PEER REVIEWED!" and thus the ultimate truth. I wasn't able to convince them that male children shouldn't be circumcised so its unlikely that I'll be able to convince you either on this matter.

Have you considered the idea that you were wrong about male circumcision? No? Because you're stubborn and dismiss out of hand any study that draws a conclusion you disagree with. Undoubtedly those people you were talking to were stubborn as well. But I can't fault for them for relying on, y'know, peer-reviewed medical studies above...well, other studies. Because a peer-reviewed article at least more credible than a random link on the internet.

But more than that, it's important to look at the *content* of every study you present. You can argue its methods and argumentation and analyse its data. This is something you consistently refuse to do in these threads even when I or others do attempt to do so, instead you prefer to ignore those studies for various fairly ludicrous reasons (including being written in the US).

By the way, I have not dismissed any study that you've presented in this thread, and have gone into in-depth analysis of at least one study you have presented. But you refuse to react to that because apparently I'm too stubborn to be convinced (hypocrite much?), ignoring the fact that I've been convinced before.

Let me reiterate: when faced with in-depth analysis, you can do nothing but quip "Feh you don't read things", which is an obviously ridiculous statement in the face of in-depth analysis based on reading things. Things you yourself presented. The only conclusion I can draw is that you're not interested in reasoned debate at all: you have your viewpoint and simply want to push it forward, ignoring all other arguments.

All you seem to want to do is continue to post links to pieces saying "GUNS ARE USED IN KILLINGS". Despite the continued assurance of everyone in this thread that such statements are both obviously true and patently irrelevant to the issue at hand because there's no analysis of cause and effect there. You may have noticed that no one is denying those reports. Yet somehow you pretend that you're posting shocking new data.

 

[MutantScalper]

You know as far as I've gathered you only seem to accept studies from JSTOR as the ultimate truth about guns and nothing else. Me, I don't really even look there when looking for credible studies.

We have every right to question the validity of links you post from places such as the Brady Campaign, just as you would (and have) questioned sources from places such as the NRA.

The way I see it you've already done that. There are many who write studies for the NRA, such as John Lott who's studies can be found from JSTOR.

 

[Wintermind]

You know as far as I've gathered you only seem to accept studies from JSTOR as the ultimate truth about guns and nothing else. Me, I don't really even look there when looking for credible studies.

We have every right to question the validity of links you post from places such as the Brady Campaign, just as you would (and have) questioned sources from places such as the NRA.

The way I see it you've already done that. There are many who write studies for the NRA, such as John Lott who's studies can be found from JSTOR.

So because somebody has written studies published by biased source, nothing else they write is worthwhile or usable?

 

[MutantScalper]

Have you considered the idea that you were wrong about male circumcision? No? Because you're stubborn and dismiss out of hand any study that draws a conclusion you disagree with. Undoubtedly those people you were talking to were stubborn as well. But I can't fault for them for relying on, y'know, peer-reviewed medical studies above...well, other studies. Because a peer-reviewed article at least more credible than a random link on the internet.

Actually I see many of those "peer reviewed studies" from outside Europe as "random links on the internet". If I want to see studies on whether, say, cocaine is bad for the health I don't go the pages of the medical branch of Colombia, I look at studies from my own country and then from other European nations.

 

[Sander]

Actually I see many of those "peer reviewed studies" from outside Europe as "random links on the internet". If I want to see studies on whether, say, cocaine is bad for the health I don't go the pages of the medical branch of Colombia, I look at studies from my own country and then from other European nations.

You do realise that the best researchers in most fields (and especially medical fields) operate out of the US, right?

 

[MutantScalper]

Actually I see many of those "peer reviewed studies" from outside Europe as "random links on the internet". If I want to see studies on whether, say, cocaine is bad for the health I don't go the pages of the medical branch of Colombia, I look at studies from my own country and then from other European nations.

You do realise that the best researchers in most fields (and especially medical fields) operate out of the US, right?

What I do know for a fact, and not just some vague allusions drawn by some NRA-funded think tank, is that US has a much higher gun mortality figures then Europe on average. That gives a pretty good starting point on how I value their studies on the matter.

 

[Sander]

What I do know for a fact, and not just some vague allusions drawn by some NRA-funded think tank, is that US has a much higher gun mortality figures then Europe on average. That gives a pretty good starting point on how I value their studies on the matter.

So the people researching the issue, many of those not funded by "NRA think tanks", are responsible for the violence there? Not to mention that US research institutes are not monolithic and individual researchers aren't responsible for the laws of their society.

The fact that you won't even analyse their arguments is astounding. If they're automatically wrong because they're American, it would be a piece of cake for someone like yourself to debunk their statements, right?


Besides that, you only show that you've predetermined your opinions and are not open to rational debate. Because you're reasoning for not accepting their conclusions is based entirely on already having not accepted their conclusions. You start with the idea that there's a lot of gun crime in the USA, and then you jump to the conclusion that that's caused by their gun control laws (something you still to this post have not been able to substantiate), and then you use that as justification for completely ignoring a plethora of research (except for the research that supports your cause, of course).



But let's skip beyond all that. I'm Dutch. We have less gun violence than Finland, which is your country. Therefore I must be more right than you on the issue of gun violence. Q.E.D.

 

[MutantScalper]

Absolutely, Finland has a lot of big problems when it comes to gun violence. It's not an abstract, distant problem as it might appear to be in the Netherlands. This makes it all the more important to get our facts straight and at least not go into a worse direction (US).

 

[Sander]

Absolutely, Finland has a lot of big problems when it comes to gun violence. It's not an abstract, distant problem as it might appear to be in the Netherlands. This makes it all the more important to get our facts straight and at least not go into a worse direction (US).

So then why are you ignoring a gigantic group of studies, refusing to even acknowledge let alone discuss their arguments as if it's impossible for them to hold any water?

If you're going to ignore such a large portion of evidence, you're not interested in truth. You're interested in confirming your own preconceived notions.

Besides, we have no gun problems. Therefore I must be right. Please acknowledge that this reasoning is equivalent to your reasoning for ignoring US studies.

 

[MutantScalper]

So then why are you ignoring a gigantic group of studies, refusing to even acknowledge let alone discuss their arguments as if it's impossible for them to hold any water?

If you're going to ignore such a large portion of evidence, you're not interested in truth. You're interested in confirming your own preconceived notions.

Like I said I do believe in the figures that the US government provides about their high gun deaths. I don't really have an option but to accept those numbers. So it's not like I don't accept anything that comes from the States.

 

[Sander]

So then why are you ignoring a gigantic group of studies, refusing to even acknowledge let alone discuss their arguments as if it's impossible for them to hold any water?

If you're going to ignore such a large portion of evidence, you're not interested in truth. You're interested in confirming your own preconceived notions.

Like I said I do believe in the figures that the US government provides about their high gun deaths. I don't really have an option but to accept those numbers. So it's not like I don't accept anything that comes from the States.

Except of course, the studies published in the US. You refuse to even look at their argumentation, despite the quite distinct possibility that they're actually correct.

 

[MutantScalper]

Except of course, the studies published in the US. You refuse to even look at their argumentation, despite the quite distinct possibility that they're actually correct.

And you for some reason value US studies over studies made in the Netherlands. I find that very strange, unless of course you are doing this for trolling purposes.