More guns, more murders

[treis]

@pkbites

Answer this first:

How many more would he have stabbed and/or killed had he not been stopped by an armed civilian?

[pkbites]

@treis

I’m sorry, you have under bid. But we do have some nice parting gifts for you, including a copy of our home game.

[ITR_champion]

So while the pro-gun side decides whether New York and Massachuesetts are gun-lovers’ paradises or dystopias run by jack-booted thugs, I’ll hold with what the only cite we’ve seen thus far says. I will offer a parting thought. It seems that when the pro-gun side sees a stat they like, such as the crime rate in D. C., it’s taken for granted that it must be the direct result of the gun laws. When they see a stat they don’t like, such as the nationwide crime-rate comparison, they immediately set out to nitpick it to death. That’s exactly what I was referring to as cherry-picking the data. Such thinking is great for emotional satisfaction, not so much for effective policy.

[Opus1]

@ITR champion

So while the pro-gun side decides whether New York and Massachuesetts are gun-lovers’ paradises or dystopias run by jack-booted thugs, I’ll hold with what the only cite we’ve seen thus far says. I will offer a parting thought. It seems that when the pro-gun side sees a stat they like, such as the crime rate in D. C., it’s taken for granted that it must be the direct result of the gun laws. When they see a stat they don’t like, such as the nationwide crime-rate comparison, they immediately set out to nitpick it to death. That’s exactly what I was referring to as cherry-picking the data. Such thinking is great for emotional satisfaction, not so much for effective policy.

Yeah, no one does this but gun control opponents. You just stick with the stats you’ve provided, since 20 posts over 6 hours is obviously all the argument you need to convince yourself of that which you already believe. Any comment on my previous post, or should I continue believing that locks cause burglaries?

[BrainGlutton]

@Common Tater

Certainly more guns in the hands of criminals…

And how would you allow law-abiding citizens to have guns while at the same time making it impossible for criminals to have them?

[smile4me2222]

@ITR champion

It seems that when the pro-gun side sees a stat they like, such as the crime rate in D. C., it’s taken for granted that it must be the direct result of the gun laws. **

For what it’s worth, I’m pro-gun, and I don’t attribute the crime rate in DC to the gun laws there. I attribute it to the fact that DC has a lot of poor black people. I would guess that DC would have a lot of crime no matter what the gun laws were.

Same thing with Detroit and Philadelphia.

As I mentioned previously, you need to take these sorts of demographic differences into account, otherwise your analysis doesn’t mean much.

As I suggested, why not look at crime rates before and after CCW – or some other law – is passed in a jurisdiction?

**

That’s exactly what I was referring to as cherry-picking the data. Such thinking is great for emotional satisfaction, not so much for effective policy.

The anti-gun side seems to cherry pick data too. For example, by comparing the U.S. with Japan.

[Common_Tater]

@BrainGlutton

And how would you allow law-abiding citizens to have guns while at the same time making it impossible for criminals to have them?

Too narrow a construct with this “at the same time”? There’s no way to make it impossible for criminals to have firearms, but let’s make it possible for law-abiding to effectively defend theselves. A good start would be to allow law-abiding folks to exercise their right of self-defense in public. For decades, laws have been bass-ackwards, putting the “good guys” at a deadly disadvantage.

[Martini_Enfield]

The thing that often seems to get overlooked is that there are a lot of people out there who aren’t convicted criminals- but are scum, of dubious character, or simply haven’t been caught yet… in short, people who probably shouldn’t have guns either, even though they don’t have a conviction for anything.

The problem is, assuming that everyone is a criminal is dangerous, paranoid thinking, and there’s no test for “Who should be allowed a gun” that doesn’t either involve a Australian/UK-style gun laws or end up being applied… unevenly.

I think the issue is too complicated to simply break down into a “Before/After” study of statistics involving events before/after the creation of “Shall Issue” laws in a given area, or changes in the arms laws. Other Western countries, for example, don’t typically seem to have significant numbers of religious extremists with a desire to shoot at “outsiders” or “strangers”, and so I’d argue that comparing data relating to crime involving firearms from outside the US with anywhere inside the US is almost completely meangingless, regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.

[Wallenstein]

For reference, the Master’s comments:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041105.html

[Sage_Rat]

@Opus1

A high crime rate might encourage people to carry firearms in the first place. As an analogy, I guarantee you that towns where nobody locks their doors have far less crime than cities where everyone uses three deadbolts, an alarm system, and bars on all the windows. I therefore conclude that locks cause burglary.

This is indeed the problem with the OPs interpretation of the numbers.

I would also like to add to the topic that, in my understanding, guns are more non-lethal than knives. So if you get rid of guns, unless you expect crime to simply disappear, the most likely fallback weapon for criminals will be one which is more likely to kill the victim, and one which doesn’t have the same “oomph” as a gun so quite probably will cause more people to not comply with the criminal and thus get themselves stabbed.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Sage Rat

This is indeed the problem with the OPs interpretation of the numbers.

I would also like to add to the topic that, in my understanding, guns are more non-lethal than knives. So if you get rid of guns, unless you expect crime to simply disappear, the most likely fallback weapon for criminals will be one which is more likely to kill the victim, and one which doesn’t have the same “oomph” as a gun so quite probably will cause more people to not comply with the criminal and thus get themselves stabbed.

This is an interesting assertion. Do you have any cites that illustrate that knives are more lethal than guns? Further, how does “lethal” related to “good for killing others”? It would seem that we would want to be arming police with knives instead of firearms if knives were more lethal in the sense that they were more of a threat to other people.

As to the OP, published analyses routinely support the assertion that the prevalence of guns in a community is positively associated to the level of gun violence and gun homicide. For example, see Price, Thompson, Dake (2004):

Abstract This study examined the relationship of 16 variables with homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths. This cross-sectional analysis, using adjusted partial correlation coefficients, found that state-level firearm homicide rates significantly varied by the prevalence of firearms and by percent of the population which was African American. Whereas, state-level variations in firearm suicide mortality significantly varied by firearm prevalence, per capita alcohol consumption, percent of the population which was African American, and level of urbanization. None of the variables were significantly (p .05) related to state-level variations in unintentional firearm mortality. Furthermore, state gun laws had only a limited effect on firearm-related homicide deaths. Although the current study cannot determine causation, firearm mortality in its various forms is most commonly related to the prevalence of firearms and the percent of the population that is African American.

Furthermore, studies that have examined within-community changes before and after the introduction of “shall issue” laws illustrate that the rate of homicides tends to go up. See Rosengart, Cummings, Nathens, Heagerty, Maier and Rivara (2005):

Objective: To determine if any of five different state gun laws were associated with firearm mortality: (1) ‘‘shall issue’’ laws permitting an individual to carry a concealed weapon unless restricted by another statute; (2) a minimum age of 21 years for handgun purchase; (3) a minimum age of 21 years for private handgun possession; (4) one gun a month laws which restrict handgun purchase frequency; and (5) junk gun laws which ban the sale of certain cheaply constructed handguns. Design: A cross sectional time series study of firearm mortality from 1979 to 1998. Setting: All 50 states and the District of Columbia. Subjects: All residents of the United States. Main outcome measures: Firearm homicides, all homicides, firearm suicides, and all suicides. Results: When a ‘‘shall issue’’ law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95%confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant. No law was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides. No law was associated with a statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates.

Conclusion: A ‘‘shall issue’’ law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rates.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Sage Rat

I would also like to add to the topic that, in my understanding, guns are more non-lethal than knives. So if you get rid of guns, unless you expect crime to simply disappear, the most likely fallback weapon for criminals will be one which is more likely to kill the victim, and one which doesn’t have the same “oomph” as a gun so quite probably will cause more people to not comply with the criminal and thus get themselves stabbed.

Crossbows?

[Uzi]

@ITR champion

Such thinking is great for emotional satisfaction, not so much for effective policy.

The murder rate in the US is 5.5 people per 100,000 of which 2/3 involves a firearm, or 3.6 per 100,000. Homicide rate %murders for firearms

But if you really want to make a difference in the world start with motorcycles in which 69.9 people per 100,000 registered motorcycles die each year. For every mile driven you are 32 times more likely to die than if you drive a car. NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts (pdf)

I also was searching for the rates for smoking, but all I found was a link to 1987 stating the rate is 192 per 100,000 link . Most sites just claim it is lots. Interestingly, while doing this search google came back with a dead link that stated viagra caused 5 deaths per 100,000.

It seems like life is inherently dangerous, but guns themselves aren’t the major cause of what kills us. I imagine that dropping the speed limit 5mph/hour would probably get the same effect as banning guns would. My point being that the amount of time people spend trying to ban guns would probably be better spent elsewhere and given the fact that I could have a tool in my house to stop the bad guys, if necessary, I’d think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Uzi

The murder rate in the US is 5.5 people per 100,000 of which 2/3 involves a firearm, or 3.6 per 100,000. Homicide rate %murders for firearms

But if you really want to make a difference in the world start with motorcycles in which 69.9 people per 100,000 registered motorcycles die each year. For every mile driven you are 32 times more likely to die than if you drive a car. NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts (pdf)

I also was searching for the rates for smoking, but all I found was a link to 1987 stating the rate is 192 per 100,000 link . Most sites just claim it is lots. Interestingly, while doing this search google came back with a dead link that stated viagra caused 5 deaths per 100,000.

It seems like life is inherently dangerous, but guns themselves aren’t the major cause of what kills us. I imagine that dropping the speed limit 5mph/hour would probably get the same effect as banning guns would. My point being that the amount of time people spend trying to ban guns would probably be better spent elsewhere and given the fact that I could have a tool in my house to stop the bad guys, if necessary, I’d think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Don’t forget the number of children who drown in 5 gallon buckets. The point is the frequency of deaths per the total number of times that an object is used. Motorcycles, viagra and 5 gallon buckets must have a much higher rate of times used to fatal incidents than handguns, even including times on the range and that sort of thing.

[Sage_Rat]

@Hentor the Barbarian

This is an interesting assertion. Do you have any cites that illustrate that knives are more lethal than guns?

No, as said it’s just my understanding. Can’t recall where I heard it though I am relatively certain that I’ve see something which backed it up. A quick google didn’t pick up anything. But the basic idea is simply that a bullet hole doesn’t leak as much blood, so unless you happened to hit something right on, the only thing that’s going to kill you is blood loss.

It would seem that we would want to be arming police with knives instead of firearms if knives were more lethal in the sense that they were more of a threat to other people.

I would be relatively certain that police officers are given guns that have calibers that are less lethal. Police don’t want to kill people, they just want to stop you from killing them. Just shooting a person fairly well stops them right there, going on and killing them is pointless.

And as said, guns scare people more, so people are more likely to go along with what the person with the gun says.

[The_Swan]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Don’t forget the number of children who drown in 5 gallon buckets. The point is the frequency of deaths per the total number of times that an object is used. Motorcycles, viagra and 5 gallon buckets must have a much higher rate of times used to fatal incidents than handguns, even including times on the range and that sort of thing.

Okay, but is a police officer allowed to count each day on duty as a “use”, even if the handgun is not unholstered? How about a person who leaves a pistol under his mattress for self-defense? Additionally, I don’t know anyone who purchases a motorcycle in the hopes that he or she will never have to “use” it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@The Swan

Okay, but is a police officer allowed to count each day on duty as a “use”, even if the handgun is not unholstered? How about a person who leaves a pistol under his mattress for self-defense?

I suppose it would depend on the purpose of the analysis now wouldn’t it. Of course, to maintain integrity, you’d need to count similar circumstances for your comparisons - times a motorcycle sat waiting to be used in the garage or viagra was all set in the medicine cabinet.

Additionally, I don’t know anyone who purchases a motorcycle in the hopes that he or she will never have to “use” it.

I’m not sure of your point here. I’m just suggesting that the raw number of negative incidents is not relevant. For example, the number of times that Joe Lunchbox killed someone with a dose of ebola virus is probably exceedingly low, but that’s not why there are restrictions on access by the public to ebola virus samples.

Rather, it’s the relative risk presented by a given thing that is of interest. If a widget is associated with fatal outcomes 1% of the times it is used, and a doodad is associated with fatal outcomes 20% of the times it is used, it would make sense to start asking whether we should restrict the use of doodads if we could. (Note: I’ve just pulled these numbers out of the air for the sake of trying to clarify the point.)

[bup]

@Sage Rat

No, as said it’s just my understanding. Can’t recall where I heard it though I am relatively certain that I’ve see something which backed it up. A quick google didn’t pick up anything. But the basic idea is simply that a bullet hole doesn’t leak as much blood, so unless you happened to hit something right on, the only thing that’s going to kill you is blood loss.

Just in case you think you’ve convinced anybody with this, I’m going to say you didn’t me, and anybody he did convince please make yourself known.

Then go hunting with a knife, and compare results with someone hunting with a gun. Small game, large game, your choice.

[silenus]

Also, as usual, the gun-control people are confusing correlation with causation. AFAIK, there is no way of telling whether or not the number of firearms increased in an area that goes to “shall-issue.” But studies do show that a statistically insignifigant percentage of those with CCW permits lose them, and that it is almost never for something related to the weapon itself.

Also note that Hentor’s cite states that homicide rates in general didn’t go up, nor did firearm suicide rates. What this means I really don’t know.

[Aeschines]

Today we have a sniper in Indy blowing people away on the highway, but as a “practical democratic socialist” I’m still against disarming the populace. People should be allowed to own and carry basic handguns, shotguns, and rifles–i.e., guns appropriate for personal and home protection.

As to the OP’s argument, it’s ridiculous for reasons others have stated, and I’ll add a few:

1. As has been pointed out, correlation doesn’t equal causation. If crime is high in an area, one would expect there to be greater demand for concealed carry laws and guns in general.

2. As has been pointed out, the status of concealed carry laws in many of the areas is highly ambiguous. So much for the sample.

3. The difference in average murder rates is 3.9. Now use your knowledge of statistics. That’s going to be a statistically significant number (just eyeballing it), but there are many, many questions left to be answered in order to determine causation! Is one or more of the cities skewing the data? If so, why are their murder rates particularly high. If the reason has nothing to do with the concealed carry laws, then there is no reason to claim that concealed carry laws have an overall effect.

4. Insofar as a person seeks a permit for a concealed carry firearm, that person is obeying the law. What are the chances that such a person is going to use the firearm for a criminal purpose? Almost none, I say. At the same time, I fully believe the claim that a lot of law-abiding people carrying a lot of guns sends a message to the perps: “Better not mess with people; you never know who’s going to blow you away.” For this reason alone, how on earth is concealed carry going to cause more murders?

There is the general principle that the cost of control must exceed the benefits of control. There is no way that disarming the country is going to benefit us more than it costs us. Kind of like the War on Drugs. Can you imagaine the War on Guns? That would be fun, throwing all kinds of otherwise law-abiding people in the clink for wanting to protect themselves.

So forget it.