Skip to main content

It seems like the rule of thumb is that the more firearms a country has, the more crime there is. People like the NRA, some LGC members, and some RKBAers would argue otherwise, pointing to More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

Then the argument becomes about Lott and what he did or didn't do in regards to his study. Let's just bypass him completely and go all the way back to 2007. We'll look at a different study, which I wish I could quote more than three paragraphs of.


Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  

First, the link (PDF, Harvard).

The title of this paper is:

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

The authors are Don Kates and Gary Mauser. I haven't heard of either of these guys. So I went to do some research. The first page I pulled up on Kates was a Wiki page with no sources.

That sounds...fantastic.

So I went looking elsewhere and found this.
 

Don B. Kates is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He received his J.D. from Yale University Law School and has taught constitutional law and lectured on criminology at Stanford University, Oxford University, Saint Louis University School of Law, and the University of Melbourne.

He has previously worked for the late civil rights lawyer William Kunstler (Kunstler & Kinoy) and the California Rural Legal Assistance, where he served as Director of Legal Research and Senior Litigation Attorney. After many years as a private practitioner in San Francisco, Kates is now an associate with the firms Trutanich & Michel and the Law Offices of Donald Kilmer. He also maintains a civil liberties and rights practice that specializes in the right to bear arms.

In addition, he has been Trustee for the Poverty Lawyers for Effective Advocacy, Member of the California State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Director of Litigation and Deputy Director for the San Mateo Legal Aid Society, Police Legal Advisor for the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, Research Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, and consultant to the legal services program for the cities of Seattle and Berkeley and the state of Alaska. During the recent Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, Kates served as an advisor to the council in the Court of Appeals.

Couple different things here. One, the Independent Institute looks like a libertarian think tank. While I disagree with a lot of things big L Libertarians say, I also happen to agree with them on one or two things (mostly related to civil liberties). I also found it interesting that this guy worked for Kunstler.

There's a little bit of background on Kates. It looks like I could write a diary on the guy, but let's move on to the other author.

Gary Mauser.

Gary A. Mauser is a Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Business Administration and the Institute for Urban Canadian Research Studies at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Professor Mauser earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Irvine. He has dual American and Canadian citizenship. He and his wife, Ede Wong, have five children and live in Coquitlam.
His interest in firearms and “gun control” grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, Political Marketing, and Manipulating Public Opinion and more than 20 articles. For the past 15 years, Professor Mauser has conducted research on the politics of gun control, the effectiveness of gun control laws, and the use of firearms in self defense.
...
He purchased his first firearm after moving to Canada and conducting research into firearm legislation. He is a member of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation.
Mauser's place of employ (SFU) doesn't look like it has the libertarian lean that Kates' does. His CV points to...let's just say NOT conservative employers.
1991 - 2007 Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University
1991 - 2007 Professor, Simon Fraser University
1980 - 1991 Associate Professor, SFU
1979 - 1980 Visiting Professor, Université Laval, Quebec City, Quebec
1975 - 1980 Assistant Professor, SFU
1974 - 1975 Assistant Professor, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA
1971 - 1975 Professeur invité, Université de Grenoble, France
1970 - 1971 Postdoctoral Fellow, Language and Behavior Laboratory,
University of California, Berkeley
So now that we've explored the authors a bit, let's take a look at the paper itself.

Right off the bat (in the intro, if you're following along in the PDF), we see this block o' text:

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that(a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b)is,infact,false andstatement(a)is substantially so.
They have my attention.

Scrolling through (on pages 12/13 of whatever reader you're using), you'll find this:

One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost
uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.” So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape,rob, or murder.
If you look back at our suggestions diary, you'll notice a section about Hartford, CT. From the original diary I quoted in THAT diary (diary-ception!):
Hartford CT has finished the first year of a program to reduce gun violence, and the results are in. A 40 percent drop in gun homicides, and a 30 percent drop in first degree assaults with a firearm. I am a strong RKBA advocate, yet I approve. How is this possible?
The short form is that Hartford law enforcement worked to:

* predict retaliatory shootings
* identify potential future shooters or victims
* establish a regional stolen firearms protocol
* target the city's most violent criminals

Note what is missing from this list (and the news story). Absolutely no mention of making it harder for law-abiding, peaceful citizens to acquire firearms.

They didn't even go after ALL criminals, just the most violent ones.

Let's skip down to the conclusion:

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
I look forward to the comments.

8:28 AM PT: From serendipityisabitch below (which goes towards background):

About Harvard JLPP
The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students.

The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Kates/Mauser is not original research; (15+ / 0-)

    it is basically a review paper. As such, it's enormously interesting mainly for its footnotes and supporting information.

    I don't know that they demonstrate their affirmative thesis especially strongly, but the paper does make a strong case that violent crime rates and civilian gun ownership rates are at least strongly decoupled, and that the main mechanism of the decoupling is the fact that the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed by a small, aberrant-even-among-criminals portion of the criminal population that has its access to weapons mainly through the black market; and that it's the size and aggressiveness of this sub-population that sets violent crime rates for the most part; and the extent of the influence of the armament or disarmament of the general population has on violent crime rates is how defensive use is affected.

    But even if you don't think they really establish their thesis very well, the wealth of information about research on the subject contained therein makes the paper a very valuable read.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:20:37 AM PDT

    •  Meta analysis papers (12+ / 0-)

      are usually more compelling than a single stand-alone study.
      This is an interesting study.

      Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength. - Eric Hoffer

      by Otteray Scribe on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:30:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The reason I think we should be hesitant to (18+ / 0-)

      push the "more guns less crime" is that gun crime is mostly confined to (both perpetrator and victim) a criminal sub-population that will always be saturated with as many weapons  as they need or want, because of street and black/gray market sources.

      Mentioned in the Kates/Mauser paper, in '07, Baltimore police reported that 95% of those committing homicide had felony records, but that 91% of victims had a felony record as well (with an average of 12 arrests per victim). This was a trend, up from around 74% a decade ago. Other cities saw a smaller increase, but generally speaking, even in the '90s, it appears that around 70% of homicide victims were convicted felons with long arrest records.

      Of the 30% of homicide victims that didn't have a felony record, as Kates & Mauser point, many - if not most - were closely connected to people engaged in criminal enterprise, either as people who'd managed to escape such a record, or the friends or family of people with such.

      As such, any attempt to prove "more guns = less crime", based on increased and more effective acts with self-defense, would have to compete with the statistical noise caused by the much smaller sample sizes caused by the fact that substantially less than 30% of homicides, the most completely sampled crime out there, involve the broader population.

      This close connection between criminal history and homicide victimization is also why every study Kellerman and his cronies have produced about the "increased" risk of having a gun in the home are bogus - because they fails, when comparing homicide victims in high-crime counties to a demographically similar individual living nearby, to account for 3 things: 1) matching criminal history between homicide victim and control, 2) that the victim populations he's studying can not be extrapolated to the general population, and 3) the large effect even small under-reporting of gun ownership rates among the control population has on the final numbers.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kellermann did adjust for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        some criminal history related variables. See his table 4 in the NEJM paper on homicide (p 1089).
        http://www.nejm.org/...
        Among other variables he included (controls already matched on race, sex, age, and neighborhood of residence):
        * Any household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home
        * Any household member arrested
        * Any household member used illicit drugs

        Those variables are all significant predictors, but gun in the home also remains significant after adjustment.

        He might have been able to improve on the methods, but I think you are overstating the degree to which he did not control for anything similar. This is a pretty well controlled study.

        •  Kellerman wouldn't even release the (5+ / 0-)

          information on his controls, or how far the control lived from the homicide it was being compared to. He claims to have corrected for criminal history, but did it poorly. And, again, did so sampling a grossly non-representative population (which is the one thing his attempt to control for arrest record revealed), and his control surveys were extremely poorly done.

          Never mind that his whole methodology was faulty - case control studies are used to generate hypotheses, not test them.

          One of the things that Kleck points out is that Kellerman only had to underestimate gun ownership rates, via under-reporting, from the control group by something like 15% for his "increased risk" to completely vanish, and his methodology for determining gun ownership rates among the controls was a disaster. Even Kellerman himself admits this is an issue, but hand-waves it away.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:22:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure what (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk

            you mean by the case-control comment, case control studies are used to test hypotheses all the time in epidemiology when you have a relatively rare event such that a population-based study would be impractical to carry out. They sure beat a convenience sample or many other options even though a lot of those studies get published, if you do a good job with the matching.

            Sure, you can pick holes in Kellermann, but you could easily say the same thing for others, and there are few with the level of control his has. There are plenty of nits to pick with Kleck (eg http://www.saf.org/...) and John Lott (!!) as well.

        •  More specifically, there's arrest records (6+ / 0-)

          and there's arrest records.

          The police department studies (article linked upthread) found that upwards of 70% in the '90s, and up to 91% now, of homicide victims have felony records, with an average of a dozen arrests.

          Simply saying, "victim has an arrest record, so let's pick a control with an arrest record" doesn't begin to ensure that the control is comparable with the victim. Victims are much more likely to have engaged in high-risk crimes than matching to a control with a simple arrest record will show.

          But that's what you get when you let a doctor (much less an ideologically-driven one with close ties to Brady group) do criminology.

          But even if he had correctly matched victims to controls, the highly criminal nature of three-quarters or more of homicide victims means that any enhanced risk he calculates for having a gun in the home only applies to that criminal subgroup.

          Which is an interesting result, but doesn't apply to law-abiding Americans, and irrelevant in the gun control debate.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 12:29:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  But... but... that was 2007 (15+ / 0-)

    Surely events since then have proven this trend false?

    Let's see...
    Obama elected; surge in gun sales.
    Obama reelected; surge in gun sales.
    Newtown; massive surge in gun sales.

    Violent crime? Down even more.

    But... but...

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:23:47 AM PDT

  •  Just as more guns (9+ / 0-)

    does not equal more crime, more guns will not lessen crime I think. Not enough to be statically relevant at least. Not sure though...  

    For all the pearl clutching about someone shooting innocents in an attempt to stop a mass shooting- it has yet to happen that I am aware of.

    On the flip side, there has been one instance I think of a CCW holder stopping a mass shooting? Oregon? And though the crime was stopped- it was not prevented.

    As for suicides- Japan has a MUCH higher per capita rate than we do. And few fewer guns. It's all about the mental health- increasing opportunities and eliminating the stigma.

  •  this is complete nonsense (6+ / 0-)

    ...obviously our ridiculously lax gun laws are directly correlated to higher rates of violent crime.

    people are killed with guns in arguments nearly 10x more than guns being used to stop a crime. of course the depressing fact that we have nealy as many guns as people can be seen in our shameful and disgraceful levels of gun murders.

    over 21,0000+ killed by guns since Sandy Hook. so more guns is the answer. durrrrrrrr.

    so sick of gun nuts and their extremism killing our people!

    "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war." -Mark Twain

    by humanistique on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:28:00 AM PDT

    •  What numbers are you using for defensive gun (10+ / 0-)

      use?

      Even the lowest number estimated by a government sponsored study found 108k defensive gun use (a year). Which is about roughly equal to the number of people getting shot.

      •  It should be noted that said study didn't (6+ / 0-)

        actually survey defensive gun use. It collected information about it incidentally.

        Every study specifically designed to study it, and as of 2000, there were about 19 of them, individually put the defensive uses at around 2 million a year, with a statistical uncertainty of  plus/minus a little over a million.

        Of course, when these 19 studies are combined, the statistical uncertainty drops into the low hundred thousand range, meaning the 2 million number is probably pretty close to the mark.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:49:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  2,000,000 / 365 = 5479.45 a day (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution, oldpunk

          313.9 million people in America / 2,000,000 = 156.95

          If only half the people in America own a gun then
          156,950,000 people / 2,000,000 = 78.475

          Or am I getting the math wrong ?

          "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

          by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:43:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, 5500x a day, somewhere in the country, (7+ / 0-)

            someone uses a gun to defend themselves or their home or property. In very few of these DGUs does anything more than a display of, or verbal warning about, the gun occur; and 1 in 78 gun owning households will do so in a given year.

            Put another way, in a given year ~1.5% of the population (or 3% of gun owners) will engage in armed act of self-defense, again mostly displaying the weapon or issuing a verbal warning.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:22:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And the rest of it ? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DefendOurConstitution, oldpunk
              313.9 million people in America / 2,000,000 = 156.95

              If only half the people in America own a gun then
              156,950,000 people / 2,000,000 = 78.475

              Do these numbers look right in your eyes ?

              If every person had a gun , 156.95 ?
              If only 1/2 have a gun , 78.475 ?

              ..........................

              or verbal warning about
              Does this mean , "I've got a gun", even when there is no gun , counts as a DGU ?

              "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

              by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:28:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  As I understand with the protocols used by (6+ / 0-)

                Kleck and the leads of the various other studies, the answer is generally no. It's only counted as a DGU if the respondent had a gun in his/her possession.

                Your other numbers are more or less order of magnitude correct, but simplify the matter a bit - conflating individuals with households, and the fact that only 43% of households admit to owning a gun.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:37:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So if 43% of households own guns (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk

                  and a household is , lets say , Mom Pop Girl Boy ,
                  they can't all have equal access to a gun .
                  Lets say 1/2 of them have access .
                  43% / 2 = 21.5%
                  21.5% of 313,900,000 = 67,488,500
                  67488500 / 2,000,000 = 33.75
                  1 out of 33.75 gun owners a year ?

                  If only 1/4 of them have access
                  43% / 4 = ...
                  1 out of 16.87

                  "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

                  by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:58:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're attempting to calculate with (6+ / 0-)

                    insufficient information.Starting with a serious overestimation of household size.

                    Similarly, the number of incidents is generally based on self-reported uses, not household uses. Ownership rate is by household.

                    But let me stop you here. You're trying to cook numbers to create an argument from incredulity. That's a fallacy, not a reductio ad absurdiam.

                    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                    by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:15:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's not cooking numbers (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpunk

                      it's using external validation to perform a sanity check, such as working backwards from justifiable homicides.

                      Here's another one.

                      Take those 2M DGUs. Consider the fraction that occur out of the home (~60% Kleck), consider the fraction of people that carry (2%?), divide by that fraction and you should roughly get the total crime rate (assuming that DGU is used to prevent crime, which I guess is the diary's point?)

                      So, that would be roughly 50M incidences of violent crime/year or ~1 in 6.

                      Of course, the real stats for violent crime are ~ 1 in 1000, so again we're looking for about two orders of magnitude discrepancy, just like the external validation from justifiable homicides.

                      Do you think it's any accident that the two external validations come up with roughly the same number? Maybe this should tell you that self-reported surveys, especially for gun use, aren't worth the paper they are written on.

                      One potential criticism for these validations is that they target 'justifiable' DGU, DGU that is used to prevent crime, so maybe the 2M DGU number is real. It just isn't 'justifiable'.

                      Is that what you want to argue?

                      •  Edit: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        oldpunk

                        Violent crime rate should be closer to 1 in 250-300, not 1 in 1000, point still stands.

                      •  A sanity check that has more assumptions (5+ / 0-)

                        than the Drake equation.

                        Starting with the assumption that DGUs must involve a weapon fired.

                        Or, you could ask several thousand people. 19 times, different groups, slightly varying methodologies, and get the same answer each time.

                        Refusing to accept that answer is science denial.

                        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                        by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 12:31:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Holy crap (0+ / 0-)

                          what is with your comprehension skill?

                          What assumptions are you talking about?

                          The external validation vs. the violent crime stat does not depend AT ALL on whether a gun was fired. The only assumption in this check is that the number of people with carry permits are always carrying, and are always able to invoke a DGU to prevent crime. I admit this is an overestimate, but this makes the situation worse for you, not better.

                          The external validation using the justifiable homicide rate uses the Kleck DGU survey of 8% as the percentage a gun is fired and hits during a DGU. If you want to get a better number using the mean from multiple studies, have at it!

                          So no, you are wrong, no such assumptions are made and the only thing you can take away from those surveys is that people lie, or exaggerate if you will, at a pretty consistent rate when it comes to defensive gun use.

                          But if you have a specific criticism instead of a general denial, feel free to present your case.

                          You need to make up two orders of magnitude discrepancy, and you have damn few numbers to do it with. Is Kleck wrong by two orders of magnitude? Is the rate of carry closer to 100%? Neither of these things seem plausible to me, but I'm willing to hear your explanation.

                          The ONLY assumption that is credible to question is that when we talk about DGU, we're talking about DGU that is used to prevent a crime. I am quite willing to concede to you that 2M DGUs that are not related to preventing crime may indeed occur, ~100x the rate of 'crime prevention' DGUs.

                          If that's the source of our disagreement, consider the issue settled.

                    •  Your saying I'm trying to cook the numbers (0+ / 0-)

                      isn't correct . My intent was to look at the number .
                      Feel free to correct any mistakes ,
                      I didn't say my numbers were correct ,
                      I'm open to talking about them .

                      Starting with a serious overestimation of household size.
                      So inform me what a household size is . I didn't say , this is the household size . I said "lets say".
                      Similarly, the number of incidents is generally based on self-reported uses, not household uses. Ownership rate is by household.
                      That's interesting . That would make calculations fun .

                      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

                      by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  The lowest figure (6+ / 0-)

      for defensive gun uses is what? 500,000 per year? So there are over 5 million murders per year caused by average joe's losing their cool in arguments?

      And we are to take you seriously? Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Please.. just be honest and not resort to such blatantly outrageous dishonest hyperbole.

      •  Ok.. so 108k (4+ / 0-)

        as stated by KV. That makes over a Million murders then. My point still stands.

      •  That's not the lowest figure. That's the lowest (7+ / 0-)

        mean minus uncertainty of all the studies.

        The means of the various studies cluster around 2 million.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:51:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  with error bars (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru, DefendOurConstitution

          at least that high.

          The best way to pin down the number is work backwards from justifiable homicides, since that's the only reliable figure we have.

          This numbers in the ~200ish range for civilians. Then, you divide by the ~15-20% mortality rate for gunshots to get ~1-1.5k justifiable woundings.

          Then, the hardest part is trying to pin down how many DGUs result in an actual shooting, where a bullet hit the target. From Kleck this was a bit over 8%, putting actual, justifiable DGUs around 10-20k, though I could easily see this number being off a factor of two each way.

          However, to suggest that ~2 million justifiable DGUs occur each year is to strain credibility.

          •  However - DGU (8+ / 0-)

            does not have to mean that a person was shot. Let's say that a person or a group of people is about to assault me. I pull my handgun and the threat evaporates- they leave.  That is a defensive gun use. But it would not be included in your numbers as no shots were fired.

            •  You didn't read what I wrote: (0+ / 0-)

              so I'll repeat it:

              Then, the hardest part is trying to pin down how many DGUs result in an actual shooting, where a bullet hit the target. From Kleck this was a bit over 8%, putting actual, justifiable DGUs around 10-20k, though I could easily see this number being off a factor of two each way.

          •  Nope; the error bars for the individual studies (8+ / 0-)

            are about 60% of the mean value, not "at least that high". And it should be noted that it's an abuse of statistics to suggest that the high value of the uncertainty range is "less likely" than the low value. Statistically, they are equally likely, whatever your bias.

            But that's for individual studies. When you combine 19 studies with similar sample sizes, all of which are producing in-family mean values, the uncertainty drops by about three-quarters, because the aggregate sample size of positive respondents goes way up.

            The number really is about two million, plus or minus a couple hundred thousand.

            Working backward from justifiable homicides is a poor methodology, because it fails to come close to the number estimating DGUs where no one is wounded, much less the weapon not fired.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:48:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I addressed that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk

              in my last point. Working backwards from the justifiable homicides only requires ONE number from those surveys, the percentage of time a DGU results in a shooting, and if you use the number from Kleck you get ~8%. If you want to find a better number, than go through those 19 surveys and come up with a mean. However, since Kleck estimated 2.5 million DGUs, and you're saying around 2 million, chances are your mean percentage would be close to 6-8% as well, which means that the projected DGU working backwards wouldn't be significantly different from the 10-20k estimated above.

              Using your methodology, you rely on a self-reporting survey for ALL of the numbers, and based on the small sample size and the danger of false-positives, you get widely varying results with extremely high error bars.

              Those 60% error bars you mentioned are just from the base statistics, not from a consideration of systematic errors like false positives, and could easily be off by a factor of 2, making the estimate worthless.

              Your statement that 'working backwards' is a poor methodology relies on the circular argument that your DGU estimate is actually correct to begin with, i.e. you're assuming your conclusion.

              If Kleck's survey indicating 8% DGU results in a shooting is off by x100, as it would have to be to make the numbers consistent with your estimate, then how the hell can you trust any number from a self-reported survey?

              •  You are ignoring three factors, both of which (5+ / 0-)

                are pointed out by Kleck.

                1) Only about 10% of gunshot injuries are life-threatening. So even if those 8% are hit, a criminal without a life-threatening injury has an incentive to go to alternative medical facilities, since all gun shot wounds in hospitals are reported to the police. That's a potential for an order of magnitude error there.

                2) The 8% Kleck cites as believing they hit their target, Kleck would be the first to tell you, is based on an absolute number smaller than the error bars. Kleck's primary criticism with the widespread misuse of his survey is that while the complete sample is statistically valid (because the error is related to the total sample size), the error of most subgroups is higher than their actual value (because their uncertainty is determined by the much smaller sample size of positive respondents). It's why you also can't work back to the estimated number of thwarted crimes (other than the biggest, burglary).

                3) And, of course, this assumes that the majority of people who think they hit their target did.

                So right there, your working backwards from justifiable homicides has got systematic errors that introduce errors up to two orders of magnitude.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 12:48:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I ignored no such thing (0+ / 0-)

                  1) the percentage is 15-20%, not 10%, and this is based on hospital admitting statistics. If you consider people shot during a DGU may be less likely to seek medical attention, this number could plausibly even be higher. However, I didn't 'ignore' this issue as you claim, the percentage is baked right into the numbers and I was explicit in the discussion, how did you miss this? It's how you go from ~200 killed to 1000-1500 shot.

                  2) Unless you can cite a better sourced number, we use what numbers we have. This is the only number that isn't 'solid' so to speak, for the comparison, and therefore would have to be a factor of 100!! lower for the validation to check out.

                  Do you want to claim that people miss their targets 99% of the time, even when they claim otherwise? Is that supposed to make people feel good about DGU?

                  So, no, there are no '2 orders' of magnitude wiggle room unless you claim that the average DGU misses 99% of the time that they think they hit.

                  And if there are two orders of magnitude discrepency in the only number of this validation that relies on the self-reported survey numbers, well, that should tell you a little bit about the DGU numbers from self-reported surveys, now shouldn't it.

                  You're in the position of saying that the DGU surveys are reliable even though individual parts are off by two orders of magnitude. That's pretty wacky.

    •  More guns certainly has meant more people (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sburles, XenuLives, Duckmg, tommymet

      getting shot. We are currently at over 105k people getting shot every year, resulting in severe injury or death) and the number is on the rise.

      If more guns = more shootings is wrong based on the data below, the the whole premise of more guns = less crime is equally flawed.

      Just saying.

      “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:45:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  21,000? you mean suicides? yet you say gun (11+ / 0-)

      murders. Until you can tell the difference between murder and suicide it's hard to have a fact based discussion.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:01:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why would you care about this? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, tommymet

    You've already shown that the 2A is a fundamental, individual, civil right.  So the cost to society, in violent crime or otherwise, should not matter at all.  Maybe you want to discuss the burden we must bear for this freedom, but in the end, does it even matter?

    Missouri is leading the way, and any infringement on RKBA there will likely be done away with shortly.  Like I said before,

    you win!

    •  Dude (dudette?), the reason I care is the fact (14+ / 0-)

      that prevailing wisdom (correct or not) states more guns = more crime. So we (Democrats) continue to push for stuff that just isn't going to pass the House (almost definitely) or the Senate (most likely). This alienates those who would otherwise vote Democratic.

      Big tent.

      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)

        So it's not about the principle of safeguarding the constitution and protecting the 2A, no matter the costs?
        It's about winning elections, no matter the principle?
        What do you want to see in the recall elections in Colorado?

        If the majority of americans (let's say 75% or so) supported repeal of the 2A, would you support that position to win elections?

        •  It's a combination. (9+ / 0-)

          I wouldn't agree with no matter the cost.
          I wouldn't agree with no matter the principle.

          I think a warning shot across the bow of the Democratic party (if either of the two were recalled in Colorado) might stave off pushing gun control in other areas where it'll hurt the Democratic party. I honestly don't know how it's going to turn out.

          If the majority of Americans supported repeal of the second amendment, then they could do it even though I personally wouldn't agree, approve, or support said act.

          •  Good to know (3+ / 0-)

            Thanks for the reply.  

          •  So you are for the warning shot (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DefendOurConstitution

            thinking it will be a good thing ?

            The warning shot proves that shots will be taken
            so let that shot be a lesson not to do things that
            will get you shot at ?

            "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

            by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:49:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That would be my guess as to what would happen (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, Crookshanks

              if one or both of them get recalled.

              •  Care to answer directly the question ? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DefendOurConstitution
                might stave off pushing gun control in other areas where it'll hurt the Democratic party.
                The warning shot proves that shots will be taken
                so let that shot be a lesson not to do things that
                will get you shot at ?

                "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

                by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:57:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, Yoda. Phrase it more succinctly and sure. nt (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, Crookshanks
                  •  You don't answer because you don't understand ? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DefendOurConstitution
                    The warning shot proves that shots will be taken
                    so let that shot be a lesson not to do things that
                    will get you shot at ?

                    I suggest you think about the question ,
                    try to understand why its being asked ,
                    and why its being asked the way it is worded .

                    Once you grasp why it is the question ,
                    then you might also see the problem .

                    ............................

                    The recall proves that recalls will be attempted
                    so let that recall be a lesson
                    to not do the things that lead to recalls ?

                    People who try to do gun legislation
                    will be recalled because they tried to do gun legislation
                    so don't do gun legislation
                    because it leads to recalls .

                    Its circular .

                    ....................................

                    You are for the recall because it

                    might stave off pushing gun control in other areas where it'll hurt the Democratic party.

                    You want the recall now so that Democrates might stave off pushing gun control because it will get them hurt .

                    You want the punishment now
                    to train Democrats to do things
                    to not be punished latter .  

                    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

                    by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:17:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Are you writing in prose or verse? (4+ / 0-)

                      Let me put it this way. I supported Walker's recall. I have family all over in Wisconsin and was born in Janesville. If he was successfully recalled, do you think the GOP in Wisconsin might've backed down? Do you think other Governor's might've gone "oh shit" and not pushed forward with their idiotic agendas?

                      I'm not saying I support or oppose the recall. The process has started. I'm looking at what happens if they're successfully recalled or unsuccessfully recalled.

                      •  I think you let the cat out of the bag (0+ / 0-)
                        I'm not saying I support or oppose the recall.
                        vs
                        I think a warning shot across the bow of the Democratic party (if either of the two were recalled in Colorado) might stave off pushing gun control in other areas where it'll hurt the Democratic party.
                         It sure reads like you are for the recall because it will get the democrats taught a lesson . A lesson to "stave off pushing gun control" because it will hurt the party . It sure sounds like you are for the punishment to prove that punishment will take place for repeating the behavior that brought the punishment .

                        "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

                        by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:39:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ....you do realize that in our boilerplate, we (4+ / 0-)

                          point towards gun controlling hurting the Democratic party, right?

                          This prediction is in line with that.

                          •  And that makes it ok ? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mark Mywurtz

                            Anything that supports your boiler plate , even the recall , is fine because you will sacrifice even elected democrats in pursuit of your goals ?

                            I could go as far as to claim you are putting your goals above the Democratic party . You are willing to go along with the recall because it will teach Democrats not to go against your wishes re gun control . That's your right , but I would be good if you could admit right up front and not dance around it with words .

                            You are for the recall ,
                            because you want to see Democrats back away from gun control ,
                            you want to show that gun control will get people recalled ,
                            so you are for the recall ,
                            because you want to see Democrats back away from gun control ,
                            repeat endlessly .

                            "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

                            by indycam on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:16:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My goal is to elect more Democrats. That's in the (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, theatre goon, Crookshanks, oldpunk

                            boilerplate. That is doable by keeping them from passing gun control legislation that isn't really going to work anyway.

                          •  I love how you attempt to (6+ / 0-)

                            assign a position that is not taken. It fits with the attempts lately to paint members of RKBA as rethugs and thus impure and fit to be purged.

                            The recall vote is happening. If the hold on the Colorado Senate is lessened- that's a bad thing. However per the boilerplate- this was not unexpected!! This is what RKBA has been warning against.

                          •  RKBA Kossites dine on ad hom, we're tough. (4+ / 0-)

                            Purge away, we've been through it before and will likely go through it again after those of the Democratic Party that put their heads on the third rail that is RKBA loose their seats even after we suggested and then warned them NOT to do so.

                            If we really wanted to let the GOP win, would we even waste our time here?  I know I wouldn't.

                            Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
                            Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
                            Owner, Olsen Training Group

                            by ErikO on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 01:57:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  +4 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  A warning shot across the bow is just that, a shot (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          that does not hit the target but is close enough to warn off another ship (originally)

                          He is in no way stating he wants the recall to actually work...I will state I hope it comes damn close and puts the skeer into other ridiculous gun control measures that are statistically shown to have no effect.......

                          Do I want the Dems to lose?  No or I wouldn't be here.

                          I Do want the Dems to preserve protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic".....That includes defending the 2nd as well as the 1st 4th and 5th...........

                          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                          Emiliano Zapata

                          by buddabelly on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:30:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  No, and we've had this discussion before, indycam (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, Kasoru, Crookshanks, oldpunk

              Warning shots go somewhere. Therefore such things are a bad idea.
              Warning shots waste bullets you may need more later.
              Warning shots display your lack of conviction.
              Warning shots create potential for unintentional damage / injury to people not involved in the situation.

              Warning shots are not a good idea, period.
               

              LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

              by BlackSheep1 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 01:55:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •   warning shots are illegal in every jurisdiction (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1, theatre goon

                I know of for all the reasons you listed and one more, the big cheese, the elephant in the room.

                A gun is only used to stop an attacker.  That is the only legal use of a gun in most cities except at a range.

                If you have the time and space to fire a warning shot, you never should have fired as your life or health or another's life and health are not in the immediate need to stop the assailant by shooting.

                No one should ever pull the trigger unless and until the danger is unambiguous and can only be stopped by your sidearm.

                Take careful aim at the assailant and aim center mass......better chance of a quick stop which is what we are interested in....stopping the attack, not in killing the attacker......

                Biden's ridiculously bad advice to both fire a warning shot and to fire blindly through a closed door where you have absolutely no idea what is on the other side....That's at min a manslaughter conviction in almost every state.

                Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                Emiliano Zapata

                by buddabelly on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 01:57:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  On a personal note I am not interested (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru, Neo Control, theatre goon

          in what a majority of the population believes, likes or dislikes. Democracy is majority rule which is mob rule and results in tyranny of the majority. Our laws are supposed to be based on the constitution not on the whims of a majority of the people. I wouldn't care if 100% of the population wanted a particular law enacted if it's not constitutional they can go suck eggs.

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 03:08:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Since this is the third diary in which you refer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sburles, Kevskos, KVoimakas, Joy of Fishes

    to the Hartford Courant article, I figured a few other facts and questions relating to this article should be brought up:

    1) First, the conclusion of the article:

    The plan also noted that prior efforts to reduce gun violence, including a similar task force formed in 2008, were effective only until the effort was disbanded.

    "Unfortunately … these law enforcement efforts deterred crime while being implemented, but as soon as the effort ceased, the violent crime rates rose," Sigersmith wrote in the plan. "The goals of the current shooting task force have sustainability in mind."

    2) The article is not clear how this program works and I could not find any details, so the question of whether this program does not amount to much more than racial profiling is key.  How is this program different from the Stop and Frisk that Bloomberg was so proud of in NYC?

    3) Surely a group that is so quick to point out that 9,100 children getting shot is "not a lot" because of our population has to agree that confiscating 76 guns out of an estimated 300 million is not very significant (that is 0.000025%).

    “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:39:08 AM PDT

  •  They used Connecticut as an case study? (5+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that CT is not a representative baseline for study.

    I'm not an expert, but online sources indicate that Connecticut has some of the tougher gun laws to be found:

    * Permits required to purchase rifles, shotguns and handguns
    * Registration required for rifles and shotguns
    * Licenses required for handgun ownership
    * Permit required to carry handguns (open or concealed)
    * Does not recognize carry permits from any other states
    * Loss/theft of a firearm must be reported within 72 hours of discovery. (1st offense - $90 fine, any additional offenses are Class D felonies, which suspend the right to own any firearms.)

    In addition, handgun ownership is denied to a fairly long list::

    It is unlawful to possess a handgun by a person who has been convicted of a felony; convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes illegal possession of a controlled substance, negligent homicide, third degree assault, first degree reckless endangerment, second degree unlawful restraint, rioting, or second degree stalking; discharged from custody within the preceding 20 years after acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect; confined by court order for mental illness within the preceding 12 months; subject to a restraining or protective order involving physical force; or an illegal alien.
    (Source: NRA-ILA)

    It seems that most of these regulations have been in place for some time.  When talking about regulation, I think there's a pretty big difference between (as an example) the effect of:

    "Taking Kentucky's gun laws to Connecticut's level"

    and:

    "Adding to Connecticut's already-tough gun laws."

    I think we need some large grains of salt before suggesting that CT results are significant one way or the other.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:49:11 AM PDT

    •  Maybe we should also use CT as a model for federal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      firearms regulation?  I mean, this program appears to work in CT and it could be that it works because of their firearms regulations.  So I'm OK with federal regulations modeled after CT's and then we expand this program nationally.

      Great catch!

      “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:35:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Almost every single item in that denial list (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, theatre goon

      is also a disqualification at the Federal level, so CT isn't doing anything there other than making it easier to bring charges on a State level when the Feds fail to do their jobs, as they so often do with gun violations....

      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

      by Crookshanks on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 03:12:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  tips and recs for a reality based diary (11+ / 0-)

    didn't make it halfway through comments, work. Not sure this will go over well in the "We are in the midst of a gun violence epidemic" crowd, or the Professional Morose who think only of what each other think.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:59:04 AM PDT

  •  Over one hundred thousand people (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    are shot every year in the USA.

    So gun folks must make the claim that people would find some other way to maim and murder each other without guns.

    OR

    Gun folks must make the claim that we need guns for population control.

    There are no more

    ORs.

  •  Okay. I read the entire article. Whether it (6+ / 0-)

    is a legitimate study, I am not sure. It certainly contained material which was at first glance a plausible support for the thesis.

    Otoh, your cites as to the bias of the authors may need to be slightly modified by the following from the home site of the paper.

    About Harvard JLPP

    The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students.

    The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.

    Just sayin'.

    At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

    by serendipityisabitch on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

  •  Australia. /nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:36:02 AM PDT

  •  Harvard had the opposite conclusion ... (4+ / 0-)

    When Harvard School of Public Health did identical research they came to the opposite (and more logical) conclusion ... Guns and Death

    We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

    Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

    Another (logical) conclusion Harvard found..
    Across states, more guns = more homicide
    The Kates/Mauser paper was not peer reviewed and posted under a student area on the Harvard server trying to give it legitimacy. All I had to see is that the probable funding agency (Pacific Research Institute ) is feting Charles goddamn Krauthammer and  George Shultz to know it's agenda.

    "What we've got here is failure to communicate." -- Captain

    by goObama on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:37:25 AM PDT

  •  Interesting... (4+ / 0-)

    I find it interesting that other countries with gun ownership (I believe Canada also has a high percentage of gun ownership, though I might be wrong on that) don't seem to have the same levels of gun violence that we have.  

    Is it that we are a more violent society?  What are the differences?  Perhaps this is all perception, and the data would prove me wrong, but from what I've read, it seems like we have a disproportionate amount of gun violence in comparison to our neighbors to the north.  Has anyone done any studies that compare our two countries, to perhaps explain these differences?  We might be able to learn a thing or two from them.  

  •  Can we agree... (2+ / 0-)

    That zero guns = zero gun crime?

    And there's a curve representing gun crime from zero guns to the current # of guns?

    There must be some place along the curve with less guns than we have now that would result in less gun crime.

    At the very least if we made it to zero guns, we should expect zero gun crime.  I realize that's not realistic, although maybe the same can be said about any reduction in the number of guns in this country.

  •  More guns = more crime? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Mywurtz

    I'm sure that's been posited, and you say it's not proven.  Fine, lets put it aside.

    You entirely ignore the reality that non-criminal gun injuries ARE directly related to access to firearms.

    - Suicides.
    - Accidental shootings (see GunFail weekly)
    - 'Moment of passion' shootings (and yes, you could argue these are criminal but that undermines your point).

    I think those three classes of usage are enough to show my point.

    Far beyond that there's strong evidence that guns do not, in total, provide defense against crime.  You can quote a case where it does, but what about the 10 (est) cases where it doesn't, or results in an injury to the gun owner?

    I rarely read or respond to your posts because you regularly cherrypick your facts to bully readers and commenters.  I guess that today I'll be your punching bag.

    Get down from your 'high ground' of the 2nd Amendment and consider the undeniable moral weakness of your position.

    The constitution has been and will be amended.  It needs to be amended to clarify what is acceptable gun ownership and usage today (vs what it might have been 200+ years ago).

    •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

      Suicides: there is more to suicide than access and quite frankly, what are you going to do (gun regulation wise) to cut back on individuals obtaining firearms for that purpose?

      Accidental shootings: should be called negligent but they are still dropping. Not fast enough, but the rate is still dropping. I suggested a few things in the suggestions diary that would help deal with that.

      Moment of passion shootings: Do you have any numbers on these?

      Defensive gun uses outnumber all criminal/negligent/homicide/suicide shootings on a 10-1 scale (at least) based on most studies on DGUs. Add in hunting, plinking, collecting, target shooting, competitions...firearms are a net plus.

      I don't bully, by the way. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

      If you amend the Constitution, then it will change. Sounds like a tautology right? I give you points for being up front about changing it the correct way though, instead of through semantic drift or a slaughtering of the English language.

    •  Captain Obvious strikes again (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kasoru, BlackSheep1, oldpunk, Neo Control
      You entirely ignore the reality that non-criminal gun injuries ARE directly related to access to firearms.

      translation:
      You entirely ignore the reality that non-criminal (insert cause) injuries ARE directly related to access to (cause).

      I would not have known this had it not been pointed out. Thank you, Captain Obvious!

      Now, what do we do about the existential threat posed by "causes", that does not make us look like hypocrites for proposing a solution for one cause that we refuse to apply to another cause? For instance, how do we respond to the threat to life posed by "assault rifles" compared to the several-fold greater threat posed by "sharp pointy things"?

      Only someone with the remarkable insight of Captain Obvious can make this clear to us. We need you more than ever!

      consider the undeniable moral weakness of your position.
      ...too easy
      •  You guys are too easy (0+ / 0-)

        Description of Red Herring

        A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

        Topic A is under discussion.
        Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
        Topic A is abandoned.
        This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

        •  Topic A: Things that cause non-criminal injury (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru, theatre goon

          Topic B: There is no topic B, merely a discussion of whether MartyA has a double standard regarding items that clearly fall under Topic A.

          However, if you wish to state that people who are injured or killed by preventable causes in general do not matter to you, and therefore only guns count for Topic A, then that is also an acceptable response and gets you kudos for honesty, though not ethics or compassion.

    •  Accusation of "bully(ing)"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      Citations, please.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 06:58:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like this diary. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, KVoimakas

    This is my new favorite thing.

    •  This reminds me of the dog vs cat article. (0+ / 0-)

      DOG:

      Food! It's my favorite thing!
      Walk! It's my favorite thing!
      Ball! It's my favorite thing!
      Belly scratching! It's my favorite thing!
      Pets! It's my favorite thing!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site