The gun thread, reloaded.

[Bardeaux]

Poverty levels, access to education, employment rates, standard of living, population density etc. There are many, many factors.

 

[alasdairm]

How do you explain the state disparities in gun deaths? Some states have higher rates of gun ownership, yet lower death rates.

a higher rate of gun ownership can mean the same people owning more guns or more, different people owning guns (or a combination of both, obviously).

alasdair

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Poverty levels, access to education, employment rates, standard of living, population density etc. There are many, many factors.

Actually, population density didn't survive a coarse-grained inspection. A more in-depth inspection may reveal something.

I was thinking population density would have explained some of it, but if you look at the graphs I did, they didn't turn up anything on the state level.

I'd suspect employment rates would pay a large role. Poverty may as well. There's culture as well (the South's culture of honor, for example).

Don't get me wrong, I was thinking gun ownership rates should correlate to murder rates. After all, they are a great tool for killing people. But when I looked at it, I couldn't turn up a link on a state-by-state basis.

 

[paranoid android]

Well i don't live in the US but i do live in a rural area of Newfoundland where most households have atleast 1 gun even if it's just a 12 gauge pump or your dad's .303 rifle. I have a 12 gauge Winchester pump, a single shot 16 gauge for which it's next to impossible to get any shells for and a .22 rifle that has a magazine that needs fixing. Not much of a arsenal but good guns for practical use though i would like a heavier calibre rifle like a .303 or .308. There is massive unemployment here and a booming coke/crack trade. Yet there are very few shootings here and even very few stabbings that are meant to actually be lethal. I think alot of it has to do with culture as it's a small place and it's considered being a pussy pulling a gun or blade on someone who is unarmed. This place used to be alot rougher (when i was a teenager it was very rare to have a weekend go by where there wouldn't be a big scrap between various crews) and settling disputes with fists and boots was not only common but kind of expected of younger guys. It was almost like a coming of age ritual plus you had to back up your friends no matter what and woe was the poor cunt indeed who didn't.

It's not like that anymore so much but oddly enough you are much more liable to run into some dumb cunt who wants a fight because he has a knife and you don't. If someone had tried to pull that here 10 years ago they would be beaten half to death for it. Pulling a gun was seen as worse because people looked at it as being a pussy as anyone can be tough with a gun so you where not exactly proving yourself to be tough if you pulled a weapon on someone who didn't have one. I really hate some of the younger crowd around here now as blades, brass knuckles and a handgun (if they can afford it) are standard fare for any 2 bit wanna be gangster chav. Worst of all they tend to be bullies of the worst kind as they pick on people that they know won't fuck them up. Really when i was growing up the worst thing that would usually happen in a scrap was a few black eyes and busted noses and bruised knuckles. Usually nothing a ice pack and a few codeine pills couldn't fix.

So i think the culture you live in plays a big part. Noone wants to be seen as a coward after all and you would be marked down as one if you pulled a gun in a square go. Apparently in Florida shooting unarmed people makes you a hero so go figure

 

[spacejunk]

I'd suspect employment rates would pay a large role. Poverty may as well. There's culture as well (the South's culture of honor, for example).

As well as wider culture of violence, perhaps?
Guns are incredibly prevalent in US film/tv/music/folkloric culture compared to other Western nations IMO.
From cartoons, to popular music, to Hollywood to politics - gun culture is present (if not openly glorified) throughout.
I'm not saying (gun) violence is absent from other nations' cultural representations - but it seems extremely pervasive in America.

 

[Bardeaux]

I was thinking population density would have explained some of it, but if you look at the graphs I did, they didn't turn up anything on the state level.

I'd suspect employment rates would pay a large role. Poverty may as well. There's culture as well (the South's culture of honor, for example).

Right, but like I said there are several variables. An densely populated affluent area probably is likely to have a lot less violent crime than a densely populated impoverished area. While at the same time, a densely populated affluent area might have the same rate of violence as a very lightly populated area, like North Dakota or Wyoming regardless of wealth status.

 

[ebola?]

I certainly have to acknowledge the example. It's an intriguing idea. I think it's pretty clear though that I'm dealing in real world data and real world calculations. If we have to create imaginary parallel realities to satisfy the requirements, then it seems this particular issue (AGW) can't be examined in this manner (at least now). It's pretty clear you're trying to poke holes in my logical thinking, which is understandable, but I don't think it's unreasonable for me to confine such attempts to things that can actually be examined.

I was making an analogy: while there aren't any parallel Earths to which we have access, we have available multiple countries for cross-comparison. While a comparison involving multiple countries won't be as clean as my hypothetical example, the underlying logic is essentially similar. One would ideally collect data from many countries, each varying in terms of an array of factors considered most pertinent to determining rate of injury by firearm, eg, per capita income, a measurement of economic inequality (eg, the Gini Coefficient), degree of urbanization, degree of ethno-racial ghettoization, per capita firearm ownership, general political stability, etc. The correlations will speak to causation (though speculatively...they're only correlations), as these countries' rates of firearm death need have been caused historically in some fashion.

On the gun/murder issue, I see what you mean. You've indicated two very important constraints though. Clearly it's been demonstrated that comparing only two countries can produce opposing results. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the only viable way to do this would be to compare multiple countries in series, no?

Yes, most two-country comparisons would provide pretty weak evidence, unless these countries are similar in a wide variety of ways but quite different in terms of the factor hypothesized to play a crucial role in determination of gun violence.* However, a wider comparison among varied countries is preferable, and necessary for examining multiple causal factors. Also, it might be misleading to call this comparison a "series", as no time-series is involved.

*An alternate method of comparison is to find an array of countries that are very different in many respects but very similar in terms of a single causal factor in question.

Of course that leads us to your second constraint, that all other factors are equal. Comparing multiple countries in series AND holding all other factors equal seems like a monumental task. That's just seems like way too many variables.

With more than two countries, it's okay (even desirable) for the countries to vary in a wide number of respects. Such is necessary to explore a wide space of potential causal variables.

I'm not understanding why my time-series comparison within a country isn't infinitely more palatable. While we still have the constraint of not having "all other factors equal/same," therefore we cannot make a final determination on one example only, we can at least evaluate the factor qualitatively in relation to other potential factors within the country.

Well, you can evaluate the factor quantitatively and qualitatively, but even with a well designed time-series, it will be difficult to tease out confounds that occurred simultaneously. In a strict logical sense, you can never be certain that one particular factor is responsible for a given trend, as there are always many events occurring simultaneously (perhaps arbitrarily extendably many things). Also, a time series comparison within a single geographical area necessitates that the relevant independent variable change over the course of your time series. Sometimes it can prove difficult to find a historical instance of the right type of change, and sometimes this variable will lack strict independence from the dependent measure. For example, it is often high rates of violence that impel changes in gun regulation, so in such cases, the context provided by this high rate of violence will affect how types of regulations will affect rates of violence; changes in gun regulation might have different effects when implemented in locales with a prior low rate of violence.

I will however concede though that time-series usually more easily make for cleaner comparisons.

In my comparison, it's clear that there are massive overriding factors.

I don't think that a couple massive overriding factors are responsible for the majority of variation in firearm-related deaths though. There is a wide constellation of factors set in complex, dynamic relation at play here, each responsible for its own piece of the puzzle. But your are concerned with the (lack of an) effect of gun ownership on rate of death by firearm, right? Here, it's difficult to find and appropriate point of comparison, due to tremendous variation in extraneous factors by locale (limiting external generalizability) and due to the relative paucity of historical events where per-capita gun ownership in a particular locale changed drastically. The clearest example I can think of is the mass buy-back in Australia that occurred in the late 1990s, following a rash of mass-shootings. The rate of firearm-deaths in Australia dropped dramatically, not just the rare of mass shootings, which works against your main thesis.

No, you're blatantly twisting the argument. I have picked and chosen nothing. Even gun ownership / murder rates in the USA support my claim, since gun ownership per capita has steadily increased over the decades yet we are at our lowest murder rate since the 1960's.

A key confound abounds here: especially during the 1990s, organized crime in the US changed dramatically, those organizations responsible for distribution of drugs in the inner cities consolidating, establishing a clearer, more monopolized distribution network, reducing the need for violence related to turf wars. I believe this to explain most of the change in the rate of violent crime observed.

Also, the trend you note in gun ownership is simply wrong:

Instead, there has been a modest decrease in rates of gun-ownership in the US over that period.

BOOM! Now you're finally starting to a hint of the problem. It's not the guns, it's the culture. A culture that glorifies violence in general. A culture where people who shoot up movie theaters or schools get reported on in the news for weeks or even years. Instant fame. A culture with multiple genres of music dedicated to glorifying the violent lifestyle.

Exactly: there are multiple factors at play. However, I am quite skeptical of the influence of violent music lyrics.

A culture where the lower classes are told that they are victims of societal oppression, instead of being encouraged to develop their talents to the fullest. It's us, not the tool. And moreover, this lends credence to the socialists desire of a more egalitarian society, as much as I dislike admitting so.

The thing is, many people simply are victims of social oppression, regardless of their views on the matter. A culture of entrepreneurialism will do little to address the actual harsh inequalities underlying most violent crime.

I am using real-world data, straight from the governments of first-world countries. Governments that all count murders the same way. We have the proper regulation. WE AREN'T ENFORCING THEM. Screw patient rights, we need to tie mental health to the NICS, like the NRA wants.

The rate of violent acts by the mentally ill is actually less than that of the general population, and the rate is roughly the same for schizophrenics. Statistically, this factor is only really relevant in the case of suicides.

We need to identify the source(s) of illegal guns that get into the hands of criminals/gang members (the vast majority of guns used in crimes) and find a way to curb that supply.

Most of these are diverted from channels of legal purchase involving loose regulation, background checks, etc. While these regulations don't cause illicit distribution directly, they facilitate it.

We need to stop focusing on the types of guns people want ("assault" rifles, etc.), because that's mostly a red-herring (as long as our screening process is better).

I agree with you here: whether a gun is automatic and especially size of its clip has a pretty small effect on rates of death.

ebola

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

As well as wider culture of violence, perhaps?
Guns are incredibly prevalent in US film/tv/music/folkloric culture compared to other Western nations IMO.
From cartoons, to popular music, to Hollywood to politics - gun culture is present (if not openly glorified) throughout.
I'm not saying (gun) violence is absent from other nations' cultural representations - but it seems extremely pervasive in America.

This is the country where you can't show a naked breast on the airwaves, but you can depict someone being shot.

 

[spacejunk]

^ precisely.

 

[Wicked702]

I thank you for the insight into other potential forms of analysis. I don't have the time to address these points sufficiently right now, but I'll just state that I mostly agree with the logic presented.

I don't think that a couple massive overriding factors are responsible for the majority of variation in firearm-related deaths though. There is a wide constellation of factors set in complex, dynamic relation at play here, each responsible for its own piece of the puzzle. But your are concerned with the (lack of an) effect of gun ownership on rate of death by firearm, right? Here, it's difficult to find and appropriate point of comparison, due to tremendous variation in extraneous factors by locale (limiting external generalizability) and due to the relative paucity of historical events where per-capita gun ownership in a particular locale changed drastically. The clearest example I can think of is the mass buy-back in Australia that occurred in the late 1990s, following a rash of mass-shootings. The rate of firearm-deaths in Australia dropped dramatically, not just the rare of mass shootings, which works against your main thesis.

Oops, we're back at it again. Gun ownership rates to gun deaths VS Gun ownership rates to murder number/rates. All my arguments are consistently focused on dealing with the latter. Your statement here deals with the former. No one (with any sense) would argue against the former. You take guns away, less people will die by gun. This is simple common sense. However, will taking guns away cause the population to kill each other with decreased frequency? Isn't that the real question? If we take guns away but the people still kill each other (in the same amounts or worse), what have we really accomplished?

It is my contention that gun control advocates are so used to conflating these two concepts, that they've lost all perspective on what it is they're trying to accomplish. I see it a lot. "Ban/Reduce guns, reduce/eliminate gun deaths." And somehow that translates into less murders. It could. It might. You know what, I'll even say it SHOULD by logical thinking and common sense. But some things fly in the face of logic. This is one of them. The data doesn't back up that assertion. It shows with remarkable consistency, that the DESIRE to kill (i.e. the social, cultural, economic, etc. factors in a given population), cannot be sated by simply changing the availability of the tool(s). After the 1996 ban, Australia got rid of its mass shootings and had MANY less gun murders. That part is great. But the people still killed each other in the same quantity! Only in 2003-2004, when we see the same trend in UK/US and other modern countries stats, did the murder number/rate start to decrease. And there's no major gun issue we can attribute to this phenomenon on or around that time to account for the fall. Especially not across so many countries. So again, some other factor was vastly more important than the tool. Here, take a look.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

A key confound abounds here: especially during the 1990s, organized crime in the US changed dramatically, those organizations responsible for distribution of drugs in the inner cities consolidating, establishing a clearer, more monopolized distribution network, reducing the need for violence related to turf wars. I believe this to explain most of the change in the rate of violent crime observed.

Also, the trend you note in gun ownership is simply wrong: *snip chart*

Instead, there has been a modest decrease in rates of gun-ownership in the US over that period.

This is true. The Mexican Mafia polices much of the street level gangs here in CA. I'm sure there have been similar consolidations elsewhere in the US. This may be an important factor in the murder reduction we've seen. But be careful with that chart. Per capita gun ownership is increasing. But the number of households with guns is decreasing. This means the guns are concentrated in a smaller segment of the populace. Neither one of us is wrong, we're looking at two related but different things. I could see an argument for a correlation between less households with guns / less overall deaths (both murder and accidental). It's not unreasonable. Is it just because of the gun or is it because of mental state of owner(s), training, existence of children in the home, etc? That's a bit more complex.

Exactly: there are multiple factors at play. However, I am quite skeptical of the influence of violent music lyrics.

Someone posted an article in Drugs in the Media (I looked for a while but couldn't find it) about a father trying to educate his son on the realities of rapper Rick Ross. Short version: The son idolized the rapper because of his "drug dealing" status. Specifically money, guns, willingness to do violence, etc. The father had to break down the image his son had (the rapper Rick Ross was never a dealer). Anyway point here is not that the lyrics themselves cause violence, but that we have a music genre that extols the violent lifestyle and people appear influenced by it. Check out the music genre known as narcocorrido. It's the Mexican cartel version of gangster hip-hop. I'm not calling for anything to be done here. I'm just pointing out the cultural reality of having music styles devoted to violent lifestyles. To me it likely acts as a reinforcing mechanism.

The rate of violent acts by the mentally ill is actually less than that of the general population, and the rate is roughly the same for schizophrenics. Statistically, this factor is only really relevant in the case of suicides.

Yes but more often then not we find out with (USA) mass shootings that the suspect had some level of KNOWN mental health issues beforehand. The fact that we have no way of tying those issues to gun purchases, when it's the law saying those with such issues shouldn't be able to buy guns, means we're seriously lacking enforcement of existing laws. I really think this is an area that needs focus, more than the guns themselves.

Most of these are diverted from channels of legal purchase involving loose regulation, background checks, etc. While these regulations don't cause illicit distribution directly, they facilitate it.

I would appreciate some sourcing on this. The CDC report from 2013 had some very interested conclusions on this issue. Here's a link to a Slate article with some quick summaries (and will assist in future discussions). #10 for this particular point. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

 

[ebola?]

Oops, we're back at it again. Gun ownership rates to gun deaths VS Gun ownership rates to murder number/rates. All my arguments are consistently focused on dealing with the latter. Your statement here deals with the former. No one (with any sense) would argue against the former.

I would imagine that it would be possible to dis-aggregate the data set. Making this type of comparison can be tricky, as the murder rate too is subject to a wide constellation of causal determinants, so even if a change is observed, it's very hard to pin it as caused by a particular factor, be it a policy change, rate of gun ownership, etc. Still, it's a good start. This illustrates why cross-national comparison is useful, as because there are so many countries, it's easier to glean sufficient data to control for a wide array of confounds.

It is my contention that gun control advocates are so used to conflating these two concepts, that they've lost all perspective on what it is they're trying to accomplish. I see it a lot. "Ban/Reduce guns, reduce/eliminate gun deaths." And somehow that translates into less murders. It could. It might.

I think that deaths by suicide are a larger concern than murder regarding firearm policy. This is at least statistically the case.

It shows with remarkable consistency, that the DESIRE to kill (i.e. the social, cultural, economic, etc. factors in a given population), cannot be sated by simply changing the availability of the tool(s).

Actually the desire for murder (or suicide) seems quite fleeting, subject strongly to the heat of the moment, also strongly influenced by contingent aspects of the context in which such desire emerges. At least in the case of suicide, easy availability of an effective tool exerts a great effect on sum rate of suicide. So yes, rate of firearm ownership affects suicide strongly. I would expect this to be similar with murder.

But the people still killed each other in the same quantity! Only in 2003-2004, when we see the same trend in UK/US and other modern countries stats, did the murder number/rate start to decrease. And there's no major gun issue we can attribute to this phenomenon on or around that time to account for the fall. Especially not across so many countries. So again, some other factor was vastly more important than the tool. Here, take a look.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

I am actually seeing a downward trend in rate of murder during the appropriate period (quite roughly), but I think you make a good point: maybe the Australian example isn't as good a case as I thought. However, I think that one needs to keep in mind the proportion of murders committed with firearms when setting expectations about the efficacy of targeted policies. It seems likely the case that in the US, where are higher proportion of murders are via firearms, one would expect changes in gun ownership to exert a greater effect than those seen in Australia.

Is it just because of the gun or is it because of mental state of owner(s), training, existence of children in the home, etc? That's a bit more complex.

Of course bad outcomes are a result of multiple causal factors. Every phenomenon in the universe always under the influence of innumerable factors for any given process. This still doesn't negate the utility of focus on singular factors occasionally for clarity, even as avenues of policy intervention.

we have a music genre that extols the violent lifestyle and people appear influenced by it. Check out the music genre known as narcocorrido. It's the Mexican cartel version of gangster hip-hop. I'm not calling for anything to be done here. I'm just pointing out the cultural reality of having music styles devoted to violent lifestyles. To me it likely acts as a reinforcing mechanism.

I still doubt it. Whether or not the artists themselves live a violent lifestyle, people are still adept at distinguishing reality from fantasy. Throughout history, we have ingested a deluge of violent narratives, and we retain the capability of understanding that these stories are fantastical and exceptional.

Yes but more often then not we find out with (USA) mass shootings that the suspect had some level of KNOWN mental health issues beforehand. The fact that we have no way of tying those issues to gun purchases, when it's the law saying those with such issues shouldn't be able to buy guns, means we're seriously lacking enforcement of existing laws. I really think this is an area that needs focus, more than the guns themselves.

I actually regard further regulating the mentally ill at best a waste of resources and at worst cruel. The mentally ill tend to be averagely violent. Roughly 25 percent of the population is mentally ill at any given moment (with a lifetime incidence of around 50 percent). There is no way to predict which mentally ill individuals will at some point descend into a state of violent outburst (or clinically planned killings) (driven by psychotic delusion or otherwise) any more than there is a way to predict when those without mental illness will decide to shoot people. So yes, a general improvement in mental health services will help more people better manage their mental health before reaching a state of violence, but this will have a miniscule effect on rates of gun violence; this is not a gun control policy issue. Really, we should offer more treatment to the mentally ill because they deserve way better from society.

I would appreciate some sourcing on this. The CDC report from 2013 had some very interested conclusions on this issue. Here's a link to a Slate article with some quick summaries (and will assist in future discussions). #10 for this particular point. http://www.slate.com/articles/health...gs_from_a.html

I was making a more basic point, one that was possibly so obvious that I shouldn't have made it. I only meant that because the vast majority of firearms in the US come through legal channels (rather than being internationally trafficked from politically unstable locales, for example), changes in the legal regulation of firearms will affect which firearms are used in crime in some fashion (but what the effects and their magnitude will be is unclear, even for some of the better known policy debates).

ebola

 

[DOB]

I still want to know how ppl who are against weapons want to ban weapons without using weapons....


"sir! put that ar15 with 150round beta mag down or I trow at you my still hot from the oven gluten free brownie!

 

[spacejunk]

^ money tends to work

 

[tunesey]

Guns dont kill people Rappers do rap is more deadly than fucking Kung Fu

 

[DOB]

^ money tends to work

what money? you mean the 6 billion dollars thats made each year by sellling guns?? or the 17+ trillion debt??

 

[DOB]

people made guns secretly in their homes since forever... its not like all guns in US comes from one warp gate from aliens and that you can just shut it down like valve,soon everybody and their dog will 3D print whatever the fuck they want,deal with it

 

[Bardeaux]

people made guns secretly in their homes since forever... its not like all guns in US comes from one warp gate from aliens and that you can just shut it down like valve,soon everybody and their dog will 3D print whatever the fuck they want,deal with it

I believe the discussion moved beyond this about 19 pages ago.

 

[Droppersneck]

Wow this discussion has had me entertained some great banter b/t wicked and ebola. I am just glad my viewpoint is still currently winning in the greatest country to ever be assembled by God himself! I am really glad to see there is an innate collective understanding here that banning types of guns is a tactic used to fool fools.

 

[DOB]

I believe the discussion moved beyond this about 19 pages ago.

lol I didnt reed this thread whole,I am too lazy

 

[spacejunk]

I am just glad my viewpoint is still currently winning in the greatest country to ever be assembled by God himself! I am really glad to see there is an innate collective understanding here that banning types of guns is a tactic used to fool fools.

Do fools need fooling?
How is life at the Vatican treating you, anyway?