Gun Control... Or lack thereof

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:32 am

You may want to watch this video.
There's also a first part that lasts a few minutes. It's found amongst a variety of sort-of biographical videos at this website.

Good to know, gun violence only costs five billions more than obesity does.
Can someone repost the link to a good advocacy towards the organized extinction of fat people for the sake of our future, Soylent Green style? :D

More seriously, down the main page comes another picture that shows how homicides and assaults represent the majority of gun related casualties.
Obviously, that is the real gun violence. The one against a peer, most likely for unlawful reasons. Or crimes, in other words.
Then what is both the best deterrent against such crimes and a formidable economical drive?
Gun acquisition by good citizens.
Some costs have hardly been studied at all—like the trauma and fear that stunt neighborhood development and prompt schools to deploy armed guards.
Indeed. When do we start talking about militias? j/k

Up to this point, it's not exactly clear where they're going with that, although the overall tone and modern construction and presentation of the accumulated data smell leftist.
Well, you don't have to wait till the third picture to read something that doesn't seem to be very relevant, until you guess that this entire enterprise is aimed at providing ammo against gun property. It reads:

"Guns are used in 70% of homicides and more than 50% of suicides in the United States."

So what? Oh wait, I see what you did here. This research, study or whatever you want to call it solely focuses on the casualties and violence done with guns, never on the self defense part, or the deterrent aspect of gun ownership. How long are they going to push this?
Make people believe that you could reduce gun violence whilst it's largely generated by criminal activity, either by bad guys shooting other people, or good guys killing the bad ones; in which cases it would be quite interesting to look at how much money may have been saved there by allowing someone to defend himself.
It's insane how the entire focus is on the cost, money money money money, but never on the defense and the good that was actually preserved. Yet they precisely tackled the subject of auxiliary costs resulting from people being injured or missing, how it impacts autonomy and the rest of the family.
Nobody who knows Longdon expects any of that to get in her way—certainly not the mayor's chief of staff, Reuben Alonzo, who worked closely with her on a program in 2013 that took 2,000 unwanted firearms off the streets, the largest buyback in the state's history. Longdon was one of the first people the mayor turned to for advice on gun policy, Alonzo says, noting that it wasn't just a matter of her personal story. "There's a stereotype about advocates like Jennifer," he says, "but her approach is really quite pragmatic. She has the knowledge to back it up."

Longdon is well aware that 2,000 unwanted guns melted down by the Phoenix PD is a tiny fraction of the firepower out there. But the cost of gun violence works out to more than $800 a year each for Arizona's 6.7 million residents, and if she can start to chip away at that by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, it's worth it to her. "Not one of those guns will ever be used in a suicide, an accidental discharge, or a crime," she says, "and that is significant."
Pathetic. Turning away the capacity to defend yourself in favour of shit paper money that will last between a few weeks to a few months at best? Cretins.

There's a page with all the data presented in nice graphics.
This one is full of irony.
As it turns out, not only most of the costs are due to homicides (as we've seen earlier on), but the vast majority of these homicide based costs are taken up by prison and its relevant processes.
First of all, would they prefer the criminals to remain free? Or maybe they're advocating for extreme capital punishment, who knows?
Secondly, when homicides aren't caused by guns but by other weapons, they still have no reason to result in lesser costs for anything related to the jail phase. A homicide is a homicide. But they paint it as a "gun thing", see?
Gun = evil.

It doesn't stop there. It's sickening.
Here comes the pro-black racial angle.
So we're going to play that game now? OK. Maybe they should remind the readers that the vast majority of crimes are committed by black people too? Maybe that would explain why they got shot so many times, either in gang warfare, petty crimes or by result of self defense?
This single picture literally implies that owning a gun is something racist!
Then they try to balance this out by giving crumbs to the "white side" by mentioning the suicide rates. Amusingly, one would wonder why the hell is it white people who can't have it anymore and are killing themselves more than black people? Are they sick of their life, their country?
And if these people find enough strength to put an end to their life, how the hell is gun removal going to change a thing to that?
That's exploiting compassion, that's what it is. So a fellow white person should feel concerned, pity those who crossed the river. But then again, they should also ask themselves why the heck the suicide rates by gun are higher within the white population, the one that's supposedly privileged, than within the black one.
There's also a secondary effect that results from the merging of both parts of this picture. On one side, black people are painted as victims of gun violence, at a clear disadvantage against white people, and on the other hand, a statistic largely implies that most of the guns are owned by white people. Just add both and see where this gets you. ;)

That website is Mother Jones; the study is the fruit of their collaboration with Ted Miller and you will probably hear of them and their biased research again.
Let's be clear, there's an agenda there. The study in itself ought to be neutral, limiting itself to presenting cold hard numbers. But it's a clear charge against guns, for the fact that nothing is said about the positive aspects of owning a firearm.
Then, the associated militant depowering message leaves no doubt to what is being done.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Cocytus » Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:12 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Mother Jones
Into the trash it goes.

I had a lovely Valentine's Day. Bought a Stag 3T-M. Damn I love this gun. Not too many rails to hang tacticool shit off of. Instead, a continuous free float guard that feels buttery smooth and comfortable, and a lovely Magpul ACS stock with plenty of cheek real estate. For my next trick, I think I'll register with the ATF and get a 5.56 silencer for it. A can would be fun to take to the range.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:27 pm

What was the price for the whole package?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: It doesn't stop there. It's sickening.
Here comes the pro-black racial angle.
So we're going to play that game now? OK. Maybe they should remind the readers that the vast majority of crimes are committed by black people too? Maybe that would explain why they got shot so many times, either in gang warfare, petty crimes or by result of self defense?
This single picture literally implies that owning a gun is something racist!
Just to bring substance to those claims; a few links.
1, 2 & http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/ ... d_2015.pdf.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Cocytus » Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:37 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:What was the price for the whole package?
About $1250 all in.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Darth Spock » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:17 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: It's insane how the entire focus is on the cost, money money money money, but never on the defense and the good that was actually preserved. Yet they precisely tackled the subject of auxiliary costs resulting from people being injured or missing, how it impacts autonomy and the rest of the family.
Sounds like somebody rewatched "Runaway Jury" and said "Hey! Let's try the money angle!"

One thing that struck me funny was that they used the statistic that gun deaths are about to surpass deaths from car accidents, touting it as evidence of rampant violence, rather than celebrating the fact that cars are evidently getting safer, which is what the graph actually indicates.
It doesn't stop there. It's sickening.
Here comes the pro-black racial angle.
So we're going to play that game now? OK. Maybe they should remind the readers that the vast majority of crimes are committed by black people too? Maybe that would explain why they got shot so many times, either in gang warfare, petty crimes or by result of self defense?
This single picture literally implies that owning a gun is something racist!
Yeah, I noticed earlier that gun violence, and homicide in general, had more to do with the socioeconomic makeup of an area or region than the mere presence of a firearm, although guns are more likely to be found in a high crime environment.
Then they try to balance this out by giving crumbs to the "white side" by mentioning the suicide rates. Amusingly, one would wonder why the hell is it white people who can't have it anymore and are killing themselves more than black people? Are they sick of their life, their country?
And if these people find enough strength to put an end to their life, how the hell is gun removal going to change a thing to that?
That's exploiting compassion, that's what it is.
True, and ironic considering this same site (Mother Jones) pushes for legalizing assisted suicides.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... icide-bill
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... kevin-drum

Not exactly the same thing, but still rather incongruous. And how does this fit with the theme of financial costs? Suicides are apparently far less costly than homicides according to their graphs.

Of course, that is one point were a decrease in guns could reduce deaths by suicides, there is actually strong evidence indicating that impedances to the ease with which one can kill themselves does decrease the likelihood of one following through with the act.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matte ... ves-lives/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/st ... nt-suicide

But they are pushing for very far reaching legislation, well beyond the relatively small impact it would likely actually have on suicide rates, and is a suspiciously opportunistic statistic to use specifically against the "evil gun" given their position on the topic of suicide as linked above.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Darth Spock » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:27 am

Cocytus wrote:For my next trick, I think I'll register with the ATF and get a 5.56 silencer for it. A can would be fun to take to the range.
Question. Having come to an understanding of just how much "silencers" don't silence gunshots, I'm curious, why bother? It sounds like an expensive, clunky bit of hardware requiring extra paperwork and legal hoops just to have extra mass hanging off the end of the barrel. Is it kind of a "hey, that'd be cool to have" sort of thing, or does it silence the report enough to reduce the need for hearing protection, or... something? Just curious.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:01 pm

Darth Spock wrote: One thing that struck me funny was that they used the statistic that gun deaths are about to surpass deaths from car accidents, touting it as evidence of rampant violence, rather than celebrating the fact that cars are evidently getting safer, which is what the graph actually indicates.
It would be hard to put a racist spin on car accidents. Maybe you'd have to go look on who owns cars, then you might realize it's the middle class as a whole, but then as cars don't exactly get any better at preventing accidents, a decrease of such accidents may only be understood as a silent rise of the sweaty hipsters using more and more bicycles, or the middle class getting smaller and smaller in numbers because it gets poorer and downgraded into the shitty class regime. :D

...
Am I kidding?
Yeah, I noticed earlier that gun violence, and homicide in general, had more to do with the socioeconomic makeup of an area or region than the mere presence of a firearm, although guns are more likely to be found in a high crime environment.
Mmm... peace through superior firepower they said.
There's no escaping the fact that the most immediate and effective deterrent in such high crime areas is going to be the possession of a gun of some kind, presumably the kind that kills and not just soaks your oponent.
True, and ironic considering this same site (Mother Jones) pushes for legalizing assisted suicides.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... icide-bill
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... kevin-drum

Not exactly the same thing, but still rather incongruous. And how does this fit with the theme of financial costs? Suicides are apparently far less costly than homicides according to their graphs.
This is the USA. Legalized assisted suicide means business. With all shades of gray, and for the poorest people, the possibility to do it at a barely regulated level.
Let's remember that the person who uses a gunfor suicide may have acquired that gun for other purposes, may have already used it. Or maybe it's a professional tool because it's been given by the state or the company since that person was in some police force or the security business.
But the suicide by drugs for example, that's not something you do everyday. That's above all not something you want to miss. A bullet is rather straight forward, it's very, very hard to miss. But a wrong injection of the wrong product, you could suffer a lot and perhaps even fail killing yourself, yet turning yourself into a vegetable.

Being less cynical, their problem isn't about the existence of high suicide rates (they don't seem to care about that) but the fact that suicides are made with guns.
Needles are more civilized than these crude weapons.
Of course, that is one point were a decrease in guns could reduce deaths by suicides, there is actually strong evidence indicating that impedances to the ease with which one can kill themselves does decrease the likelihood of one following through with the act.
To me it's mainly a man thing. As I understood, women suicide themselves differently, in a say, more narcissic way that doesn't really damage the body. Maybe I make stuff up but I think the prefered method is poison.
Men make a picture. It's brutal and sanguine. If there is any sobbering, it's before pulling the trigger. Then comes hanging or cutting veins I suppose, or other ways (injecting oneself with some random stuff).

However, for a bunch of people so concerned about costs, did they forget how much it would burden society to help a suicidal person? Think of the psychological support... oh, and the pills.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matte ... ves-lives/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/st ... nt-suicide

But they are pushing for very far reaching legislation, well beyond the relatively small impact it would likely actually have on suicide rates, and is a suspiciously opportunistic statistic to use specifically against the "evil gun" given their position on the topic of suicide as linked above.
On one hand, most of the suicides are accomplished by, I guess, rather healthy people, while on the other hand, the assisted suicide concerns a small portion of the population, one that comprises usually too sick and impaired patients who do cost a lot to their relatives (but little to society due to the small percentage), which in turn only translates into, supposedly, more suffering for the would be suicidee.
So they win on the compassion side, which isn't very hard and has always been an easy argument for the anti-church people.

I suspect that most of the gun ownerships is actually found on the right side of the political spectrum, in the more conservative groups, right?
An easy yet big win in favour of assisted suicide would only help painting the whole right side as a bunch of immoral bigoted stuck ups. Which in turn would weaken their overall rectitude and position about anything else.
Including anything these immoral bigoted stuck ups might say about their so called need for their murderous and costly weapons.

The problem is that there's no in-between. It's so polarized.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:16 pm

There were also several pages with instructions on how to take your life using an "inert gas hood kit." This is a fairly simple and painless way to die, since your body reflexively wants to breathe, but doesn't really care what it breathes. If you breathe pure helium, or any other inert gas, you won't feel any sensation of suffocation at all. You simply fall unconscious after a minute or so, and within a few more minutes, you die.
I don't know what to say.

1. That's a sad story (like there have been a bazillion over the last ten millennia so... ?).
2. Thanks for the tip! No plans but who knows?
3. I'm gonna buy shares in the helium industry.
4. Disguising murder 101 : some helium, a plastic bag plus one convenient note.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Cocytus » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:08 am

Darth Spock wrote:
Cocytus wrote:For my next trick, I think I'll register with the ATF and get a 5.56 silencer for it. A can would be fun to take to the range.
Question. Having come to an understanding of just how much "silencers" don't silence gunshots, I'm curious, why bother? It sounds like an expensive, clunky bit of hardware requiring extra paperwork and legal hoops just to have extra mass hanging off the end of the barrel. Is it kind of a "hey, that'd be cool to have" sort of thing, or does it silence the report enough to reduce the need for hearing protection, or... something? Just curious.
It's mostly just a fun thing to take to the range. Brakes tend to make life uncomfortable for the people next to you, since you're venting gas and noise right at them. The A2 that comes standard on virtually everything is a great muzzle device. I could make an argument about it being a combination device, since it would reduce flash as well as noise, but honestly I'd just like to have a silencer.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:35 am

Waaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit!

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matte ... ves-lives/

So whilst they want to mean that by making the access to lethal means of suicide less easy, suicide rates would drop, aren't they actually saying that when you improve the life of people, their environment, their tools, whatever, by making them less toxic or dangerous, these same people tend to think less about suicides because they have less reasons to do?

Let's quote that, piece by piece.
A number of studies have indicated that when lethal means are made less available or less deadly, suicide rates by that method decline, and frequently suicide rates overall decline. This has been demonstrated in a number of areas: bridge barriers, detoxification of domestic gas, pesticides, medication packaging, and others.
In China they also stretched nets above courtyards and added bars to windows to prevent employees from killing themselves by jumping through them.
I wouldn't say that these employees' situation got all sunshine though.
For example, in rural areas of Asia and the Pacific Islands, pesticides are a leading method of suicide attempt (Gunnell 2003). Pesticides in widespread use have changed over time, and suicide deaths have been observed to rise and fall with the toxicity and case fatality rate of the particular pesticides currently in use. For example, the suicide rate in Samoa rose and fell with the introduction and control of paraquat, a pesticide that was more lethal than the pesticides in previous use in the country. Suicides declined dramatically in Sri Lanka following restriction of more lethal pesticides (Gunnell 2007).
Perhaps we could go on about the economical landscape of those regions too? Lethal pesticides are toxic. They're a high cause of cancer in fact. As we've seen, many people who have cancer are willing to put an end to their lives. So perhaps suicide rates didn't drop because the workers couldn't find anything efficient to kill themselves, but because their overall working condition improved by getting rid of that poisonous crap?
Coal Gas in the United Kingdom

Prior to the 1950s, domestic gas in the United Kingdom was derived from coal and contained about 10-20% carbon monoxide (CO). Poisoning by gas inhalation was the leading means of suicide in the UK. In 1958, natural gas, virtually free of carbon monoxide, was introduced into the UK. By 1971, 69% of gas used was natural gas. Over time, as the carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased (Kreitman 1976). Suicides by carbon monoxide decreased dramatically, while suicides by other methods increased a small amount, resulting in a net decrease in overall suicides, particularly among females.
"Over time" not being quantified. Should we forget that the post-war era was coming to an end in England and the economical situation was improving as a whole through the sixties, until some unfortunate turns of events?
Over time, rates of suicide began to increase again although not to the pre-1965 levels.
Perhaps, but they increase nonetheless. Were bridges becoming more and more lethal? Were guns wrapped in christmas crackers? :|
One author has estimated that over a ten-year period, an estimated six to seven thousand lives were saved by the change in domestic gas content (Hawton 2002).
Well I'd love to read about that because the only referenced source regarding this Hawton bloke is that one:
"Hawton K. United Kingdom legislation on pack sizes of analgesics: background, rationale, and effects on suicide and deliberate self-harm. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 2002;32(3):223-229."

It seems to focus on med packs, not gas, although the footnote seems to indicate six pages of content regarding suicide by gas. Too bad we can't read it, eh?
Of course, if less people tend to kill themselves, that is actually a good thing, but you're not going to achieve much with your domestic gas when someone tries to rob your property, short of blowing up the entire hourse, the pyrhic way (with a middle finger too). HA!
Reducing access to lethal means does not always reduce the overall suicide rate.
Now that's literally a concession. It looks like those pesky suicidal people would do anything to find a way to put an end to their misery, wouldn't they?
Someone should create non-lethal ropes! NOW!
For example, restricting a low-lethality method or a method infrequently used may not make a detectable difference in the suicide rate. Restricting a very low-lethality method-if it results in attempters substituting a higher-lethality method-could in fact increase the overall suicide rate. Means reduction doesn’t change the underlying suicidal impulse or necessarily reduce attempts: rather, it saves lives by reducing the lethality of attempts
I guess periods are too expensive.
More seriously, who gives? They just admited that the overall suicide rate doesn't always drop, no matter the reduction of lethal means.
Next time, FLASH NEWS! DISTRESSING TIMES INCREASE SUICIDE RATES and KNIFES STILL DEEMED TOO SHARP BY MINISTRY OF DOMESTIC SAFETY!

Below, links that don't work:
  • When Do Means Matter? a worksheet that examines when means reduction is likely and unlikely to result in an overall decline in suicides.
  • More studies involving bridge barriers, pesticides, medications, and other methods.
Below, the references.
Gunnell D and Eddleston M. Suicide by intentional ingestion of pesticides: a continuing tragedy in developing countries. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2003;32:902-909.

Gunnell D, Fernando R, Hewagama M, Priyangika WD, Konradsen F, Eddleston M. The impact of pesticide regulations on suicide in Sri Lanka. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(6):1235-42.

Kreitman N. The coal gas story. United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960-71. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1976 Jun;30(2):86-93.

Hawton K. United Kingdom legislation on pack sizes of analgesics: background, rationale, and effects on suicide and deliberate self-harm. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 2002;32(3):223-229.
They surely have one of the shittiest ways to use links. There's not a single link that leads to anything substantial. Either they lead to footnotes (when you could expect more), or lead to files, notably two PDFs, which don't exist.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/bibliography/ provides the material to read.

Their objective seems different than Mother Jones.
Seems.

I gets bizarre once you reach http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/useful-links/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/our-impact ... -your-home is listed. In the examples, on their page titled "Suicide Proof Your Home", they cite the case of Markie, 3.
Sure thing. Didn't they mean accident?
What should we think of such a website which authors can't even be arsed enough to be accurate over such simple concepts?
In America 8 out of 10 firearm suicides among adolescents are committed with a gun belonging to a family member. Because so many adolescents use a family member’s gun to attempt suicide, Suicide-Proof Your Home informs parents about the simple steps they can take to reduce the risk that a youth suicide will occur in their home. Parents are encouraged to decrease the likelihood of suicide by securely locking or removing lethal means, such as firearms and medications.

Visit http://www.suicideproof.org to learn the simple steps you can take to suicide-proof your home.

Suicide-Proof Your Home was developed in partnership with The Rhode Island Department of Health.
Uh-huh. Securely locking OR removing lethal means. I wonder what they mean by that.
They link to suicideproof.org, so let's see.
They have a brochure: http://www.suicideproof.org/Suicide-Pro ... ochure.pdf

What can you read?
If I did not have that gun in my house, my son might still be alive.
In other words, no gun, no problem.
On page 2, for recommendations to potentially save a teen's life, one reads:
REMOVE FIREARMS FOR NOW
  • Ask a trusted friend or family member to keep it temporarily.
  • Your local police precinct or shooting club might offer temporary storage.
  • At the very least, lock they securely away from ammunition.
The first two proposals make the ownership of a gun as self defense near completely fruitless or not exactly practical.
The second one even partially conflicts with the principle in the Constitution by giving your gun... to the cops.
The third one makes it harder for you to use it if you have locked the ammo away from the gun. Talk about giving an advantage to the assaulting party!

Not a single time do they ever simply say lock the darned gun AND its ammo inside one single secure place. Because I guess that would be too obvious.
Or too easy.

Moving on to Lok it Up, which seems more concerned about selling storageware than really dealing with the problem at large.
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservice ... /guns.aspx
Simply put, an adult who owns the gun wouldn't exactly need a safe for his own weapon, right? It's for the kids.
Then why do they say "We lose $183 million in medical costs and lost productivity each year." ?
Are we supposed to extrapolate the loss of productivity from parents? Ok, let's do so.
Anyways, I went looking for the firearm, deaths and injuries statistics for King County. They provide a PDF: http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservice ... b2013.ashx

On page 3 we learn that although 18% of deaths are caused by firearms for people between the ages of 19 to 24, it rises to 41% for black youths.

On page 4, you read:
Of the 536 nonfatal firearm injuries between 2006 and 2010 that required hospitalization, 15% were unintentional, 6% self-inflicted, 73% assault, and 6% other.
Thank you proving that the majority of firearm injuries originate from unlawful activities! 73% are assault!
Unless specified, the statistics do not solely focus on children and teens, even if the document likes to hop back and forth between both focused and overall population categories.

Then they go on citing the costs of this and that, as usual, never musing on the deterrent aspect of firearms. They don't directly tell who causes most of those high costs, but considering we're talking about, again, a 73% rate of non fatal firearm injuries, either we're talking about a majority of victims who surely would have loved to have a mean to defend themselves, or the perpetrators, who don't care about your regulations and ended at the hospital because they got the shorter end of the stick in their street warfare or got a taste of their shit, courtesy of more honest citizens.

Later on there's a bunch of race or ethnics based statistics which put the black people at a great disadvantage, not only against whites, but asians and hispanics too, with asians/PI "enjoying" an almost equally low level of death by firearm than whites do.
I can imagine that all black people live in poor areas and all other ethnics don't, but is that enough to explain the insane gap in sheer violence?

Then there's data based on localization. Without knowing much of Seattle, we see that it sucks in the south-west areas, which may be poor areas.

And so on...

Now there's something interesting to point out. On page 6, there's a graphic, figure 3, that shows the homicides and homicides by firearm over a selection of countries, Japan, many European countries, Australia (four cities separated by a whole continent) and the USA at the far right. Oh and the Canadians (sorry).
Without a surprise, we see that the USA have a very high rate of homicides.
But what we see is that Germany, for example, has an homicide rate of .8 and homicides by firearms rated at .2, meaning that 25% of deaths are caused by firearms, which puts Germany above several statistics usually cited on anti-gun sources, since they like to use impressive percentages!
Same goes for Spain.
Well, we have a big percentage here for Germany and Spain, yet nothing to worry about much.
Oh wait. For Sweden, it's 40%! Still far from USA's 69%, but nothing to scoff at either.
For Japan, we find that the firearm related rate is so low that it's found at 0. Their overall homicide rate is equally low, sitting at .4.

Don't jump on conclusions yet! It all this gets crunchy delicious several pages later. :)

Figure 8, on page 10, provides a similar visual, this time for suicides and firearms suicide rate. Don't miss that one.

Oh lookie! Japan beats all records with a 24.4 suicide rate! Yet 0.0 for suicide by firearms. I'm sure that's an embarrassing fact the gun-control plebe would innocently push under the rug.
Isn't that documente used by a website cited by Harvard, that claims that reducing the access to lethal means of suicide (read: ban guns) would lower suicide rates significantly?
I guess the Japanese are really special. They must have developped super secret seppuku techniques.
Next comes France at 16.3 (!), the land of the so called "bon vivant" ... well, not so much apparently.
Let's put that in the category of death by smelly cheese. Ok, truth said, that's still 2.8 by firearms.
What is striking is that the United States sit in some kind of average regarding suicide rates. Sure, half of them are done with firearms, but it looks like in other countries, when you don't have a gun, you improvize and it works just as well!
The United States have an homicide rate of 12.4, Germany and Sweden 12.3 and 12.1 respectively yet much lower suicides by firearms in comparison to the USA: 1 and 1.5 vs 6.9
Canada is in close position at 11.3 despite a much lower portion of those suicides achieved with firearms, at 2.
Simply put, in those rich countries, a lack of firearms does certainly NOT result in lower suicide rates.

That single piece of data literally blows away the idea that a reduction of firearms in the USA would reduce suicide rates.


So the only impressive number really boils down to the rate of homicides in the USA and the equally high rate of homicides by guns from figure 3 on page 6.
Of course, it doesn't really mention anything about criminality rates either.
Yes, firearms make killing easier. However, are there more homicides in the USA because there are more firearms, or because there are more criminals per individual?

Those big numbers all get blasted by a few good gunfacts anyway.


For your curiosity, you may read this too:
http://www.maine.gov/suicide/about/lethal_questions.htm
This is one of the links available at the Harvard website. I'm not sure what to think of it...

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:07 pm

3 minutes of zero-BS facts and pure common sense about gun control, especially the handguns.
Enjoy and share.

Post Reply