Gun politics thread

[Beni]

Yes, as I was writing about that specific graph I didn't make clear I was talking about percentages, should have said "smaller percentage of people", you're right

I'm not claiming to be the super statistics brain here, just trying to understand what is actually going on and how to make sense of the very broad statements in this thread.

And to be honest, I really have no opinion or clue on whether violent crimes would decrease with decreasing gun ownership, I'm sure I won't find the answer in this thread though.

 

[tigger]

Eh, he probably means fewer gun owners or households with guns per capita. Or as a percentage. Not that the number itself is lower.

 

[Cl0ckwork]

I didn't look very much to find that graph that shows the decline but you can't really make any decisions based off of surveys to begin with. Where/who did they ask? Way too many variables to make a judgement call that this survey says that there are not too many guns around.

 

[Beni]

Good point, let's keep on each forming our own facts based on a few personal experiences and the way we feel about something. On the downside it would be impossible to have a real discussion but on the plus side no one would ever be wrong again!

 

[narf]

Well, if you consider that since 1973 the total number of households in this country has very nearly doubled, then it becomes important. A 100% increase in total households, but a 20% decrease in the percentage of households with guns. Now I don't have narf levels of mathmatical skill, but that data implies an increase in total numbers of gun owning households, not a decrease.

You called?

Taking your number of households and the 1973 US population, we get an average of 3.1 people per household, and 2.6 people per household in 2010 - a decrease to 84% of the 1973 value. So despite an increase in the number of households, the number of people living in households that own guns has not increased as an absolute number.
Absolute numbers of people are irrelephant though, because the comparison is with the crime rate per capita. "Number of households" is proportional to "number of people" for each year, so comparing guns per household with crime per capita is a fair comparison.

Note, correlation is not causation - but correlation makes arguing opposite causation very very hard.
Hell, someone could use these figures and argue "crime rate is dropping, so fewer households live in fear and own guns". Again only correlation.


Gun sales skyrocketing could line up with this if the number of guns per gun owner is also skyrocketing. It's obvious that the number of guns any gun owner owns has no significant effect on the crime rate. If you have for example two handguns, two shotguns, and two rifles - buying ten of each on top isn't going to increase either your own crime rate or your deterrence on crimes against you.

 

[TC]

Sounds about right, since I hear children per household has decreased over the years. That's the real crux of arguing with statistics. It all depends on how you phrase your conclusion. Take this graph by The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/12/19/a-gun-ownership-renaissance/

Which shows a decrease in personal gun ownership per capita, but when you factor in population increase over that time, it shows an increase in total gun owners. If you tell people that fewer people own guns, without adding 'per capita' or 'as a percentage', then it can be deceiving. If you're simply analyzing and comparing data, then it's a different story.

It's like living in a bad neighborhood surrounded by people carrying guns. If after a few years the number of gun owners in your neighborhood doubled, but the number of people tripled, would you suddenly feel more safe? Twice as many guns, but spread out over 3 times as many people? I don't think 'per capita' is much comfort in that situation.


I'm not making any conclusions about how any of this impacts crime or violence btw, I wouldn't know, just talking real numbers. Or as real as survey numbers can be considered anyway.

 

[narf]

"Per capita" is really the only sensible way to use single numbers. Your economy's output has doubled? Great... but you now have three times as many people? Not great. Crime numbers are stagnant? Meh... twice as many people with same total number of crime? Great.

 

[prizrak]

Good point, let's keep on each forming our own facts based on a few personal experiences and the way we feel about something. On the downside it would be impossible to have a real discussion but on the plus side no one would ever be wrong again!

His point is quite valid, as surveys generally do not encompass the entire population (no one called all 300+ people in the US to ask) the data is based on a specifically selected subset, as we don't know the methodology or the demographics of the survey we cannot draw any proper conclusions. As an example, more rural areas tend to have higher gun ownership than urban/suburban, if the survey was based on urban/suburban then it will show different data from rural.

Better way to look at this is number of gun permits/carry licenses issued.

For example this article has an interesting graph:


P.S. One of the things article mentions is that certain states don't require permits at all so the real number of owners is likely higher than permits would show.

 

[LeVeL]

Fact: gun ownership and gun sales have skyrocketed over the last 25 years.

Example from my home state: A gun license surge in Mass.
Women buying guns more than ever.
Gallup polls with some interesting trends. Support for guns is on the rise.

These are just some indicators. That said, as has already been mentioned, actual ownership is pretty difficult to gauge. Sales, however, are easier:
NICS background checks are up 2.5x since 1998.
Number of gun manufactured is up almost 3x since 1986. Gun imports are up nearly 8x. NFA applications (for suppressors, short-barrel long-guns, etc) are up 6x.

Fact: gun laws have become vastly more loose and permissive over the last 25 years.

This wiki graphic says it all:

Fact: violent crime has plummeted over the last 25 years.

The number's don't "generally" support my claim :lol: Violent crime has been plummeting over the last 25 years or so, as the graph on the previous page shows.

While there is no implied causation in those three facts, they do clearly indicate that more guns does NOT lead to more violent crime.

This is quite accurate

 

[tigger]

Fucking *sigh*. And despite all your bloviating we've still got a gun homicide rate worse than most third world nations.

Only places worse are central and south America where the drug war is raging. Oh and actual fucking war zones.

B-b-but it's getting better! We just need more guns! Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

 

[prizrak]

Fucking *sigh*. And despite all your bloviating we've still got a gun homicide rate worse than most third world nations.

Only places worse are central and south America where the drug war is raging. Oh and actual fucking war zones.

B-b-but it's getting better! We just need more guns! Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

No one is saying that more guns makes better, we are saying that there is no correlation between number of privately held guns and violent crime. Argument that's backed up by actual scientific data.

 

[tigger]

No one is saying that more guns makes better ...

LeVeL.

we are saying that there is no correlation between number of privately held guns and violent crime. Argument that's backed up by actual scientific data.

Right. People willing to kill having easy access to firearms has zero connection to gun homicide. Fucking right.

What's that great line from 'Shoot Em Up'? "Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it a lot easier!"

 

[LeVeL]

No one is saying that more guns makes better, we are saying that there is no correlation between number of privately held guns and violent crime. Argument that's backed up by actual scientific data.

:lol: tigger is clueless, as always.

"Here we have factual evidence showing that more guns != more crime and that all crime, including violent crime, including homicide, is a social/economic/cultural issue."
"Fucking *sigh*. I'm in basic training and I know everything."
"But... You haven't presented any facts to support your view that the answer is illogical laws that have been shown to be ineffective that would threaten to reverse the downward trend of crime statistics."
"Hurr durr let's ignore social issues because racism. Gunz are bad. It's Donald Trump's fault."
"Well, Vermont and Maine have constitutional carry and they are two of the safest states in the country, while Chicago and DC have the strictest gun laws in the nation and continue to be the most violent cities in the US."
"Herp derp you don't have to aim a shotgun."

Rinse and repeat. Reminds me of the analogy of playing chess against a pigeon - it just knocks the pieces down, shits all over the place, and then walks around claiming victory.

 

[tigger]

And LeVeLs endless buttfrustration continues. Silly fucker can't even see my posts. Quick digging the hole for your side fuckhead.

 

[prizrak]

Right. People willing to kill having easy access to firearms has zero connection to gun homicide. Fucking right.

See that would make sense if criminals bought guns from stores, which they don't, but don't take my word for it, go couple of pages back and look at the CDC study, which is the most comprehensive to date.

What's that great line from 'Shoot Em Up'? "Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it a lot easier!"

No one is disputing that.

See problem is that concentrating on guns themselves is never going to work, violence doesn't come from easy access to the tools of said violence it comes from other factors such as poverty, [lack of] education, related criminal activity (say drug running), etc... If you want good (good is a relative term I suppose) examples look at NYC and Chicago, both cities concentrate heavily on gun control yet have highest numbers of homicide in the country.

Your argument reminds me of an old joke:
A general is being interviewed on the radio and the reporter is very anti-military so she keeps pressing the general and says "But isn't true that what you do is basically equip young men to be killers?" so the general gets tired of it and goes "well miss you are fully equipped to be a hooker yet you are not are you?"

 

[tigger]

Tell me how someone pulls off a gun homicide without access to a gun.

Sorry man, I'm an asshole about this. I'm really not interested in beating around the bush. If you want to eliminate gun homicides, you eliminate guns. It is that simple.

At least it's that simple if you're actually interested in dropping homicides. In know LeVeL doesn't give a fuck about that. But that's where the debate is. Curtailing firearms within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[narf]

See that would make sense if criminals bought guns from stores, which they don't.

Reducing supply would be an idea

 

[LeVeL]

Reducing supply would be an idea

Since the problem is crime, isn't the most logical question "why is there crime"? The answer isn't "guns" unless you believe that Chicago gang-bangers shoot each other just because "hey, lookie here! A gun! I might as well pop a cap in someone's ass..."

 

[prizrak]

Gun politics thread

Tell me how someone pulls off a gun homicide without access to a gun.

Sorry man, I'm an asshole about this. I'm really not interested in beating around the bush. If you want to eliminate gun homicides, you eliminate guns. It is that simple.

Your conclusion is based on an incorrect assumption, the end goal of any homicide is the homicide itself not the way in which its perpetrated. Worst mass murder in NY was done with arson just as an example.

The other thing is that the genie is out of the bottle, there are about 300 million guns in U.S. short of LEO busting down every door and forcibly removing guns from private ownership you won't be able to get rid of the guns anyway.

At least it's that simple if you're actually interested in dropping homicides. In know LeVeL doesn't give a fuck about that. But that's where the debate is. Curtailing firearms within the bounds of the 2nd Amendment.

It's really not that simple sadly, you have to look at the underlying reasons for those homicides. Example: Gang turf wars, you take away guns they will use other weapons, places like UK or Hong Kong that have limited supply of even black market guns still have gangs and turf wars.

Sad reality is that people have many reasons to resort to violence and as the old adage goes "when there is a will there is a way"

Reducing supply would be an idea

While correct it then begs the question of "where is the supply coming from?" Since we already know that they don't come from legal sources, what good would it do to make new laws?

P.S. tapatalk fucked up and is showing that last quote as tig's instead of as narf's even though in compose view it shows correctly

 

[LeVeL]

Poll: 60% say gun control won't stop violence, 54% blame social media.

Meanwhile, in Chicago... Man With Concealed-Carry License Shoots Would-Be Robber