Harvard Gun Study

[LuisDantas]

Am I the only one that finds these numbers to be less than shocking in a country that is awash with guns? If guns were such a huge problem I'd expect the numbers to be far higher. Cars cause far more deaths annually and yet no one is screaming to curb ownership of cars.

There are widespread, reasonable use for cars.

 

[Revoltingest]

Come on, though. Don't be one of those guys who disbelieves everything that might go against their presently held beliefs about guns because of an asusmption of bias. What specifically in the article leads you to believe that the results are based, at least somewhat, on bias?

It's not that I disbelieve their study.
I'm sure it would give some defendable results.
But bias always creeps into the study of any complex issue, & this is Harvard, a left leaning bastion of 'progressives'.
Would it even be possible for them to discover something which favored gun ownership? I doubt it.
Their results look like nothing I haven't seen in the many studies trotted out on RF & THC over years of gun rights debates.

Are you implying that Harvard might have a definite reason to be partial? Why?

See above....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Am I the only one that finds these numbers to be less than shocking in a country that is awash with guns? If guns were such a huge problem I'd expect the numbers to be far higher. Cars cause far more deaths annually and yet no one is screaming to curb ownership of cars.

Some of us are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't you feel it will be at least controversial to decide who should have such a dangerous privilege?

There will be controversy, to be sure.
But I believe it's worth facing in order to find an optimum balance in gun regulation.
No doubt, some of my fellow gun rights types will find my approach too restrictive.
Oh, well....ya canna please everyone.

 

[Nakosis]

This is illogical. The article doesn't speak to whether the police being armed makes a difference. It only speaks to whether citizens having easier access to firearms actually cuts down on violent gun crimes.

Yes, but it does point out that criminals are not intimated by folks with Guns. And isn't the point of gun control to feel safer?

The number of people killed by guns in the us so far - 6481
Number of people killed by the police this year - 385

Number of people in the USA - 323 million
Number of police in the USA - 1.1 million

Understanding the number of death caused by police is probably grossly under reported. They are supposed to report every death cause by police shootings except many departments just don't comply with the law.

So for approximately every million citizens 20 people are killed by guns.
Approximately for every million peace officers 385 people are killed by guns.

On a per capita basis, I'd be safer banning guns from the police.

Fatal police shootings in 2015 approaching 400 nationwide - The Washington Post

Gun Violence Archive

 

[Nakosis]

Please read the article.

Yes, here is a quote directly from the article. "Having guns available makes the difference between having a fatal confrontation and a nonfatal confrontation."

Don't you think this would apply to the police as well?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, here is a quote directly from the article. "Having guns available makes the difference between having a fatal confrontation and a nonfatal confrontation."

Don't you think this would apply to the police as well?

Sure. It's why countries like New Zealand and England don't have gun toting beat police.

But I think the first determination is whether some form of control is implementable in a US environment. Any talk of disarming trained professionals seems a long way removed when the system allows purchase of sniper rifles by poorly trained civillians with mediocre background checks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. It's why countries like New Zealand and England don't have gun toting beat police.

But I think the first determination is whether some form of control is implementable in a US environment. Any talk of disarming trained professionals seems a long way removed when the system allows purchase of sniper rifles by poorly trained civillians with mediocre background checks.

Sniper rifles really don't figure into crimes anyway.
Aside from being rarely used for anything but target shooting, ordinary hunting rifles function similarly.
They're focused upon solely because they're big & scary looking to our more ovine citizens.
Handguns, because they're concealable, are much more significant players.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure. It's why countries like New Zealand and England don't have gun toting beat police.

But I think the first determination is whether some form of control is implementable in a US environment. Any talk of disarming trained professionals seems a long way removed when the system allows purchase of sniper rifles by poorly trained civillians with mediocre background checks.

And don't forget the ability to purchase guns even if you have a criminal background. It depends on the crime and circumstances, but for many, even for some convicted felons, it is a possibility.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Wait...hold up...you mean to tell me that greater access to guns and more people running around with guns DOESN'T decrease crime? But....I mean...our whole foreign relations policy is based off of mutual power to deescalate situations! Its why we push to allow for equal access to Nuclear technology to all countries!

 

[Nakosis]

Sure. It's why countries like New Zealand and England don't have gun toting beat police.

But I think the first determination is whether some form of control is implementable in a US environment. Any talk of disarming trained professionals seems a long way removed when the system allows purchase of sniper rifles by poorly trained civillians with mediocre background checks.

I had a chance to move to New Zealand, should have took it.
Honestly I'm in favor of strong gun control and responsible gun ownership.

What I get from this article is that citizens owning guns does not deter crime. Ok, it's not an argument I'd deploy to support gun ownership any way.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but it does point out that criminals are not intimated by folks with Guns. And isn't the point of gun control to feel safer?

The number of people killed by guns in the us so far - 6481
Number of people killed by the police this year - 385

Number of people in the USA - 323 million
Number of police in the USA - 1.1 million

Understanding the number of death caused by police is probably grossly under reported. They are supposed to report every death cause by police shootings except many departments just don't comply with the law.

So for approximately every million citizens 20 people are killed by guns.
Approximately for every million peace officers 385 people are killed by guns.

On a per capita basis, I'd be safer banning guns from the police.

Fatal police shootings in 2015 approaching 400 nationwide - The Washington Post

Gun Violence Archive

You are ignoring the fact that the police are dealing with criminals regularly when normal citizens arent. It's not a fair compariaon. And, they are trained professionals.

 

[Nakosis]

You are ignoring the fact that the police are dealing with criminals regularly when normal citizens arent. It's not a fair compariaon. And, they are trained professionals.

So we're ok with folks owing guns as long as they are professionally trained?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The reason why guns are legal here is that they are a right, and people want them. Autonomy is necessary even if it costs you the illusion of a utopia.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So we're ok with folks owing guns as long as they are professionally trained?

I think training, oversite and limitation on weapon types would all help, and these are all things the police (nominally) have.

Recent militarization of the police is an issue for precisely this reason, in my opinion.

I had a chance to move to New Zealand, should have took it.
Honestly I'm in favor of strong gun control and responsible gun ownership.

What I get from this article is that citizens owning guns does not deter crime. Ok, it's not an argument I'd deploy to support gun ownership any way.

Lived in New Zealand for just under 2 years (for work reasons) and loved the place. But it's not utopia. I think there is a higher level of gang membership in NZ than anywhere else in the world. Still, I rate it very highly overall.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The reason why guns are legal here is that they are a right, and people want them. There are plenty of examples of out-of-control governments which take away everybody's weapons and technology as part of a process of removing other rights. It can be a step towards the brave new world scenario, especially when combined with lots of surveillance, lots of automation, and a paranoid disconnected upper class. Things turn nasty very quickly. Your MP's stop looking out for citizens, get blackmailed or accept bribes. It happens all the time, so you can't let govt. have full control of individuals. Autonomy is necessary even if it costs you the illusion of a utopia.

No offence, but this is not based on much.

In terms of corruption, the US isn't bad per se, but it falls behind Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, etc. All of which have some level of gun control above and beyond the USA. That appears to be a strawman, frankly.

2014 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results

In terms of surveillance, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the US government that is doing the surveillance. We have bases here, the search engine I use is well known for providing information, etc.

In terms of a paranoid disconnected upper class, we have lower rates of wealth inequality in all the places I mentioned.

No-one has the illusion of utopia, as far as I can see, and seeing complete freedom of guns as the bastion of freedom and thin edge of the wedge in a 1984 scenario doesn't appear to be supported by common examples, near as I can see. I can't even see correlation, let alone causation.

 

[leibowde84]

So we're ok with folks owing guns as long as they are professionally trained?

And a sufficient psychological background check, sure.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No offence, but this is not based on much.

In terms of corruption, the US isn't bad per se, but it falls behind Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, etc. All of which have some level of gun control above and beyond the USA. That appears to be a strawman, frankly.

I'm not saying it is based on recent events, and you have to admit that those countries have only banned their guns in the last 20 years. It still remains to be seen how long they last, no offense intended. Give it 50 years, and then we will have some data to work with. There are plenty of examples ancient, modern and in-between; where technology is taken away from citizens in order to subjugate them whether it be mill stones, swords, furnaces, encryption or whatever. The same basic argument plays out: Technology X is 'Evil' and corrupts, and so we cannot allow the poor middle class to keep it. Only the wealthy and the responsible ought to have Technology X. I see the banning of guns as an edge case but still a similar case, as its a technology that can be used in armed rebellion. Usually other technologies pose different threats, but they are treated the same way. They are evil because of blah, and their use is restricted to the new best class of people.

In terms of surveillance, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the US government that is doing the surveillance. We have bases here, the search engine I use is well known for providing information, etc.

Oh, yes; but hopefully that is going to subside. I'm sick of traffic lights taking my picture. Its nobody's business where I drive. Ultimately the country is or was headed in the direction of push-button knowledge of each voter's choices in the ballet box. I'm telling you, you have things to worry about if you're betting the USA is not dangerous. We're certainly dangerous, and you've already witnessed our govt. manipulating voters. Its plain as day that there are no scruples about it, as senators of parties have colluded to draw the craziest crooked lines around voting districts, halted govt., filed ridiculous lawsuits, started wars without even declaring war and done various kinds of international mischief. Money has been declared = to speech by the supreme court. I do not see all of this surveillance as an isolated thing or as a conspiracy either. I just don't think we're 'Safe'. Our republic is not safe any more and is precariously close to some horrible big brother of the sort that wouldn't be possible 30 years ago. If that doesn't scare you then I'm happy for you and give me some, but you'll pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands.

In terms of a paranoid disconnected upper class, we have lower rates of wealth inequality in all the places I mentioned.

We have serious problems in that area. From time to time the middle class loses its clout. We came back after each world war and then started slipping again after each. It seems we haven't got equality figured out yet.

No-one has the illusion of utopia, as far as I can see, and seeing complete freedom of guns as the bastion of freedom and thin edge of the wedge in a 1984 scenario doesn't appear to be supported by common examples, near as I can see. I can't even see correlation, let alone causation.

I am talking about long term, not short term and not just guns but also technology, privacy, education, and ownership of things. These are all related things. They are all 'Guns' in the government's eye. They are all things the government will tend to take away over time. For example, the govt. will restrict what you may build for your own safety. Its not a conspiracy, but you can't build a house unless you meet certain codes, have it inspected by a govt. spook. That is an example of how govt. by nature gradually restricts what you can do but expands the ability of the wealthy to do things. It is one of 10000 things that build up over a century which eventually divide wealthy and poor. If you are poor its a problem for you to pay for someone to inspect what you build, so you cannot build if you are poor. If you are poor the govt. does not trust you, etc. The govt. does not trust you, and so it will restrict what power you may have. It will try, eventually, to keep the children of poor people, poor, etc. It will try, eventually, to take away rights in the name of protecting some aspect of national quality, such as divinity or pride or awesomeness or destiny and so forth. That's not fantastical reasoning but historical, repeated tragedy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sniper rifles really don't figure into crimes anyway.
Aside from being rarely used for anything but target shooting, ordinary hunting rifles function similarly.
They're focused upon solely because they're big & scary looking to our more ovine citizens.
Handguns, because they're concealable, are much more significant players.

Meh, I wouldn't get too caught up on the 'sniper rifle' comment. For a leftie (I'm not, but I guess in this discussion I could be seen as such) I know a fair bit about weapons.
Read it as shorthand for 'weapon with no clear non-military utility'. I'd put something like an AR-15 in the same bucket.

Handguns, and concealed carry laws are worth talking about, but it commonly leads discussions down a 'they're trying to take grandma's gun and the gangs'll get her' discussion line.

For me, just seeing a sensible discussion in the US on gun control (not removing all guns, just some sensible controls) would be awesome.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not saying it is based on recent events, and you have to admit that those countries have only banned their guns in the last 20 years. It still remains to be seen how long they last, no offense intended.

I couldn't speak to all those countries with any semblance of credibility. I've lived in New Zealand and Australia, so I'll limit to those.
Changes in Australian gun laws were in direct response to a massacre in Tasmania. This massacre was conducted by a gunman using an AR-15 and a FN-FAL.
In terms of the gun controls put in place, they focused on semi-automatic weapons, or automatic pistols with magazines of greater than ten rounds, as well as larger calibre guns (over .38 I think). The only grey areas I recall were around semi-automatic shotguns, but I'm purely working from memory on that.

It was specifically intended to target private holders of weapons capable of killing in large numbers. There were provisions for farmers, etc, to be exempted, and hunting rifles generally, as well as small calibre revolvers, etc (defensive weapons) were not targeted.

Since 1996, there have been no gun massacres in Australia (gun massacre defined as 4+ killed). It's not 50 years worth of data, it's only 20, but it's still informative. There had been 13 in the 18 years before that.

In terms of the longevity of the laws, it's an interesting one. It appears they have been watered down slightly in some states (these are state, not federal in nature, and were implemented via common accord). Again, semi-automatic shotguns seems a specific area of argument.

We haven't banned guns. We tightened controls. There were controls prior to 1996, and there are controls after, but they become substantially tighter around weapons capable of being used as effective offensive weapons against crowds.

The Kiwis have less rigid restrictions than us. A lot less from memory, and there are some that don't have much control at all, dependent on their classification. To me, using them as an example is more just that gun control isn't 'all' or 'nothing'.

Give it 50 years, and then we will have some data to work with. There are plenty of examples ancient, modern and in-between; where technology is taken away from citizens in order to subjugate them whether it be mill stones, swords, furnaces, encryption or whatever. The same basic argument plays out: Technology X is 'Evil' and corrupts, and so we cannot allow the poor middle class to keep it. Only the wealthy and the responsible ought to have Technology X. I see the banning of guns as an edge case but still a similar case, as its a technology that can be used in armed rebellion. Usually other technologies pose different threats, but they are treated the same way. They are evil because of blah, and their use is restricted to the new best class of people.

The argument here was nothing about guns corrupting. The issue was the ability of a single citizen to kill fellow citizens in an efficient manner. We preferred to put controls in place to slow that down. Hopefully, the thinking goes, next time we wouldn't lose 35 dead, and have the gunman being better armed than the first response police.

Would you see unfettered access to all weapons as a positive?

Oh, yes; but hopefully that is going to subside. I'm sick of traffic lights taking my picture. Its nobody's business where I drive. Ultimately the country is or was headed in the direction of push-button knowledge of each voter's choices in the ballet box. I'm telling you, you have things to worry about if you're betting the USA is not dangerous. We're certainly dangerous, and you've already witnessed our govt. manipulating voters. Its plain as day that there are no scruples about it, as senators of parties have colluded to draw the craziest crooked lines around voting districts, halted govt., filed ridiculous lawsuits, started wars without even declaring war and done various kinds of international mischief. Money has been declared = to speech by the supreme court. I do not see all of this surveillance as an isolated thing or as a conspiracy either. I just don't think we're 'Safe'. Our republic is not safe any more and is precariously close to some horrible big brother of the sort that wouldn't be possible 30 years ago. If that doesn't scare you then I'm happy for you and give me some, but you'll pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands.

It's not that I trust the US government. I was merely making the point that the implication of gun control laws by a government doesn't seem to particularly correlate with the likelihood of a government to be corrupt or partake in undue surveillance. It was a repsonse to your earlier comment.

I am talking about long term, not short term and not just guns but also technology, privacy, education, and ownership of things. These are all related things. They are all 'Guns' in the government's eye. They are all things the government will tend to take away over time. For example, the govt. will restrict what you may build for your own safety. Its not a conspiracy, but you can't build a house unless you meet certain codes, have it inspected by a govt. spook. That is an example of how govt. by nature gradually restricts what you can do but expands the ability of the wealthy to do things. It is one of 10000 things that build up over a century which eventually divide wealthy and poor. If you are poor its a problem for you to pay for someone to inspect what you build, so you cannot build if you are poor. If you are poor the govt. does not trust you, etc. The govt. does not trust you, and so it will restrict what power you may have. It will try, eventually, to keep the children of poor people, poor, etc. It will try, eventually, to take away rights in the name of protecting some aspect of national quality, such as divinity or pride or awesomeness or destiny and so forth. That's not fantastical reasoning but historical, repeated tragedy.

Again, though, extrapolating in the manner you are appears hyperbolic to me, and doesn't appear supported by modern, democratic examples. Our laws aren't about the government subjugating citizens, they are about protecting citizens from each other. Governments represent the people in an effective democracy, and the people wanted gun controls.