The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes. And, as it happens, we aren't allowed to consume it however we want. Anyway, nobody denies that alcoholism is a problem. We have social norms in place when it comes to drinking, and drunk driving rates have plummeted over the last 30 years due to the efforts of people trying to address the problem. Treatment for people with addictions is still insufficient, but that's more to do with our healthcare system than with the regulation of alcohol.

We aren't allowed to use guns any way we want either.

The parallel isn't the statement "alcoholism is a problem". The fact of the matter is that many, many people die either directly from alcohol or from alcohol-related accidents, including numerous people who did not choose to consume it or interact with it willingly. This makes it a fantastic parallel to firearms, because it captures the major points: relationship with DV, killing people accidentally, already regulations in place against misuse, association with suicide, association with criminal acts of various degrees.

So it's not a matter of "alcohol should be regulated". Telling responsible people they can't have guns in their houses is like telling responsible people they can't have alcohol in their houses. You can make a reasonable case that telling people both things would each reduce the number of deaths (including accidental/unrelated deaths)/DV incidents/etc every year.

We could actually make similar arguments for many things, such that restricting freedoms = fewer deaths in aggregate. And that will be legitimately true for some of them. I disagree that such policies would be for the best.

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home

One might also guess that people who fear home invasion more strongly (IE have more reason to suspect it might happen) would be more inclined to own a firearm. This is why it's a mistake to use correlations to make conclusions this way.

 

[Estebonrober]

There is something odd with what you are referencing. The 2nd paragraph numbers do not seem to agree with the 3rd, and the link you give (4) goes to Giffords law centre, who reference a dead link but presumably this NEFM review, which makes the claims but unreferenced.

Spoiler My sums for the risk ratios :

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).
odds ratio of 1.9 means your probability dying from a homicide if a gun is present is 1.9 times the probability dying from a homicide if a gun is not present. Therefore you have a 90% increased risk, and the rang is 10% to 240%, not 40 to 170%. The same numbers for suicide are 480% to 1,790% not 90 to 460%.

I cannot find where your abstract came from however.

Sry yes I didn't provide links to all the sources. I should have. The disagreement is intentional because the only study that supports a gun for home defense at all (even then it is limited) is actually terribly managed and completely unreliable which is why I bolded the part about how it listed double the amount of assailants shot then people who reported with gun shot wounds in ER. I mean there are surely incidences in which the criminal gets away after being shot and doesn't go to hospital or dies, but double? That seems very very unlikely.

 

[Estebonrober]

One might also guess that people who fear home invasion more strongly (IE have more reason to suspect it might happen) would be more inclined to own a firearm. This is why it's a mistake to use correlations to make conclusions this way.

The point of my posts is that you are not allowed to do this, that is emotion talking and you are making an argument from what you desire to be true, not what is true.

 

[Lexicus]

So you believe there are fewer home invasions than Daddy's shooting the wife and kids?

Yes. While this table does not include domestic violence as a specific category it is obvious that the number of people being murdered by their family members under various circumstances absolutely dwarfs the number of people being murdered by strangers in burglaries.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....es/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.xls

Per this table, homicides by firearm make up 72.6% of all homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....ges/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-7.xls

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The point of my posts is that you are not allowed to do this, that is emotion talking and you are making an argument from what you desire to be true, not what is true.

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that it is you who is doing this. Your quoted abstract shows nothing beyond correlation. You're the one making a causation case. I'm merely pointing out an alternative that would similarly fit the data you've presented. One or neither could be true.

The freedom vs net harm question is non-trivial. I'm curious whether people will find coherent places to draw their lines. It seems to at least some here that owning a firearm in one's house shouldn't be legal, while owning alcohol in one's house is fine. Where is this line being drawn and why, for each potentially lethal variable?

 

[EgonSpengler]

We aren't allowed to use guns any way we want either.

Yes, gun ownership is not entirely unregulated, but the main effort of the 'gun lobby' is to reduce oversight and promote ownership, with little to nothing ever said about responsibility. And "stand your ground" laws and the "castle doctrine" explicitly empower individuals to decide when to shoot to kill. Also, when you kill someone and are found to have done so illegally, there's no compensating the victim or redressing the crime, so laws that punish a perpetrator after the fact don't necessarily address the problem. The formal, judicial death penalty, for example, has not been shown to have any deterrent effect.

The parallel isn't the statement "alcoholism is a problem". The fact of the matter is that many, many people die either directly from alcohol or from alcohol-related accidents, including numerous people who did not choose to consume it or interact with it willingly. This makes it a fantastic parallel to firearms, because it captures the major points: relationship with DV, killing people accidentally, already regulations in place against misuse, association with suicide, association with criminal acts of various degrees.

Right, and the conversation surrounding alcohol over these last few decades have been aimed at reducing the negative outcomes of alcohol consumption, while the pro-gun side of the debate centers on making guns more available to more people. I haven't heard anybody say that people should be allowed to drive drunk until they themselves actually kill somebody, nor that other people's drunk-driving accidents shouldn't have to mean that the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to drive drunk. The upshot, if you'll pardon the pun, is that about 3 times as many people are shot to death each year in the US as die in alcohol-related auto accidents, and we continue to try to reduce deaths by drunk driving, because 10,000 a year is still unacceptable. We could add the aforementioned 2200 alcohol poisonings, but I have no idea how many people die each year of alcohol-related illnesses. And neither number accounts for the people injured but not killed.

So it's not a matter of "alcohol should be regulated". Telling responsible people they can't have guns in their houses is like telling responsible people they can't have alcohol in their houses. You can make a reasonable case that telling people both things would each reduce the number of deaths (including accidental/unrelated deaths)/DV incidents/etc every year.

We could actually make similar arguments for many things, such that restricting freedoms = fewer deaths in aggregate. And that will be legitimately true for some of them. I disagree that such policies would be for the best.

We restrict people's freedoms all the time, mostly when one person's behavior endangers other people. For instance, you aren't allowed to decide for yourself which side of the road to drive on, or when to drive on the same side as everyone else. Your freedom to operate your vehicle is severely curtailed in the interest of the common good (and by "good" I guess I mostly mean safety and health). I think you aren't allowed to smoke in most places today, for health reasons; likewise, the cigarette industry is no longer allowed to market cigarettes any way it wishes, or to mislead people that smoking is not unhealthy.

 

[Estebonrober]

On the contrary, I'm pointing out that it is you who is doing this. Your quoted abstract shows nothing beyond correlation. You're the one making a causation case. I'm merely pointing out an alternative that would similarly fit the data you've presented. One or neither could be true.

The freedom vs net harm question is non-trivial. I'm curious whether people will find coherent places to draw their lines. It seems to at least some here that owning a firearm in one's house shouldn't be legal, while owning alcohol in one's house is fine. Where is this line being drawn and why, for each potentially lethal variable?

I agree that the freedom vs net harm is non trivial. Its based on an emotional appeal but it is non trivial. My quoted abstract supports my argument along with the other things ive cited. Like so much in the world one story or fact is anecdotal but when story after story fits a narrative that tends to reflect reality overall. The reality is a firearm in the house is more likely to be used against a member of the household than in self defense. Period end of debate.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Right, and the conversation surrounding alcohol over these last few decades have been aimed at reducing the negative outcomes of alcohol consumption, while the pro-gun side of the debate centers on making guns more available to more people. I haven't heard anybody say that people should be allowed to drive drunk until they themselves actually kill somebody, nor that other people's drunk-driving accidents shouldn't have to mean that the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to drive drunk.

I'm not 100% current on the particulars of "pro gun side", but my impression is that they have mostly been trying to resist further regulation. At least I've not heard of a "mainstream" effort to un-ban fully automatic rifles or something. I'm sure some people advocate this, but I doubt it's significant enough to actually threaten changing legislation in that direction.

It is disingenuous to compare "owning a gun in a house" with "driving drunk". The comparison point is owning a gun in a house vs owning alcohol in a house. The vast majority of gun owners don't kill people. Similarly, the vast majority of alcohol owners don't DUI to my knowledge.

The upshot, if you'll pardon the pun, is that about 3 times as many people are shot to death each year in the US as die in alcohol-related auto accidents, and we continue to try to reduce deaths by drunk driving, because 10,000 a year is still unacceptable. We could add the aforementioned 2200 alcohol poisonings, but I have no idea how many people die each year of alcohol-related illnesses. And neither number accounts for the people injured but not killed.

The point is that these are not an order of magnitude off. "Alcohol control" does not get 1/3 of the attention of "gun control" in the political sphere or discussion. It doesn't appear to even get 1/10th. Even within the "gun homicide" category, mass shootings are *grossly* over-represented in media/political discussion. If those were the only gun-related deaths the USA had we'd be one if not the best countries in the world regarding gun-related death on a rate basis.

"Over the past 30 years" violent gun crime has also declined, so there is continued parallel with the alcohol example.

We restrict people's freedoms all the time, mostly when one person's behavior endangers other people. For instance, you aren't allowed to decide for yourself which side of the road to drive on, or when to drive on the same side as everyone else. Your freedom to operate your vehicle is severely curtailed in the interest of the common good (and by "good" I guess I mostly mean safety and health). I think you aren't allowed to smoke in most places today, for health reasons; likewise, the cigarette industry is no longer allowed to market cigarettes any way it wishes, or to mislead people that smoking is not unhealthy.

True, society has rules/laws, and we do need at least some rules/laws. Where is the line drawn and why? At minimum, it seems gun regulation gets undue political/media attention relative to its damage (alternative deaths in the same order of magnitude are rarely discussed, or not discussed at all).

Most if not all of us at broadly agree that there needs to be at least some gun regulation too. Not only in their capabilities, but also their basic construction etc. It's a matter of how much and why that much.

When it comes to the recent topic of "hypothetical home invasion scenario", to block this you'd have to remove guns from homes completely, however. That's prohibition levels of regulation, because just about any firearm can trivially kill most home invaders (and by extension be used in DV/homicides).

I agree that the freedom vs net harm is non trivial. Its based on an emotional appeal but it is non trivial. My quoted abstract supports my argument along with the other things ive cited.

No, correlation does not support causation.

Like so much in the world one story or fact is anecdotal but when story after story fits a narrative that tends to reflect reality overall. The reality is a firearm in the house is more likely to be used against a member of the household than in self defense. Period end of debate.

On average, yes. You ready to buckle up for prohibition 2.0 then, including all guns & alcohol & numerous other potentially dangerous products?

 

[Estebonrober]

No, correlation does not support causation.



On average, yes. You ready to buckle up for prohibition 2.0 then, including all guns & alcohol & numerous other potentially dangerous products?

Its like talking to a wall. Correlation over a span of studies does support causation. Especially when its painfully obvious that owning a firearm puts you more in danger than not owning one.

On your other point I agree I just support restricting magazine sizes and background checks universally.

 

[Lexicus]

No, correlation does not support causation.

There is an obvious causal mechanism between 'presence of a gun in the home' and 'people in the home more likely to be shot'.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is an obvious causal mechanism between 'presence of a gun in the home' and 'people in the home more likely to be shot'.

Correlation over a span of studies does support causation.

It's not the first or last time correlation is abused this way, but it doesn't make it accurate.

On your other point I agree I just support restricting magazine sizes and background checks universally.

Unfortunately, quite a few of the recent mass shootings came from individuals who should have easily & immediately failed background check laws that already existed where they lived. Similarly, how do gun deaths by state compare with each state's law?

I'm not as inclined to care about magazine sizes because I expect it will be a struggle to even notice if that moves the needle on gun deaths. It will do absolutely nothing for suicides for example, or most DV cases. My understanding is that most incidents involving a firearm are resolved one way or another with the gun being discharged an average of 4 times. If that's mistaken feel free to correct me, but if it's ballpark correct we should not anticipate meaningful differences in the majority of gun-related deaths from such a law.

Probably the most useful thing would be to review how background checks are being done and why that is failing. I'm not sure where the failure is in that process, but there must be failures that over-rely on one individual's judgment or concentration.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not the first or last time correlation is abused this way, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Okay, let's imagine two planets, one without any guns at all and one with 3 guns for every person. On which planet is someone more likely to get shot? Because honestly claiming "correlation is not causation" in this context is a bit like claiming that people are equally likely to be shot on both planets.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Okay, let's imagine two planets, one without any guns at all and one with 3 guns for every person. On which planet is someone more likely to get shot? Because honestly claiming "correlation is not causation" in this context is a bit like claiming that people are equally likely to be shot on both planets.

No, it isn't like claiming that.

On planet Earth it's possible for a home invader to have a gun regardless of whether anybody in the home has a gun, and the chances of this are measurably different by region.

Do you anticipate homogeneous results of gun deaths by household for all regions, examining only homes that own guns in each region?

 

[Lexicus]

No, it isn't like claiming that.

It is exactly like that. Stop being pigheaded and think for a second. Think about how the days add up with that gun in the house. Having the gun there means that the possibility for it to be shot is non-zero, almost all the time, since it doesn't have to be stored safely thanks to 'gun-rights advocates.'

On planet Earth it's possible for a home invader to have a gun regardless of whether anybody in the home has a gun, and the chances of this are measurably different by region.

This has nothing to do with the correlation between having a gun in a house and the likelihood someone in the house being shot.

Do you anticipate homogeneous results of gun deaths by household for all regions, examining only homes that own guns in each region?

I would anticipate having a gun increasing the likelihood of a person in the household being shot regardless of the presence or absence of other factors and regardless of geography, yes. And that is what the (limited, because the Republicans won't allow the CDC to conduct research on gun violence) data show....

 

[Estebonrober]

It's not the first or last time correlation is abused this way, but it doesn't make it accurate.



Unfortunately, quite a few of the recent mass shootings came from individuals who should have easily & immediately failed background check laws that already existed where they lived. Similarly, how do gun deaths by state compare with each state's law?

I'm not as inclined to care about magazine sizes because I expect it will be a struggle to even notice if that moves the needle on gun deaths. It will do absolutely nothing for suicides for example, or most DV cases. My understanding is that most incidents involving a firearm are resolved one way or another with the gun being discharged an average of 4 times. If that's mistaken feel free to correct me, but if it's ballpark correct we should not anticipate meaningful differences in the majority of gun-related deaths from such a law.

Probably the most useful thing would be to review how background checks are being done and why that is failing. I'm not sure where the failure is in that process, but there must be failures that over-rely on one individual's judgment or concentration.

At this point I'm going to agree with you that no you cannot prove you exist at all. Good job. Going to be this dumb about stuff nothing leads to nothing and everything is just supposition. Its a stupid argument.

As for the magazine thing, no it would not appreciably effect overall gun death stats because mass shootings are a very small percentage of those. It would however dramatically improve the death counts in those shootings.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes. While this table does not include domestic violence as a specific category it is obvious that the number of people being murdered by their family members under various circumstances absolutely dwarfs the number of people being murdered by strangers in burglaries.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....es/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10.xls

Per this table, homicides by firearm make up 72.6% of all homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....ges/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-7.xls

How many Daddy's killed their wives and kids and how many home invasions occurred? Egon didn't mention burglars murdering people, just home invasions. I'd imagine more family members are murdered by other family members than by burglars, but home invasions are much more common. If someone invaded your home, what would you do? Give us a play by play, I'd like to know if you'd be looking for a weapon

According to the 1st line of your 1st link the vast majority of murders involved people outside the family, mostly acquaintances, strangers and unknown.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is a fact that what I said is a more likely outcome than killing a crazed assailant who has broken into your home to murder you and your family, yes.

"It is a fact that the fact I'm now saying is a fact, even though that's not the same fact as the fact I was claiming before"

So you believe there are fewer home invasions than Daddy's shooting the wife and kids?

Don't forget specifically abusive daddies shooting the wife and kids who are trying to leave.

 

[Commodore]

It would however dramatically improve the death counts in those shootings.

Source? I ask because the Parkland shooter used ten-round magazines because, by his own admission, they were easier to conceal and he could carry more ammo than if he used 30-round magazines. He was still able to achieve a casualty rate about on par with other mass shootings. There was also that mass shooting back in the 60s or 70s (can't remember and don't feel like looking it up) in Texas where the shooter was able to kill a whole mess of people (well above the average for mass shootings overall) with a bolt-action rifle.

So from those two instances, it would appear that no, banning standard capacity magazines (what you call high capacity) does not seem like it would do much to reduce casualties of mass shootings.

 

[rah]

It still appears that there is no real need for a larger magazine so why not just eliminate them?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is exactly like that. Stop being pigheaded and think for a second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The problem in this context is that assertions were being made that do not follow from the data the study/abstract provided.

I would anticipate having a gun increasing the likelihood of a person in the household being shot regardless of the presence or absence of other factors and regardless of geography, yes. And that is what the (limited, because the Republicans won't allow the CDC to conduct research on gun violence) data show....

Did you perhaps misunderstand what I meant by "homogeneous result"?

At this point I'm going to agree with you that no you cannot prove you exist at all. Good job. Going to be this dumb about stuff nothing leads to nothing and everything is just supposition. Its a stupid argument.

It's ironic to commit strongly to a logical fallacy and then claim a rejection of that to be stupid.

As for the magazine thing, no it would not appreciably effect overall gun death stats because mass shootings are a very small percentage of those. It would however dramatically improve the death counts in those shootings.

What is the anticipated reduction in annual deaths from passing and enforcing this legislation, now that we accept that it is unlikely to influence the most common deaths by gunshot?

So from those two instances, it would appear that no, banning standard capacity magazines (what you call high capacity) does not seem like it would do much to reduce casualties of mass shootings.

That "incel mass vehicular homicide stunt" from not too long ago had an unfortunately high body count too. It's worth noting that he stopped voluntarily, rather than being forcibly stopped. Potential body counts for those can easily go up. This using an option that is more accessible by a wide margin.

I'm not as gun-happy as my arguments here might lead people to believe but the basis for enforcement seems illogical, over-emphasizing the wrong things, and encouraging a gross misallocation of resources for no apparent reason beyond "the feels". I do think it's unfortunate that technology advances pushed out a big part of the original intention in the 2nd amendment (using arms as a deterrence to tyrannical governance). The 1800's just didn't have tanks, planes, etc yet. I don't think the shifts in governance throughout the world since military force multipliers became impractical to civilians was a coincidence.

I don't have a good policy solution for it though; giving a mass shooter a tank won't help, and even if every single one of us were allowed to own 5 Shermans or something statistically very few could actually afford them or their storage/maintenance/training. Or the dosh to purchase and train to use a stealth bomber/infrastructure to use it etc.