Some facts about guns in the US

I've seen a lot people claim that but the facts on how guns get into criminals hands say the opposite. most criminals get guns from private people selling them. get guns away from those private sellers or prevent them from selling and the guns going to the criminals to the cartels in mexico dries up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you willing to accept? It's obvious that the NRA and its lobbying arm ILA are not willing to accept any compromise. In fact, along with ALEC, they are pushing for the further loosening of regulation across the states. It will a tough slog to get anything to change and as I have said, if the Republicans take control of the Senate then fagetaboutit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I woud accept stuff that beter insures that unstable people dont get guns.!!!
Even wit baby step changes on ether side... i see thangs as stayin perty much the same for quite some time.!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some other nations have fewer armed citizens, and more armed criminals. Then there are those with more armed citizens, and fewer armed criminals.

The lack of correlation is even visible in the US itself, region by region. The violent inner cities of the US have fewer guns, per capita, than the peaceful exurbs and pastoral landscapes.

This issue is one of the few - maybe the only major one in the US - in which the stereotype of extremists on both sides gridlocking the moderate center of reasonable people seems to actually be the case.

 

not really. the none pro gun peole make very reasonable arguments that are blown way out of proportion like you've done with the confication strawman.

 

Who is arguing for a ban? Increase regulation. Wean them slowly.

 

I've always wondered why feminists tend to have a rabid hatred of guns and the Second amendment. I'd assume that it relates to what Sigmund Freud referred to as 'penis envy'. That is, young girls possess an inherent envy of people who were born with a penis (ie. men). Guns may appear quite phallic to women with an over-active imagination. They are long, hard, and elongated. They fire (ie. 'ejaculate') bullets, and are associated with raw power. While most feminists are adult women, I've noticed that they tend to be juvenile, both mentally and emotionally. As such, their hatred of guns may be vestigial remnants of penis envy. It's a shame that they would seek to take away citizens' Second amendment rights based on their developmental retardation, rather than a factual analysis.

 

Or, instead, some feminists grasp the inherent dangers - often to women - of guns. Your characterisation is utterly ridiculous and offensive.

 

Yes, those are things one encounters in a correlation analysis, ice: heterogeneity and random variance.

However, a number of studies indicate that the presence of guns in the home correlates with homicide and suicide. I haven't looked in too much depth, but here are several such studies:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.​

That's a robust correlation indeed.

This study (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-dont-correlate-to-less-crime) has an interesting point or two regarding the United States as well: as an outlier leveraging a frequency-based statistic - and in the case of a demographic system like this (with vast numbers of observations for the single data point, making it frequency-based rather than a single hazard observation) - it indicates a serious correlation within that nation. Even if there were no significant global, international correlation between firearm-related deaths - and there certainly is such a correlation (r^2 = 0.8, P < 0.0001) - that observation alone would be sufficient to indicate an enormous problem with firearm deaths in the US.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

Legal or otherwise? Is this effect more important than the national correlation? If so, why?

Evidence?

 

Most don't. Many like their guns, and enjoy hunting with them. Many regard the 2nd Amendment as a protection for themselves as well.

They tend to despise people like you, but that's not the same as "rabid hatred" for stuff you own or happen to be able to name - not even your penis. It's not as big a deal for them as it is for you.

Your asserted correlation was between armed criminals and gun prevalence.

None of the studies you posted deal with that matter reliably, and the correlations that are described tend to mislead. Off hand 1) homicide is not a good proxy for "armed criminals", and domestic assault should not be conflated with armed robbery and the like 2) suicides are not "armed criminals" 3) gun prevalence and gun ownership and gun availability are three significantly different numbers, and the "valid proxy" approach normally misleads (especially with its common regional base at the nation or State level, where it specifically obscures the common negative correlation between gun prevalence and armed criminals), 4) handguns should be separated out, but usually are not 5) the tautology of gun presence being positively associated with gun employment - for anything - should be separated out statistically, seldom is. 6) net statistics would be necessary in some cases - such as home invasions - but that is not even acknowledged by most research 7) false correlations abound unscreened, often as assumptions - for instance mental illnesses and firearms in the US, which like the US correlation between paranoia and anti-Semitism have critical societal factors underneath. Which in the US bring us to 8) Race, which in the US at least simply cannot be ignored, and with other factors (honor culture, etc) indicates 9) the restriction to "high income countries" skews the national comparisons, just as "high income States" does within the US.

And so forth. Note the slide from "armed criminals" to "guns in the home" right in beginning there.

The arguments and positions visible here. The deadlock between people who - for example - suddenly in apparent panic cannot do simple statistics or read the plain English of the 2nd Amendment // those who think any community regulation of the keeping and bearing of firearms exposes them to severe threat - from bears, the Marines, home invasions, immigrant Mexicans, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.

The one fears mass gun confiscation from any allowance of incremental governance, the other hopes for it. They are both easily panicked. Between the two, they jam the politics. And that does damage far beyond the gun issue, which is not among the top half dozen matters facing the US as a nation right now - but is threatening to once again swing packs of voters, elect bozos to office, and screw up the governance of the US cities, States, and nation.

 

True - but the carnage of gun ownership is pretty plain. It's a problem. If one includes homicides by gun, I'd say there's quite a relevant correlation between gun ownership and criminality.

 

Right - but the criminals don't give their guns back. They still have them, so you really only remove guns from people willing to obey the law (i.e. law abiding citizens.) Guns don't "expire" - once a criminal has a gun it will work for decades given even basic care.

 

um you've stated your belief in this before but literally that has nothing to do with the post your responding to. and the pr-ogun people which I'm assuming you are given that line prevent us from taking them away. its simple you commit a violent crime you lose your guns for a period of time. you commit a crime with your gun you don't get to keep them. do that and yes guns will be removed from criminals.

 

That is absolutely absurd crap. Violent criminals will not care that they are not allowed to possess guns. There are few of such people, and I think that greater gun controls are needed, but the intellectual disjunction in your post is staggering.

 

True - without a long-term view, gun control looks a little hollow. There are ways to prevent or limit resales, to grandfather them out, but at least part of effective controls are going to occur over reasonably substantial blocks of time. What about other measures, such as limiting the number of guns one can have without special - and expensive, naturally - permits?

 

We have that now; hasn't worked. Felons cannot own guns. If you commit a violent crime with a gun the police take the gun and you don't get it back. (You don't lose all your guns until convicted because of that "innocent until proven guilty" thing but there might be some leeway there, as a condition of parole for example.)

 

Arguing against a straw man is exactly what a fallacy is.

In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 10% purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37% obtained it from family or friends, and another 40% obtained it from an illegal source (table 14) . This was similar to the percentage distribution in 1997.

(Planty and Truman, 13)​

We should not ignore factors accounting for an accumulated 49% of guns used in crimes just in order to pretend it's all back-alley or motel-room purchases.

Consider that 37%.

Closing the gun show loophole, for instance, will address about 2% of the guns used in crimes.

How, though, do we deal with the 37% of guns used in crimes that come from (ahem!) "responsible gun owners" that refuse to secure their guns against such outcomes?

The idea that criminals won't obey a law is no reason to skip the law. I have no idea why people try to use what is (A) self evident, and (B) the heart of the problem, as a reason to not address the problem.
____________________

Notes:

Planty, Michael and Jennifer Truman. "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011". U.S. Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. May, 2013. BJS.gov. October 27, 2014. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

 

It might be, actually. It does bring a needed focus on the means and effects of enforcement, at least. Experience with the drug laws, if nothing else, provides relevant case study.

The correlation between gun ownership rates and "criminality " within defined coherent communities is generally negative. That is especially striking if one excludes suicides as crimes, handles crimes circular to gun ownership (theft of the gun itself, fraud in firearm purchases, violation of gun hunting restrictions, etc) properly, and so forth. Probably this is a wealth effect, or some unrelated cultural matter, but there it is.

I would, myself, pay more attention to handgun density - physical density, as in square miles per gun. How far are you, at any average minute, from the nearest handgun (and if you are black, the police guns count)?

Glib acceptance of bad - even terrible - statistical reasoning in support of bad laws loudly promoted as addressing "the carnage of gun ownership", however plain it might be to some (it's a pretty safe world we have, when accidental shooting is a major cause of childhood trauma and death), is one of the characteristics of the gun confiscation extreme currently doing its share to deadlock the politics of gun control. The fact that this deadlock also ruins significant and important political endeavors unrelated to it, is a shame.

 

why because it would work? that you don't like me doesn't make it crap. its the perfect solution.

which is why you take them away when they commit crimes and cut off the main supply.

whats the intellectual disjunction? it directly address the major points. the ease criminals get the guns and that they are allowed to keep them after the fact. your claiming to be for gun control why in the hell are you using the same crybaby response of the anti control crowd of its difficult so we shouldn't try?