Sinfest Forum Index Sinfest
welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Gun control happy fun times thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
automobile accidents
12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths)

_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3152

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edit: misunderstood your quoting.

Dead is dead, stabbed, shot, beaten, the point is, Cars kill more people per year than guns, and both kill less people than the flu. Firearm deaths are not a particularly huge % of the cause of death in america.
_________________


Last edited by Monkey Mcdermott on Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5123
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
I wouldnt call a car an arguably more dangerous tool, as the number of deaths from automobile accidents far far exceeds non suicide gun deaths.

Statistics!
In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).

(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2009.)

I cant find a 2006 stat for automobile deaths but in 2005 there were 39,189 fatal automobile crashes with 43,443 total deaths. Over twice as many as non suicide gun deaths.

I separate out the suicides as I'm inclined to believe that lacking a gun they would attempt suicide some other way.


And now look up pool deaths. There is one pool-related death for every 11,000 pools in the US. There is only 1 gun-related death for every 1,000,000+ guns. (again, Freakonomics)


Edit: Bonus Interwebs link!
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca


Last edited by Mizike on Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9194

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
7% of Pennsylvanians have a concealed carry permit. I wonder what percent regularly do carry? I suspect the rate is high in rural areas, less so in Philly where the study took place.


Have not seen recent data on it but it's assuredly a very very very small amount.

The people who actually actively carry a gun around on their person — and are not doing so because they're, say, an off duty cop — are going to be outliers in more than a number of ways. Behaviorally I imagine a large amount of them will differ from a regular person's response to an assault or violent incident in ways that make it entirely unsurprising that they get shot more.

Part of this, going back to my prior post, is also going to be related to the idea that the vast majority of people who feel compelled to carry are at least in part going to be doing so due to environmental pressures. in effect, they live in places where you're far more likely to get shot anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2215
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find more questions raised than answered here. And the question I would like to see answered isn't addressed at all, to wit: is handgun defense effective and worthwhile?

Are assault victims more or less likely to be killed, injured, or robbed if they defend themselves with a handgun during an assault? How likely are the victims to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their possession; that is, once an assault has begun, how often do they get to actually use their handgun for defense, either by display or firing it? How does this success or failure affect the outcome? How does the assailant's knowledge that the victim possesses a handgun affect their behavior, and how does that change depending on when that knowledge is acquired?

With numbers available, you can make an informed choice about whether you have better odds of getting away unscathed with a gun or without. Perhaps the victims are much more likely to get shot if they possess a handgun (the outcome handgun opponents expect), or possibly it becomes much less likely (the outcome handgun advocates would want to see) and maybe the odds of getting robbed go way down at the expense of the odds of getting shot going up slightly, in which case you might make an analysis of the expected value of not being shot versus the expected value of being robbed and choose accordingly. Otherwise, without the data, how can you know?

Quote:
there's no amendment guaranteeing your right to smoke crack.
Clearly the Ninth is a dead letter. </libertarian>
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10877
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
The last I checked on the issue is that Science! had concluded that individuals who owned a gun and kept it in their house were significantly more likely to survive a home intrusion event than people who did not own a gun.

Science! may have moved beyond that conclusion but I so far as of yet have not seen anything that specifically tackles that issue and as I recall it still appears to be valid.


Exactly!

Doesn't that mean that the chances of getting shot while carrying a gun outside are increased?
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Edit: misunderstood your quoting.

Dead is dead, stabbed, shot, beaten, the point is, Cars kill more people per year than guns, and both kill less people than the flu. Firearm deaths are not a particularly huge % of the cause of death in america.

Well. So long as they're killing less people than cars, it's fine.

Hang on.

HANG ON
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10877
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Edit: misunderstood your quoting.

Dead is dead, stabbed, shot, beaten, the point is, Cars kill more people per year than guns, and both kill less people than the flu. Firearm deaths are not a particularly huge % of the cause of death in america.


However they are a preventable one. Sure people would still die but can you really compare old people in nursing homes dying of the flu to firearm deaths?
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 11882
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
Quote:
there's no amendment guaranteeing your right to smoke crack.
Clearly the Ninth is a dead letter. </libertarian>

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the 9th said, "A well drugged Individual being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and smoke crack, shall not be infringed."
That is be pretty explicit. How could I have missed it in my comparison to the explicitness of the right to bear arms in the 2nd?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
I wouldnt call a car an arguably more dangerous tool, as the number of deaths from automobile accidents far far exceeds non suicide gun deaths.

Statistics!
In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths).

(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2009.)

I cant find a 2006 stat for automobile deaths but in 2005 there were 39,189 fatal automobile crashes with 43,443 total deaths. Over twice as many as non suicide gun deaths.

I separate out the suicides as I'm inclined to believe that lacking a gun they would attempt suicide some other way.


And now look up pool deaths. There is one pool-related death for every 11,000 pools in the US. There is only 1 gun-related death for every 1,000,000+ guns. (again, Freakonomics)


Edit: Bonus Interwebs link!
thank god we've cracked down on those illegal pool sales
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3152

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are a preventable one, assuming you can get 2/3 of the members of congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures to ask congress to remove the 2nd amendment.

Ergo...not really all that preventable
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2215
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
Clearly the Ninth is a dead letter. </libertarian>

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the 9th said, "A well drugged Individual being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and smoke crack, shall not be infringed."
That is be pretty explicit. How could I have missed it in my comparison to the explicitness of the right to bear arms in the 2nd?

Ah, but it's the explicitness that was at issue for the drafters of the Ninth. They were specifically arguing that you shouldn't need to explicitly enumerate all the rights you had already, or else the government would start acting like you only had the rights explicitly enumerated and freely abridge the rest. Sadly, their fears were realized pretty much from the beginning; the Ninth has never had much force in the law. You don't have an explicit right to eat hot dogs and drink lemonade, either, and if the notion falls afoul of enough people, Congress will outlaw it with yet another extension of the Commerce Clause and the Supreme Court will uphold it, Ninth be damned.
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10877
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
They are a preventable one, assuming you can get 2/3 of the members of congress or 2/3 of the state legislatures to ask congress to remove the 2nd amendment.

Ergo...not really all that preventable


I think you're missing the point. Congress could of course try to outlaw people dying of the flu but it wouldn't actually have any effect.

To a lesser extent, people who own pools and cars and shit own things that are so socially acceptable it would be ridiculous to outlaw them. Considering the latest news we might as well outlaw pants because the British injure themselves on them so much.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 11882
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
Ah, but it's the explicitness that was at issue for the drafters of the Ninth.

It's explicitly the issue with gun bans I brought up earlier. The Constitution has "right to bear arms" written into it, but not "right to smoke crack," which, as I explained, is why the gun issue has more force in both law and public perception than the drug one.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 16640
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Gun control happy fun times thread Reply with quote

The Highlord wrote:
Source
Quote:

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.


i'm not sure i follow the logic of their methodology. they are comparing two populations: 1 consists of people who have been shot in an assault, and the other, of people who have not in any way been involved in an assault. it strikes me that these are not strictly comparable populations, or at any rate, not usefully comparable. the first population must have been a) involved in assault and then b) shot in that assault, while the second has no apparent involvement in any assault. so there may be a huge difference just in the populations, as determined by a): who is, and who is not, involved in an assault. the people who find themselves involved in assault cases, let alone in assault cases that result in shootings, may be quite different from those who do not find themselves being assaulted. they may live in or frequent more dangerous areas, they may have more volatile or aggressive personalities, they may even be provoking the assaulting.

it seems to me a more useful way to select and divide up your study populations is to start with the subset of all people who have been involved in an assault, and then separate them into those who did and did not possess a gun. then you can compare things like the % of each group who were shot by their assailant, and the % of those shot who died. in other words, given that you are in an assault situation, what sort of an outcome are you likely to have? that does leave the question of whether or not possessing a gun is related to the risk of being assaulted (which might be either a positive or negative association), but that doesn't seem to be addressed here either.

the article says the method they used was standard epidemiology, but i would suggest that the outcome variable 'shot, given being in an assault', is rather different than the outcome variable 'contracted lung cancer (with no givens for half the study population)'. for the lung cancer work, your two populations were those with and without lung cancer, with the variable of interest being percentage who smoked. it's a more parallel structure than this study seems to be using.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group