6 ms·

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

44 points by iBelieve 9y ago

portofcall 9y ago
One: They’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric. Alternative hypothesis: they’re including suicide data because it’s relevent. Suicide is homicide (not murder), and they’re including the copious accidental killings (also homicide, also not necessarily murders).
- iBelieve 9y ago
  I see a difference between suicides and accidents vs murders when it comes to gun restrictions. If I chose to own guns (I don't), then I'm ultimately responsible for avoiding accidents and not committing suicide, just as I would be responsible for any other risky activity or sport I partake in. Murder on the other hand involves the criminal act of taking someone else's life. In my opinion, we should only focus on acts of criminal intent when discussing banning or restricting gun use, and only include accidents or suicide when we discuss laws that improve safe use of guns.
  - hammock 9y ago
    What about drunk driving? Do you think DUI should be restricted even in victimless cases with no criminal intent?
    - iBelieve 9y ago
      Definitely, because drunk driving has the potential to harm others, even thought it may not always. Also, I'm not sure that's a good analogy, as trying to prevent drunk driving doesn't take the form of restricting driving for everyone, while gun control usually affects responsible gun owners as well as bad people and suicidal/uncareful people.
      - portofcall 9y ago
        The single greatest risk factor for someone committing suicide is a first-order relative who committed suicide. Everything in life isn’t as obvious as crashing a car into someone, but the harm of suicide extends far beyond the victim.
  - skygazer 9y ago
    Suicides are not restricted to purchasers, but anyone suicidal that may find they have access to gun, like the purchasers children.
- stmfreak 9y ago
  Blending suicides in with homicides without declaring or defining their contribution is deceptive. Imagine if we tried to portray how dangerous cars were, even to people who do not own cars, by combining pedestrian deaths by car with driver and occupant deaths by car, without calling that out and using that "deaths by car" data immediately after discussing recent pedestrian deaths. With guns, you can opt out of ownership and be "safe" from suicide and accident by gun. If you opt out of living in a high crime area you are incredibly "safe" from homicide by gun as well. That takes care of 90% of deaths by gun. OTOH, if you own a gun, are careful, mentally stable and don't live in a high crime area, you have similar odds. Much like a pedestrian who shouldn't worry about getting killed by a car.
sleavey 9y ago
All I can say is that, as a Brit (from a country where regular police don't even carry guns), I find the concept of average Joes owning guns of any description crazy. It seems like the outcome of a broken society in which people don't trust law enforcement to protect them. Maybe higher gun ownership rates don't directly lead to homicide, but that to me isn't even the issue - the elephant in the room is the massive cultural problem the US has with firearms, especially the way in which they have been politicised in such a bipartisan, black-or-white system.
- iBelieve 9y ago
  Specifically regarding people not trusting law enforcement, that's because in the U.S. police don't have a responsibility to protect individuals, just the community as a whole (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia). In addition, police often can't get to the scene of a crime in progress soon enough to prevent harm to the victims. As long as criminals are armed and able to commit crimes before the police can stop them, it seems reasonable that some citizens would choose to own guns in an attempt to protect themselves or their families.
  - sleavey 9y ago
    In terms of police response time, is it so different to anywhere else in the world? Police services are underfunded in many countries but this doesn't seem to drive people to think that because they won't be helped in time they need firearms. As you say, people also feel the need to arm themselves because the criminals are armed, which to me has an obvious solution.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    > that's because in the U.S. police don't have a responsibility to protect individuals That's also true of the UK, so it seems odd to mention it in a reply to someone from the UK.
    - iBelieve 9y ago
alphabettsy 9y ago
People are talking about gun deaths and gun violence. Why would those be excluded from the debate? Why exclude injuries? Lots of gun violence doesn’t result in death.
Hnrobert42 9y ago
Do have evidence of intentional deceit? Could it just be that those you accuse of lying are just wrong?
- iBelieve 9y ago
  I didn't write this article. I just found it interesting and wanted to share it to see what counter-arguments and discussion it would lead to.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
As a gun owner I have a lot of conflicting feelings about them. On the one hand, I am enamored with the mechanical engineering. On the other, I'm proud to be able to own them, as a strange rite of practice as an American. The very essence of our democracy is so well represented in an armed citizenry. That said.. I agree we need stronger laws. Longer waiting times. Mandatory mental health evaluations and training. Limits in the number that can be purchased at one time, in one year. One per year would be fine with me. Between pride of this right and fascinating with the engineering and physics behind it, I am conflicted.
bb88 9y ago
So I'm looking at his data, and I make the following observations. 1. In Kansas City, MO, the murder rate is 31 per 100,000 people in 2018. [1] Yet for the state it was 5 per 100,000 in his graph. That may skew the results towards rural areas with less people. 2. Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho, while the highest percentage of gun ownership, are also the least populated. But they seem to skew the graph downward giving their contributions more weight than Louisiana and Missouri, say. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article192634289.html http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article19263428...

44 points by iBelieve 9y ago

One: They’re sneaking suicide in with the data, and then obfuscating that inclusion with rhetoric. Alternative hypothesis: they’re including suicide data because it’s relevent. Suicide is homicide (not murder), and they’re including the copious accidental killings (also homicide, also not necessarily murders).

iBelieve 9y ago
I see a difference between suicides and accidents vs murders when it comes to gun restrictions. If I chose to own guns (I don't), then I'm ultimately responsible for avoiding accidents and not committing suicide, just as I would be responsible for any other risky activity or sport I partake in. Murder on the other hand involves the criminal act of taking someone else's life. In my opinion, we should only focus on acts of criminal intent when discussing banning or restricting gun use, and only include accidents or suicide when we discuss laws that improve safe use of guns.
- hammock 9y ago
  What about drunk driving? Do you think DUI should be restricted even in victimless cases with no criminal intent?
  - iBelieve 9y ago
    Definitely, because drunk driving has the potential to harm others, even thought it may not always. Also, I'm not sure that's a good analogy, as trying to prevent drunk driving doesn't take the form of restricting driving for everyone, while gun control usually affects responsible gun owners as well as bad people and suicidal/uncareful people.
    - portofcall 9y ago
      The single greatest risk factor for someone committing suicide is a first-order relative who committed suicide. Everything in life isn’t as obvious as crashing a car into someone, but the harm of suicide extends far beyond the victim.
- skygazer 9y ago
  Suicides are not restricted to purchasers, but anyone suicidal that may find they have access to gun, like the purchasers children.
stmfreak 9y ago
Blending suicides in with homicides without declaring or defining their contribution is deceptive. Imagine if we tried to portray how dangerous cars were, even to people who do not own cars, by combining pedestrian deaths by car with driver and occupant deaths by car, without calling that out and using that "deaths by car" data immediately after discussing recent pedestrian deaths. With guns, you can opt out of ownership and be "safe" from suicide and accident by gun. If you opt out of living in a high crime area you are incredibly "safe" from homicide by gun as well. That takes care of 90% of deaths by gun. OTOH, if you own a gun, are careful, mentally stable and don't live in a high crime area, you have similar odds. Much like a pedestrian who shouldn't worry about getting killed by a car.

sleavey 9y ago

All I can say is that, as a Brit (from a country where regular police don't even carry guns), I find the concept of average Joes owning guns of any description crazy. It seems like the outcome of a broken society in which people don't trust law enforcement to protect them. Maybe higher gun ownership rates don't directly lead to homicide, but that to me isn't even the issue - the elephant in the room is the massive cultural problem the US has with firearms, especially the way in which they have been politicised in such a bipartisan, black-or-white system.

iBelieve 9y ago
Specifically regarding people not trusting law enforcement, that's because in the U.S. police don't have a responsibility to protect individuals, just the community as a whole (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia). In addition, police often can't get to the scene of a crime in progress soon enough to prevent harm to the victims. As long as criminals are armed and able to commit crimes before the police can stop them, it seems reasonable that some citizens would choose to own guns in an attempt to protect themselves or their families.
- sleavey 9y ago
  In terms of police response time, is it so different to anywhere else in the world? Police services are underfunded in many countries but this doesn't seem to drive people to think that because they won't be helped in time they need firearms. As you say, people also feel the need to arm themselves because the criminals are armed, which to me has an obvious solution.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > that's because in the U.S. police don't have a responsibility to protect individuals That's also true of the UK, so it seems odd to mention it in a reply to someone from the UK.
  - iBelieve 9y ago

alphabettsy 9y ago

People are talking about gun deaths and gun violence. Why would those be excluded from the debate? Why exclude injuries? Lots of gun violence doesn’t result in death.

Hnrobert42 9y ago

Do have evidence of intentional deceit? Could it just be that those you accuse of lying are just wrong?

iBelieve 9y ago
I didn't write this article. I just found it interesting and wanted to share it to see what counter-arguments and discussion it would lead to.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

As a gun owner I have a lot of conflicting feelings about them. On the one hand, I am enamored with the mechanical engineering. On the other, I'm proud to be able to own them, as a strange rite of practice as an American. The very essence of our democracy is so well represented in an armed citizenry. That said.. I agree we need stronger laws. Longer waiting times. Mandatory mental health evaluations and training. Limits in the number that can be purchased at one time, in one year. One per year would be fine with me. Between pride of this right and fascinating with the engineering and physics behind it, I am conflicted.

bb88 9y ago

So I'm looking at his data, and I make the following observations. 1. In Kansas City, MO, the murder rate is 31 per 100,000 people in 2018. [1] Yet for the state it was 5 per 100,000 in his graph. That may skew the results towards rural areas with less people. 2. Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Idaho, while the highest percentage of gun ownership, are also the least populated. But they seem to skew the graph downward giving their contributions more weight than Louisiana and Missouri, say. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article192634289.html http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article19263428...