8 ms·

I don't know, these exercises seem pointless to me. If you find that kids in a certain school district have a high rate of death by self-inflicted gun shot, yo

I don't know, these exercises seem pointless to me. If you find that kids in a certain school district have a high rate of death by self-inflicted gun shot, you don't ignore it and say "Well, that's statistically insignificant compared to the number of people who die of cancer every year". It's still a problem and still needs to be looked at and solved.

unimpressive 14y ago
That's not what people are doing though. They aren't looking at a local issue and trying to figure out what to do to heal the community. They're looking at a shooting in Aurora and asking what to do about our national gun laws. And our national security infrastructure. And the answer is, largely nothing. Because this is nationally statistical noise. (And on the subject of noise, giving crazed gun men this level of attention I would think is probably one of, if not the; largest factor in causing these incidents to happen.)
- dasil003 14y ago
  Statistically don't these things happen way more in the US than anywhere else though? Or is that just a media bias?
  - rustynails 14y ago
    Correct. The us has a homicide rate over 400x (ie. not 400%, but 400 times) the gun related homicide rate of Australia, where there are far tougher gun laws in Australia. Some may consider that acceptable, or say that knifings in Australia are significantly higher (which is not true), but the fact is that the US has a poor record of gun related homicides.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      On the other hand, if we interpret the right to keep and bear arms out of our Constitution because it is inconvenient, it will just make it easier to do the same with due process, which is already on its last legs in the US.
      - hartror 14y ago
        Because amending a constitution is a dangerous thing that should never be done!
        einhverfr 14y ago
        Re-read what I said. If you amend the Constitution it's a highly deliberative and drawn-out process. If we just decide that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the US Constitution means what it does in the English Bill of Rights though that's not the same thing.
        dllthomas 14y ago
        I think we clearly need to amend the 2nd amendment. The text says the government can't stop the guy down the block from having nukes, and that is obviously inappropriate.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        I dunno. The definition of a militia is a volunteer organization where people furnish their own weapons. I think it would be hard to argue that personal ownership of nukes serves either self-defence or the militia interest. I do think the machine gun ban is questionable though.
        dllthomas 14y ago
        If it said, "the right of the people to bear arms for this purpose shall not be infringed" then I would agree. But it doesn't, it says "[This amendment is important because of militias;] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ... with some extra commas that are incorrect now based on how grammar has shifted.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        One canon of construction of legal documents is to treat every word as necessary to the meaning. The history and text of the 2nd Amendment suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is allowed for two basic purposes: self-defence (as a pre-existing right and the fact that this is largely copied from the English Bill of Rights where this was more explicit), and the militia interest (again found in both the English Bill of Rights, limiting an individual RKBA to Protestants) and the text itself (which mentions a militia). The Supreme Court has always said (even in cases where they held a collective right, like Presser v. Illinois) that an attempt at elimination of gun ownership by a state would run afoul with the militia interest by the federal government. This is because the militia interest can only be served by an individual right. You have to be able to bring your gun when you join a militia so you must be able to own one outside this, and so the right has to be broader than the mere militia interest. And I disagree with groups like the NRA here but I think that if the state put forth an inexpensive program for people to learn and be certified regarding gun safety, they could probably require such certification before allowing them to own guns. Again, I don't see anything in the text or history of the second amendment that would preclude eliminating nuclear weapons ownership. Now, big guns on private warships? That's a more interesting question ;-)
    - gizmo686 14y ago
      You still need to demonstrate causation. Simply saying 'the US has the highest gun related deaths and the loosest gun regulations' only establishes corralation.
    - engtech 14y ago
      Here's the wikipedia page on gun-related deaths statistics since some people are writing "where's the beef?" comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... US has a score of 10.27 per 100,000 Canada has a score of 4.78 per 100,000 Australia has a score of 2.94 per 100,000 England/Wales has a score of 0.46 per 100,000 Japan has a score of 0.07 per 100,000 (edit: formatting)
      - maxerickson 14y ago
        Now you have introduced suicides into the mix. The great majority of gun related deaths in Australia are suicides. More than half of them in the United States are suicides. Also, the grandparent claim of 400x does not stand up to scrutiny. The rate of gun related homicide in the U.S. is approximately 4 or 5 / 100,000. In Australia, it is about 0.5 / 100,000. That's 10x. Which is still quite a difference.
    - asmithmd1 14y ago
      One great thing about the US is that states can act like laboratories for testing different laws. Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws requiring someone to obtain a gun permit before they can own a gun. Massachusetts also is second only to Hawaii in the lowest firearm death rate: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/ http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-... The firearm death rate in MA is 1/5 - 1/6 the rate of high death rate states. I looked into what it takes to get a gun permit in MA and was surprised by how common sense it is. As long as you have a record of no violent felonies and no current restraining orders you must take a gun safety course. Then you need to submit a signed statement to the chief of police in your town from two adults saying you are an upstanding person. This way the police know who has a gun and they are probably best able to judge if you should have a gun.
    - syncopatience 14y ago
      Contrast with Brazil, which has far stricter gun laws than the U.S. and far more gun deaths.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  I think a call for restrictions on gun ownership is a natural reaction to the fact that any lunatic can (and does) load up with military-style weaponry and can go on a killing spree. It doesn't happen everyday, but there are without a doubt lots of people who are stocking up on guns. Many of them are at least a little wacky, and long-guns are nearly unregulated in most US jurisdictions. You can call these events statistical noise, but the general public put you in the category where folks who claim that nuclear reactor meltdowns are no big deal are.
  - fr0sty 14y ago
    > military-style weaponry Please stop. All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are functionally identical. The suspect had a rifle, shotgun and handgud. that is 'loaded up'? Since when does 'requires federal background check' == 'nearly unregulated'?
    - Retric 14y ago
      Shorter barrels are useful for hitting multiple targets rapidly at short ranges and less useful at long ones. Which has a lot to do with the design of military style weapons vs. a rifle used for hunting vs. target practice. If your attacking a target you want longer range accuracy and a large clip, if your defending yourself you want a hand gun. Which is a major reason why the police don't go around with swat style weapons.
      - CWuestefeld 14y ago
        if your defending yourself you want a hand gun Disagree, at least depending on the situation. If you're defending yourself in your home, the most appropriate weapon is likely a short-barreled shotgun. The short barrel is advantageous for being able to quickly maneuver around corners, etc. And the shot requires less (but not zero) accuracy in aiming, and if you use the right size shot, is less dangerous to bystanders because of minimal risk of over-penetration. While we're on the topic, the gun control people are irrational in trying to ban rifles with pistol-style grips. Such a grip gives no advantage to the bad guys: in Aurora, he was equally able to fire the AR-15 (which had such grips) and the shotgun (which probably didn't). However, pistol grips are useful to a home defender. It would allow the defender to hold the weapon covering the bad guy with one hand, while using the other hand to dial 911. Without the pistol grip, the defender couldn't do that.
jahewson 14y ago
That's not what statistically insignificant means.
- statictype 14y ago
  Sorry? I didn't understand. What's not what statistically insignificant means?

unimpressive 14y ago

That's not what people are doing though. They aren't looking at a local issue and trying to figure out what to do to heal the community. They're looking at a shooting in Aurora and asking what to do about our national gun laws. And our national security infrastructure. And the answer is, largely nothing. Because this is nationally statistical noise. (And on the subject of noise, giving crazed gun men this level of attention I would think is probably one of, if not the; largest factor in causing these incidents to happen.)

dasil003 14y ago
Statistically don't these things happen way more in the US than anywhere else though? Or is that just a media bias?
- rustynails 14y ago
  Correct. The us has a homicide rate over 400x (ie. not 400%, but 400 times) the gun related homicide rate of Australia, where there are far tougher gun laws in Australia. Some may consider that acceptable, or say that knifings in Australia are significantly higher (which is not true), but the fact is that the US has a poor record of gun related homicides.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    On the other hand, if we interpret the right to keep and bear arms out of our Constitution because it is inconvenient, it will just make it easier to do the same with due process, which is already on its last legs in the US.
    - hartror 14y ago
      Because amending a constitution is a dangerous thing that should never be done!
      - einhverfr 14y ago
        Re-read what I said. If you amend the Constitution it's a highly deliberative and drawn-out process. If we just decide that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the US Constitution means what it does in the English Bill of Rights though that's not the same thing.
        dllthomas 14y ago
        I think we clearly need to amend the 2nd amendment. The text says the government can't stop the guy down the block from having nukes, and that is obviously inappropriate.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        I dunno. The definition of a militia is a volunteer organization where people furnish their own weapons. I think it would be hard to argue that personal ownership of nukes serves either self-defence or the militia interest. I do think the machine gun ban is questionable though.
        dllthomas 14y ago
        If it said, "the right of the people to bear arms for this purpose shall not be infringed" then I would agree. But it doesn't, it says "[This amendment is important because of militias;] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ... with some extra commas that are incorrect now based on how grammar has shifted.
        einhverfr 14y ago
        One canon of construction of legal documents is to treat every word as necessary to the meaning. The history and text of the 2nd Amendment suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is allowed for two basic purposes: self-defence (as a pre-existing right and the fact that this is largely copied from the English Bill of Rights where this was more explicit), and the militia interest (again found in both the English Bill of Rights, limiting an individual RKBA to Protestants) and the text itself (which mentions a militia). The Supreme Court has always said (even in cases where they held a collective right, like Presser v. Illinois) that an attempt at elimination of gun ownership by a state would run afoul with the militia interest by the federal government. This is because the militia interest can only be served by an individual right. You have to be able to bring your gun when you join a militia so you must be able to own one outside this, and so the right has to be broader than the mere militia interest. And I disagree with groups like the NRA here but I think that if the state put forth an inexpensive program for people to learn and be certified regarding gun safety, they could probably require such certification before allowing them to own guns. Again, I don't see anything in the text or history of the second amendment that would preclude eliminating nuclear weapons ownership. Now, big guns on private warships? That's a more interesting question ;-)
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    You still need to demonstrate causation. Simply saying 'the US has the highest gun related deaths and the loosest gun regulations' only establishes corralation.
  - engtech 14y ago
    Here's the wikipedia page on gun-related deaths statistics since some people are writing "where's the beef?" comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... US has a score of 10.27 per 100,000 Canada has a score of 4.78 per 100,000 Australia has a score of 2.94 per 100,000 England/Wales has a score of 0.46 per 100,000 Japan has a score of 0.07 per 100,000 (edit: formatting)
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      Now you have introduced suicides into the mix. The great majority of gun related deaths in Australia are suicides. More than half of them in the United States are suicides. Also, the grandparent claim of 400x does not stand up to scrutiny. The rate of gun related homicide in the U.S. is approximately 4 or 5 / 100,000. In Australia, it is about 0.5 / 100,000. That's 10x. Which is still quite a difference.
  - asmithmd1 14y ago
    One great thing about the US is that states can act like laboratories for testing different laws. Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws requiring someone to obtain a gun permit before they can own a gun. Massachusetts also is second only to Hawaii in the lowest firearm death rate: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/ http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-... The firearm death rate in MA is 1/5 - 1/6 the rate of high death rate states. I looked into what it takes to get a gun permit in MA and was surprised by how common sense it is. As long as you have a record of no violent felonies and no current restraining orders you must take a gun safety course. Then you need to submit a signed statement to the chief of police in your town from two adults saying you are an upstanding person. This way the police know who has a gun and they are probably best able to judge if you should have a gun.
  - syncopatience 14y ago
    Contrast with Brazil, which has far stricter gun laws than the U.S. and far more gun deaths.
Spooky23 14y ago
I think a call for restrictions on gun ownership is a natural reaction to the fact that any lunatic can (and does) load up with military-style weaponry and can go on a killing spree. It doesn't happen everyday, but there are without a doubt lots of people who are stocking up on guns. Many of them are at least a little wacky, and long-guns are nearly unregulated in most US jurisdictions. You can call these events statistical noise, but the general public put you in the category where folks who claim that nuclear reactor meltdowns are no big deal are.
- fr0sty 14y ago
  > military-style weaponry Please stop. All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines are functionally identical. The suspect had a rifle, shotgun and handgud. that is 'loaded up'? Since when does 'requires federal background check' == 'nearly unregulated'?
  - Retric 14y ago
    Shorter barrels are useful for hitting multiple targets rapidly at short ranges and less useful at long ones. Which has a lot to do with the design of military style weapons vs. a rifle used for hunting vs. target practice. If your attacking a target you want longer range accuracy and a large clip, if your defending yourself you want a hand gun. Which is a major reason why the police don't go around with swat style weapons.
    - CWuestefeld 14y ago
      if your defending yourself you want a hand gun Disagree, at least depending on the situation. If you're defending yourself in your home, the most appropriate weapon is likely a short-barreled shotgun. The short barrel is advantageous for being able to quickly maneuver around corners, etc. And the shot requires less (but not zero) accuracy in aiming, and if you use the right size shot, is less dangerous to bystanders because of minimal risk of over-penetration. While we're on the topic, the gun control people are irrational in trying to ban rifles with pistol-style grips. Such a grip gives no advantage to the bad guys: in Aurora, he was equally able to fire the AR-15 (which had such grips) and the shotgun (which probably didn't). However, pistol grips are useful to a home defender. It would allow the defender to hold the weapon covering the bad guy with one hand, while using the other hand to dial 911. Without the pistol grip, the defender couldn't do that.

jahewson 14y ago

That's not what statistically insignificant means.

statictype 14y ago
Sorry? I didn't understand. What's not what statistically insignificant means?