Slog Comments
Six Thousand King County Children Live in Homes Where Firearms Are Stored Loaded and Unlocked (and Other Details from Public Health's Gun Violence Report)
1
...the number of firearms deaths in King County surpassed the number of traffic deaths...
Buckle Up & Reload!
2
I was at the presentation of this last night at Town Hall, and it was a good start. The data gets a little heavy, though; resistance is not based on data, nor is it susceptible to more data. We must find ways of talking to gun owners about this problem that transcends the emotional response.
I thought the pro-gun guy who plays the "fastest growing sport of Three Gun" was very interesting. Not the best speaker I've ever heard but he made his point clearly and concisely (at least at first). He was saying that he uses what are by anyone's definition "assault weapons" in a safe, non-criminal manner (his sport). I disagree with him, and support the assault weapon ban -- BUT. I'm not married to the damn thing. I recognize its flaws. And I would trade the AWB in a heartbeat for genuine political support for closing the private-sales loophole, with a workable state registration, for instance.
Most interesting factoid: Washington State is #1 in the country for the provision of crime guns in Canada.
I thought the pro-gun guy who plays the "fastest growing sport of Three Gun" was very interesting. Not the best speaker I've ever heard but he made his point clearly and concisely (at least at first). He was saying that he uses what are by anyone's definition "assault weapons" in a safe, non-criminal manner (his sport). I disagree with him, and support the assault weapon ban -- BUT. I'm not married to the damn thing. I recognize its flaws. And I would trade the AWB in a heartbeat for genuine political support for closing the private-sales loophole, with a workable state registration, for instance.
Most interesting factoid: Washington State is #1 in the country for the provision of crime guns in Canada.
3
@2 is correct about the Scourge of Canada, known as our state.
One question, though: How many kids in Seattle live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns?
I suppose one could be concerned about the more common cats and dogs in Seattle at risk of killing themselves, but they're probably all pit bulls and rescued tigers.
One question, though: How many kids in Seattle live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns?
I suppose one could be concerned about the more common cats and dogs in Seattle at risk of killing themselves, but they're probably all pit bulls and rescued tigers.
4
number of firearms deaths a in King County surpassed the number of traffic deaths starting in 2007? In 2010
The point being that safety standards (airbags, etc.) and stricter and better enforced laws (drunk driving, cell phone, seat belts) have made driving safer, and they can do the same for gun ownership.
The point being that safety standards (airbags, etc.) and stricter and better enforced laws (drunk driving, cell phone, seat belts) have made driving safer, and they can do the same for gun ownership.
5
@3, shut the fuck up, Will. The grownups are talking. Go somewhere and play with your dick. Don't come back.
6
"Southeast Seattle has one of the highest firearm homicide rates in the county"
You mean stroller dads aren't shooting each other in Wallingford over the last salted caramel cupcake at Trophy?
You mean stroller dads aren't shooting each other in Wallingford over the last salted caramel cupcake at Trophy?
7
"A 10 percent reduction in violent crime would boost residential housing value by $2.9 billion in the Seattle metropolitan area."
And would have the added benefit of pushing out the gang bangers and their mamas/grandmamas/aunties! Look out South King County, Seattle's gonna dump more trash on you.
And would have the added benefit of pushing out the gang bangers and their mamas/grandmamas/aunties! Look out South King County, Seattle's gonna dump more trash on you.
8
@4 That's my take-away, too. We have no problems mounting a major PR campaign to get people to not drink & drive and use seatbelts, so that now those are normal behaviors. There are no comparable efforts to normalize gun safety.
10
"We have no problems mounting a major PR campaign to get people to not drink & drive and use seatbelts"
No doubt. Maybe they could have public service announcements with 50 Cent ? Oh wait....
No doubt. Maybe they could have public service announcements with 50 Cent ? Oh wait....
11
@9, it's quite bizarre. Apparently these heroes run some sort of obstacle course blazing away with high-capacity magazines in ALL THREE of semi-auto rifle, semi-auto pistol, and, yes, semi-auto shotgun, all at the same time, as fast and as accurately as possible, scoring points along the way. Totally normal, safe, heterosexual boners are presumably had by all. It sounds like something I wish they'd do in Oklahoma or Mississippi, not here.
12
@11
3 gun started in The West at Jeff Cooper's school in Nevada, one of the first Cooper style shooting academies opened in Washington.
3 gun started in The West at Jeff Cooper's school in Nevada, one of the first Cooper style shooting academies opened in Washington.
13
@11
Not here? Why?
I've found that people who compete in Three Gun matches and Practical Pistol are the most intelligent and responsible gun owners imaginable. They certainly don't fit the SLOG narrative of illiterate slack-jawed yokels like myself.
The hypocrisy on these threads is astonishing. You don't want dumbass rednecks to have guns, yet have a problem with people who are responsible and educated with a skill level on par with a S.W.A.T. team member. Do your homework and you'll find that many, if not most, competitors are or are formerly military or police, yet they are scary and dangerous to you.
It would be less disingenuous to simply admit that you want a gun-free utopia and continue from there.
Not here? Why?
I've found that people who compete in Three Gun matches and Practical Pistol are the most intelligent and responsible gun owners imaginable. They certainly don't fit the SLOG narrative of illiterate slack-jawed yokels like myself.
The hypocrisy on these threads is astonishing. You don't want dumbass rednecks to have guns, yet have a problem with people who are responsible and educated with a skill level on par with a S.W.A.T. team member. Do your homework and you'll find that many, if not most, competitors are or are formerly military or police, yet they are scary and dangerous to you.
It would be less disingenuous to simply admit that you want a gun-free utopia and continue from there.
15
"They certainly don't fit the SLOG narrative of illiterate slack-jawed yokels like myself."
How come Slog never goes after America's "urban' gun nuts and their prolific culture, 8% of the population, yet responsible for 50% of all gun murders in the USA?
How come Slog never goes after America's "urban' gun nuts and their prolific culture, 8% of the population, yet responsible for 50% of all gun murders in the USA?
17
Figure 6 - Firearm Homicide Death Rates by Health Reporting Area.
Averaged over 10 years.
They have the areas broken down as follows:
0.0 - 0.4 (variance of 0.5)
0.5 - 0.9 (variance of 0.4)
1.0 - 1.7 (variance of 0.7)
1.8 - 2.8 (variance of 1.0)
2.9 - 5.2 (variance of 2.3)
5.3 - 8.2 (variance of 2.9)
So if an area averages 1 death (or less) per 100,000 per year that area could fall within any one of HALF of the groupings there.
Now if they had gone with a regular interval for the breakdown such as
0.0 - 1.0
1.1 - 2.0
2.1 - 3.0
etc
then the map would have all the light blue, dark blue and portions of the white area as a single color.
Averaged over 10 years.
They have the areas broken down as follows:
0.0 - 0.4 (variance of 0.5)
0.5 - 0.9 (variance of 0.4)
1.0 - 1.7 (variance of 0.7)
1.8 - 2.8 (variance of 1.0)
2.9 - 5.2 (variance of 2.3)
5.3 - 8.2 (variance of 2.9)
So if an area averages 1 death (or less) per 100,000 per year that area could fall within any one of HALF of the groupings there.
Now if they had gone with a regular interval for the breakdown such as
0.0 - 1.0
1.1 - 2.0
2.1 - 3.0
etc
then the map would have all the light blue, dark blue and portions of the white area as a single color.
18
Why don't they include race in this fascinating chart?
Oh that's right, guilty white Seattle liberals don't want to mention the obvious.
Oh that's right, guilty white Seattle liberals don't want to mention the obvious.
19
Too funny. If it was about any other subject but guns you can guarantee race would be included. Seattle political correctness - they stick a turd under your nose and try to convince you you smell a rose
20
3 gun competitions are not a valid reason to accept the proliferation of semi-automatic rifles in the hands of the mouth breathing incompetents that make up the majority of the american populace. have your fun, but there should be higher hurdles to jump through to protect us from the nancy lanzas.
21
@20: Why so soft on semiauto pistols? They can fire just as fast as a rifle and can be hidden in a pair of a mouth breather's cargo shorts. And I hate to break it to you, but every single round of 00 buckshot out of a semiauto shotgun has eight or twelve .32 size caliber pellets in it - should the incompetents be allowed to have those?
22
@20
Like the mouth breathers that can not be bothered with proper capitalization? Or are you just anti-capitalist?
Perhaps Max just wants to keep guns out of the hands of 'lesser races" and political opponents.
Like the mouth breathers that can not be bothered with proper capitalization? Or are you just anti-capitalist?
Perhaps Max just wants to keep guns out of the hands of 'lesser races" and political opponents.
23
@20
Seriously? Your ignorance is overwhelming.
PROVE IT.
To be more polite, please provide data in the form of actual facts to support your indictment before time runs out on this thread. You don't get to win by being a moron who defaults...
Seriously? Your ignorance is overwhelming.
PROVE IT.
To be more polite, please provide data in the form of actual facts to support your indictment before time runs out on this thread. You don't get to win by being a moron who defaults...
25
BACKFIRE: Seattle Gun Buyback Turns Into Gun Show; Collectors Waved “Wads of Cash” At Those In Line (news story)
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/ba…
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/ba…
26
"In 2009, an estimated 6,000 King County children lived in homes where firearms were stored loaded and unlocked." Imagine how many lives could be saved if, instead of spending $100k, creating an outdoor gunshow, buying movie props and mostly antiquated firearms, that money had been spent on educating dumb fuckers who apparently don't know that leaving loaded and unlocked firearms around your kids is a really dumb fucking idea.
"Among King County youth aged 15 to 24, firearms are involved in almost 1 in 5 (18%) of total deaths. For black youth, where homicide is the leading cause of death, firearms account for four in 10 (41%) deaths."
Can someone explain why this is? I'm pretty sure it is not simply because they are black. Do black people have easier access to legal firearms? Since minors aren't allowed to purchase/own handguns, do black minors have easier access to illegal firearms?
Even though apparently firearm ownership has been on the rise: "In 2009, firearms were reported in approximately 24% of King County households (183,300), the largest percentage in 13 years.", the number of deaths has been stable: "During the last decade, the rates of firearm deaths in King County have been relatively stable and substantially lower than the rates in the early 1990s." Hmm. I thought more firearms == more deaths.
"The unintentional firearm death rates for King County,17 Washington state and the U.S. are all less than 1 per 100,000."
"For this same period [2006 and 2010], there were a total of 35 unintentional firearm deaths in Washington state and 2 deaths in King County."
"From 2006 to 2010, 124 drowning deaths involving King County residents were reported; 14 of these deaths were of children ages 17 years and younger. "
"In 2010, the fatal drowning rate in King County was 1.1 per 100,000 population, which was lower than Washington State’s rate overall."
So unintentional death from firearms is less than 1/3rd of unintentional deaths from drowning. Even if you add in unintentional injuries:
"In King County, there were 84 hospitalizations for unintentional firearm injury, contributing to 14% of all firearm injury hospitalizations over the same 5-year period, 2006-2010. The corresponding rate was 0.9 per 100,000. "
"From 2006 to 2010, 62 King County residents were hospitalized for non-fatal drownings. Near drownings may damage the brain and cause long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and even permanent loss of basic functioning. "
The total of deaths plus injuries is still higher for drownings. Now, just in case Dr. Awesome is around to make up shit that I never said, I am NOT saying that unintentional firearm deaths/injuries can't be reduced. I think they can and should be. However, I fail to understand how a higher number of death/injury from drowning is acceptable, but apparently no amount of unintentional death/injury from firearms is acceptable.
"88% of those who drowned in boating accidents in the U.S. in 2010 were not wearing a life jacket."
The way to reduce unintentional drownings/injuries and the same way to reduce unintentional firearm deaths/injuries: Education and liability.
Drowning statistics taken from here:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices…
More...
"Among King County youth aged 15 to 24, firearms are involved in almost 1 in 5 (18%) of total deaths. For black youth, where homicide is the leading cause of death, firearms account for four in 10 (41%) deaths."
Can someone explain why this is? I'm pretty sure it is not simply because they are black. Do black people have easier access to legal firearms? Since minors aren't allowed to purchase/own handguns, do black minors have easier access to illegal firearms?
Even though apparently firearm ownership has been on the rise: "In 2009, firearms were reported in approximately 24% of King County households (183,300), the largest percentage in 13 years.", the number of deaths has been stable: "During the last decade, the rates of firearm deaths in King County have been relatively stable and substantially lower than the rates in the early 1990s." Hmm. I thought more firearms == more deaths.
"The unintentional firearm death rates for King County,17 Washington state and the U.S. are all less than 1 per 100,000."
"For this same period [2006 and 2010], there were a total of 35 unintentional firearm deaths in Washington state and 2 deaths in King County."
"From 2006 to 2010, 124 drowning deaths involving King County residents were reported; 14 of these deaths were of children ages 17 years and younger. "
"In 2010, the fatal drowning rate in King County was 1.1 per 100,000 population, which was lower than Washington State’s rate overall."
So unintentional death from firearms is less than 1/3rd of unintentional deaths from drowning. Even if you add in unintentional injuries:
"In King County, there were 84 hospitalizations for unintentional firearm injury, contributing to 14% of all firearm injury hospitalizations over the same 5-year period, 2006-2010. The corresponding rate was 0.9 per 100,000. "
"From 2006 to 2010, 62 King County residents were hospitalized for non-fatal drownings. Near drownings may damage the brain and cause long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and even permanent loss of basic functioning. "
The total of deaths plus injuries is still higher for drownings. Now, just in case Dr. Awesome is around to make up shit that I never said, I am NOT saying that unintentional firearm deaths/injuries can't be reduced. I think they can and should be. However, I fail to understand how a higher number of death/injury from drowning is acceptable, but apparently no amount of unintentional death/injury from firearms is acceptable.
"88% of those who drowned in boating accidents in the U.S. in 2010 were not wearing a life jacket."
The way to reduce unintentional drownings/injuries and the same way to reduce unintentional firearm deaths/injuries: Education and liability.
Drowning statistics taken from here:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices…
27
@26
Great work.
That 100k would have much betten been spent on trigger locks and education.
Though as I have said before if they were really concerned about saving lives they would not have used a political photo op to creating a traffic jam in the main coridor leading to the regions trauma center.;
Imagine how many firearms death we could reduce if we taught everyone:
1. Treat every firearm like it is loaded.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger.
3. Do not point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
4. Know your target and what is beyond it.
Great work.
That 100k would have much betten been spent on trigger locks and education.
Though as I have said before if they were really concerned about saving lives they would not have used a political photo op to creating a traffic jam in the main coridor leading to the regions trauma center.;
Imagine how many firearms death we could reduce if we taught everyone:
1. Treat every firearm like it is loaded.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger.
3. Do not point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
4. Know your target and what is beyond it.
28
My takeaway from this is that too many stupid fucking people are having children. Could we institute a background check and intelligence test to bear offspring?
29
@27, research shows that education doesn't work. In particular, educating young people on gun safety doesn't make young people less likely to play with guns they find. Kids who took the NRA "Eddie Eagle" safety program were just as likely to pick up unattended firearms and point them at something and pull the trigger as kids who didn't.
@13, you're right; "3 Gun" participants are generally speaking much better trained than ordinary gun owners, and much more likely to handle and store their weapons safely, including having gun safes at home. Gun safes are probably the best safety measure there is (aside from not having them, of course) and should be encouraged for all gun owners.
That doesn't prevent people from having a perfectly legitimate revulsion at the ridiculousness of the sport and its participants. Hillbillies are funny, and fun to laugh at. Wanting them to keep their guns and big-wheel trucks and camo fashions out of our neighborhoods is a perfectly reasonable reaction. It's not a good basis for public policy, though. That effort has to be directed elsewhere.
@13, you're right; "3 Gun" participants are generally speaking much better trained than ordinary gun owners, and much more likely to handle and store their weapons safely, including having gun safes at home. Gun safes are probably the best safety measure there is (aside from not having them, of course) and should be encouraged for all gun owners.
That doesn't prevent people from having a perfectly legitimate revulsion at the ridiculousness of the sport and its participants. Hillbillies are funny, and fun to laugh at. Wanting them to keep their guns and big-wheel trucks and camo fashions out of our neighborhoods is a perfectly reasonable reaction. It's not a good basis for public policy, though. That effort has to be directed elsewhere.
31
"Hillbillies are funny, and fun to laugh at. Wanting them to keep their guns and big-wheel trucks and camo fashions out of our neighborhoods is a perfectly reasonable reaction"
Wow, if Fnarf's world you'd never know that "hillbillies" in King County are 7 times LESS likely to maliciously shoot or be shot with a gun than "gangbangers".
Wow, if Fnarf's world you'd never know that "hillbillies" in King County are 7 times LESS likely to maliciously shoot or be shot with a gun than "gangbangers".
32
@29/30, That's why I said Education AND Liability. It is ridiculous that if you are a negligent owner, and someone is killed/injured with your improperly kept firearm, the likelihood is that the legal response will be, "Oh what a tragedy! You've suffered enough! We're not going to press charges."
Also, the education is not so much for the children as for the adults. I think that children who are too young to handle firearms (which is what the Eddie Eagle program was directed at) need to be prevented from access to firearms in the first place. They're too young to understand consequences.
Also, the education is not so much for the children as for the adults. I think that children who are too young to handle firearms (which is what the Eddie Eagle program was directed at) need to be prevented from access to firearms in the first place. They're too young to understand consequences.
33
@27: "Imagine how many firearms death we could reduce if we taught everyone..."
So to be clear: You are advocating mandatory training for anyone who wants to own a firearm?
Sounds like regulation to me...
So to be clear: You are advocating mandatory training for anyone who wants to own a firearm?
Sounds like regulation to me...
34
"The firearm death rate in the U.S. is 7.5 times higher compared to 23 other high-income countries."
Among those countries, the USA also has the highest rate of child poverty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30…
The only country worse than the USA is Romania
The USA has worse health than most other industrialized countries:
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/…
http://www.aei.org/outlook/health/global…
Lastly, the USA has the worst minimum wage/most debt peonage of industrialized countries:
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-…
Now - if you actually look at where the majority of firearm violence comes from, you'll find that the majority involves poor people. As we discussed here:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
There is a far greater correlation between firearm violence and income inequality than there is between firearm violence and firearm availability.
Furthermore, in almost all the countries cited, even when they had easier access to firearms, their homicide rates were still substantially lower than the USA's. Possibly indicating that the reason for the USA's high rate of homicide is not as directly related to firearm availability as gun-control-nuts claim.
More...
Among those countries, the USA also has the highest rate of child poverty:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30…
The only country worse than the USA is Romania
The USA has worse health than most other industrialized countries:
http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/…
http://www.aei.org/outlook/health/global…
Lastly, the USA has the worst minimum wage/most debt peonage of industrialized countries:
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-…
Now - if you actually look at where the majority of firearm violence comes from, you'll find that the majority involves poor people. As we discussed here:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
There is a far greater correlation between firearm violence and income inequality than there is between firearm violence and firearm availability.
Furthermore, in almost all the countries cited, even when they had easier access to firearms, their homicide rates were still substantially lower than the USA's. Possibly indicating that the reason for the USA's high rate of homicide is not as directly related to firearm availability as gun-control-nuts claim.
35
@34
Have you noticed that Russia is never included in those comparisons?
The items they choose to compare show their agenda.
Have you noticed that Russia is never included in those comparisons?
The items they choose to compare show their agenda.
36
@33, Yes, I am for mandatory training for firearms ownership. I've never said or claimed that firearms should not be regulated. There is a HUGE difference between banning and regulating. There is also a huge difference between making training mandatory and having a national registry (which I don't support for the simple reason that registrations have been used for confiscation in the past.)
You currently need to have training to get a CCW (this may not be true in all states, but it is certainly true in most). I don't have a CCW, or any interest in one, so I don't know what the training involves. However, it seems like a very reasonable requirement to me and it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to extend that training requirement to all firearms purchases. (You take a class, you get a certificate. Your certificate is usable for firearm purchases for some period of time. Just like a CCW training certificate.)
Barring that, you could add a written test to the background check. It would be relatively cheap and easy to administer. If you're too stupid or uneducated to pass the written test, you wouldn't be able to own a firearm.
You currently need to have training to get a CCW (this may not be true in all states, but it is certainly true in most). I don't have a CCW, or any interest in one, so I don't know what the training involves. However, it seems like a very reasonable requirement to me and it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to extend that training requirement to all firearms purchases. (You take a class, you get a certificate. Your certificate is usable for firearm purchases for some period of time. Just like a CCW training certificate.)
Barring that, you could add a written test to the background check. It would be relatively cheap and easy to administer. If you're too stupid or uneducated to pass the written test, you wouldn't be able to own a firearm.
37
@36: Thanks for that. I agree there is a huge difference between banning and regulating, and I think you may find that a lot of the people on the "anti-gun" side here don't actually support full bans and confiscation.
I certainly don't. I'm looking at this situation from up here in Canada where we have a fairly comprehensive regulatory regime for gun ownership that is well short of a complete ban.
My impression, however, is that for a lot of people on the "pro-gun" side, any regulation - including mandatory education - is anathema. Regulation creates a barrier to gun ownership and will inevitably lead to some people who might own guns choosing not to, or being unable to. Which is bad because Second Amendment.
I'd be interested to hear if a few others around here agree with you as regards mandatory training for firearms owners.
I certainly don't. I'm looking at this situation from up here in Canada where we have a fairly comprehensive regulatory regime for gun ownership that is well short of a complete ban.
My impression, however, is that for a lot of people on the "pro-gun" side, any regulation - including mandatory education - is anathema. Regulation creates a barrier to gun ownership and will inevitably lead to some people who might own guns choosing not to, or being unable to. Which is bad because Second Amendment.
I'd be interested to hear if a few others around here agree with you as regards mandatory training for firearms owners.
38
Hell, yeah, get them while they are young. . . sign these youngsters up for the revolution, they've already have access to the weaponry! ! !
39
@37, "I think you may find that a lot of the people on the "anti-gun" side here don't actually support full bans and confiscation."
As long as the general attitude among the "anti-gun" side here is that, "Guns are the problem/main reason for violence. And guns have no value other than killing people.", I will have difficulty believing that. Because, if you really believe that guns cause violence/death/injury by their mere existence, then, if you are honest, nothing but a complete ban is reasonable.
Let's look at it another way - overall, homicides/firearm related deaths/injuries etc. have been trending downward, or have been stable, on a per capita basis. Let's say that tomorrow half the firearms in the USA are banned and that trend continues (but does not accelerate) much like what happened in Australia. The "anti-gun" side will claim that this trend was caused by the ban. However, you can't definitively make that claim. The trend existed pre-ban and continued at the same rate post-ban. However, the "anti-gun" side will use that claim to then enact more bans...etc. If you don't believe that, take a look at how many times "anti-gun" people use Australia and the UK to make their argument for a ban. (Even though there is not actually any evidence that either ban reduced overall violence/homicide rates.)
So while I don't agree with the NRA's stance, I can certainly understand why they have it.
As long as the general attitude among the "anti-gun" side here is that, "Guns are the problem/main reason for violence. And guns have no value other than killing people.", I will have difficulty believing that. Because, if you really believe that guns cause violence/death/injury by their mere existence, then, if you are honest, nothing but a complete ban is reasonable.
Let's look at it another way - overall, homicides/firearm related deaths/injuries etc. have been trending downward, or have been stable, on a per capita basis. Let's say that tomorrow half the firearms in the USA are banned and that trend continues (but does not accelerate) much like what happened in Australia. The "anti-gun" side will claim that this trend was caused by the ban. However, you can't definitively make that claim. The trend existed pre-ban and continued at the same rate post-ban. However, the "anti-gun" side will use that claim to then enact more bans...etc. If you don't believe that, take a look at how many times "anti-gun" people use Australia and the UK to make their argument for a ban. (Even though there is not actually any evidence that either ban reduced overall violence/homicide rates.)
So while I don't agree with the NRA's stance, I can certainly understand why they have it.
40
@39: "As long as the general attitude among the 'anti-gun' side here is that, 'Guns are the problem/main reason for violence. And guns have no value other than killing people.', I will have difficulty believing that"
Well, on the flip side, we have people here arguing that "Guns are not the problem and in no way whatsoever contribute to the problem."
I have no disagreement with the statement that rates of crime and violence, including gun violence, are affected by a wide range of factors. These include many that you have pointed out, including availability of health care (particularly mental health) as well as income equality and poverty. I completely agree that these factors have an impact.
The evidence also shows that the overall availability of guns in a society has an impact. It is one of the factors.
A solution that simply tries to regulate gun ownership without addressing the other factors is incomplete. Similarly, a solution that tries to address the other factors without also considering gun regulation will be incomplete.
Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork.
Well, on the flip side, we have people here arguing that "Guns are not the problem and in no way whatsoever contribute to the problem."
I have no disagreement with the statement that rates of crime and violence, including gun violence, are affected by a wide range of factors. These include many that you have pointed out, including availability of health care (particularly mental health) as well as income equality and poverty. I completely agree that these factors have an impact.
The evidence also shows that the overall availability of guns in a society has an impact. It is one of the factors.
A solution that simply tries to regulate gun ownership without addressing the other factors is incomplete. Similarly, a solution that tries to address the other factors without also considering gun regulation will be incomplete.
Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork.
41
@40
"Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork."
As I have posted before, in the 8th century there was zero GUN violence.
Mostly because GUNs had not been invented yet.
So of course there is a correlation between GUN violence and the possession of GUNs.
The problem is that you and the other anti-gun people take that correlation and attempt to claim causation.
"Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork."
As I have posted before, in the 8th century there was zero GUN violence.
Mostly because GUNs had not been invented yet.
So of course there is a correlation between GUN violence and the possession of GUNs.
The problem is that you and the other anti-gun people take that correlation and attempt to claim causation.
42
@40, "Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork."
Err. That would probably be either me or fairly.unbalanced. There is no statistical evidence that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. We last discussed it here:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
Despite that, I would agree that some amount of regulation is needed. And as I've said several times before, I support all of the executive actions that Obama enacted in regards to Gun Control. I think that if you are qualified to own a firearm (not a criminal, not mentally unstable..etc) and have the education/training/knowledge to own one without injuring yourself or innocent bystanders, have the capability to safely store it..etc, there should be no reason why you can't.
Incidentally, my biggest issue with mandatory background checks on all firearms transfers is simply a monetary one. FFL's around me charge $30-60 for an FFL transfer. That is essentially a tax on transfers. I recently purchased a Ruger 10/22 receiver from an out of state seller. The receiver cost me $90. I then paid $35 for the FFL transfer. That works out to a greater than 35% tax. When you consider that the FFL, who is a non-law enforcement/government entity, basically has to make a 2-5 minute phone call and make two entries in his/her bound book to process a background check, the fee borders on usary. However, there is no restriction on what the FFL can charge.
In comparison, where I live, you are required to get an "emissions" check on any modern car every two years. (The service station basically hooks your car up to an ODBI scanner and prints out a page.) The service station is not allowed to charge you for the check, although it can charge you for any service you may need to bring your car into compliance.
If there is either a mandated (low) fee for private party background checks performed by an FFL or if the background check system was opened up to non-FFLs, I'd have no problem supporting a background check for all firearms transactions.
More...
Err. That would probably be either me or fairly.unbalanced. There is no statistical evidence that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. We last discussed it here:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…
Despite that, I would agree that some amount of regulation is needed. And as I've said several times before, I support all of the executive actions that Obama enacted in regards to Gun Control. I think that if you are qualified to own a firearm (not a criminal, not mentally unstable..etc) and have the education/training/knowledge to own one without injuring yourself or innocent bystanders, have the capability to safely store it..etc, there should be no reason why you can't.
Incidentally, my biggest issue with mandatory background checks on all firearms transfers is simply a monetary one. FFL's around me charge $30-60 for an FFL transfer. That is essentially a tax on transfers. I recently purchased a Ruger 10/22 receiver from an out of state seller. The receiver cost me $90. I then paid $35 for the FFL transfer. That works out to a greater than 35% tax. When you consider that the FFL, who is a non-law enforcement/government entity, basically has to make a 2-5 minute phone call and make two entries in his/her bound book to process a background check, the fee borders on usary. However, there is no restriction on what the FFL can charge.
In comparison, where I live, you are required to get an "emissions" check on any modern car every two years. (The service station basically hooks your car up to an ODBI scanner and prints out a page.) The service station is not allowed to charge you for the check, although it can charge you for any service you may need to bring your car into compliance.
If there is either a mandated (low) fee for private party background checks performed by an FFL or if the background check system was opened up to non-FFLs, I'd have no problem supporting a background check for all firearms transactions.
44
@41: Right on time. Thank you, you lunatic. Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time. So, piss off.
@42: Yes, I remember that conversation. All I can say is that I interpret the data differently. I cannot see how it is possible - even while acknowledging other factors - to simply ignore the correlation between different levels of gun violence and gun ownership across jurisdictions that are broadly similar, culturally, economically, and politically speaking, such as the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia.
@42: Yes, I remember that conversation. All I can say is that I interpret the data differently. I cannot see how it is possible - even while acknowledging other factors - to simply ignore the correlation between different levels of gun violence and gun ownership across jurisdictions that are broadly similar, culturally, economically, and politically speaking, such as the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia.
45
@44
"Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time."
Just because you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation does not mean that the difference does not exist.
"Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time."
Just because you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation does not mean that the difference does not exist.
46
FUCKING HELL.
44 posts, and not ONE of them says anything about how awful and vague the graph at the top of the article is. "Firearm Homicide Rates by Age and Gender". Maybe the graph would be slightly useful if we knew whether the age and gender were of the VICTIM or the PERPETRATOR. Hell yes I mad.
44 posts, and not ONE of them says anything about how awful and vague the graph at the top of the article is. "Firearm Homicide Rates by Age and Gender". Maybe the graph would be slightly useful if we knew whether the age and gender were of the VICTIM or the PERPETRATOR. Hell yes I mad.
47
@44, He may be unhinged, and I, for one, don't know what his actual stance on gun control is, but he at least understands something about statistical analysis of large datasets. By your standards, you can show that declining use of IE is responsible for declining murder rates:
http://twistermc.net/post/40950483763/in…
http://twistermc.net/post/40950483763/in…
48
@47: Funny graph.
But you recognize that it is a pointless comparison, right?
"Correlation is not causation" is a common enough refrain. But all that means is that merely showing a correlation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to demonstrate a causal relationship. It does not mean that a causal relationship cannot exist. (Which, frankly, is what our unbalanced friend seems to think it means. "They are correlated! Therefore they cannot be causally related!")
So, is declining IE use responsible for declining murder rates? No - if I wanted to prove it was, I'd have to show some mechanism connecting the two. I'd have to say "Well, IE sucks so bad that it drives some people to murder; as fewer people use it, fewer people are driven to murder, so murder rates decline." But that would be a specious argument.
The strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence, combined with the fact that you can't have gun violence without, you know, GUNS, is strongly suggestive of a causal connection that deserves more investigation - not just simple "Correlation is not causation" dismissal.
But you recognize that it is a pointless comparison, right?
"Correlation is not causation" is a common enough refrain. But all that means is that merely showing a correlation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to demonstrate a causal relationship. It does not mean that a causal relationship cannot exist. (Which, frankly, is what our unbalanced friend seems to think it means. "They are correlated! Therefore they cannot be causally related!")
So, is declining IE use responsible for declining murder rates? No - if I wanted to prove it was, I'd have to show some mechanism connecting the two. I'd have to say "Well, IE sucks so bad that it drives some people to murder; as fewer people use it, fewer people are driven to murder, so murder rates decline." But that would be a specious argument.
The strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence, combined with the fact that you can't have gun violence without, you know, GUNS, is strongly suggestive of a causal connection that deserves more investigation - not just simple "Correlation is not causation" dismissal.
49
If it was any other "health" issue that affected blacks 7 times more than whites, wouldn't Goldy show that chart?
50
@48
"'Correlation is not causation' is a common enough refrain."
That is because mistaking correlation for causation is a very common error.
And it is one that you are currently engaging in.
"It does not mean that a causal relationship cannot exist."
and
"Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time."
They are only "impossible" if you are mistaking correlation for causation.
Which is the point behind them.
If there was causation then they would not be "impossible".
"The strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence, ..."
You have not shown that.
And you ignore every example that contradicts that.
Notably, Switzerland.
"... combined with the fact that you can't have gun violence without, you know, GUNS, ..."
That is the example I used to show the correlation.
So I'm guessing that the insults were not directed at the facts I was presenting.
"... is strongly suggestive of a causal connection that deserves more investigation ..."
And again you skip any facts that contradict your claims so that you can attempt to confuse "correlation" with "causation" again.
Correlation (very basically) means that where you find X you also find Y (statistically).
Your example (which you took from me) is a tautology because GUN violence always involves GUNs.
That is the correlation.
Causation means that increasing X results in increasing (or decreasing) Y. Or the converse.
"'Correlation is not causation' is a common enough refrain."
That is because mistaking correlation for causation is a very common error.
And it is one that you are currently engaging in.
"It does not mean that a causal relationship cannot exist."
and
"Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time."
They are only "impossible" if you are mistaking correlation for causation.
Which is the point behind them.
If there was causation then they would not be "impossible".
"The strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence, ..."
You have not shown that.
And you ignore every example that contradicts that.
Notably, Switzerland.
"... combined with the fact that you can't have gun violence without, you know, GUNS, ..."
That is the example I used to show the correlation.
So I'm guessing that the insults were not directed at the facts I was presenting.
"... is strongly suggestive of a causal connection that deserves more investigation ..."
And again you skip any facts that contradict your claims so that you can attempt to confuse "correlation" with "causation" again.
Correlation (very basically) means that where you find X you also find Y (statistically).
Your example (which you took from me) is a tautology because GUN violence always involves GUNs.
That is the correlation.
Causation means that increasing X results in increasing (or decreasing) Y. Or the converse.
51
@48, I think we're getting well away from the original article... How do you explain Vermont and Virginia? They have easy access to firearms, and fairly high firearm ownership, yet relatively low instances of firearm related violence. What both have in common, which Wyoming and Montana (other states that have easy access to firearms and high firearm ownership coupled with relatively high instances of firearm related violence) do not, is high relative income. That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me.
Or compare Chicago, a place with very strict gun control laws, huge economic inequity and high rates of gun violence, to Seattle, which has relatively lax gun control, a fairly wealthy populace with relatively less economic inequity and fairly low rates of gun violence.
Or you can look at Australia where overall violence has risen per capita since their gun ban or the UK where, while the level of firearms related homicide has absolutely gone down, the level of overall homicide has not.
Or compare Chicago, a place with very strict gun control laws, huge economic inequity and high rates of gun violence, to Seattle, which has relatively lax gun control, a fairly wealthy populace with relatively less economic inequity and fairly low rates of gun violence.
Or you can look at Australia where overall violence has risen per capita since their gun ban or the UK where, while the level of firearms related homicide has absolutely gone down, the level of overall homicide has not.
53
@51
"That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me."
If that were correct then the original article should show lower rates of gun violence in the wealthier sections of King County.
Such as Mercer Island, Bellevue, Redmond and so forth.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if the article shows that or contradicts that.
And, conversely, the areas of King County with the lowest income (and highest levels of income inequality) would show the highest rates of gun violence.
Again, verifying this is left as an exercise for the reader.
"That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me."
If that were correct then the original article should show lower rates of gun violence in the wealthier sections of King County.
Such as Mercer Island, Bellevue, Redmond and so forth.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if the article shows that or contradicts that.
And, conversely, the areas of King County with the lowest income (and highest levels of income inequality) would show the highest rates of gun violence.
Again, verifying this is left as an exercise for the reader.
55
@50: Keep fucking that chicken.
@51: "That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me." I have never denied that poverty and income inequality are factors in crime, violence, and gun violence. They are. So is being able to get a gun.
Look at one of the bullet points: "The odds of a homicide are 2.7 times higher in homes with firearms than in homes without." Are you suggesting that there is no relationship there? It is coincidence?
Re Chicago, "Strict gun control" does not equal "Fewer guns". You are talking about a city that is surrounded by areas with more lax restrictions and few, if any, controls on trafficking of weapons.
@52: There, there. Don't let the bad graph trouble you. Here, have a cookie.
@53: Bawk! Bawk!
@51: "That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me." I have never denied that poverty and income inequality are factors in crime, violence, and gun violence. They are. So is being able to get a gun.
Look at one of the bullet points: "The odds of a homicide are 2.7 times higher in homes with firearms than in homes without." Are you suggesting that there is no relationship there? It is coincidence?
Re Chicago, "Strict gun control" does not equal "Fewer guns". You are talking about a city that is surrounded by areas with more lax restrictions and few, if any, controls on trafficking of weapons.
@52: There, there. Don't let the bad graph trouble you. Here, have a cookie.
@53: Bawk! Bawk!
56
@55
"Keep fucking that chicken."
Does that mean you now understand that correlation is not causation?
Even when the correlation is a tautology?
How about the fact that your claim of a "strong correlation" seems to be contradicted by wealth and economic inequality?
Does that make wealth and economic inequality more strong than "strong"?
Super strong?
"Keep fucking that chicken."
Does that mean you now understand that correlation is not causation?
Even when the correlation is a tautology?
How about the fact that your claim of a "strong correlation" seems to be contradicted by wealth and economic inequality?
Does that make wealth and economic inequality more strong than "strong"?
Super strong?
57
@55 - "The odds of a homicide are 2.7 times higher in homes with firearms than in homes without."
Unfortunately the article where that quote comes from is only available to subscribers and doesn't show up in a search of a paid subscription to NEJM. Since I can't see the methodology they used, I'm unable to respond to the statistic. However, from the abstract, it appears that they include suicides in the statistic and I would absolutely agree that you are much more likely to commit suicide with a firearm if there is one in your house than if there is not. That does not mean that you won't commit suicide. It just means that you won't use a gun. And yes, I am fully aware that you are much more likely to be 'successful' in a suicide attempt with a firearm than with another method. I am also aware that the most effective method of suicide prevention is suicide outreach/hotlines/education and mental health availability.
"Re Chicago, "Strict gun control" does not equal "Fewer guns". You are talking about a city that is surrounded by areas with more lax restrictions and few, if any, controls on trafficking of weapons"
Unfortunately, you can make the same argument for any major metropolitan area in the USA. So it would appear, at least in your opinion, that firearms are just as available everywhere, which I think only strengthens the case of wealth and economic inequality since areas with greater wealth/lower economic inequality have less violence. More telling is, as @53 points out, firearms access is pretty even across Seattle, yet areas with higher rates of firearms violence are coincidentally poorer areas.
Both the UK and Australia demonstrate that in the absence of firearms, people are still perfectly capable and willing to kill each other with sharp and blunt objects. At very similar rates to when they had easier access to firearms.
More...
Unfortunately the article where that quote comes from is only available to subscribers and doesn't show up in a search of a paid subscription to NEJM. Since I can't see the methodology they used, I'm unable to respond to the statistic. However, from the abstract, it appears that they include suicides in the statistic and I would absolutely agree that you are much more likely to commit suicide with a firearm if there is one in your house than if there is not. That does not mean that you won't commit suicide. It just means that you won't use a gun. And yes, I am fully aware that you are much more likely to be 'successful' in a suicide attempt with a firearm than with another method. I am also aware that the most effective method of suicide prevention is suicide outreach/hotlines/education and mental health availability.
"Re Chicago, "Strict gun control" does not equal "Fewer guns". You are talking about a city that is surrounded by areas with more lax restrictions and few, if any, controls on trafficking of weapons"
Unfortunately, you can make the same argument for any major metropolitan area in the USA. So it would appear, at least in your opinion, that firearms are just as available everywhere, which I think only strengthens the case of wealth and economic inequality since areas with greater wealth/lower economic inequality have less violence. More telling is, as @53 points out, firearms access is pretty even across Seattle, yet areas with higher rates of firearms violence are coincidentally poorer areas.
Both the UK and Australia demonstrate that in the absence of firearms, people are still perfectly capable and willing to kill each other with sharp and blunt objects. At very similar rates to when they had easier access to firearms.
58
Dang, look at you guys go, go, go. Repeating the same arguments. The whole country has given you gun nuts and your "facts" their undivided attention for two months. It's not working. You're losing. Every time you open your mouths you dig yourselves deeper.
I know you're not listening to me. Just keep it up and watch what happens.
I know you're not listening to me. Just keep it up and watch what happens.
59
I thought the graph was by perpetrator, hence the note about keeping guns out of the hands of young men.
Comments (61) RSS