Real numbers?

[hso]

We should focus on the independent numbers from the UCR which gives us information on murders, accidental shootings, and suicides. The murder number for 2014 is ~12,000, DOWN from the previous years. The RATE of murders is down and has been dropping for decades. That clearly is citable as improvement in this debate and that the dropping rate of murders is in contrast to the increase in sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles and shall issue state carry. If people want to talk about working to prevent violence they should look at the falling rate of murders and the increasing rate of firearms sales and ask where else they should apply their efforts instead of prohibition on firearms.

 

[JSH1]

Yet, suicides by firearms only account for 50% of those suicides. All the other methods used add up to 1/2 of those deaths. In Japan, where suicide rates are much greater than in the US, the preferred method is cutting. So if firearms were not available, those suicides would occur by another method. It is not the tool used that accounts for those rates, it is the person going through whatever hell they think their life amounts to and their determination to end it all.

I would say it is a combination of the method and situation. Method varies by culture and in the USA by gender. In the USA women are much more likely to attempt suicide by cutting or overdose than by firearm while firearms are the method of choice for men.

You say firearms only account for 50% of suicides. Someone else might say firearms account for more suicides than all other methods combined.

I don't have a solution for suicides but I acknowledge that the fact that slightly more than 1/2 of all successful suicides in the USA involve a gun is a problem for gun owners. Most people aren't just going to toss those deaths to the side and say they don't matter.

 

[jerkface11]

I don't have a solution for suicides but I acknowledge that the fact that slightly more than 1/2 of all successful suicides in the USA involve a gun is a problem for gun owners. Most people aren't just going to toss those deaths to the side and say they don't matter.

No but the suicide rates in countries with gun bans prove that that those people would have found a way to kill themselves.

 

[Sam1911]

I would say it is a combination of the method and situation. Method varies by culture and in the USA by gender. In the USA women are much more likely to attempt suicide by cutting or overdose than by firearm while firearms are the method of choice for men.

It would be wrong to say that firearms aren't used in suicides because they are easily available. Yes, they are. It would also be wrong, though, to give that a whole lot of weight in solving a social "problem." In other words, "so what?" Would some who commit suicide NOT do so if they couldn't get a firearm? Probably. Surely there must be SOME who could only stand to do the deed that one way, for some reason. How many lives would be "saved" (if that's the right way to put it) if those folks couldn't get a gun? Pure speculation to say. As evidenced by the examples of other countries (and cases we're all familiar with in our own lives, I'm sure), plenty of folks do the deed by whatever means is at their disposal.

Now, regarding the number which are "attempts" but not successful? It must be recognized that a LOT more people commit near-suicidal acts which their care-givers would consider a "cry for help" rather than a whole-hearted commitment to end life. There is an implication presented which says, "wow, good thing they didn't use a gun or they would have not had the chance to live through their attempt, reconsider things, and go on to live a full life." That's a false implication. Those "cry for help" individuals select recoverable means to make their attempts. In other words, they DON'T reach for a gun, even when they could. So to say that allowing them access to firearms would take away their chance to be "saved" and reconsider is a false premise.

You say firearms only account for 50% of suicides. Someone else might say firearms account for more suicides than all other methods combined.

And the wise man says, "this makes no difference. I.e.: a distinction without a difference."
Guns don't "account" for suicides. Guns are simply used in some suicides. There is no deeper meaning. They're around, so they are used. In other places they aren't around, so other tools are used.

It makes no difference either way -- except to those who use suicide numbers to falsely promote the fear that we live in a society at great risk from "gun violence."

I don't have a solution for suicides but I acknowledge that the fact that slightly more than 1/2 of all successful suicides in the USA involve a gun is a problem for gun owners. Most people aren't just going to toss those deaths to the side and say they don't matter.

Most people will easily swallow the numbers of "gun violence" which are so outlandishly propped up by including suicides, as though suicide was a "gun" problem with a "gun solution." So by that measure, no most people won't "toss those aside" because they're won't even realize they're being fed a line of manure.

If suicide prevention was a significant plank in the gun control platform, it would be a dead loser. Nobody likes being told, "we're taking this away from YOU, so YOU can't make this choice for yourself." It only works when used as filler to fluff up the apparent danger numbers fed to the voting public.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Why would suicides using guns be considered "puffing" the numbers in favor of the anti stance?

They used a gun to kill themselves, right?

Do you want statistics, or just statistics that support your theory.

There are "statistics"...and then there are "statistics".

Statistics: the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.


A raw number with no context and no informative data on the components that make up the statistics is meaningless. In fact, the context and informative data on the components of the statistical sample is crucial to accurate/meaningful interpretation of the data.

A "homicide" is, legally, simply the killing of a human being by another human being. That's what the components of the word means..."homo" referring to "man" (from "homunculus") and "cide" meaning "the act of killing" (from "-cidium"). It's from old French, derived from Latin.

Since we're talking about the legalities of homicide, it's the LEGAL definition which is important. Not a layman's interpretation of the word.


So the start of our problems with statistical analysis begins with the collection of the data itself and incorrectly/inaccurately lumping killings which are NOT "homicide" into the sample data.


Moving from there, we progress into the intent behind any given homicide. Not all homocides are, in fact, "illegal".

"Justifiable homicide" is a killing of another human being which is legal under the jurisdictional precepts of the law. "That which is committed with the intention to kill, or to do a grievous bodily injury, under circumstances which the law holds sufficient to exculpate the person who commits it." If you kill someone in the act of self-defense, and the law finds that you are justified in doing so, then you have not committed murder, or even manslaughter. How, then, does blindly lumping every justifiable homicide into the general statistics skew the interpretation of the overall data?

"Involuntary manslaughter" is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. Thought there are shades of involuntary manslaughter which progress from criminally negligent to unlawful-act, the key here lies with intent. Lack of intent means involuntary manslaughter is not murder. Again, if you blindly lump every instance of involuntary manslaughter into "homicide" without an interpolative understanding of each circumstance, how does that skew the interpretation of the overall data?

"Accidental death" is a death strictly due to accident, typically excluding such things as acts of war, death caused by illegal activities. Again...blindly lumping accidental deaths into the general category of "homicide" without knowing/understanding the circumstances skews the overall conclusions.


We could go on, and certainly we could make a case where each side will interpret the data to their own ends.

HOWEVER, we all have to be honest with how the "facts" are presented and deal with the underlying reasons behind all those facts. How truly relevant is the data for the conclusions being drawn? In addition to an indepth analysis of the actual data (meaning and context), a common test of relevancy is whether or not changing anything based on the conclusions drawn actually has a significant effect on the statistical sample being analyzed. Another would be parallel studies, "double-blind" studies, etc.



"Homocide" by itself, as a singular measuring stick, is too general and too wide-ranging to be an effective measure by which to judge the overall impact of privately owned firearms.

 

[Sam1911]

"Homocide" by itself, as a singular measuring stick, is too general and too wide-ranging to be an effective measure by which to judge the overall impact of privately owned firearms.

However, it is a very convenient fact (convenient to the anti-gun side, that is), that 9 out of 10, and probably more like 19 out of 20, of the good folks out in voter-land couldn't define homicide as in any way distinct from murder. They have heard the term, thanks to TV cop shows which use that word to sound extra "official-police-business" about it, but have no comprehension that a lump sum number of "homicides" would include anything except for bad guys killing innocent people.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Indeed. Which points to another problem with statistical data...subjective interpretation through personal filters.

 

[denton]

A raw number with no context and no informative data on the components that make up the statistics is meaningless.

I think that is one of the most important statements made on this thread. As a good friend of mine puts it: No data have meaning apart from their context.

The purpose of using homicides rather than murders and manslaughters, and of confounding homicides with suicides and accidents is to obscure relationships within the data set and to deceive the audience. I find that indistinguishable from lying.

 

[JSH1]

"So what" isn't a winning argument when the topic of guns and suicide comes up.

 

[buck460XVR]

The purpose of using homicides rather than murders and manslaughters, and of confounding homicides with suicides and accidents is to obscure relationships within the data set and to deceive the audience. I find that indistinguishable from lying.

Lying is telling a non-truth on purpose to deceit. IMHO, I don't think the anti's are necessarily lying for the most part, because they really do believe what the are saying. Yes, there are a few that will purposely tell falsehoods in hopes their opponents aren't knowledgeable enough to know better, but the majority of them truly believe what they are saying is true.....even if it is not. The subjectivity of how statistics are interpreted makes it easy to do, and different interpretations of the same statistics can make both sides right. This thread is a prime example.

Again, I am not in favor of any more gun control. But I do understand and appreciate where antis are coming from, even tho, I believe they are wrong.

 

[jerkface11]

"So what" isn't a winning argument when the topic of guns and suicide comes up.

No one made that argument. You did a good job of ignoring all the real points made though.

 

[Sam1911]

"So what" isn't a winning argument when the topic of guns and suicide comes up.

Lol!

Ok, then. Guess that wraps that up!


(Doh!)

 

[Sam1911]

Lying is telling a non-truth on purpose to deceit. IMHO, I don't think the anti's are necessarily lying for the most part, because they really do believe what the are saying.

Lying can also be using unrelated or mis-related truths to imply something that is not true.

When one says, "Folks we need to ban guns because look at all these homicides!" -- when one could instead choose to use the much smaller number of murders, that's a trick designed to deceive.

You don't have to call it lying, but I don't know why you'd not.

 

[buck460XVR]

Lying can also be using unrelated or mis-related truths to imply something that is not true.

When one says, "Folks we need to ban guns because look at all these homicides!" -- when one could instead choose to use the much smaller number of murders, that's a trick designed to deceive.

You don't have to call it lying, but I don't know why you'd not.

If you read my post you see my point was if there was intent to deceive, then I'd call it lying. While one could use the smaller number of murders, using the number of homicides is not a lie. Only the use of a different statistic. Using your reasoning, the antis could say using the much smaller number is just a trick by you, to deceive. As I said, subjectivity and interpretation. This is why threads like this have no winners or losers. Only folks ticked off at each other. Right here in this thread we see gun owner bashing fellow gun owner, for what reason?

 

[denton]

I suppose it depends on what you use for a definition of lying.

My definition is: Any communication given to another, with intent to deceive. True words, intended to deceive, are a lie.

Adding suicides, homicides, and accidents together obscures the fact that there is no correlation between homicide rates and the strictness of gun control laws. It intends to deceive the audience by projecting a relationship within the data that does not exist. So it's a lie.

Adding "gun deaths" in as one component of the Brady Grade creates a false correlation between "gun deaths" and Brady Grades. That's probably just stupidity or incompetence.

 

[Sam1911]

If you read my post you see my point was if there was intent to deceive, then I'd call it lying. While one could use the smaller number of murders, using the number of homicides is not a lie. Only the use of a different statistic. Using your reasoning, the antis could say using the much smaller number is just a trick by you, to deceive. As I said, subjectivity and interpretation.

Now hold on. Go back to what I said in post 28:

what point are you trying to prove to people by quoting this statistic?

The promise of gun control is safer society. Really, that's the only (publicly stated) purpose of gun control laws. Do something to make "us all" safer. That implies violence enacted against us. Violence enacted against us by someone else, against our will.

Suicide is a completely tangential matter to gun control and it muddies the issue drastically.

The purpose of gun control promoters is to win approval (votes, elections) for more gun control. Therefore, their legitimate path is to show to Mr. Voter why he should want gun control, and their strategy is to scare the Mr. Voter into that decision by proving that Mr. Voter is at risk of physical violence (i.e. assault or murder) due to the number of guns in the country. That is the implication that is used to drive people to the polls in support of gun control candidates.

The gun control advocates deliberately do NOT say, "... And you may decide to end your life and we're taking guns from you so you can't do that." They don't because telling people you're going to decide for them what they can and can't do for/to themselves is very unpopular. When suicide prevention is mentioned in a gun control context it is a very tangential "Oh and ... um yeah, that," sort of thing. If suicide prevention was THE supporting factor of gun control, gun control would be a dead topic. That's just not scary enough and is too knotty an issue to float the antis' barge on.

If the antis were to say, "There are 30,000 deaths in the USA every year where a gun was involved, and half of them are folks who've decided to end their own suffering, and half of the remainder are the police shooting someone who needed shot, or good folks shooting criminals who are trying to prey on them, and 90% of the remainder are pretty much various elements of the criminal population fighting among themselves... but hey, a few thousand folks a year who are killed with a gun are good folks like you who were minding their own business..." Well, that would be very true, but not very scary.

But instead, when it comes time to scare those voters into the polling booths, the numbers are all piled up as though all deaths in which a gun is involved represent THREATS to Mr. Voter himself. And that's deliberate. That's the lie. Yes, it is a lie by implication, by suggestion, not by direct statement, but it is a false means of pushing compliance with their goal.

This is why threads like this have no winners or losers.

You're looking for someone to WIN and someone to LOSE a discussion thread? Why can't we just present opinions, facts, logic, and explain our reasoning to each other? Do we have to declare a victor?

Only folks ticked off at each other. Right here in this thread we see gun owner bashing fellow gun owner, for what reason?

I'm going to have to go back and read the thread again. Who's bashing someone?

 

[Sam1911]

Let me put it like this:

I could use some statistics and say, "There were 32,719 traffic accident fatalities in 2013! We need to do more to stop people from driving while distracted by their cell phones! Get out to vote and help us save lives!"

Am I lying? Weeeelllll, see, the thing is that of those 32,719 traffic deaths, only 445 involved a cell phone in use. (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812132.pdf)

Hey, I'm not lying, I'm just using different statistics. But I bet you'd be pretty torqued if I tried to snow you like that.

 

[P5 Guy]

I have to ask

When suicide prevention is mentioned in a gun control context it is a very tangential "Oh and ... um yeah, that," sort of thing. If suicide prevention was THE supporting factor of gun control, gun control would be a dead topic. That's just not scary enough and is too knotty an issue to float the antis' barge on.

Are these some of the same folks championing doctor assisted death with dignity? You know suicide.

 

[Sam1911]

Are these some of the same folks championing doctor assisted death with dignity? You know suicide.

Well...see, that's something I was dancing around a bit higher up in the thread. And while we really don't want to get that far off of gun topics, ... YEAH.

Looking very broadly at social issues, especially over the course of the last century, there's quite a bit of the "strange bedfellows" effect. Now a lot of the cohesion of the "wings" of the right and left is starting to fall apart as we move into a new century, but it has been generally true to say that folks who were most likely to vote for gun control candidates were also most likely to be very much for people's right to choose their own time and way to die. Therefore, promoting gun control because it will keep people from being able to commit suicide (aside from being almost laughable as a leap of logic), rings a bit of a dead note with them.

Ironically, it would be a much stronger tactic to use, traditionally, with very socially conservative, especially religiously conservative, voters. But those folks are often the least likely to support gun control for other reasons.

Again, speaking in very broad generalities.

 

[buck460XVR]

You're looking for someone to WIN and someone to LOSE a discussion thread? Why can't we just present opinions, facts, logic, and explain our reasoning to each other? Do we have to declare a victor?

You seem to like to put words in my posts.

Never said there needed to be a winner or loser, only that there were no winners or losers. Still the reason folks continue to post in these types of threads, saying the same thing over and over is not an attempt to present opinions, facts, logic and explain their reasoning, but an attempt to prove they're right and another is wrong(a win!). The reason they question every little thing another poster posts is not to gain insight, but an attempt to prove the other person wrong, even when it is just a subjective opinion(again a win!). Those little Scrutiny emoticons, generally follow a condescending comment are an attempt to discredit, and a vain attempt to feel like a winner. IMHO, condescending comments are a form of bashing, since they are meant to belittle. Folks feel if they get the last snide word in before the thread is closed....they are a winner.

Hey, I'm not lying, I'm just using different statistics. But I bet you'd be pretty torqued if I tried to snow you like that.

While I may be torqued, you are correct, you'd not be lying. You may be trying to deceive, but you would not be lying.

 

[Sam1911]

Deceiving but not lying?

Ok then.

What is the importance of that distinction? Why would you stand so firmly on this point?

Folks feel if they get the last snide word in before the thread is closed....they are a winner.

Heavens, that's too bad. Hopefully this won't devolve to that sort of pettiness.

 

[denton]

deleted

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

On the subject of lying and whatnot:

One does well to remember that a large percentage of the people we define as "pro-gun control" are not, in fact, "bad" people. In fact, a great many of such people are not "lying", as such. They are the victims of misinformation, misdirection, manipulation, and outright lies from other people.

They're simply repeating the mantra they've been convinced is "right" or "true" for a variety of reasons, trusting that their sources are correct. The average housewife and mother isn't concerned with "rights", per se...she's concerned the safety and well being of her children and the simple answer is what comes to mind first. Same for almost everybody else with a similar position on pro-gun control.

Some are simply scared of guns. Some really are well intentioned on preventing child injuries/deaths related to guns. Some really do think that the simplistic logic of "taking all the guns away means nobody can get hurt/killed by guns"...because that actually DOES make a kind of sense, naïve as it may be.

And people, as part of our inherently human behavior, tend to hang onto their beliefs tooth and nail after they've formed them.

They don't see where they're being manipulated by those who actually DO have a malicious desire to deprive people of their rights as a matter of "control of the masses".

They're not "bad"...they're "manipulated".


As such, OUR role is to recognize this and quit treating every person we encounter as some kind of evil plotter against all our rights. The actual plotters are almost always those hidden away or in positions of power, egging the rest on.

So, I'd say we would all do well to recognize which people are the plotters and which are the manipulated...and work to drive a wedge between the two by not treating them ALL as evil plotters.

You want the support of the masses on our side? Start out by realizing that "the masses" are usually "followers", not instigators...and tailor our interactions accordingly.

 

[Warp]

Intentionally misleading and deceiving is tantamount to lying.

I immediately lose any respect I may have had for a person if they mislead/deceive without lying outright and think it is any different, or if they give somebody a pass because they were "only" misleading/deceiving and not lying. And I certainly don't trust anything else they have said, are saying, or say in the future.

 

[Win73]

Yes the OP's 30k stat is high. Actual homicides are more in the 10k range. But you have to imagine that many people who commit murder also commit more than one. I am not sure how you'd fine tune that value, but let's say 6,000 people account for the 10,000 homicides. Using your 60 million gun owners value (I think it may be higher but am not certain). That is 0.01%

Yes, one tenth of one percent.

0.01% is one one hundredth of one percent.