Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[Zonkerbl]

Unfortunately only a small part of the picture. I know how many murders happened in 2011 with guns. I want to know how many times guns are used to protect homes. I want to then compare that to the number of times children are killed playing with guns (probably a small number -- most people are understandably careful about this) and suicides committed with guns.

[pineappleheadindc]

Unfortunately only a small part of the picture. I know how many murders happened in 2011 with guns. I want to know how many times guns are used to protect homes. I want to then compare that to the number of times children are killed playing with guns (probably a small number -- most people are understandably careful about this) and suicides committed with guns.

THIS.

Accordingly, I get a little tired about the gun lobby's apples-to-oranges comparisions. From Zonker's link:

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.

*Accidental* drownings are not the same as *criminal* drownings. Or to put it a different way:

X is the number of accidental drownings. 15 is the number of criminal murder drownings.

Y is the number of accidental gun deaths. 8,583 is the number of criminal gun deaths.

You don't compare X to 8,583. You compare 15 to 8,583.



A is the number of accidental poisonings. 5 is the number of criminal murder by poisonings.

Y is the number of accidental gun deaths. 8,583 is the number of criminal by murder gun deaths.

You don't compare Z to 8,583. You compare 5 to 8,583.

[pineappleheadindc]

So instead, let's all go on a journey for data. Using 2011 data - to harmonize Zonker's FBI data:

Gun suicides (2011): 19,766 [Total 2011 suicides: 38,285]
Unintentional gun deaths 2011: 851
Gun deaths (undetermined cause) 2011: 222

Have a meeting, I'll be back to look for 2011 poisoning and drowning statistics.

Citation for gun deaths, above: Hoyert, Donna L. and Jiaquan Xu. 2012. ‘Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 - Selected Causes.’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol 61, No. 6, pp.40-42. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics. 10 October.

[nate33]

Unfortunately only a small part of the picture. I know how many murders happened in 2011 with guns. I want to know how many times guns are used to protect homes. I want to then compare that to the number of times children are killed playing with guns (probably a small number -- most people are understandably careful about this) and suicides committed with guns.

More importantly, I want to know the number of home invasions that never took place because of the fear that the homeowner is armed. I suspect that deterrence is far more important than actual home invasions thwarted.

Unfortunately, that's a number that's pretty difficult to determine with any accuracy.

[nate33]

You guys aren't really focusing on the issue at hand though. You are never going to get a total gun ban, or anything close to it. There are 100 million gun owners in this country and about 270 million guns in circulation. There's a 2nd Amendment in our Constitution.

What the article (and the upcoming legislation) is dealing with is the "assault weapons" ban. Zonker's article correctly points out that banning assault weapons is totally pointless because the things that define an assault weapon are entirely cosmetic. Automatic weapons are already banned and have been banned for ages. They are for all intents and purposes, never used in crime. And the Virginia Tech shooting proves that magazine capacity is also completely irrelevant when it only takes 3 seconds to reload a new magazine.

[Zonkerbl]

The article claims guns are used in self defense 2 million times per year, but doesn't cite a source.

Edit:

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance ... .myth0.pdf

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... lf-defense

[Zonkerbl]

So instead, let's all go on a journey for data. Using 2011 data - to harmonize Zonker's FBI data:

Gun suicides (2011): 19,766 [Total 2011 suicides: 38,285]
Unintentional gun deaths 2011: 851
Gun deaths (undetermined cause) 2011: 222

Have a meeting, I'll be back to look for 2011 poisoning and drowning statistics.

Citation for gun deaths, above: Hoyert, Donna L. and Jiaquan Xu. 2012. ‘Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 - Selected Causes.’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol 61, No. 6, pp.40-42. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics. 10 October.

Add to that murders committed with a firearm: 8,583
Defensive Gun Use: Somewhere between 100,000 and 400,000 per year (includes just brandishing a gun to scare people off).

So the upshot of all this is, the only effective gun control is an all out ban on handguns, have a massive buyback program, put up with a spike in gun violence for a decade or so as the criminals end up as the only ones with guns until the supply trickles away.

[pineappleheadindc]

^
Huh? Can you "show your math" as to how you got from data to conclusion?

It's not that I'm not on board or that I am on board. It's just that I'm at the (in my personal opinions) "shoot down the unsubstantiated talking points, establish a fact set" stage.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, I skipped ahead. Only data source that distinguishes between handguns and rifles is the homicide data, which says handguns are the primary problem. Assume suicides and accidents are primarily handguns as well. The previously cited article shows that proposed restrictions on rifles are silly, and would not have affected the high profile shootings.

The main conclusion I get from all this data is that the extraordinary prevalence of handguns in the U.S., combined with a normal level of violence, results in a disproportionate level of fatalities -- someone tries to murder you with a gun (rather than a knife), you are more likely to die (I'm assuming your average assailant is an imbecile -- I'm aware that someone who knows to stab rather than slash is just as likely to kill you, but that's unfairly assuming above average "intelligence," I think). If you try to kill yourself with a gun, more likely to die. If your kids start playing around with guns and have an accident, more likely to die.

Earlier in this thread I compared the problem to a bathtub that is constantly being filled with blood. A bathtub that is filled to the brim with blood and has a constant stream of blood being dumped into it is going to spill a lot of blood into your house.

Since the root cause of this problem is the extraordinary prevalence of handguns, the solution is to lower the extraordinary prevalence of handguns. How do you do that? First, you have to choke off the stream of blood being dumped into the tub, either by banning the production and import of guns or taxing the bejeezus out of them. Next you have to somehow drain the blood out of the tub. You don't have to get all of the blood out, just lower the amount enough that it is not constantly slopping out. You do that with a buyback program. Now the problem is that at first, most of the people with guns will be criminals. To get the strategy to work, you have to drain more blood out of the tub than is being dumped into it. Cops are allowed to have guns, so once the number of handguns floating around in circulation is comparable to the number of guns the cops have, I imagine at that point we will be better off.

[dobrojim]

Unfortunately only a small part of the picture. I know how many murders happened in 2011 with guns. I want to know how many times guns are used to protect homes. I want to then compare that to the number of times children are killed playing with guns (probably a small number -- most people are understandably careful about this) and suicides committed with guns.

More importantly, I want to know the number of home invasions that never took place because of the fear that the homeowner is armed. I suspect that deterrence is far more important than actual home invasions thwarted.

Unfortunately, that's a number that's pretty difficult to determine with any accuracy.

it would be interesting to know those numbers but almost impossible to get
accurate data on them (as you surmise).

It would also be interesting to know, and perhaps easier to get accurate data, to
get at how many houses get broken into BECAUSE the burgler(s) want to rob the house
of firearms. What is the number of break-in's where firearms are a principle commodity
of what is stolen?

Just saying that blade cuts 2 ways.

purely anecdotal - my next door neighbor got broken into and guns were stolen.
This was a while back, 10-12 years(?).

[Zonkerbl]

Unfortunately only a small part of the picture. I know how many murders happened in 2011 with guns. I want to know how many times guns are used to protect homes. I want to then compare that to the number of times children are killed playing with guns (probably a small number -- most people are understandably careful about this) and suicides committed with guns.

More importantly, I want to know the number of home invasions that never took place because of the fear that the homeowner is armed. I suspect that deterrence is far more important than actual home invasions thwarted.

Unfortunately, that's a number that's pretty difficult to determine with any accuracy.

it would be interesting to know those numbers but almost impossible to get
accurate data on them (as you surmise).

It would also be interesting to know, and perhaps easier to get accurate data, to
get at how many houses get broken into BECAUSE the burgler(s) want to rob the house
of firearms. What is the number of break-in's where firearms are a principle commodity
of what is stolen?

Just saying that blade cuts 2 ways.

purely anecdotal - my next door neighbor got broken into and guns were stolen.
This was a while back, 10-12 years(?).

The article claims guns are used in self defense 2 million times per year, but doesn't cite a source.

Edit:

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance ... .myth0.pdf

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... lf-defense

Guns are used in self defense about 100,000 to 400,000 times per year.

[pineappleheadindc]

Yeah, I skipped ahead. Only data source that distinguishes between handguns and rifles is the homicide data, which says handguns are the primary problem. Assume suicides and accidents are primarily handguns as well. The previously cited article shows that proposed restrictions on rifles are silly, and would not have affected the high profile shootings.

The main conclusion I get from all this data is that the extraordinary prevalence of handguns in the U.S., combined with a normal level of violence, results in a disproportionate level of fatalities -- someone tries to murder you with a gun (rather than a knife), you are more likely to die (I'm assuming your average assailant is an imbecile -- I'm aware that someone who knows to stab rather than slash is just as likely to kill you, but that's unfairly assuming above average "intelligence," I think). If you try to kill yourself with a gun, more likely to die. If your kids start playing around with guns and have an accident, more likely to die.

Earlier in this thread I compared the problem to a bathtub that is constantly being filled with blood. A bathtub that is filled to the brim with blood and has a constant stream of blood being dumped into it is going to spill a lot of blood into your house.

Since the root cause of this problem is the extraordinary prevalence of handguns, the solution is to lower the extraordinary prevalence of handguns. How do you do that? First, you have to choke off the stream of blood being dumped into the tub, either by banning the production and import of guns or taxing the bejeezus out of them. Next you have to somehow drain the blood out of the tub. You don't have to get all of the blood out, just lower the amount enough that it is not constantly slopping out. You do that with a buyback program. Now the problem is that at first, most of the people with guns will be criminals. To get the strategy to work, you have to drain more blood out of the tub than is being dumped into it. Cops are allowed to have guns, so once the number of handguns floating around in circulation is comparable to the number of guns the cops have, I imagine at that point we will be better off.

Zonk, sorry to ask again. But - as it's probably clear by now - I really have a hard time reading you.

Are you serious? Or trying to make an over-the-top point?

I don't have a lot of time this afternoon for free, but I will log in within the next few days with thoughts on the gun debate.

[Zonkerbl]

What's over the top about it? I hate guns but live in a country insanely obsessed with them. Trying to figure out what to do about it. I think I ended up proposing a pigouvian tax and a buyback program. I am kind of thinking out loud, probably not as clear as it could be.

[pineappleheadindc]

Sorry Zonker. No insult intended.

I'll be back when I have a few hours to think about how to articulate gun control views.

NEW SUBJECT: Congressional pay and such

What do you think about these ideas as a package:

) I propose a 300% INCREASE in Congressional pay. Right now, it's difficult for regular people to serve in Congress on only their salary and maintain two households -- one in their home state and one here in DC. Despite my anger at Congress members' stupidity, I think we need to try and recruit better people. This may help - and may also help "regular people" think about running.

2) Term limits of 5 for Reps, 2 for Senate in a lifetime.

3) Public financing of elections only - so that Congressional members don't have to spend the majority of their time begging for money.

4) Mandatory non-partisan districting to maximize the number of swing districts and take politics and gerrymandering out of who represents you.

[nate33]

Pine, don't Congressmen get an insanely good retirement package?

If they serve for 5 or more years, they can retire on about $60,000 per year from age 62 onward, with awesome medical benefits. What is the present value of that type of pension? With medical, it's probably about $100,000 a year for roughly 20 years. That's $2M. Divide that over the 5 years they had to work and it's like they're being paid $400,000 a year in pension benefits in addition to their normal salary.

[pineappleheadindc]

Nate, I have no idea...sorry for my ignorance on retirement.

I'd entertain cutting on the back end and plussing on the front end to even things out.

:running to Google to look at Congressional retirement packages:

[pineappleheadindc]

One last thing before a meeting:'

IMO gerrymandering is one of my "great evils" in politics. If you think Congress is comprised of members on extreme sides of things, blame gerrymandering. Swing districts make for moderate Congressional members.

And this is a bi-partisan issue. I live in MD. One district - changed for a Dem - has the shape of a cross between a dragon and a worm.

[dobrojim]

I'm highly skeptical of the numbers given for defensive gun use.
The fact that the estimate is over a 4 fold range should tell us something
about the certainty of those numbers (someone's pulling them out of their posterior I think).
Even at 100,000x a year, that's a mighty high number on a daily basis.
This sounds like what prompted the Gulf of Tomkin resolution ie a fraud.

[nate33]

I'm highly skeptical of the numbers given for defensive gun use.
The fact that the estimate is over a 4 fold range should tell us something
about the certainty of those numbers (someone's pulling them out of their posterior I think).
Even at 100,000x a year, that's a mighty high number on a daily basis.
This sounds like what prompted the Gulf of Tomkin resolution ie a fraud.

I'm skeptical too, dobrojim. I think actual defensive use of guns is fairly infrequent. But as I said earlier, I think that's only the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is the deterrence affect. I think that's HUGE. I think crime would be much more rampant if criminals had reason to believe that everyone was unarmed.

[Zonkerbl]

The number includes simply brandishing your weapon to warn people off.

I would imagine criminals don't give a damn about whether their victims are armed. If anything, the fear that victims will be armed makes criminals more likely to bring their own weapons with them and more likely to kill people.