
You Know Less Than You Think About Guns - masonic
https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a
======
Empact
Late last year in response to IMO misleading charts showing a clear
correlation between "gun deaths" vs gun freedoms, I charted murder vs gun
rights from a city and state perspective, which illustrate some of the points
made in the article. Helpful to visualize, e.g. the point made about Louisiana
as an outlier:

[https://hackpad.com/Gun-Rights-Statistics-
UBI1bkaNgG6#:h=No-...](https://hackpad.com/Gun-Rights-Statistics-
UBI1bkaNgG6#:h=No-clear-correlation-between-g)

Raw data and interactive charts here:
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N5JsB-
_kTxFSW-14f7Bv...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N5JsB-
_kTxFSW-14f7BvRkiq4FHaC6tR5aaUmh1uPTk/edit#gid=0)

~~~
douche
Very cool, thanks for sharing.

I think it is interesting that, with the exception of Hawaii, all of the
lowest murder-rate states are northern, mostly rural, and overwhelmingly
white. I don't know what conclusions to draw from that, aside from the general
trend that these aren't states where there is a lot of ethnic gang violence.

~~~
Empact
Murder is highly correlated with urban and minority populations - the murder
rate for blacks is about 8x that of whites.[1] The root of this is clearly
socioeconomic, and I believe rooted in the drug war[2], which drives black
market violence both by creating a lucrative ungoverned market and by removing
constructive inter-generational alternatives through mass incarceration - i.e.
if your father is in prison for a non-violent drug crime, you as a child lose
both a role model and a bread-winner, which makes you more likely to fall into
gangs for social and economic reasons.

If that's accurate, it's a vicious, massively destructive cycle.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide)

[2] e.g. outlier city "Baltimore’s City Police Commissioner Anthony Batts says
that 80 percent are drug-related."
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/01/the-year-
in...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/01/the-year-in-
murder-2013-marks-a-historic-low-for-many-cities.html)

"Eighty percent of the homicides were gang-related, [Chicago Police
Commissioner Garry McCarthy] said"
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-
ra...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/29/chicago-homicide-rate-new-
york_n_2378073.html)

New Orleans Police Department: "29% of all murders in #NOLA this year involved
a gang member. That's down from 42% this same time last year."
[https://twitter.com/nopdnews/status/618864980364898305](https://twitter.com/nopdnews/status/618864980364898305)

And in some California cities "gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of
the total for the period under consideration (2003-2008)" I question the use
of "only" here. :P [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-
a-g...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-
problem_b_5071639.html)

On the other hand, The National Gang Center says (based on survey data):
"These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for
around 13 percent of all homicides annually."
[https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-
analysis/measuring...](https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-
analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems)

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's hardly clear that the root is socioeconomic. I don't have data on crime,
but in education race remains predictive even after you include socioeconomic
status in the estimator.

[https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/on-c...](https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/on-
concentrated-poverty-and-its-effects-on-academic-outcomes/)

Do you know of a similar analysis of crime?

~~~
Empact
I haven't looked into this deeply, more of a productive assumption[1], but
here are some related studies:

"the majority of the black-white gap (over 60%) [in violence] and the entire
Latino-white gap are explained by a small set of factors, especially marital
status of parents, immigrant generation, and neighborhood characteristics
associated with racial segregation."
[https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/sem...](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/seminars/adp/pdfs/adp_ajph.pdf)

"Despite a large difference in mean levels of family disruption between black
and white communities, the percentage of white families headed by a female
also had a significant effect on white juvenile and white adult violence."

"The combination of urban poverty and family disruption concentrated by race
is particularly severe. Whereas the majority of poor blacks live in
communities characterized by high rates of family disruption, most poor
whites, even those from "broken homes," live in areas of relative family
stability"
[https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3226952/Sampson_...](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3226952/Sampson_RacialEthnicDisparities.pdf?sequence=2)

"Multivariate regression results for ninety-one cities showed that while total
inequality and intraracial inequality had no significant association with
offending rates, interracial inequality was a strong predictor of the overall
violent crime rate and the Black-on-Black crime rate."
[http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33027-...](http://egov.ufsc.br/portal/sites/default/files/anexos/33027-41458-1-PB.pdf)

See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_cr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_correlations_of_criminal_behaviour#Socioeconomic_factors)

[1] I have a hard time imagining a productive line of thought that leads from
saying that high black murder rates result from something inherent to
blackness

~~~
yummyfajitas
When reading studies like this, it's very helpful to look at the tables of
regression coefficients rather than just reading text. Unfortunately, it can
often be a career limiting move for study text to accurately reflect the
contents of the data tables/regression coefficients.

The first source you cited (the rand study) shows that being African American
is a strong predictor of engaging in violence, even after accounting for other
factors. See table 2.

The second study doesn't address the question.

The third study (see table 2) shows that, among other factors, percentage of a
city that is black is a strong predictor of violent crime even after
accounting for other factors.

One productive line of thought which leads from "something inherent to
blackness causes crime" is "since this problem is intractible with current
levels of biotechnology/social engineering/etc, we should stop wasting
resources trying to solve it and focus on other things."

~~~
Empact
I don't disagree with your analysis of the studies, but the fact that a
difference remains after accounting for known socioeconomic factors does not
indicate that other factors do not exist.

Personally, I wouldn't call this[1] a productive thought, rather a fatalistic
one.

[1] "since this problem is intractable with current levels of
biotechnology/social engineering/etc, we should stop wasting resources trying
to solve it and focus on other things"

------
Gustomaximus
I support strict gun control, however I feel it's wrong for the politicians to
be meddling in gun control how they are. The US constitution is fairly clear
(I accept people will always argue specific) that citizens to have access to
firearms.

From this I find it dangerous that any politician would seek to override or
'reinterpret' the constitution without the peoples mandate to do so. This
seems ot be happening at an increasingly accelerated rate e.g. government
eavesdropping and civil forfeiture.

Firearm ownership should be taken to the vote. If the nations decides to leave
firearm availability as a citizen right that's democracy and the inevitable
shooting are the price. Potentially more dangerous is a government that feels
they can bend a nations constitution away from its spirit to their personal
agenda.

~~~
mtanski
The constitution is a document that was written well over 200 years ago. And
while the document has held up extremely well there's part of it that didn't.
For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of
representation.

I think the gun provisions have not. For starters it's crazy to think that a
militia equipped with a stock pile of firearms can overtake a intrusive
government with tanks, choppers etc. It's just not realistic.

Guns were much more important for protection back then. There were parts of
the country that were the frontier with no policing ability. Nowadays places
around the world when gun ownership is substantially restricted are generally
safer places. Just google Australasia before and after.

Gun ownership as touted by constitutional nuts is an idea that had it's time
come. Sadly, I think give the political climate a amendment that could fix
this (put in wording that lets the government legislate gun ownership) is
untenable.

~~~
lloyddobbler
That is precisely why the Constitution includes a specific means to change it.
If that's what is deemed necessary, then there's a process to accomplish it.

Sidestepping the Constitution, or ignoring its enumerated rights and
restrictions, however, is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated by We the
People.

~~~
irixusr
Thank you. Yes the document is old. If we feel is outdated there is a
mechanism * within the law* to change it!

------
j2kun
> Yet during that same period, per-capita gun murders have been cut almost in
> half.

So has all violent crime [1]. I don't want to see a chart of per-capita gun
murders, but per-capita gun violence as a fraction of _all_ violent crime.
Even if crime is decreasing, if those who do commit violent crimes
increasingly turn to guns in places where there is more access to guns, then
this is evidence in favor of gun control. The hypothesis here (which would
need further study) is that the decrease in violent crime would be sharper
with gun control laws than without them.

[1]: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/violent-crime-
cit...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/violent-crime-
cities_b_4760996.html)

------
jerf
Despite the politically-charged nature of the central topic, in a way this
fits better into the HN gestalt's continued fascination with the inability to
replicate science than the specific topic.

------
jakeogh
Anyone with an appropriate machine such as a (very expensive) DMLS or a (much
less expensive) CNC can make gun parts. The price will continue to drop and
the materials and designs will continue to improve. Are the places where
defending yourself and others with effective tools is criminalized going to
mandate DRM'ed machines? Will the criminals (conveniently equated with
hackers) follow the law?

~~~
brbsix
There are many firearms (i.e. receivers) that do not even require CNC
machinery. A manually operated milling machine is more than enough. A small
charcoal-fired furnace and drill press is enough to make an aluminum cast
AR-15 or 1911. No need for the furnace if you're making stamped AK variant
receivers. There are many places in the world where you see these sorts of
garage workshops. I always wonder whether the anti-gun public is aware of the
ease in which people are and will be able to acquire firearms "extra-legally"
in the event of outright prohibition or further restrictions. I assume not,
but I prefer not to enlighten them lest they attempt to make aluminum cans and
hand files illegal as well.

~~~
douche
They are not particularly sophisticated, or safe to use, but it is possible to
build semi-modern firearms with nearly medieval technology[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy)

------
jbclements
Main-line lefty here: I'm immensely frustrating to me to read articles that
point out that there's no solid research on guns & gun violence when--to the
best of my knowledge--congress has been blocking funding for this research for
quite some time.

~~~
DamnYuppie
Since when does someone need the permission of congress to do this type of
research? There are MANY anti-gun lobbies out there with deep pockets who
could easily commission such a study.

Most likely they have numerous times and buried the results as it would not
aline well with their agenda.

~~~
FireBeyond
"Most likely they have numerous times and buried the results as it would not
aline well with their agenda."

That's fatuous and shows your bias.

For one simple reason: if so, the pro-gun lobbies with deep pockets would be
screaming the same findings from the rooftops.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I am biased and it is based in reality. The pro gun lobby does scream it from
the roof tops but most major media outlets are not pro gun so they don't carry
them or follow them. They in fact attempt to demonize and demean anyone who
doesn't agree with them. The fact that this isn't know to you speaks volumes
about how ill informed you on on this topic.

------
tracker1
I'm just curious what the murder rates are relative to violent crime, relative
to population in countries with stricter gun control.

Also, given the number of guns, how does that relate to say cars, and car
deaths. Nobody is suggesting banning cars, or heavily restricting licensing.

What this comes down to is a fundamental, natural right... Yes, it means that
people can do bad things, and can be dangerous... people are/were dangerous
and did bad things before guns, and still do. In a free society bad things
will happen. I find the entire discussion fairly irritating because most
people seem to be in favor of some polar extremes... And though, I'd lean
towards freedom, I can understand the idea of registration. For that matter,
you were once supposed to register for and train with your local militia, and
provide your own firearm as a matter of law in this country.

------
alricb
Isn't that lack of knowledge caused in part by the CDC funding ban [1]?

Studying gun control in the US also requires some care: because of the
population configuration, you need to take into account the fact that people
can bring guns from one jurisdiction to the next, especially in some Eastern
cities, like Washington, DC (right next to Virginia) or Baltimore (~50 miles
from Virginia).

Violent crime and homicides have been going down all over the richer
countries, but the US rate is still much higher than that of say, Canada or
the UK.

[1]:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-
the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-
years-ago/)

------
csours
I feel like I know even less after reading this piece.

It has an obvious bias - it purports to talk about gun violence, but then only
talks about murders.

When talking about the dangers of having a gun in the home it does not attempt
to tally injuries - which would be a sentinel event indicating imminent risk
of death.

> Public health scholars have continued to research from a place of hostility
> to firearms.

Public health scholars are also hostile to viruses and bacteria. Public health
scholars are also interested in promoting health of prostitutes and prison
inmates. Guns don't make people _healthier_

To be clear, I don't think guns can be outlawed in America, so I don't think
working towards that is a good use of political capital.

------
Marcomasino
"This simple point — that America is awash with more guns than ever before,
yet we are killing each other with guns at a far lower rate than when we had
far fewer guns — undermines the narrative that there is a straightforward,
causal relationship between increased gun prevalence and gun homicide."

According to Table 1, firearm homicides dropped to 10,828 in 1999 and have
actually gone up since. Which demonstrates that you can get statistics to say
what ever you want. I have another simple point, that it is harder to kill
someone with your bare hands that with a gun.

------
alberte
Australian here, we had a mass shooting in Australia some years ago. As a
result of this Assault rifles were banned (Edit: without a demonstrable need),
licenses were required for rifles and hand guns. Any guns could be traded in
to the govt for money in the cut over period. We haven't had a mass shooting
since as far as I can recall. The occasional knifing or someone with a hand
gun argument occurs still. Guns are a lot harder to come by here, so if you're
a loony who wants to kill everyone for looking at you funny then you're out of
luck.

~~~
stephen_g
I'm Australian too, and it seems to work pretty well. One thing I hear a lot
is that 'then only the bad guys will have guns', but I think our laws and
enforcement must drive the black-market prices way up, because they do find
illegal guns every now and then when they have a big drug bust and confiscate
millions of dollars of drugs and cash, but your regular criminal on the street
pretty much never has a gun. The drug gangs mostly only shoot each other, and
pretty rarely too, so for the average Australian, the idea of ever witnessing
gun violence (or being a victim to it) just feels really far fetched.

I wonder how much of it is cultural though - when the big gun buyback happened
after Port Arthur, it was mostly taking guns from farmers - not people who
think they could rise up against the Government or that they should be able to
personally kill people in self-defense...

~~~
brbsix
Since when is it a contentious issue to kill in legitimate self-defense, with
a firearm or not?

~~~
stephen_g
It's just not something you really ever hear about anyone doing here, and even
when it is required, it's pretty far down the list of things to do. Pretty
much the only time you hear about someone killing someone in self defense is a
cop killing a knife-weilding person every now and then...

Whereas in the US every now and then you hear about people firing at what they
think is an intruder, but it turns out to be a family member and stuff like
that. It's just really strange to me that shooting would be the first thing
you would do, but from the news we hear, it seems that's what a non-
insignificant number of people in the US do.

------
rdl
I'm curious what could be done to reduce firearms suicides (and even better
reduce overall successful suicides, and ideally suicide attempts.)

~~~
masonic
Why the concern only about gun homicide? Does suicide get somehow worse when
done with a gun as opposed to stepping in front of an Amtrak train?

~~~
rdl
Mainly it's that firearms suicides tend to be much more effective. It's a
generally effective technique and can be done "privately" (unlike, say,
jumping off a tall building or waiting for an inevitably-delayed Amtrak train)

I don't think it is always a bad decision, either -- if someone is 55 and
finds out there's a solid diagnosis of a painful fatal illness, there might be
a point where it's a reasonable choice (I'd personally Alcor, but...). And I'd
certainly prefer if spree killers just killed themselves privately.

------
mtimjones
To seek out the highest rate of gun violence, look no further than gun-free
zones in America.

~~~
splitrocket
Which is why, if you believe guns reduce violence, we should saturate such
areas with guns.

I highly doubt you'd be in favor of such a policy.

~~~
13thLetter
Why do you doubt that?

As a counter data point, the police chief of Detroit recently advised the
city's residents to carry guns for their protection. The reaction on right-
wing blogs which covered this was applause.

------
nether
Absence of gun control has made Somalia the safest country in the world!

