Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 7/27/2013 11:23:28 AM EST
Dependence of the Firearm-Related Homicide Rate on Gun Availability: A Mathematical Analysis

In the USA, the relationship between the legal availability of guns and the firearm-related homicide rate has been debated. It has been argued that unrestricted gun availability promotes the occurrence of firearm-induced homicides. It has also been pointed out that gun possession can protect potential victims when attacked. This paper provides a first mathematical analysis of this tradeoff...


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071606
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 11:27:25 AM EST
Interesting. I'm too tired to thoroughly read that now, but I'll try to do so later.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 11:32:28 AM EST
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion......

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 11:35:20 AM EST
Homicydes eh? Why not Homycides?
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 11:38:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By fttam:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion......

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.
View Quote


Duh
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 11:40:02 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:


Duh
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
Originally Posted By fttam:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion......

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.


Duh

Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 12:10:13 PM EST
The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.
View Quote


that's the thing about math. they didn't calculate the outcome of first banning guns and then being killed by the free men whose guns they tried to ban.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 12:17:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By learath:

Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By learath:
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
Originally Posted By fttam:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion......

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.


Duh

Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario.

"ignore" is a strong word, and inappropriate given the nature of the paper. murder is a purely legal term that speaks directly to intent of homicide, and is not scientifically determinable--it makes sense for a CJ analysis, but not for the epidemiological analysis that the paper very clearly lays out. but you'll note that the authors were quite specific about separating aggressive vice defensive postures.

stop trying to "figure out" where the authors are going--just read the paper scientifically. if you do, you'll note that the authors are not telling you anything about what is actually the state of affairs. this paper doesn't even go into that. they are proposing a way to mathematically model a scientific question: are gun restrictions more likely to save innocent lives or take them? this an explicitly-stated preliminary work, which says "these are the variables that are not currently researched, but need to be researched, if we want to determine the answer to that question" from an epidemiological perspective.

don't have time to delve into the model procedures, but on its face, the paper looks solid.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 12:19:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:

"ignore" is a strong word, and inappropriate given the nature of the paper. murder is a purely legal term that speaks directly to intent of homicide, and is not scientifically determinable--it makes sense for a CJ analysis, but not for the epidemiological analysis that the paper very clearly lays out. but you'll note that the authors were quite specific about separating aggressive vice defensive postures.

stop trying to "figure out" where the authors are going--just read the paper scientifically. if you do, you'll note that the authors are not telling you anything about what is actually the state of affairs. this paper doesn't even go into that. they are proposing a way to mathematically model a scientific question: are gun restrictions more likely to save innocent lives or take them? this an explicitly-stated preliminary work, which says "these are the variables that are not currently researched, but need to be researched, if we want to determine the answer to that question" from an epidemiological perspective.

don't have time to delve into the model procedures, but on its face, the paper looks solid.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sirensong:
Originally Posted By learath:
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
Originally Posted By fttam:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion......

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.


Duh

Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario.

"ignore" is a strong word, and inappropriate given the nature of the paper. murder is a purely legal term that speaks directly to intent of homicide, and is not scientifically determinable--it makes sense for a CJ analysis, but not for the epidemiological analysis that the paper very clearly lays out. but you'll note that the authors were quite specific about separating aggressive vice defensive postures.

stop trying to "figure out" where the authors are going--just read the paper scientifically. if you do, you'll note that the authors are not telling you anything about what is actually the state of affairs. this paper doesn't even go into that. they are proposing a way to mathematically model a scientific question: are gun restrictions more likely to save innocent lives or take them? this an explicitly-stated preliminary work, which says "these are the variables that are not currently researched, but need to be researched, if we want to determine the answer to that question" from an epidemiological perspective.

don't have time to delve into the model procedures, but on its face, the paper looks solid.

I don't disagree at all, I'm just sick of the concept of the "handgun homicide rate", which is a statistic invented to defend gun control
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 12:20:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2013 12:22:23 PM EST by Prime]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By boboluv:


that's the thing about math. they didn't calculate the outcome of first banning guns and then being killed by the free men whose guns they tried to ban.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By boboluv:
The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values.


that's the thing about math. they didn't calculate the outcome of first banning guns and then being killed by the free men whose guns they tried to ban.


At least it wasn't the "study" that defined "high gun crime" as a percentage of that state's total violent crime completely irrespective of how high or low that state's crime rate was. You know, the one that ranked Alaska as "worst gun crime in the nation"?

Gotta watch these clowns.
*not lumping in real researchers with activist clowns.


Link Posted: 7/27/2013 12:23:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By learath:

I don't disagree at all, I'm just sick of the concept of the "handgun homicide rate", which is a statistic invented to defend gun control
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By learath:
Originally Posted By sirensong:
...

I don't disagree at all, I'm just sick of the concept of the "handgun homicide rate", which is a statistic invented to defend gun control

well, from an epidemiological perspective, handguns are just another cause-of-death worthy of study. i can't fault them for researching it, as long as they are transparent with their research.

although there's no question that many such studies are not transparent.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 12:44:28 PM EST
Here's a clarification on how to read that figure:

h = probability that someone illegally obtains a firearm when it is not allowed (e.g. felon with a gun, ranges from 0 to 1, 1 being felons always have guns)
c = fraction of people who take up their legal right of gun ownership and have the firearm in possession when attacked (ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 meaning the person always has a gun when attacked)
g = gun control policy, 0 being no one is allowed to legally have a gun, 1 is everyone is able to possess.
Beta 1 = probability for an unarmed person to die in an attack
Beta 2 = probability for an armed person to die in an attack
Beta 2 / Beta 1 = 1 means that the armed person always dies in an attack (e.g. having a gun makes no difference)
Beta 2 / beta 1 = 0 means that the unarmed person always dies in an attack (e.g. having a gun offers the greatest protection)

Link Posted: 7/27/2013 1:06:21 PM EST
Tl; DR and probably beyond my math skills.
I see it's edited in Australia, funded by UC Irvine.
Fuck em.
Take their math skills and walk down one of our democrat cities at midnight with Iphones in plain view. Then they can calculate their odds of being alive at midnight + 10 minutes.
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 1:27:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/27/2013 1:28:27 PM EST by samiam513]
So teh report says this:

Limited data available in the literature were used to demonstrate how the model can be parameterized, and this preliminary analysis suggests that a ban of private firearm possession, or possibly a partial reduction in gun availability, might lower the rate of firearm-induced homicides. This, however, should not be seen as a policy recommendation, due to the limited data available to inform and parameterize the model. However, the model clearly defines what needs to be measured, and provides a basis for a scientific discussion about assumptions and data.
View Quote


A politican will take the report and say this.


Recently there was a report done that said,
Limited data available in the literature were used to demonstrate how the model can be parameterized, and this preliminary analysis suggests that a ban of private firearm possession, or possibly a partial reduction in gun availability, might lower the rate of firearm-induced homicides. This, however, should not be seen as a policy recommendation, due to the limited data available to inform and parameterize the model. However, the model clearly defines what needs to be measured, and provides a basis for a scientific discussion about assumptions and data.
View Quote
. So it is clearly recognizable that these common sense mathmaticians are all for common sense gun laws common sense and even more common sense because America hates the NRA.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 1:30:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/27/2013 1:41:51 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tango7:
Is there any consideration of the criminality of people killed by guns immediately prior to their demise, or does this study include Christopher Dorner and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as "victims of gun violence"?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote

Probably, but the "Handgun Murder Rate" should exclude them, because IIRC the police used rifles.
Top Top