Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of differences that can be pulled out algorithmically. Gunshots are much sharper, as they're mechanical/aerodynamic rather than chemical, and are linear rather than point sources. Receivers placed across the city will record differently dopplered shockwaves based on how close they are to being in line with the bullet's trajectory. If you really wanted to, I bet that you could go around the city after installatio…
> Of course, all that goes away in the case of subsonic rounds. I'm pretty sure that presents a problem. Many handgun rounds have subsonic muzzle velocities, and most are subsonic within 50 feet. And according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports[1], almost half of all murders are committed with handguns. Rifles are used in around 2-3%. (For comparison, 5-6% of murders are committed with bare hands.) Those numbers unde…
A way to measure gun violence in America
51–57 of 57 posts
Re: A way to measure gun violence in America
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?
As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
Remember that taking away guns reduces crime.
Re: A way to measure gun violence in America
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?
As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
Anti-gun control people actually agree with pro-gun control people on this point when they describe gun control as a means of a tyrannical state to pacify the populace, because, they warn, the lack of an armed populace makes it more difficult to commit violence against the state. This is a rationale codified into modern interpretations of the Second Amendment.
By extension, a populace less able to commit violence against the state is equally less able to commit violence against itself.
Really, both pro and anti gun-control people want a safe and secure society (excepting of course the lunatic and criminal fringe) but they disagree as to the role of guns in providing that safety and security. Unfortunately, it's become kind of a matter of religion for each side, so discussions which aren't fraught with hyperbole, strawmen and willful ignorance are difficult to have.
Re: A way to measure gun violence in America
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is more why do we treat assault and homicide where a firearm is involved differently from other instances of assault and homicide? Dead is dead, no matter the manner in which it happened.
Why do pro-gun agenda people always say that violence would continue to exist without guns? Do they think people would replace guns with knives? What makes them think that people wouldn't just give up?
Re: A way to measure gun violence in America
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, well you'd be wrong. Anyone who's spent time around guns would instantly recognize the difference, and training a computer to do the same thing isn't even hard, it just takes a lot of patient work. The most important difference here is a gun is pushing a projectile out and a car isn't. Differentiating between cap guns, starter pistols and fireworks might be a little more hazy, but it's still not the same thing…
Sure that's the case when you're firing guns and backfiring cars across an open field from whatever you're measuring sound with but sounds tend to get screwed up when distance, obstructions and white noise are added.
Have you seen what NASA can do with images?
Re: A way to measure gun violence in America
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a counterpoint, why do pro gun-control people always assume that violence would cease without guns? Guns do not motivate people to commit crime, only give them the means to. People in general are pretty clever. If you take away someone's means to do something without addressing what motivated them to do that thing, they're likely going to figure out a way to do it anyway. (See: censorship, DRM, drug prohibition)
Pro-gun control people don't assume that violence would cease without guns. Guns are designed and intended to be a force multiplier - one person with a gun can kill far more people far more easily than they could without a gun. Rather, pro gun-control people simply argue that a society without guns or with fewer guns is less violent than a society with more of them, and that the violence is more localized and easier…
These two "religions" are irreconcilable; the pro-gun control group has, since at least the '70s when I started closely following this and being an anti-gun control activist, made it crystal clear that many of them will not be satisfied until they've taken all of our guns (or nearly so, e.g. the over and under shotgun class like Biden, what e.g. the U.K. has devolved to at the same time they've reversed the trend since the 13th Century of decreasing interpersonal violence). In return, we've made it clear that we know our 20th Century history, if they get very far in this, we'll kill them, wholesale and retail. No common ground possible there.
Second, this is part of a larger cultural war. We need look no further than now President Obama saying in 2008:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Third, there have been some major changes in gun owning demographics, purposes and the like, part of what some call Gun Culture 2.0, and it really started becoming a thing post-9/11, when the Federal government made it clear we were on our own. The other part is a rapidly graying society as the Baby Boomers reached middle age and now retirement age. For whatever reasons, a very large fraction of them are turning to guns for self-protection, e.g. the vast majority of people in my 2008 Missouri CCW class were obviously middle aged or older.
There's also been some massive changes on the ground: starting in 1987, "shall issue" or better concealed carry regimes have swept the nation, such that they hold in all but 7 states, and cover 72.6% of the population. Issued licences are now growing by more than a million per year, the numbers are astounding, and on a percentage basis have reached 5-10% of the population in shall issue states.
In the same period, "Constitutional Carry", i.e. no permit required, went from 1 state, Vermont (which simply never restricted it post-Civil War) to 10, with 2 being added in the last month or so, and perhaps more to come this year. That's now 7.2% of the above percentage. See this with nice graphs here: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2016/04/every-picture-t... (although I'd add that DC, MD, and NJ are de facto no issue states (for a demonstrated serious need, MD may issue for the duration of the threat), even if the law allows it; also, many local units of CA, MA and NY are de facto shall issue or thereabouts).
Re: A way to measure gun violence in America
#57> They noted with interest that it appears Oakland’s gunfire was at least twice as deadly as Washington’s gunfire. Although the researchers couldn’t come up with the reasons behind this difference (Were Washington’s gunmen poor shots? Did victims in Oakland get to the hospital more slowly?), the difference points to how measuring gun violence with homicides is problematic. This is posing the question wrong. If some a…
> This is posing the question wrong. If some area has half as many fatalities per gunshot, they're clearly doing something right. Not necessarily, I'd imagine easy availability of fully-automatic weapons would lower your fatalities-per-gunshot ratio but not be a good thing.
If hypothetically giving out automatic weapons caused there to be more gunshots because every time there was a gun battle many more shots were fired, but it reduced the total number of shooting victims because now dealers are much more wary about starting a gun battle, then you could make the argument for giving out automatic weapons. Because what matters is the actual harm.
But if all it did was increase the number of gunshots by a lot and the number of injuries by a little then it's clearly a bad thing. Because what matters is still the actual harm.