A way to measure gun violence in America • Hacker News Board

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#41

Post by kec » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:05 AM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #39

kec wrote: post #12

Earlier 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?

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)

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#42

Post by ourcat » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:10 AM UTC

Stop watering it down by calling it "gun violence" and call it what it actually is: "Murder" or "Attempted murder". With a gun.

What's needed isn't "gun control". You can have that. What you need is "bullet control". (And a sense of humanity).

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#43

Post by ourcat » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:15 AM UTC

presidentender wrote: post #3

Why is 'gun violence' so dire that it deserves its own category, relative to other forms of harm?

"other forms of harm" like what in particular?

I can't think of many forms that happen to be performed by a mechanism designed and manufactured, by man, for one purpose: to kill? Protected by a nation who appears to love God. Who apparently said Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Utter hypocrites. The lot of them.

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#44

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #25

kec wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be very surprised if you could figure out a way to reliably discriminate between the sound of a gunshot and the sound of a car backfiring given that they're basically the same thing (that is, the sound of a gas rapidly expanding in a metal tube).

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.

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#45

Post by wstrange » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:37 AM UTC

rbcgerard wrote: post #13

presidentender wrote: post #3

Why is 'gun violence' so dire that it deserves its own category, relative to other forms of harm?

un-nuanced observers talk about it because it's likely largest subset of murders in the U.S. - angenda driven (anti-gun) observers like to talk about it because they can frame a problem in such a way that leads people to the outcome they want - I.e. The obvious solution to ending gun violence is limiting access to guns, and they don't have to address the much more complex problem of violence (for example: if a spouse…

I don't think anyone claims that reducing guns would eliminate violence. That is a strawman.

There does seem to be reasonable evidence from other countries that reduced accessed to guns (and certain types of guns in particular) does have an impact.

Guns just make it ridiculously easy to kill a lot of people in a hurry. It takes a lot more strength and determination to plunge a knife into someone (perhaps several times) when compared to pulling a trigger.

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#46

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:39 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #2

> 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…

The cynic in me says the DC police response is faster and more trigger happy. We all remember what happened when a bunch of cops went after two guys with a six-shooter outside of Boston a few years ago (spoiler: orders of magnitude more than six shots were fired, nobody died from the bullets).

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#47

Post by capote » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:41 AM UTC

kec wrote: post #41

mozumder wrote: post #39

Earlier 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)

We do not assume that violence would cease without guns. We just know that there would be less violence. And since we're not gun enthusiasts, it's a bit less violence at no cost to us. And at not too much costs to gun enthusiasts.

At least this is how I feel.

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#48

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:44 AM UTC

robsears wrote: post #11

> The more telling number about gun violence might be “shots fired.” And now, thanks to broader adoption of new technologies, it is getting easier to show just how common gun violence is in America. I happened to be working with a dispatcher in a 9-11 call center on the night the bin Laden raid was announced. Over the course of a couple hours, we fielded hundreds of "shots fired" calls, which mostly turned out to be…

I remember that day. My best friend and I got the last two 100rd boxes of 12ga bird shot on the shelf and forgot earplugs. 10/10 was worth it, I hope the EPA never measures a certain part of his property for lead content.

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#49

Post by MichaelGG » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:46 AM UTC

hugh4 wrote: post #31

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #2

> 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.

What is bad about a firing mode that decreases accuracy and depletes ammo quicker?

Re: A way to measure gun violence in America

#50

Post by ggreer » Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 1:09 AM UTC

saulrh wrote: post #20

capote wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was gonna say, having heard a gunshot as well as the other stated things that could sound like gunshots, I think gunshots are categorically louder and more identifiable. That said, I'm not a gun expert so I could be wrong for different types of guns, etc.

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 underestimate the ratio of rounds fired by handguns vs rifles, as being shot with a rifle is far more likely to result in death than being shot with a handgun. If the victim doesn't die, they won't show up in those FBI stats.

1. FBI Uniform Crime Report on murder weapon type: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/...