Scientists agree: guns make society less safe

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://wonkwire.com/2015/04/24/guns-make-us-less-safe-thats-a-fact/

David Hemenway, a Harvard professor and director of the Harvard Injury Control Center, writes in the L.A. Times that his polling to determine scientific consensus with respect to the relationship between firearms and death rates “won’t please the National Rifle Assn. ”

For example, “one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84%, said yes.”

“I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).”

“Of course it’s possible to find researchers who side with the NRA in believing that guns make our society safer, rather than more dangerous. As I’ve shown, however, they’re in the minority.”

“Scientific consensus isn’t always right, but it’s our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We’re not.”

[Matty]

This is an issue of human mistake/fallibility, rather than a question of guns.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I see the percentage threshold for "consensus" continues to decline.

[RFayette]

The tagline for the article, "That's a fact" is ridiculous........consensus doesn't determine facts, and this is a far less commanding consensus then on say, evolution or the Earth being older than 6000 years old.

Also, since the thesis was guns make society LESS SAFE, not less safe vs more safe, the "consensuses" are 72-28, 64-36, 73 vs 27, 62 vs 38, and 71 vs 29.  These are hardly unanimous verdicts.  

Furthermore, Freaknoomics did good research on this and found a house with a swimming pool is far more dangerous than one with a gun.  

I do feel like the left tends to grab on to "consensus" as some buzz-word to avoid actually debating issues at times.  

Here's a good source to learn a little bit more about the pro-gun rights side:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

[pbrower2a]

The tagline for the article, "That's a fact" is ridiculous........consensus doesn't determine facts, and this is a far less commanding consensus then on say, evolution or the Earth being older than 6000 years old.

Also, since the thesis was guns make society LESS SAFE, not less safe vs more safe, the "consensuses" are 72-28, 64-36, 73 vs 27, 62 vs 38, and 71 vs 29.  These are hardly unanimous verdicts.

It's a poll. It might not even be 'scientific' if the people polled are scientists. But that suggests a landslide.  For real protection, get a dog; few criminals want to face some of the most brutal fangs in the animal world.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the other side, having and using a swimming pool is one way to get excellent exercise that might lengthen one's life expectancy. You keep the pool behind lock and key; you make sure that anyone who brings small children to the pool watches them; above all you do not allow drunks at the pool. Of adults who drown in swimming pools, I can only imagine what percentage are drunk at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without reading the site -- some people have had circumstances in which a gun stopped a horrible crime. On the other hand people have

(1) shot the wrong person
(2) misinterpreted a situation as life-and-death when it wasn't
(3) been too hesitant to fire
(4) been overpowered for the gun
(5) committed suicide with a gun

[DC Al Fine]

Opinions polls pulled from one's arse =/= science

[bedstuy]

Does anyone actually disagree?  This seems like an obvious conclusion.

[CountryClassSF]

Just look at Baltimore - looks really safe over there and that gun free zone huh?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now that scientists agree that guns are bad, Republicans will be for them.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

What makes scientists qualified to comment on this? Since, you know, Ben Carson isn't qualified to discuss social policy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What makes scientists qualified to comment on this? Since, you know, Ben Carson isn't qualified to discuss social policy.

     Indeed, this strikes me as a pretty blatant appeal to authority. What scientists think about it isn't terribly important.

[Ebsy]

What makes scientists qualified to comment on this? Since, you know, Ben Carson isn't qualified to discuss social policy.

I think Ben Carson is very qualified to discuss domestic social policy. Please, give him a microphone and let him speak for all Republicans!

[RFayette]

What makes scientists qualified to comment on this? Since, you know, Ben Carson isn't qualified to discuss social policy.

Yes, this has nothing to do whatsoever with their area of expertise.

Look, I think it's obvious having a gun in your home makes it easier to commit suicide.  That being said, while the arguments about gun safety have some validity, I believe that more guns = less violent crime, and I have stats to back this up:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB841185795318576500

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Besides, the burden of proof is on those who say more guns = more crime as their goal is to stifle the right to bear arms, and thus the pro-gun control side must demonstrate overwhelming evidence that more gun ownership increases crime.  The simple fact that the liberalization of gun laws has coincided with the plummeting of violent crime rates makes that case very difficult for the anti-gunners.

[Murica!]

OMG GUNZ ARE BADZ SO GIVES THEM ALL TO THE POLICE!!!!!!1!!1(Liberal logic)

[AggregateDemand]

The number of guns in the US has increased drastically in 20 years. The rates of violent crime have decreased drastically in 20 years.

Are these "scientists" just political scientists? They clearly aren't using any data.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The number of guns in the US has increased drastically in 20 years. The rates of violent crime have decreased drastically in 20 years.

Are these "scientists" just political scientists? They clearly aren't using any data.

Rates of violent crime have been declining heavily all over the developed world, regardless of the number of guns. Also, while the number of guns has gone up, the level of gun ownership has been going down. Gun sales have risen due to paranoid buyers getting multiple guns.

[AggregateDemand]

Rates of violent crime have been declining heavily all over the developed world, regardless of the number of guns. Also, while the number of guns has gone up, the level of gun ownership has been going down. Gun sales have risen due to paranoid buyers getting multiple guns.

If violent crime has been declining the developing world, regardless of the availability and prevalence of firearms......

Furthermore, the US has the highest firearm ownership per capita, but we are not near the top of violent crime or homicide statistics. There is no correlation, unless "scientists" intentionally omit all data that contradicts their assertions and hypotheses.

Gun control is an existential debate. The people who attempt to reclassify their personal ethics and existential motivators as "science" are fit for a mental institution. Ironically, adjudicating these people as mentally-ill would also prohibit them from owning firearms (in theory).

[bedstuy]

What makes scientists qualified to comment on this? Since, you know, Ben Carson isn't qualified to discuss social policy.

Yes, this has nothing to do whatsoever with their area of expertise.

Look, I think it's obvious having a gun in your home makes it easier to commit suicide.  That being said, while the arguments about gun safety have some validity, I believe that more guns = less violent crime, and I have stats to back this up:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB841185795318576500

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Besides, the burden of proof is on those who say more guns = more crime as their goal is to stifle the right to bear arms, and thus the pro-gun control side must demonstrate overwhelming evidence that more gun ownership increases crime.  The simple fact that the liberalization of gun laws has coincided with the plummeting of violent crime rates makes that case very difficult for the anti-gunners.

That's completely ridiculous.  Let's just look at it logically. 

If someone has a gun, what is more likely?

They use it to commit a crime + they accidentally injure themselves or someone else + they commit suicide

vs.

They use it to stop a crime

It's not even close.  Right?  Privately owned guns almost never save someone's life.  They kill thousands of people every year.  The homicide rate in the US was totally out of control 30 years ago and we had too many guns.  It's out of control now too, despite the overall drop in violent crime.

Unfortunately, the biggest victims of gun violence are people that nobody cares about, black men.  Even the "black lives matter" crowd doesn't care, because they only care when a black man is killed in a way that feeds into their racial politics.  Of course suburban white kids don't have a problem with guns.  In the suburbs, guns are a fun dangerous toy.  In a few inner city neighborhoods in America, guns are a plague. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Perhaps we would have  more actual science-and not just the opinions of scientists-if the gun lobby hadn't been successful in having federal funding for scientific research on gun violence shut down.

Also, this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article.

[Deus Naturae]

That's completely ridiculous.  Let's just look at it logically. 

If someone has a gun, what is more likely?

They use it to commit a crime + they accidentally injure themselves or someone else + they commit suicide

vs.

They use it to stop a crime

It's not even close.  Right?  Privately owned guns almost never save someone's life.  They kill thousands of people every year.  The homicide rate in the US was totally out of control 30 years ago and we had too many guns.  It's out of control now too, despite the overall drop in violent crime.

Unfortunately, the biggest victims of gun violence are people that nobody cares about, black men.  Even the "black lives matter" crowd doesn't care, because they only care when a black man is killed in a way that feeds into their racial politics.  Of course suburban white kids don't have a problem with guns.  In the suburbs, guns are a fun dangerous toy.  In a few inner city neighborhoods in America, guns are a plague. 

You're just making statements and assumptions and expecting them to not only be accepted at face value but considered more important than the actual data provided by RFayette.

The suggestion that guns are never used to prevent crime is blatantly false:

[Deus Naturae]

As for the suicide argument, even if you ignore the moral aspects (should people who want to kill themselves be obstructed by the government?), that strikes me as a confusion of the causal relationship. It seems far more likely that people decide to kill themselves, and then acquire a firearm than that people decide to kill themselves because they possess a firearm.

In any case, it makes little sense to restrict the freedom of countless non-suicidal individuals to "protect" the suicidal minority from themselves, especially considering the abundance of legitimate and beneficial firearms usage (as indicated by the chart above).

[Slander and/or Libel]

As far as suicide goes, it's much easier for suicidal ideation to be followed through on if there's a gun in close proximity. If you get the idea in your head that you're going to kill yourself and it only takes you 2 minutes to go to the closet and get your gun, it's going to be much more likely that you'll follow through than if you have to get your shoes on, get in your car, go to the ATM, get to a vendor, etc.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The suggestion that guns are never used to prevent crime is blatantly false:

Taking data from two different sources with completely different methods of obtaining their data is inherently unreliable, especially when one has a bias towards undercounting and the other towards overcounting and moreover they don't compare incidents of equivalent severity.  In short, the comparison you make relies upon junk statistics of the sort only a university social sciences professor could love.

[Deus Naturae]

Taking data from two different sources with completely different methods of obtaining their data is inherently unreliable, especially when one has a bias towards undercounting and the other towards overcounting and moreover they don't compare incidents of equivalent severity.  In short, the comparison you make relies upon junk statistics of the sort only a university social sciences professor could love.

I'm curious as to why you think that the Bureau of Justice Statistics is biased towards undercounting (I'm not saying that it isn't, just wondering why you think it is).

Even if the data has some inaccuracies (as does most of this sort), do you really believe that they're extreme enough to negate the considerable gap between the two bars on the chart, or to provide credence to Bedstuy's assertion that almost no firearms are used to prevent crime?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm curious as to why you think that the Bureau of Justice Statistics is biased towards undercounting (I'm not saying that it isn't, just wondering why you think it is).

Incidents reported to the police are but a subset of the ones that actually happen, especially when the victim thinks there is nothing to be gained from making a report.  While the NCVS does have an advantage over police reports in that it reaches out to survey people, even then people are likely to avoid mentioning incidents simply to avoid the hassle of being stuck in a lengthy poll.

Conversely, the other set includes incidents in which people think they stopped something when there wasn't anything that happened, plus ones that were resolved while having a gun that could have been resolved even without a gun being involved, so it overstates the usefulness of DGU.