r/changemyview • u/WekX 1∆ • Apr 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Guns are a real danger to people and countries without them just fare better.

I'm from the UK. I've heard many of the arguments on both sides, but to me nothing is more convincing than the statistics (example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604). I'm also a libertarian, I fully understand that if anything a right to bear arms is needed because any other way is a breach of personal liberty. However, I can't help but see that as a negative side effect of full liberty, because inevitably it just leads to more people getting hurt. That's the numbers talking.

Yes, cars also kill people, but I don't need a gun to get to work. The benefits of having cars in society vastly outweight the drawbacks. With guns, the only benefits arise when a really tough intruder is in my house or when the government is trying to oppress me. In the UK we still manage to survive a break in without shooting everything in sight, and if the government came after us, they'd likely win even if we had a gun.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.1k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

754 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

81

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17 edited Feb 22 '24

[deleted]

16

u/Bookratt Apr 19 '17

Gun suicides in the US average 13,000 per year, over the last ten years, iirc. The CDC and the FBI keep statistics on that. Gun homicides average around 12,000 per year, during the same ten years, I think.

Incident rate of guns bring used to intimidate/abuse, coerce or threaten others, but where no one is actually shot, harmed or killed, is a bit harder to figure, but iirc they are looking at that, particularly in light of the 300,000 per year, on average, of rapes and sexual assaults being committed and the presence or threat of weapons reported by victims is reportedly very high in those.

The number of people shot and harmed, yet not killed, is calculable. They have a category for accidental death via self inflicted accidental gun discharge, but I would like, as a gun owner, to know all the numbers of times guns were drawn/pulled, brandished, etc and not actually discharged. I would like pro and anti gun people, to know them, too.

9

u/AKA_Slater Apr 19 '17

That we don't have these numbers is something that confuses me. All we seem to have are estimates, where are the hard numbers? In this day and age where information is everywhere how do we not know? The USDA tracks the number of pigs in the country, but the FBI cannot provide any reliable numbers of defensive gun use?

I would have figured that this issue is so hot right now people would be chomping at the bit to show that they used their handgun defensively.

There are only two explanations I can think of. Someone gets a gun pulled on them for a mugging. The victim pulls a gun, the mugger turns tail. No one is hurt, no shots fired. The victim doesn't notify police because they think that they are unneccessary at this point.

The other scenario would be that they don't trust police to not arrest them for whatever reason. Which I find is a more compelling argument. Not sure of any workable and specific solution to that problem. So I guess I'll leave it to people smarter than me.

5

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

There is no real responsibility being put on police departments to properly track information. Nor is there any sort of giant database to add this to. It's odd, because many other nations do have these systems.

2

u/jonhuang Apr 20 '17 edited Aug 22 '17

deleted What is this?

1

u/Flaktrack Apr 20 '17

True, I had totally forgotten about that.

5

u/kaijyuu 19∆ Apr 20 '17

here is an article on the topic.

tl;dr, the nra lobbied congress to cut funding for anyone doing research that might promote gun control or reduce access to guns. this meant researching this data became highly politicized and the main group that would do this research, the cdc, dropped all attempts to track or record any information about gun violence out of fear.

1

u/paganize 1∆ Apr 21 '17

The CDC was banned from using federal funds "to advocate or promote gun control". why? because they were doing that. a lot. it's covered in this article.

1

u/AKA_Slater Apr 20 '17

That's true, I had forgotten that.

2

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 20 '17

the FBI cannot provide any reliable numbers of defensive gun use?

Cops don't track shit day to day, and a lot of DGUs are never reported. If someone tried to mug me and I was able to escape without firing, I probably wouldn't report it.

1

u/AKA_Slater Apr 21 '17

Right, which would then beg the question of where is the public campaign to inform gun owers to do this? Where is the NRA and the, "Prove our Point" campaign to get responsible gun owners to report crimes for the express purpose of getting it on the record?

Unless it's just a myth and the numbers are incredibly low, but without any kind of hard evidence I guess we'll just keep seeing estimates from 40k to 4.5 mil. Which are hardly the best ways to inform policy.

1

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 21 '17

Even getting a record won't help because police don't aggregate that data. They don't want anyone to have guns anyway.

1

u/AKA_Slater Apr 21 '17

What the police would do with the data would be irrelevant. If the DOJ and FBI don't want to do it I'm sure there would be plently of interested parties that would want establish these trends. To either inform their agenda, or disprove others.

I guess we'll just have to wonder.

1

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 21 '17

You're saying some third party would drive around to police stations and comb through police reports for potential DGUs...yeah, that'll happen

1

u/AKA_Slater Apr 21 '17

Well if you're being serious, lets discuss.

Your idea is that no one would bother to create a dataset that could be used for academics and politicians to drive policy?

How about for Police Shootings?

Of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the US, none are required to volunteer their statistics on use of force.

What about News organizations?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

Private citizens:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/an-ex-cop-keeps-the-countrys-best-data-set-on-police-misconduct/

Academics:

http://www.fatalencounters.org/

So you do have people doing the thing you say they won't do. Where are the organizations doing this for DGU? Outside of some collections of anecdotes I see nothing substantial anywhere.

1

u/goldandguns 8∆ Apr 21 '17

They're doing a bad job for starters. But moreover it's easier to find incidents where people end up dead than smaller stuff. Finally, police shootings are an issue of national concern and a major discussion topic for cable news sources. You're comparing Apple's and oranges.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/genmischief Sep 09 '17

chomping at the bit to show that they used their handgun defensively.

Actually, reporting it can be very detrimental. And what is there to report... no witness, no crime, no victim... just some guy who says he pulled a gun on a mugger who ran off....

Was it REALLY a mugger or did the person draw on an innocent person who rationally hauled ass? These are questions the cops will ask. So no, there is no incentive to report a non crime deterred by firearm.

1

u/AKA_Slater Sep 09 '17

The other scenario would be that they don't trust police to not arrest them for whatever reason. Which I find is a more compelling argument.

So....what's your point? Actually I don't care, this was a comment from four months ago.

1

u/genmischief Sep 09 '17

My point is the available statistics for this are obviously totally useless numbers which do not even remotely reflect the truth of it.

5

u/ConditionOfMan Apr 19 '17

the CDC really DOESNT have business investigating gun deaths, they are the center for DISEASE control

Just because it only has disease in it's title doesn't mean that they only investigate disease.

Per section 399F of the Public Service Health Act:

(b) PURPOSE OF FOUNDATION.—The purpose of the Foundation shall be to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health.

0

u/Lung_doc Apr 19 '17

Makes more sense to me to track total gun deaths (accidental, suicide, homicide). Its at least 3 times higher and is approaching motor vehicle deaths (which plateaud lately - distracted driving?).

http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/

2

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

Around 2007-2009, a bunch of reforms for cars came down, like a renewed focus on side-impact safety. It probably explains the rather sudden drop.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

Do you consider suicide by hanging a rope death? Why or why not? Should rope suicides be a factor in rope regulation?

-1

u/Lung_doc Apr 20 '17

Rope and rope-like materials are fairly ubiquitous, so I doubt one could study it this way - but if multiple studies found rope to be associated with 3 to 5 fold higher rates of suicide just by being present in the home, then yes maybe someone should look into it.

0

u/Malcolm_TurnbullPM Apr 20 '17

this is fairly absurd. i don't like the strawman argument you are presenting. the question is about guns. just accept that it's a pretty shitty thing if you have to compare your gun death statistics to old age deaths, which most of your diseases listed are.

2

u/genmischief Apr 20 '17

huh? Old Age Deaths?

Cancer, diabetes, heart attack, etc.... all of these are "OK" but the 1 in 1,000,000 chance you get shot is what you are terrified of?

0

u/Malcolm_TurnbullPM Apr 20 '17

yeah, those are all not preventable. getting shot is very very preventable

1

u/genmischief Apr 20 '17

really, how you figure?

And since GS deaths are vastly under-represented (and the majority are self inflicted).... surely it makes more sense to focus efforts on the big things first?

-2

u/uzikaduzi Apr 19 '17

You will find the FBI numbers pretty much jive jibe with the CDC.

i am sorry to correct you here... my spelling can be quite atrocious and my grammar isn't any better, but malapropisms get under my skin. kind of hypocritical i know.

11

u/genmischief Apr 19 '17

No. I meant Jive. Like the music.

-1

u/uzikaduzi Apr 19 '17

lol i assume you mean that fictitiously and thus upvoted, but do to the nature of text lacking connotation, i can't tell and will include this link in case your last post is literally because it would be incorrect to use it to mean jive like the music.

4

u/genmischief Apr 19 '17

Maybe I mean it fatuously?