Ever wondered how many times guns saved the day?

Started by Monfang, February 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on March 13, 2013, 09:30:05 AM
As a side issue - are guns taxed?  The only analogy I can think of is things like alcohol and cigarettes - both of which kill loads, both of which are legal.  The reason, at least over here, is the tax revenue they bring in.

This can be deceptive. I ran the numbers on this once here in Canada - cigarette tax revenue vs health care burden. In the end, it turned out that each smoker cost the government about $5/year.

Quote from: BCdan on March 13, 2013, 10:30:34 AMTheres actually an interesting study by Harvard that talks about this: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf  Basically the study talks about 'minimization' especially during the cold war in which many countries had a major incentive to lie about their gun related murder rates.  Theres also a negative correlation between firearms deaths and number of weapons when it comes to homicide when you look at a local level breakdown.

Err... not sure how to put this gently, but that study is crap. Not only is it extremely unprofressional and transparently biased (just look at how they sneer at anything they perceive as anti-gun), but... its data is highly suspect. As in completely untrustworthy. See the bit about homicide rates in Europe, upon which their entire argument that guns and homicide are uncorrelated rests? Cherry-picked from four years of reports by a non-European country that didn't source its data well enough to verify. Interestingly, despite mining its data, the authors barely mention Canada, except to say that murders are less common where there is one person per two square kilometers than in cities. This might strike you as rather obvious, and it is - until you mask it by saying that regions with higher gun ownership have lower murder rates.

Quote from: BCdan on March 13, 2013, 10:30:34 AMSo you might be getting fewer accidents with an all out ban on weapons, but you could be trading that in for a significantly higher homicide rate. Mainly because the worst thing for a criminal is a gun owning victim.  An armed victim presents the potentially highest possible cost for a criminal.

Even if we accept your source as legitimate - which I certainly do not - the second half of this paragraph does not follow from anything prior and makes some huge assumptions. First, you're assuming a gun-owning person is an armed person. Gun-owners, how many of you have a loaded weapon within arm's reach right now? Second, you're assuming that guns reduce the desirability of a target. This is not necessarily the case; my local police have found the opposite. Guns themselves are highly desirable targets for criminals.

Retribution

Oniya -> I am just fine with that and valid point on some would just say screw it and not get insured.

Valerian -> Between me and my son I honestly would not know how many guns are in our house without an inventory *sheepish smile* But for example on demographics, I have a teenage son and daughter. Both have been taught and would probably be ticked if I hid the key to the gun cases from them. I also live in a very rural area where literally every house has multiple guns. The only firearms incident we have had in the 20 years I have lived here is the fool who tried to rob the Subway last month. He was not even close to well enough armed for his task. This is all anecdotal but the only murder I recall in town was committed with a hammer.

But my reality is different from that of a major city part of the reason I chose to live where I do.

Beguile's Mistress

A police officer who is pro-gun was talking with another pro-gun person who was ranting about the 2nd Amendment.  When the guy finally shut up the officer said that if you want to define the 2nd Amendment strictly (as the guy was trying to do) it gives you the right to "keep and bear arms" but doesn't say anything about shooting them.


Kythia

#78
Quote from: Ephiral on March 13, 2013, 11:49:44 AM
This can be deceptive. I ran the numbers on this once here in Canada - cigarette tax revenue vs health care burden. In the end, it turned out that each smoker cost the government about $5/year.

Yeah, it varies country to country.  Over here smoking brings in money to the treasury on net(here's a largely anecodotal source if you want better then let me know and I'll put better figures together) but its a function of tax rate, smoking habits, etc etc etc so yeah, I can see how it would vary country to country.

ETA:  Alsos, BCDan - the study is in a Harvard owned journal, its not a Harvard study.  World of difference.
242037