this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
6 points (56.5% liked)

guns

1197 readers
81 users here now

Keep it civil.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I hope this isn't out of context, also I don't want to "own the libs" or something here, I'm actually interested.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This is a naive comparison, as you are not counting the many cases where people use guns to harm others without killing them. There are on the order of 500,000 fatal and nonfatal violent crimes involving a firearm committed every year in The United States.

[–] SupraMario 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No there are not. Stop making shit up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate you challenging my numbers, but you're not being very helpful finding actual sources. I found a report from the bureau of justice statistics that says 478,400 total cases of firearm violence in 2011. I see it trending upward from 2008-2011 as well, though that's probably a consequence of the financial crisis.

[–] SupraMario 1 points 7 months ago

Firearm violence = a firearm was involved. It doesn't even have to be fired.

In 2007-11, about 23% of all nonfatal firearm victims were physically injured during the victimization (table 9). About 7% suffered serious injuries (e.g., a gunshot wound, broken bone, or internal injuries), while 16% suffered minor injuries (e.g., bruises or cuts). Of the nonfatal firearm victims who were injured, 72% received some type of care, with about 82% receiving care in a hospital or medical office. The victim reported that the offender had fired the weapon in 7% of all nonfatal firearm victimizations. The victim suffered a gunshot wound in 28% of these victimizations (not shown in table).

Literally firearms just being around in an altercation = firearm violence.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I haven't seen anything corroborating those numbers, however even in that case if we include defensive display in our DGU numbers (which the Harvard study entirely discounted on the basis of "we have no real way of knowing those numbers,") that raises the DGUs as well. Thing is defensive display is by far and wide the most likely defensive use, it is when a person is able to drive off the threat just by showing (drawing, pointing, etc) the firearm on/at the attacker. Harvard is right that there's no way to get an accurate report on how many because they're often not reported to the police, as that takes a lot of time and effort that could easily be shrugged off with a "eh I'm fine, didn't have to fire, fuck it." An example is this video. Though this clerk did likely report it especially given the accompanying video evidence, many in his position (especially not on the clock or camera) don't report.

Some estimates of dgu/yr including those defensive displays are as high as 3mil/yr. I think that's probably a little high, but I'd wager they're in the ballpark of 500,000 dgu/yr as well.

Though this is the "we need more good people carrying able to defend themselves" part, because although the number is growing still only 25% of people carry, and even most of them don't do it every day. Can't defend with what you don't have. Statista says there's 1.2 mil violent crimes in 2022, if guns are indeed i .5mil of those, that leaves .7mil where a defender with a gun would have had an outright advantage over the attacker.

In the end what we need to do is address the underlying socioeconomic issues that most often cause the violent crime. Even if we Thanosed all guns away there's still the matter of .7mil violent crimes and now 100,000-500,000 people can't even do anything to protect themselves against them. Addressing the causes would have a more measurable impact and wouldn't deprive anyone of their rights unduly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In the end what we need to do is address the underlying socioeconomic issues that most often cause the violent crime.

100% agreed with you on that one. Unfortunately I don't see any consensus coming on how to effectively do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Well it'll be harder to do, for sure. But I think it's the right way to do things, peace through force is a hollow victory at best.