[Silencer]

People seem to be missing the point that, regardless of the relative number of deaths caused by guns compared to other things (oh, and btw, rate of accidental deaths is not really directly comparable to rate of murder, and completely misses the point that gun-deaths can be, for example, twenty people in the space of thirty minutes, whereas generally speaking, pool drownings are one at a time accidents (mostly)), they still happen, and by not doing anything about them you are essentially saying "That's fine! Let everyone be shot by guns! We don't care about that it doesn't kill enough people".

TO which I reply: what the fucking hell is wrong with you?!??!

This is something you can do things about! It's not an accident, it's not negligence, it's fucking MURDER on a massive scale! OFTEN OF CHILDREN OR TEENS. Not to mention the "everyday" gang-/general crime-related gun crime.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Silencer, on 27 February 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

People seem to be missing the point that, regardless of the relative number of deaths caused by guns compared to other things (oh, and btw, rate of accidental deaths is not really directly comparable to rate of murder, and completely misses the point that gun-deaths can be, for example, twenty people in the space of thirty minutes, whereas generally speaking, pool drownings are one at a time accidents (mostly)), they still happen, and by not doing anything about them you are essentially saying "That's fine! Let everyone be shot by guns! We don't care about that it doesn't kill enough people".

TO which I reply: what the fucking hell is wrong with you?!??!

This is something you can do things about! It's not an accident, it's not negligence, it's fucking MURDER on a massive scale! OFTEN OF CHILDREN OR TEENS. Not to mention the "everyday" gang-/general crime-related gun crime.

Funny how i'm being accused of taking thing out of context yet here the exact same thing is happening. The argument was not gun deaths are low therefore not an issue, it was that AND there there are no effective proposals around to remedy this. They gave an example as to how they would need to buy-back on average 10 000guns to reduce the murders rate by 1. Simply not feasible, also you can't cut out guns as they half a rather long shelf life and there are millions of gun in circulation. It's also an issue that the average joe who owns a gun and fires at a range isn't the one you want to worry about. It's the guy who brings his gun to a bar and drinks too much, or when desparate individuals have access to them.

But hey don't take my word for it, listen to the clip yourself then decide,it's freakonomics so they're actually a pretty interesting bunch. And nothing stopping you from doing other things meanwhile. Bear in mind this was done from an economic perspective that looks at numbers. It's not as pathos filled as events like sandy hook and dark knight rises.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 01 March 2013 - 05:43 PM

[cerveza_fiesta]

I was thinking about this gun buyback issue, and I've seen a few others question the validity of the gun buyback approach (namely braglord) so decided to research a bit.

First have a look at this pdf of an audit by the city of Buffalo regarding the cost of their buyback program.

http://www.ci.buffal.../gunbuyback.pdf

Or if you don't want to go through it all, the relevant info is at the end - for the 2012 program

Quote

In total, 745 weapons were turned in and $32,065 in debit cards was issued. The City received 294 non-working/antiques at a dollar amount of $2,940, 193 rifle/shotguns at a dollar amount of $9,650, 253 handguns at a dollar amount of $18,975 and 5 assault weapons at a dollar amount of $500.00.

and an additional $15,000 was spent in compensation for the officers working overtime for the program. Inclusive from the program's beginning in 2007, the cost was $170,000, and 3700 guns were removed from circulation. Assuming the same levels of compensation for the police officers, the inclusive cost should be in the vicinity of $260,000.


So: More or less $260,000 to remove 3700 guns from circulation.

According to research by Ted Miller, who as far as I can tell is about the most reputable scientific source on the issue, the direct cost to society per gun (medical and psych care) is $32. Considering lost-work that per-gun societal cost is an additional $193, and considering lost quality of life it is an additional $403 per gun, for a grand total of $645!! Holy crap!! Now I know folks can poke holes in the aggregate statistics all they want with specific examples of where they don't apply, but it's difficult to talk about such broad sweeping issues without some kind of level playing field IMO, so I'm going to continue on with it.

Summary of data (albeit not an original source) is here:

http://www.childrens...st-gun-violence

So: Considering *only* the tangible, easily measured economic costs only: medical, psych care, lost work, the cost per gun is $225. Buffalo removed 3700 guns from the streets and thus saved Buffalo's society $832,500 over the course of a 6 year program. That's about a 3:1 return on investment!


Conclusion: gun buyback is good, and it works. The result isn't even really that ambiguous. Cost of a real gun buyback program compared to the most reputable figures around for societal costs of doing nothing - Buybacks still win out.

@Braglord

And apparently a 10,000 gun buyback is feasible after all. A city of 1.3 million (Buffalo) can effect a buyback of 3700 guns over 6 years. Assuming that number scales reasonably well with population, the city of New York could effect the same program in 8 months!

Also, if you need to buy back 10,000 guns to reduce the murder rate by 1% (no idea what your source is by the way), and the gun death rate in the US (just for murders) in 2010 was approx. 65,000 people, a 1% decrease means that 650 don't die from murder as a result of the buyback program. Per year. What the heck is not feasible about that?

[HoosierDaddy]

Problem being 300,000,000 million guns would cost billions of dollars.

In an America that will politicize Head Start education programs because of spending/cutting billions of dollars to do anything that is remotely liked will never happen.

We are never, never, ever going to stop being debtors! (apologies to Miss Swift)

[worry]

I think the idea cerveza is getting at is "let's not make enemies out of Good and Perfect."

Have you paid off your law school loans yet, btw?

[HoosierDaddy]

I know. I'm just cynical because the issue has already disappeared thanks to sequestration.

And, no.

[worry]

Let's not make cynicism the enemy of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

[Tsundoku]

http://www.news.com....v-1226593699771

Is this irony? Incongruity? Karma? The universes' dark sense of humour? Or something else?

This post has been edited by Sombra: 09 March 2013 - 03:38 AM

[cerveza_fiesta]

HoosierDaddy, on 08 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Problem being 300,000,000 million guns would cost billions of dollars.

In an America that will politicize Head Start education programs because of spending/cutting billions of dollars to do anything that is remotely liked will never happen.

We are never, never, ever going to stop being debtors! (apologies to Miss Swift)

You're right, 300 million guns would cost billions of dollars, but I'm not trying to say the buyback is a silver bullet for the gun violence problem in the USA. The programs work because they are 100% voluntary and offer a prosecution-free means of getting rid of unwanted firearms. Presuming only unwanted firearms would be turned in voluntarily, program managers can at best hope to capture the unwanted firearms in circulation with a voluntary program, which equals only a small percent of the total 300 million.

I don't want to say your statement clouds the issue, because it's perfectly valid...but if you think about it in a real world context, maybe 1% (maybe way less) of that 300M total would be captured by sweeping buybacks. It's still a significant amount of guns removed from circulation, and that can have a measurable impact on the amount of gun deaths.

So while I accept that it would be too expensive to buyback all guns, the programs do remove some guns, and judging by a rough cost-benefit analysis, the programs seem to do so in a cost-effective manner. Hell, even if you could buy back a larger percentage of the total (with compulsory buybacks), I expect the $$ benefit would outweigh the cost by a hefty margin.

[HoosierDaddy]

cerveza_fiesta, on 10 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 08 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Problem being 300,000,000 million guns would cost billions of dollars.

In an America that will politicize Head Start education programs because of spending/cutting billions of dollars to do anything that is remotely liked will never happen.

We are never, never, ever going to stop being debtors! (apologies to Miss Swift)

You're right, 300 million guns would cost billions of dollars, but I'm not trying to say the buyback is a silver bullet for the gun violence problem in the USA. The programs work because they are 100% voluntary and offer a prosecution-free means of getting rid of unwanted firearms. Presuming only unwanted firearms would be turned in voluntarily, program managers can at best hope to capture the unwanted firearms in circulation with a voluntary program, which equals only a small percent of the total 300 million.

I don't want to say your statement clouds the issue, because it's perfectly valid...but if you think about it in a real world context, maybe 1% (maybe way less) of that 300M total would be captured by sweeping buybacks. It's still a significant amount of guns removed from circulation, and that can have a measurable impact on the amount of gun deaths.

So while I accept that it would be too expensive to buyback all guns, the programs do remove some guns, and judging by a rough cost-benefit analysis, the programs seem to do so in a cost-effective manner. Hell, even if you could buy back a larger percentage of the total (with compulsory buybacks), I expect the $ benefit would outweigh the cost by a hefty margin.

It is good information. I would have never guessed it had a net positive economic impact and still advocated for it.

Thanks for posting it.

[cerveza_fiesta]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 March 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 10 March 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 08 March 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Problem being 300,000,000 million guns would cost billions of dollars.

In an America that will politicize Head Start education programs because of spending/cutting billions of dollars to do anything that is remotely liked will never happen.

We are never, never, ever going to stop being debtors! (apologies to Miss Swift)

You're right, 300 million guns would cost billions of dollars, but I'm not trying to say the buyback is a silver bullet for the gun violence problem in the USA. The programs work because they are 100% voluntary and offer a prosecution-free means of getting rid of unwanted firearms. Presuming only unwanted firearms would be turned in voluntarily, program managers can at best hope to capture the unwanted firearms in circulation with a voluntary program, which equals only a small percent of the total 300 million.

I don't want to say your statement clouds the issue, because it's perfectly valid...but if you think about it in a real world context, maybe 1% (maybe way less) of that 300M total would be captured by sweeping buybacks. It's still a significant amount of guns removed from circulation, and that can have a measurable impact on the amount of gun deaths.

So while I accept that it would be too expensive to buyback all guns, the programs do remove some guns, and judging by a rough cost-benefit analysis, the programs seem to do so in a cost-effective manner. Hell, even if you could buy back a larger percentage of the total (with compulsory buybacks), I expect the $ benefit would outweigh the cost by a hefty margin.

It is good information. I would have never guessed it had a net positive economic impact and still advocated for it.

Thanks for posting it.

No problem. It was mostly an exercise to prove to myself that it had net positive economic impact...even without considering the intangible costs (human life, suffering, etc etc...)

And to anyone who cares to, please shoot holes through my analysis or provide information to the contrary. I'd hardly call it an exhaustive analysis, but there really don't seem to be any good scientific analyses out there. Miller's work is the closest thing to a credible estimate on societal costs of gun violence (dude has built a reputation and career around the research), but he stops short of arguing for/against different gun control/ban measures in the context of his results.

[LinearPhilosopher]

cerveza_fiesta, on 08 March 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

I was thinking about this gun buyback issue, and I've seen a few others question the validity of the gun buyback approach (namely braglord) so decided to research a bit.

First have a look at this pdf of an audit by the city of Buffalo regarding the cost of their buyback program.

http://www.ci.buffal.../gunbuyback.pdf

Or if you don't want to go through it all, the relevant info is at the end - for the 2012 program

Quote

In total, 745 weapons were turned in and $32,065 in debit cards was issued. The City received 294 non-working/antiques at a dollar amount of $2,940, 193 rifle/shotguns at a dollar amount of $9,650, 253 handguns at a dollar amount of $18,975 and 5 assault weapons at a dollar amount of $500.00.

and an additional $15,000 was spent in compensation for the officers working overtime for the program. Inclusive from the program's beginning in 2007, the cost was $170,000, and 3700 guns were removed from circulation. Assuming the same levels of compensation for the police officers, the inclusive cost should be in the vicinity of $260,000.

So: More or less $260,000 to remove 3700 guns from circulation.

According to research by Ted Miller, who as far as I can tell is about the most reputable scientific source on the issue, the direct cost to society per gun (medical and psych care) is $32. Considering lost-work that per-gun societal cost is an additional $193, and considering lost quality of life it is an additional $403 per gun, for a grand total of $645!! Holy crap!! Now I know folks can poke holes in the aggregate statistics all they want with specific examples of where they don't apply, but it's difficult to talk about such broad sweeping issues without some kind of level playing field IMO, so I'm going to continue on with it.

Summary of data (albeit not an original source) is here:

http://www.childrens...st-gun-violence

So: Considering *only* the tangible, easily measured economic costs only: medical, psych care, lost work, the cost per gun is $225. Buffalo removed 3700 guns from the streets and thus saved Buffalo's society $832,500 over the course of a 6 year program. That's about a 3:1 return on investment!


Conclusion: gun buyback is good, and it works. The result isn't even really that ambiguous. Cost of a real gun buyback program compared to the most reputable figures around for societal costs of doing nothing - Buybacks still win out.

@Braglord

And apparently a 10,000 gun buyback is feasible after all. A city of 1.3 million (Buffalo) can effect a buyback of 3700 guns over 6 years. Assuming that number scales reasonably well with population, the city of New York could effect the same program in 8 months!

Also, if you need to buy back 10,000 guns to reduce the murder rate by 1% (no idea what your source is by the way), and the gun death rate in the US (just for murders) in 2010 was approx. 65,000 people, a 1% decrease means that 650 don't die from murder as a result of the buyback program. Per year. What the heck is not feasible about that?

im slightly sceptical about these aggregate statistics. There's tables and tables of costs per injury, yet only one table ona per gun basis? I'd love to see the excel spreadsheet version of this. Also one must also look into the fact that those individuals giving up their guns represents a tiny portion of those whose guns who have been used otherwise. Or in different terms, those giving up their terms are incredibly unlikely to be the ones killing themselves, use them to settle disputes, commit crimes etc.

Finally in that cost per gun figure, several colums are missing that were present in other tables. Again id love to see the excel spreadsheet version of this.

as to source, According to steven levitt "steven levitt:

Quote

gun buy back are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented in the history of man kind. So the typical gun buyback will offer 25 or 50$ for a gun, or maybe they'll offer something else, there was one you could get therapy
interviewer:yeah that was the one in california.

But the fact is, maybe a 1000 guns will be turned in an incredibly succesful porgram , and its succesful in that there's a really big pile of guns and the mayor will set that pile on fire and it's a great media opportunity.

but there's two fundamental problems with this. First, the only people that brings these guns to buy back are those who don't want them in the first place. Inoperable inheritable, not sure what to do with, these are not the ones being used to kill people. Anyone who has a gun and wants to put it to a real purpose doesn't bring it to a buy back so It gets the wrong types of gun
but fundamentally, i think people are confused with respect to how dangerous a particular gun is.if i've done my calculations right, any particular handgun in the US, will kill a person once every 10 thousand years. So in order to prevent 1 homicde ina year, you would need to get 10 000 gun back, but you don't get 10 000guns and you don't get the guns that kill people, so the typical gun buy bakc program would save maybe .001 lives, and that's being optimistic about the effect."
time stamp 7:30-9:30.

paraphrase, cause i'm a slow typer.


granted there's nothing stoping you from listening to that link i posted

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 12 March 2013 - 04:13 AM

[cerveza_fiesta]

@ Brag,

Ah, I see how I misinterpreted your 1% per ten thousand quote from before. Forget that bit from above...I get what Levitt is saying.

And that's the problem with aggregate statistics I guess. Maybe that cost is $32 per gun, or $635, or whatever....but Levitt is contending that the cost for the particular guns captured in the buyback (unwanted, inherited, not sure what to do with, etc...) are not the guns actually performing the acts of violence and therefore the societal cost per *bought-back* gun is essentially nil.

Levitt is a ridiculously credible researcher and economist, so I can't confidently argue against his stance. I guess if you look at it from the point of view that those unwanted, inherited guns might otherwise make it into disreputable pawn shops that then funnel said guns into the black market, then the societal cost might be higher than Levitt estimates. It's a shaky logical leap however, and I couldn't say if it's valid without knowing a lot more about the subject.

There is a lot of research published on the Aussie gun laws. It is a smaller population and a smaller violence problem on the whole, but the results there are pretty telling. Credible researchers argue that the buybacks are not cost effective and others argue that the buybacks are. They largely report a reduction in gun suicide rates (and on overall suicide rates) but the support for direct impact of buybacks on homicide rates seems rather shaky. Also, the black market activity is estimated to have risen by 25% or something since the aussies started their heavy gun control scheme.

The more I read about it, the more I come back to it being an attitude thing. Americans really do think differently about guns and gun violence, and I'm less and less sure that the number of guns has anything to do with it.

[worry]

From Maddow: some new info from Newtown (whole incident took <5 minutes for instance), and analysis of the confrontation between Ted Cruz and Diane Feinstein at the Senate hearings on gun control (first couple minutes can be skipped):

http://www.nbcnews.c...188139#51188139

[Nicodimas]

For every gun the Government was able to feasible buy in a feasible time..Legal gun owner's probably buy two+ in the same amount of time.

Good luck on that one. I do like the idea of if you turn in a gun you don't owe taxes for that year..that would be a good one.

That is not including the amount of truly "grey/black" market guns out there. Millions upon millions are unaccounted for..Its probably a unfathomable number that is 30-50 million if not higher.

-->16,808,538 FBI NIC's check's last year ALONE. Something like 12 Billion bullets? I can't find a concrete stat on that one.

An interesting study would be the effect's of lead on forested areas and waterways..

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 02 April 2013 - 02:20 AM

[Tsundoku]

Oh, fucking wonderful ...

---------------------

http://www.news.com....0-1226636444667

3D-printed handgun 'fires successfully'
by: Staff writer
From: News Limited Network May 07, 2013 7:22AM

HOME-MADE 3D-PRINTED HANDGUN 'FIRES SUCCESSFULLY'

A 3D-PRINTED handgun that is said to be a world first, which anyone can make, has reportedly been fired successfully.
The 3D "Liberator" handgun, made up almost entirely of 3D-printed components, is a small pistol-like weapon that can shoot various types of handgun bullets through several interchangeable plastic barrels.

Defense Distributed now claims to have successfully fired it.

Forbes documented firing tests in Texas.

Defense Distributed's founder, Cody R. Wilson, fired the Liberator by hand himself.

There was reportedly no damage to either Wilson or the gun itself, aside from a crack in a pin used to secure the barrel.

Forbes reports that one secret behind the gun's structural integrity may be that the barrel has been treated with "a jar of acetone vaporized with a pan of water and a camp stove," which is said to reduce friction by slightly smoothing the bore.

The Liberator is made from 16 parts, 15 of which were fabricated with a Stratasys 3D printer, and one non-functional metal part helps the gun comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act.

The group told Forbes that once the gun has been tested and proven functional, they will publish the digital blueprints for it on their website, Defcad.org, allowing anyone to make it.

--------------------------------

Just what we need, even greater casual access to firearms. Next thing you know the NRA will attempt to make it unlawful for people to NOT own a 3D printer.

EDIT: on the other hand, it's one sure way to drag the hicks into the information age aside from militia/hate websites ...

This post has been edited by Sombra: 07 May 2013 - 08:34 AM

[Primateus]

Nicodimas, on 02 April 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

I do like the idea of if you turn in a gun you don't owe taxes for that year..that would be a good one.

That's ridiculous. Far more realistic and fair to be allowed to deduct the value of the weapon (as new) from you taxes when you turn it in. But to get exempt from taxes for a whole year just for turning in one firearm?

Like I said, ridiculous!

[LinearPhilosopher]

http://philosophybit...un-control.html

interesting interview on the subject

[Assail]

Primateus, on 07 May 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Nicodimas, on 02 April 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

I do like the idea of if you turn in a gun you don't owe taxes for that year..that would be a good one.

That's ridiculous. Far more realistic and fair to be allowed to deduct the value of the weapon (as new) from you taxes when you turn it in. But to get exempt from taxes for a whole year just for turning in one firearm?

Like I said, ridiculous!

You're basically pushing people to give up something that has always been guaranteed to them by their Constitution and a tax-exempt year as recompense is 'ridiculous'? Not that I agree with it at all, but your values seem way skewed here.

What is this I don't even

[Defiance]

I'm not sure how offering some form of monetary incentive to turn in guns is pushing people to give up their constitutional right to bear arms. People are not being penalized for not turning in their weapons, and it's silly to think that everyone is going to feel the need to turn theirs in if this became a widespread regularity. If anything, I think it's a good way for people to get rid of firearms that they no longer use. I know a handful of people who just hoard guns - not because they ever anticipate needing them, but because they can't be bothered to get rid of them.

Being tax exempt is indeed ridiculous. In that case, everyone would just go and purchase a firearm every year and people would never pay taxes.