Thread: Cost of firearms deaths

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

I was referring to the community in general. Although some of the callous comments about the value of life or tax positive are uncalled for.

There are better ways to advocate for our hobby than to play into their stereotypes.

I would like to know what/how they come up with their costings. Like future earnings, tax take , projected economic output etc. The true cost should be, clean up, coroner, funeral. Nothing more.
It would be interesting if there were comparisons to Rugby, Motorsport etc

Originally Posted by Steve123

I would like to know what/how they come up with their costings. Like future earnings, tax take , projected economic output etc. The true cost should be, clean up, coroner, funeral. Nothing more.
It would be interesting if there were comparisons to Rugby, Motorsport etc

Who would you like to go and find those figures you are interested in up, or compile them for you?

Let's not lose sight of 2 unchangeable facts

1 This study makes no differentiation between lawful use and unlawful use of firearms when talking about harm

Hence logically we can reject the findings if we suspect that this study is used by the antis to limit our access to using firearms legally

Whether in the practice of political argument that actually happens is another issue but if we want to combat what we see as propaganda then we need to fund studies that are founded on a fairer basis so that we can argue against the Otago crowd on an apples vs apples basis


2 Some people are a waste of space

You can pussyfoot around this fact as much as you like but there are some people who, if they were hit by a bus, the whole of society would progress forward just a wee bit more

How many people fit this criterion is a matter for debate (Hitler/Stalin/Mao and no others? Chuck in Jim Jones and a few others? a matter of personal taste) and some people believe that everyone is capable of some good in the world and to those people let me tell you about this nice Auckland Harbour bridge I can sell you for cheap...

Originally Posted by 308

Let's not lose sight of 2 unchangeable facts

1 This study makes no differentiation between lawful use and unlawful use of firearms when talking about harm

Hence logically we can reject the findings if we suspect that this study is used by the antis to limit our access to using firearms legally

Whether in the practice of political argument that actually happens is another issue but if we want to combat what we see as propaganda then we need to fund studies that are founded on a fairer basis so that we can argue against the Otago crowd on an apples vs apples basis


2 Some people are a waste of space

You can pussyfoot around this fact as much as you like but there are some people who, if they were hit by a bus, the whole of society would progress forward just a wee bit more

How many people fit this criterion is a matter for debate (Hitler/Stalin/Mao and no others? Chuck in Jim Jones and a few others? a matter of personal taste) and some people believe that everyone is capable of some good in the world and to those people let me tell you about this nice Auckland Harbour bridge I can sell you for cheap...

As so often is the case you entirely miss the point of everything and skew any conversation to serve your limited and narrow narrative. This is just my observation and the intent of telling you this was constructive criticism and not a personal attack.

Whether in the practice of political argument that actually happens is another issue but if we want to combat what we see as propaganda then we need to fund studies that are founded on a fairer basis so that we can argue against the Otago crowd on an apples vs apples basis

This an oxymoron.
If we fund research it will not be perceived as fairer. And in fact more akin to propaganda than the research coming out of a publicly funded and on the face of it independent university - Otago.

In terms of a waste of space I guess you are referring to Dr Lucy Telfar-Barnard.

Lucy's research interests cover seasonal and cold-temperature-related morbidity and mortality; respiratory disease; tenancy law and the regulation of rental housing quality; New Zealand housing construction types, their distribution, classification and associated health outcomes; and novel epidemiological uses of administrative datasets. She is currently measuring New Zealand’s respiratory disease burden, and assessing the effect of mechanised home ventilation systems on health outcomes.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Whether in the practice of political argument that actually happens is another issue but if we want to combat what we see as propaganda then we need to fund studies that are founded on a fairer basis so that we can argue against the Otago crowd on an apples vs apples basis

This an oxymoron.
If we fund research it will not be perceived as fairer. And in fact more akin to propaganda than the research coming out of a publicly funded and on the face of it independent university - Otago.

In terms of a waste of space I guess you are referring to Dr Lucy Telfar-Barnard.

Lucy's research interests cover seasonal and cold-temperature-related morbidity and mortality; respiratory disease; tenancy law and the regulation of rental housing quality; New Zealand housing construction types, their distribution, classification and associated health outcomes; and novel epidemiological uses of administrative datasets. She is currently measuring New Zealand’s respiratory disease burden, and assessing the effect of mechanised home ventilation systems on health outcomes.

Actually I am not referring to Dr Telfar-Barnard as a waste of space at all, I was thinking more of someone like that dork Ewen McDonald and his crooked ilk
Pol Pot was a waste of space

I'm sure the good Dr does a wealth of research that benefits humanity (ie the asthma work) and I wish her nothing but green lights and wasp-free picnics
If Dr Telfar-Barnard can prove that, as we all know, NZ homes are shittily constructed and draughty hence exacerbating asthma symptoms then the response of ensuring that there is a minimum insulation standard ( as a rough example) is a great outcome for more people in NZ who have less control over their environments than owner-occupiers
More power to her elbow

The research that I would like to see done is more along the lines of what the average crime rate for FAL owners is vs the average NZ citizen, the amount of crimes with firearms committed by unlicensed individuals vs FAL owners, that sort of thing
The numbers don't lie, it's where you shine the torch that matters

If anyone wishes to fund such research I would happily kick in a few dollars for the cost of it being done

The reason why I think that we need such research is my fear that the cost of firearms harm may well be used against us who bother to be licensed when the cost may well be caused more by the unlicensed but without research I cannot prove my belief

I would like to not suffer under the burden of more bullshit laws around firearms than we have already and there are people in this country who think that hunting is wrong and guns are evil and like creationists, they are not only completely wrong but also their bullshit ideas should be fought at every turn

Originally Posted by 308

Actually I am not referring to Dr Telfar-Barnard as a waste of space at all, I was thinking more of someone like that dork Ewen McDonald and his crooked ilk
Pol Pot was a waste of space

I'm sure the good Dr does a wealth of research that benefits humanity (ie the asthma work) and I wish her nothing but green lights and wasp-free picnics
If Dr Telfar-Barnard can prove that, as we all know, NZ homes are shittily constructed and draughty hence exacerbating asthma symptoms then the response of ensuring that there is a minimum insulation standard ( as a rough example) is a great outcome for more people in NZ who have less control over their environments than owner-occupiers
More power to her elbow

The research that I would like to see done is more along the lines of what the average crime rate for FAL owners is vs the average NZ citizen, the amount of crimes with firearms committed by unlicensed individuals vs FAL owners, that sort of thing
The numbers don't lie, it's where you shine the torch that matters

If anyone wishes to fund such research I would happily kick in a few dollars for the cost of it being done

The reason why I think that we need such research is my fear that the cost of firearms harm may well be used against us who bother to be licensed when the cost may well be caused more by the unlicensed but without research I cannot prove my belief

I would like to not suffer under the burden of more bullshit laws around firearms than we have already and there are people in this country who think that hunting is wrong and guns are evil and like creationists, they are not only completely wrong but also their bullshit ideas should be fought at every turn

Best way to do that is an official information request, I will look into it.

Originally Posted by 308

Actually I am not referring to Dr Telfar-Barnard as a waste of space at all, I was thinking more of someone like that dork Ewen McDonald and his crooked ilk
Pol Pot was a waste of space

I'm sure the good Dr does a wealth of research that benefits humanity (ie the asthma work) and I wish her nothing but green lights and wasp-free picnics
If Dr Telfar-Barnard can prove that, as we all know, NZ homes are shittily constructed and draughty hence exacerbating asthma symptoms then the response of ensuring that there is a minimum insulation standard ( as a rough example) is a great outcome for more people in NZ who have less control over their environments than owner-occupiers
More power to her elbow

The research that I would like to see done is more along the lines of what the average crime rate for FAL owners is vs the average NZ citizen, the amount of crimes with firearms committed by unlicensed individuals vs FAL owners, that sort of thing
The numbers don't lie, it's where you shine the torch that matters

If anyone wishes to fund such research I would happily kick in a few dollars for the cost of it being done

The reason why I think that we need such research is my fear that the cost of firearms harm may well be used against us who bother to be licensed when the cost may well be caused more by the unlicensed but without research I cannot prove my belief

I would like to not suffer under the burden of more bullshit laws around firearms than we have already and there are people in this country who think that hunting is wrong and guns are evil and like creationists, they are not only completely wrong but also their bullshit ideas should be fought at every turn

Wasp-free picnics I have never heard that one before.

Part of the problem with this is the assumption that seems to be being made that all firearms are used to cause harm therefore they must all be banned - this we know to be factually untrue and there are parallels to be drawn with a lot of other objects. In no particular order, call phones, vehicles, clubs, knives, glass, chemicals - all innocuous inanimate objects until a human picks them up and uses them to do harm or commit crime.

Like everything, society defines the use of an object and whether it is 'good' or 'bad' and the type of object doesn't seem to relate to it's possible uses or likely benefit to society.

One stat that would be useful to look at further is the breakdown by ethnicity of the people most affected by firearms crime and seeing what targeted interventions could be applied rather than 'broad brush' controls over total ownership that seem to be at this point highly ineffective. One other thing that I'm often surprised by is the acknowledgement that in a lot of rural areas unlicensed firearms use is almost the norm, yet no targeted actions are put in place to address this. Obviously in this case there are undocumented firearms being used, which would one would think present a very high risk of misuse and harm. Maybe that's too far from town and too hard...

Originally Posted by Tahr

Wasp-free picnics I have never heard that one before.

Winter time Tahr, winter time. That's how you out smart the little buggers, go picnicing in the winter.
I'm not in to picnics so they don't concern me to much.
308 regarding the stats there are plenty of OIA figures out there that support us.
The firearm owner verses police offending rate is useful.
I've shut a few arguments down by quoting that stat.
When some anti gun nut is on a rant, lead them in with a few questions about there dislike, then ask if we were to get our offending rate as low as sworn police officers, would they listen to our side. They usually come out with a hell yes, or of course.
Then drop the fact that the licenced firearm owners offendering rate is approx half that of sworn officers.
Shuts them down quickly.
I'm not sticking the knife in to good cops,but I would like to know why Colfo and the likes dont have that stat up in big red letters.

Originally Posted by No.3

Part of the problem with this is the assumption that seems to be being made that all firearms are used to cause harm therefore they must all be banned - this we know to be factually untrue and there are parallels to be drawn with a lot of other objects. In no particular order, call phones, vehicles, clubs, knives, glass, chemicals - all innocuous inanimate objects until a human picks them up and uses them to do harm or commit crime.

Like everything, society defines the use of an object and whether it is 'good' or 'bad' and the type of object doesn't seem to relate to it's possible uses or likely benefit to society.

One stat that would be useful to look at further is the breakdown by ethnicity of the people most affected by firearms crime and seeing what targeted interventions could be applied rather than 'broad brush' controls over total ownership that seem to be at this point highly ineffective. One other thing that I'm often surprised by is the acknowledgement that in a lot of rural areas unlicensed firearms use is almost the norm, yet no targeted actions are put in place to address this. Obviously in this case there are undocumented firearms being used, which would one would think present a very high risk of misuse and harm. Maybe that's too far from town and too hard...

This particular research does not advocate banning guns or have a black or white approach. It actually isolates out and addresses the risk and stress areas of self harm, accidents, and criminal.
And the researcher says... "so maintaining a culture where firearms are seen as a tool for specific circumstances - that has a really strong set of regulations and harm prevention strategies around it - is really important."

2025 and they have only discovered that now. Balanced firearm education for the population would be the answer. The thing is the majority of the population isnt even interested in firearms or even care....

Originally Posted by No.3

Part of the problem with this is the assumption that seems to be being made that all firearms are used to cause harm therefore they must all be banned - this we know to be factually untrue and there are parallels to be drawn with a lot of other objects. In no particular order, call phones, vehicles, clubs, knives, glass, chemicals - all innocuous inanimate objects until a human picks them up and uses them to do harm or commit crime.

Like everything, society defines the use of an object and whether it is 'good' or 'bad' and the type of object doesn't seem to relate to it's possible uses or likely benefit to society.

One stat that would be useful to look at further is the breakdown by ethnicity of the people most affected by firearms crime and seeing what targeted interventions could be applied rather than 'broad brush' controls over total ownership that seem to be at this point highly ineffective. One other thing that I'm often surprised by is the acknowledgement that in a lot of rural areas unlicensed firearms use is almost the norm, yet no targeted actions are put in place to address this. Obviously in this case there are undocumented firearms being used, which would one would think present a very high risk of misuse and harm. Maybe that's too far from town and too hard...

Funnily enough, there was a programme that went around maraes and rural areas trying to get rural and maori who may have been using firearms without licenses "into the fold" as it were
I believe it was spearheaded by Nicole McKee
Others will know more details as to whether such a programme is still going or if it was cut out like the Mountain Safety Council courses

To the wider point I note that there is a strong vein of self-policing in the FA community ie the way that B-cat license holders have to belong to a club and do a minimum 12 shoots per year to retain their endorsement

I think that the best possible future for FA legislation will rely largely on the community of shooters looking after our own, rather than some bunch of numpties who know F all about F arms dictating rules from the outside

Originally Posted by Tahr

This particular research does not advocate banning guns or have a black or white approach. It actually isolates out and addresses the risk and stress areas of self harm, accidents, and criminal.
And the researcher says... "so maintaining a culture where firearms are seen as a tool for specific circumstances - that has a really strong set of regulations and harm prevention strategies around it - is really important."

It attempts to do that, but I think it lacks a key bit of context: how many of the deaths and injuries would still have occurred even in the complete absence of firearms?

I've read the actual paper, for my sins: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03483 It seems to work on the assumption that none of the suicides would have occurred if the individuals concerned had not been able to access firearms. That seems unlikely to me.

The other interesting thing is when the researcher explains what the research means, in the popular press. She has said two key things: “Strong laws save lives’”
and also “gun-related homicides in NZ reach highest rate in almost 20 years”. There is a slight contradiction there after the changes of 2019 and 2020, it would be good to hear her thoughts on why those changes haven't achieved the outcomes predicted; or when they will.

Originally Posted by inglishill

Who would you like to go and find those figures you are interested in up, or compile them for you?

You can. Thank you for Volunteering. Hurry up, we don't have all day