Thread: Cost of firearms deaths

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 one would think present a very high risk of misuse and harm. Maybe that's too far from town and too hard...

Some of the problem is NOT that these inanimate objects are sometimes undocumented and in the keep of unlicensed owners, but that "the norm" is that everything must be recorded and licensed, as if in some way society is somehow magically made safe/r. Police inevitably will say that by knowing where all of these innocuous and inanimate objects are, everybody will be safer. How so? What does it matter that there are still unlicensed firearms "almost being the norm"? Are they being used for criminal purpose, or simply as an everyday tool without harmful effect?
We are, of course, aware of the lawless and criminal activities of the fraternity who engage in "turf wars" when peddling their narcotic drugs, but they simply do not care what society thinks of them and they will never comply with any rules of a civil society.

The "problem" is a matter of mindset.

Perhaps I'm being cynical in my own thought process but "knowing where all the firearms are" can never make society safe/r unless the records/data are used by the government of the day to confiscate all of those inanimate objects under pain of retribution, because it has been decreed. And after that? Oh, that's right - the criminals will still have theirs, hence the need to maintain an armed police service. Because they knew where all there firearms are/were!

Originally Posted by Oscar

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.

Well worth reading not-withstanding perceived flaws in the argument. Good research ought to leave further questions to be answered. It is not definitive. It certainly belies the notion that its some sort of crazy bias shelia being funded to trump up anti gun rhetoric, as some believe and promote on here.

And some how getting shot with a registered firearm is safer than getting shot with an unregistered one

.

Originally Posted by Oscar

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.

Yes.

And that blindingly obvious 'miss' quite reasonably ( in my view) calls into question the objectivity of the researcher. And coming from Otago, where a fellow traveller ( Hera Cook , from memory) in a submission to the post-CHCH regulatory change hearings made reference to the observed cognitive decline in post-50 aged males in support of greater restrictions on firearm ownership. Institutional bias is a thing, imo.

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.

I tried to explain this in my submission on the proposed Arms Act amendments. I tried to argue against the Act's use of the term "weapon". The range of definitions of weapon I could find tended to require use in combat, or be used with the intent to inflict harm on another person. So firearm is a firearm, and not more less dangerous than a knife... until it is used to inflict harm, only then does it becomes a weapon. Therefore using the word "weapon" to describe firearms in the Act in my mind creates an incorrect assumption/predisposition that all firearms are used with the intent to inflict harm on another person. To the general public, this is scary, and guns = bad. Not a good start point. Society does decide whether an object is good or bad, but I think in e.g. America, guns are generally viewed as "bad" do to the high number of firearm deaths (firearms used as weapons). Here they are only "bad" in the very few occasions when they are used as weapons by criminals, so using that term in legislation supports the conclusion that they are bad. A small thing, but I think it matters in how the general public view firearms.

Hope I explained that clearly enough...

I think the part that makes the firearm worse or more scary than most other weapons is the range at which it can inflict injurys but the catch side is youll probably find that most illegal situations where a firearm was used even high powered ones will be at very short range.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Good research ought to leave further questions to be answered.

Indeed - and great research tends to identify those further questions. I thought it was odd this was taken as a simple either/or, no nuance. We cant expect media to identify this question, perhaps the researcher should have? Or has she pointed this out and I missed it?

The other question not addressed nor raised was the old correlation or causation question - did the law changes cause the reductions? Or were wider social factors also reducing the rates of suicide? I'd pick as always its a mix of both.

Originally Posted by Oscar

Indeed - and great research tends to identify those further questions. I thought it was odd this was taken as a simple either/or, no nuance. We cant expect media to identify this question, perhaps the researcher should have? Or has she pointed this out and I missed it?

The other question not addressed nor raised was the old correlation or causation question - did the law changes cause the reductions? Or were wider social factors also reducing the rates of suicide? I'd pick as always its a mix of both.

I expect that there might be some purposeful avoidance of the more nuanced aspects. As you point out it has left the research a bit blunted. Good points you make.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I expect that there might be some purposeful avoidance of the more nuanced aspects. As you point out it has left the research a bit blunted. Good points you make.

Blunts the research but sharpens the lobbying

Originally Posted by blip

And some how getting shot with a registered firearm is safer than getting shot with an unregistered one

The fact that it is owned by a LFAO means it is very, very unlikely to be used in a crime in the first place. Registration simply shows the degree to which LFAOs comply with what we are expected to do under the law.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I expect that there might be some purposeful avoidance of the more nuanced aspects. As you point out it has left the research a bit blunted. Good points you make.

I would go further - to not avoid those points would largely negate the point the researcher was fairly obviously trying to make. Crime turns firearms into weapons - as someone noted above. Problem I think that many of us are striking now is there are elements in the Govt agencies that will happily turn anyone they can into a criminal where no crime has ever been committed and expect you to roll over and accept their victimisation of you (and not just firearms licence holders). As soon as a citizen quite fairly contests a decision or questions a Govt worker - the response is often literally intimidation and threats. Not good for PR if nothing else. When researchers who should be independent turn out work that looks like this - it really does call into question their separation from the establishment as the way the research is published is almost shoddy in the way these obvious issues are not at the least noted and commented on as requiring further work.

The suicide by firearms one has been discussed before I think - and the verdict was that it would be impossible to differentiate between a firearm-involved suicide and any other type of suicide or even if a firearm had not been available would another method have been attempted. It tends to call into question any cursory examination of this statistic, as costs from this type of event can't be verified in such a way that if a firearm was not available the incident would not have happened.

Originally Posted by MB

But what is the cause of the problems that need mental health services?

well one of them is soical media in tis various froms along with a myriad of other causes

Something else that may be helpfull data wise could be how many firearms owners have committed suicide not using a firearm. I personally know of 2 that didnt use a firearm...

I find myself agreeing with that, but I just cannot like it!