Time for mey repeated rant that homicides are not a good metric to use for criminal gun violence.
Homicides happen only when someone dies, and dying from a gunshot depends on placement. Placement of the shot, geographical placement of the incident, placement of EMTs and ambulances and ER surgeons.
I stand a much better chance of dying if I accidentally shoot myself while all alone in a tree stand in rural Idaho than if a gang banger caps me in the ass in downtown Baltimore, blocks from a world-class trauma center.
If you wanna talk about guns and the evil they do, homicide is not a good metric. Total crime in which guns are used is necessary to understand anything about guns and crime, including robberies in which a gun is brandished but not used, and self defense in which a gun is brandished but not used. And everything in between, from mass shootings by crazies to SWAT teams saving hostages.
Otherwise you’re looking at confounded effects including the state of modern medicine near the shooting, self defense gun laws, attitudes toward criminals, recidivism of released offenders, etc., etc., etc., instead of the effect of guns on the public.
Mikee is right. The best indicator of whether or not a shooting (or stabbing) will be fatal – statistically speaking, not talking about how good your aim is – is the distance to trauma center.
That is why the Left loves this metric. They can save a lot of people in Boston and Chicago that wouldn’t get saved in a more rural setting, so it helps keep their numbers from looking too bad. If you look at violent crime generally… well then they don’t look so good.
April 1st, 2014 at 3:27 pm
Time for mey repeated rant that homicides are not a good metric to use for criminal gun violence.
Homicides happen only when someone dies, and dying from a gunshot depends on placement. Placement of the shot, geographical placement of the incident, placement of EMTs and ambulances and ER surgeons.
I stand a much better chance of dying if I accidentally shoot myself while all alone in a tree stand in rural Idaho than if a gang banger caps me in the ass in downtown Baltimore, blocks from a world-class trauma center.
If you wanna talk about guns and the evil they do, homicide is not a good metric. Total crime in which guns are used is necessary to understand anything about guns and crime, including robberies in which a gun is brandished but not used, and self defense in which a gun is brandished but not used. And everything in between, from mass shootings by crazies to SWAT teams saving hostages.
Otherwise you’re looking at confounded effects including the state of modern medicine near the shooting, self defense gun laws, attitudes toward criminals, recidivism of released offenders, etc., etc., etc., instead of the effect of guns on the public.
April 1st, 2014 at 8:32 pm
If it saves only one life, we can use it as justification to pass any fucking law we want.
April 1st, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Mikee is right. The best indicator of whether or not a shooting (or stabbing) will be fatal – statistically speaking, not talking about how good your aim is – is the distance to trauma center.
That is why the Left loves this metric. They can save a lot of people in Boston and Chicago that wouldn’t get saved in a more rural setting, so it helps keep their numbers from looking too bad. If you look at violent crime generally… well then they don’t look so good.
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:05 am
How can a inanimate object commit a crime?