Gun violence: guns don't kill, the people around you do

[Fred Fuller]

New study from Yale University sociologists...

David Hardy blog post - http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/11/gun_violence_gu.php

US News article - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...ignificantly-increased-by-social-interactions
Gun Violence Significantly Increased by Social Interactions
Being arrested and knowing a homicide victim could increase a person's risk by 900 percent
By ALLIE BIDWELL
November 14, 2013

 

[Arkansas Paul]

If you live in Chicago and hang out with gang bangers, your risk of getting killed rises. Hmmmm. Imagine that.

 

[Old Dog]

Well, to most of us here, this study doesn't surprise any more than a study that indicates that it gets dark outside when the sun goes down ...

Unfortunately, it seems that large numbers of Americans will still go through their lives believing that it's the guns at fault, notwithstanding the vast statistical evidence showing that most intentional homicides are committed by persons with criminal records, or otherwise engaged in criminal activities, against other criminals or those engaged in criminal activities ...

 

[316SS]

The bit from David Hardy about permit systems is confusing. Is he suggesting a sort of guilt by association criterion for issuing permits? And his conclusion: "Thus, shall-issue has the same result of may-issue." Wait, what?

If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore ... a witch!

 

[GoWolfpack]

If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore ... a witch!

Well, she has got a wart.

 

[TRX]

> Being arrested and knowing a homicide victim could increase
> a person's risk by 900 percent

Simple demographics; I first read something similar 30-odd years ago.

That's also the basis of the "links" system the NSA uses to quantify relationships between individuals and groups. I imagine anthropologists have one or more methods based on similar principles.

My grandfather would have said something like, "running with a bad crowd."

 

[MErl]

The bit from David Hardy about permit systems is confusing. Is he suggesting a sort of guilt by association criterion for issuing permits? And his conclusion: "Thus, shall-issue has the same result of may-issue." Wait, what?

He is saying that permit systems keep the bad people from having permits by their very nature. Bad people will not attempt to get a permit. With there being no risk in having the rest of the population carrying guns, Shall Issue and May Issue are the same from an overall safety standpoint. Those without a permit and not willing to carry are unaffected by the difference between May and Shall. There is a big difference to the individuals who would be denied under May, that being the purpose of the addendum.

 

[316SS]

He is saying that permit systems keep the bad people from having permits by their very nature. Bad people will not attempt to get a permit. With there being no risk in having the rest of the population carrying guns, Shall Issue and May Issue are the same from an overall safety standpoint. Those without a permit and not willing to carry are unaffected by the difference between May and Shall. There is a big difference to the individuals who would be denied under May, that being the purpose of the addendum.

If he is saying that gun laws don't affect criminals because criminals don't follow the law ... well, OK, that seems obvious. But what "implications" does the Yale study have on permit systems, may issue or shall issue?

Permit systems can ONLY prevent law abiding people from carrying. Those that would carry without a permit (where one is required) are criminals by definition, whether or not they "run with a bad crowd."

 

[MErl]

I got his point in that section as - States that are May Issue might as well go Shall because it would not affect safety negatively.
It is a bit if a stretch from this one study but a fairly common theme here. Those that get permits are not a threat to others and those that are a threat couldn't get a permit anyway.