some people are more likely to kill if they have a gun

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 39
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
but according to naysayers, people will always find another way to kill if they dont have a gun.

so... here: women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends

i have other evidence i can share later, but the above point seems pretty clear. if a wife beater has a gun, he is more likely to kill his wife than if he doesn't have a gun.

this isn't rocket science. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@linate
Waal, as I see it, maybe he'd think twice if she had a gun too.  More guns is my solution.</irony>


TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
I remember that study
"of the femicide victims aged 18 to 50 years and 70% of the 307 total femicide cases were physically abused before their deaths by the same intimate partner who killed them"
"Thus, our first premise, that physical violence against the victim is the primary risk factor for intimate partner femicide, was upheld. "
"In comparing our femicide perpetrators with other abusive men, we found that unemployment was the most important demographic risk factor for acts of intimate partner femicide. In fact, abuser’s lack of employment was the only demographic risk factor that significantly predicted femicide risks"
As expected, these effects were due to gun-owning abusers’ much greater likelihood of using a gun in the worst incident of abuse, in some cases, the actual femicide.
(so in other words these guys were already criminals who shouldn't be in possession of a gun)
A victim’s access to a gun could plausibly reduce her risk of being killed, at least if she does not live with the abuser.

is a gun used illegally a very efficient tool, yes it is.  Do they know predictive factors that can lead to femicide?  Looks that way to me.  How does an unemployed criminal purchase a gun legally?  Guns are expensive, maybe not so much on the black market I don't know.
So how do you stop the "wife beaters" as you put it from getting a gun they can't have legally in the first place?
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the point of the study is to show that some people are more likely to kill another if they have a gun. you might say it's obvious that violent or criminal people are more likely to kill. but the world isn't magically split between those people and everyone else. normal people become criminals and violent, sometimes, too. so, the point is that a gun can cause some people to kill more often. people try to weasel out of that but that's just the way it is. 
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@linate
Here, let me put this in perspective. If i don't own a knife... i am 0 times as likely to cut my hand. If i own a knife i am 100,000 times more likely to cut my hand. DUH! If you own something you are something times more likely to hurt yourself with it. Now when you actually crunch the numbers... for accidental gun violence... you actually have .001 percent chance to accidentally hurt yourself. There is a reason the MSM doesn't use percent but something "times" more likely. When you say it that way, the number looks bigger than it actually is. So now, knowing this... what do you think the percent is in regards to your OP? I'm sure it is something on the line of women are .00001% likely to get shot.


Vortex86
Vortex86's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 32
0
0
3
Vortex86's avatar
Vortex86
0
0
3
Gun ownership is on the decline, but you are saying mass murders on the rise. That's odd. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@linate
actually that's not what the study said, I put in bold what the primary risk factors were.
people who are abusive are more likely to kill.
and people who are unemployed are more likely to kill.
they were more likely to use a gun if they had one which is a no brainier, but there is no way to conclude they would not have been murdered except for the availability of a gun.


linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts

i will have to study the figures to see where the 'five times as likely' figure comes from, but just looking at the end i see...

'When women are identified as abused in medical settings, it is important to assess perpetrators’ access to guns and to warn women of the risk guns present. '
' Judges issuing orders of protection in cases of intimate partner violence should consider the heightened risk of lethal violence associated with abusers’ access to firearms.'

why do you think they focus on guns if guns have no special role in causing murder? just because it's the fastest 'go to' weapon? what do you think of the study's use of the phrase "heightened risk of lethal violence associated with .... firearms"? aren't you arguing there is no heightened risk of violence associated with firearms, just that they are more likely to be the weapon of choice? that's an important distinction. if they wanted to make your point, they would have said "heightened risk of death associated with violent spouses" or something like that. 

linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
they also say " our analysis and those of others suggest that ... restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide." 

if what you say is true, they wouldn't be talking about removing guns from the situation, they'd just say they should avoid violent relationships. 
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
they are bluntly stating that guns cause an increased risk of death.... "the 8-fold increase in intimate partner femicide risk associated with abusers’ access to firearms attenuated to a 5-fold increase when characteristics of the abuse were considered, including previous threats with a weapon on the part of the abuser. This suggests that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse."
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
"consistent with other research,3,23,15,24,25 gun availability still had substantial independent effects that increased homicide risks. "
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@linate
i will have to study the figures to see where the 'five times as likely' figure comes from, but just looking at the end i see...

'When women are identified as abused in medical settings, it is important to assess perpetrators’ access to guns and to warn women of the risk guns present. '
' Judges issuing orders of protection in cases of intimate partner violence should consider the heightened risk of lethal violence associated with abusers’ access to firearms.'

why do you think they focus on guns if guns have no special role in causing murder? just because it's the fastest 'go to' weapon? what do you think of the study's use of the phrase "heightened risk of lethal violence associated with .... firearms"? aren't you arguing there is no heightened risk of violence associated with firearms, just that they are more likely to be the weapon of choice? that's an important distinction. if they wanted to make your point, they would have said "heightened risk of death associated with violent spouses" or something like that. 

it would make sense to not allow an abuser access to a gun, since being an abuser is the primary risk factor for intimate partner femicide

this "study" if you believe is focusing on guns I would say there's a fair amount of bias is one reason.
again you are totally ignoring what I pointed out to you, in their own words the primary risk factors, notice which ones were talked about first.
I'll quote it yet again for you "gun-owning abusers’ much greater likelihood of using a gun"  notice they chose not to say primary risk factor for intimate partner femicide?

so let's break this down a little more, most of these abusers are probably prohibited by several laws from possessing a gun, would you agree with that?  If you do would you agree they probably obtained them illegally?
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the only point i'm trying to make is that owning a gun causes some people to be more likely to kill someone than if they don't have a gun. you contested this. i showed you the data that says otherwise. now, you don't show the data to be wrong, but choose to change the subject. i will address your points, but it is noted that you have not refuted that basic premise. 
(at the very least you would have to concede that having a weapon increases the likelihood of death. i dont know what they would show if they did a study to show the liklihood of death with any weapon around. but we have to at least see that weapons incrase murder chances, and that at least includes guns. the sentence at the beginning of this paragraph of being more likely to murder with a gun, is true)

yes i agree that the biggest likelihood of death is previous abuse. with that said, it doesn't mean a gun doesn't cause increased likelihood of death. also with that said, the world again is not magically split between those who are crminals and those who aren't. normal people become abusive. i'm not saying normal people shouldn't have guns, but when we are considering where to draw the line in who should have guns, we should remember that having the gun will cause some people to be more likely to kill someone, so it's at least a consideration. maybe he beat his wife twice, but the judge thought his 'right' to a gun protects him?

yes i agree a lot of those guys probably got their gun illegally. with that said, not everyone who is denied a gun is going to run out and get one. that's just common sense. and, for those that dont just run out and get one...... if you don't have a gun when you go off on your spouse, you aren't as likely to kill them. 

so what i'm getting at is if common sense doesn't do it for you, look at science. both indicate what i've been arguing. 
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
people can legit disagree about where to draw the line when preventing people from having guns. but i'm arguing that it shouldn't be part of the debate whether the gun will increase the likelihood of murder. it does increase, so a person shouldn't just think "well they will kill whether or not they have a gun, so why stop them at all?" 
if you don't think a gun increases the likelihood of murder, why don't you argue that? why prevent an absuive dude from having a gun if he's just going to kill his wife either way?
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@linate
"the only point i'm trying to make is that owning a gun causes some people to be more likely to kill someone than if they don't have a gun."

ok here's the problem, I think I've narrowed it down, owning a gun doesn't cause anything in the context of what you are saying.  The causes are the primary risks I've already mentioned.  Just because abuser doesn't have a gun doesn't mean he won't beat her to death or murder her by some other means.  If you are going to murder someone, if you are that evil and crazy, then yes the gun would probably be the best tool for the job.
I'm not sure on all the state laws, but I'd be very surprised if convicted domestic abusers can still buy a gun legally, I would hope that they can't.  One of the many issues i take with these studies is there's no background of these men.  For instance how many had previous gun charges?  That would be a good thing to know when evaluating this "study'.  I'm inclined to believe many had previous gun charges prior to the murder, but this wouldn't be good for their conclusion.  Apparently the laws are too weak a punishment for domestic abusers as I'm sure most of them had a long history of criminal behavior long before the murder.
this is a criminal problem, not a gun problem.

Do you really think if we removed the guns, these guys would think dam I'd kill her if I only had a gun?  But since I ain't got none I caint kill her.

now something else the "study" doesn't show or I didn't read, I may have missed it.  How many of these guys alread had a gun vs went out and got one for the purpose of the murder.  That's pretty important to know imo.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,177
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This thread is so funny. It evokes a picture of a fat redneck stroking his firearm while rasping in his best Gollum voice "my preciousssss"

Good grief.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,177
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@linate
How many times is it more likely the wife will kill the wife beater if she has a gun? I'm  guessing it's probably more than 10 times considering how physically frail women are.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you really think if we removed the guns, these guys would think dam I'd kill her if I only had a gun?  But since I ain't got none I caint kill her.
Thinking isn't the issue.  I've never killed anyone,but I'd guess shooting dead is easier than doing it with bare hands or a knife.  i can imagine how in the middle of a flaming row the house gun comes out and BANG!  - someone is dead.   Of course that can happen with a knife or a hammer. but maybe a gun just makes it that bit easier to kill rather than injure.

I doubt many such murders are planned - it's not as if the killer can expect to get away with it!  Ergo, they happen in the heat of the moment were the ease of access to a gun makes all the difference.

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@keithprosser
sure, in this topic it generally happens after or during a fight.  bottom line is we all agree violent criminals shouldn't have guns, but how do you stop them from getting them?  Again it would be interesting to know the backgrounds, how many gang members, drug dealers etc were in this sampling.
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
How many times is it more likely the wife will kill the wife beater if she has a gun? I'm  guessing it's probably more than 10 times considering how physically frail women are.





Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,177
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
That's not the stat I am looking for. I am looking for the rates of unarmed battered wives killing their husband vs armed wives killing their abusive husbands.
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not going to accuse you of "moving the goalposts" but you originally stated that:


How many times is it more likely the wife will kill the wife beater if she has a gun? I'm  guessing it's probably more than 10 times considering how physically frail women are.




From my link:

. In 2015, women were over 100 times more likely to be murdered by a man with a gun than to use it to kill a man in self-defense.


So the link answers your question


As to this question:


That's not the stat I am looking for. I am looking for the rates of unarmed battered wives killing their husband vs armed wives killing their abusive husbands.


I can substitute literally anything unarmed and show the chances of killing would be higher if facing an armed attacker.

That really proves nothing imo bro and doesn't promote your original premise which was that guns make women safer
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,177
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
That's not what I claimed. I claimed women who have abusive husbands are safer if the woman owns a gun than an unarmed women with an abusive husband.
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
That's not what I claimed. I claimed women who have abusive husbands are safer if the woman owns a gun than an unarmed women with an abusive husband.

Thats an impossible statistic to prove although it may make logical sense in some cases. I would imagine though that a woman with martial arts knowledge is safer than a woman without and a woman with brass knuckles is also safer than a empty handed lady too.

But the fact remains that statistically there is no evidence to suggest that abused women arming themselves makes them safer.

There are statistics that it does however endanger them much more Bro




Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,219
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Outplayz
Here, let me put this in perspective. If i don't own a knife... i am 0 times as likely to cut my hand. If i own a knife i am 100,000 times more likely to cut my hand. DUH! If you own something you are something times more likely to hurt yourself with it. Now when you actually crunch the numbers... for accidental gun violence... you actually have .001 percent chance to accidentally hurt yourself. There is a reason the MSM doesn't use percent but something "times" more likely. When you say it that way, the number looks bigger than it actually is. So now, knowing this... what do you think the percent is in regards to your OP? I'm sure it is something on the line of women are .00001% likely to get shot.
Didn't seem like he was talking about accidents.

Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
I know he wasn't. I was just showing how the media just lies all over the place when it comes to guns. Even when they talk about accidents... they say if you own a gun you are 20 times more likely to accidentally shot yourself. I've heard that from some online people... they kept saying look look owning a gun you are x times more likely to die. When if they were honest... they would say you have .0001 percent chance to accidentally hurt yourself. Which sounds a lot better odds than hearing a big number thinking it's common. So the same applies to his OP. Girls are whatever times more likely... no more like you have less than a fraction of a percent chance.

Plus, deaths from blunt objects or sharp objects are pretty high themselves. Just run away from a psychopath boyfriend/girlfriend. If the person is crazy enough to beat you to in inch of your life... then, you should suspect that he/she can kill you too. I just hate how people blame everything on the object when it is the reality of it that needs to change. Lock the abuser up, run away, call the police... and i will even agree... if they have an abusive history, don't sell them a gun like i think is the case in California. But even still... sell a gun or not, someone willing to shot you would be just as willing to beat or stab you to death. Run Run Run... people need to learn they control their surroundings and no law can help them if they don't help themselves.  

I know i might be a little short sighted to the severity of the event. Maybe some can't get away from such situations. Then we as a society need to help out. All i know is that it has very little to do with the object if you really want to fix these issues. Especially when the object will always be there... we are never in the near future going to ban guns (if ever). So it seems like a waste of time arguing about that angle instead of figuring out something that will actually do something about it. 
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
someone willing to shot you would be just as willing to beat or stab you to death.
Howeveer plausible that sounds, that is precisely what the statistic mentioned in the OP says is not the case.



Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
. In 2015, women were over 100 times more likely to be murdered by a man with a gun than to use it to kill a man in self-defense.

This statistic bares no reflection on the topic of abusive relationships. This also assumes the only defensive use of firearms is of a lethal variety, when that doesnt even make rational sense. Most people shit their pants and run the other way when a gun comes out. Most defensive uses of firearms aren't going to be lethal. 


Two studies have been done thus far on studying defensive uses of firearms. One by I believe a gentleman by the last name of Kleck, one by the CDC. The CDC tries burying theirs because it came up with the same result as the Klecks study, which is about 2.5m defensive uses a year. 

Even if we assume half of those aren't actual defensive uses, that still leaves it at 1.25m, which is still far far far above lethal uses of firearms, which are in the tens of thousands. 

Honestly, you people need to learn to analyze statistics instead of regurgitating them like they mean something rationally. "Guns make it more likely someone dies" 

and owning a pool makes it more likely you drown. These kinds of probabilities are herrings as one is attributing culpability and thus agency to an object. Which is at best, insipid, at worst, cognitively deficient. 

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
If you attribute agency to objects, you watched too much blues clues. No, salt and pepper shakers do not talk. Objects do not have agency or culpability in crimes. If you would like that to be true, ur gonna have to rationally explain how a non sentient object can be a moral actor, let alone an actor at all. 🤔
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
they also say " our analysis and those of others suggest that ... restricting abusers’ access to guns can potentially reduce both overall rates of homicide and rates of intimate partner femicide

*Potentially* you nor these people are mind readers. To state someone who died, would not have died without a gun present, is both claiming knowledge you cant know. And on top of that, to include actual IPV on that and not just death makes me highly wary. 

In that study as pointed out, the highest indicator for death via IPV is past history of IPV. Its flat out stated guns increase the risk of lethality. There is nothing that indicates it would reduce IPV, nor does that rationally make sense. 

Somebody who is abusive is more likely to try to kill their partner. If they are more likely to try to kill their partner, obviously they'll go for the most convenient tool to that ends, a gun, if handy. This bares no reflection on the commitment of IPV independent of homicide with a gun. As again, the biggest indicator of homicide of a partner is past IPV being committed.

People dont generally abuse their partners, to state someone with a gun who has no criminal history of IPV or violence at all, is more likely to abuse their partner just because they have a gun, is just horrid logic. See this is really interesting, because on one hand, you are attribiting culpability and thus agency to am object. But on the other, you are actually making a case for why these criminals arent culpable and rather, victims themselves of the evil machinations of guns, which can apparently, independent of other personal prevalencies, cause a law abiding citizen who has zero past history of violence, to become violent, in themselves. 

What you are arguing necessarily means the people who commit these crimes, are not wholly culpable for their acts, and thus should not be punished severely for their actions. See, these kinds of absurd implications of rationale, are often the result of not critically examining the underlying rationale, and just regurgiting things. You aren't thinking about what your position means in its full scope and implications, you are stopping at the surface and going, "nope, surely this is all there is to it, not anything at all beyond this to examine for absurdities in rationale"