The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.

[Donward]

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=8&page=2%22%5DOh.'>http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=8&page=2"]Oh. My. Fucking. God.[/url]

I have been arguing against "threaded fasteners" (read: screws) ever since I was but a pupae in small arms design theory. It actually feels honoring to hear this coming from such a small arms legend as Kontis. Holy shit.

Ortgies pocket pistol master race

[Toxn]

No, it does not "ergo", brah. The suicide rate in the US is high, yes, and a lot of suicides happen at the muzzle of a gun, true. That does not mean you're more likely to die by your own gun than by another's gun! Absolutely not. Set the numbers aside and use your head for a moment. Are you a person inclined towards suicide? No? That excludes you from a large portion of those suicides. Are you a person inclined towards impulsive behavior? No? That excludes you from a large portion of the remaining suicides. Are you a person who takes financial or personal risks? No? That excludes you from yet another large portion of the increasingly dwindling number of suicides applicable to you. Are you outside the ages of 15-34? That yet again excludes you from another portion of suicide deaths.

Of course, there are quite a few 15-34 year old risk-taking, impulsive, depressed people who are very likely to shoot themselves to death. They exist in the USA. Something like 21,000 per year actually commit. 

 

That's one of the problems with statistics. If one subpopulation of folks has a ridiculously high risk of something, then the whole population exhibits a statistical risk of that thing. Suicides are a great example of this, in the US. Now, to a certain extent, they are unpredictable, but that does not justify scare stats like "you're more likely to kill yourself with your gun than someone else is to kill you with their gun". That's honestly bullcrap, or we'd be hearing all the damn time about the latest gun celeb who shot himself. Further, you're forgetting to include DGUs, that's "defensive gun uses" for those folks who don't immerse themselves daily in this shit. DGU estimates are incredibly difficult to accurately pin down, but they range from 55,000 to 4.7 million per year, depending on method and probably political agenda. Even that 55,000 number is way way in excess of the 21,000 firearms suicides per year number, so one could conservatively estimate that owning a gun is twice as likely to save your life as it is to take it - again, that's with ignoring the special circumstances of a large proportion of suicides that don't apply to many people. In the interests of fairness, I should point out that I am also assuming every DGU prevented a death - clearly not true, but with a range of 55K to 4.7 mil, I don't feel too bad about it. All three of my DGUs, for example, have been in circumstances I felt my life was in danger.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the stats are lying to you. Suicides are substantially accounted for by people who have serious mental health issues - yes, a certain proportion of those are "had a bad day" suicides, but that number isn't the whole 21,000 total. Further, the number of people killed in defensive gun uses is not even remotely reflected of the number of DGUs that have saved lives, nor is the number of people murdered (about 16K) reflective of the number of people whose lives were threatened. It's entirely possible, and I know quite a few people who would fiercely contend, that the number of DGUs in this country illustrate a number of prevented murders that far exceeds the number of suicides by firearm.

You're arguing against someone else again.

 

All I said is that chance of suicide >> chance of homicide in the US.

Thus, your death is more likely to come at your own hands than another's. 

Thus, if your hand is holding a gun...

 

Unless you want to argue that gun owners are statistically much less likely to off themselves than the general population, I can't see how the above could be an issue regardless of what subpopulation you belong to.

 

Edit: Links to why the above is wrong in any case.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart

[Toxn]

Also, if you take the 4.7 million prevented murders at face value, it means that around 80% of American should have fended off a murderer using a gun by the end their lives.

I don't know about you, but this makes the US seem positively apocalyptic.

Edit: or, to put it another way, every non gun owner in the US should be dead by now.

In fact, now that I think about it, this is a great way to test the DGU hypothesis. Is there any evidence that gun owners get murdered at significantly lower rates than non gun owners in the US?

[LoooSeR]

9 mm AR in worst Korea

 

[LoooSeR]

Karden's Vityaz-SN.

 

http://k-a-r-d-e-n.livejournal.com/39106.html

[D.E. Watters]

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

 

 

I have been arguing against "threaded fasteners" (read: screws) ever since I was but a pupae in small arms design theory. It actually feels honoring to hear this coming from such a small arms legend as Kontis. Holy shit.

Kontis devoted an entire SAR article on the topic: "How to Screw up a Gun."

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1611

[D.E. Watters]

More SAR articles by Kontis:

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/articles.list.byauthor.cfm?art_author=George%20E.%20Kontis%20PE
https://www.smallarmsreview.com/articles.list.byauthor.cfm?art_author=George%20E.%20Kontis,%20PE

[Sturgeon]

You're arguing against someone else again.

All I said is that chance of suicide >> chance of homicide in the US.

Thus, your death is more likely to come at your own hands than another's.

Thus, if your hand is holding a gun...

Unless you want to argue that gun owners are statistically much less likely to off themselves than the general population, I can't see how the above could be an issue regardless of what subpopulation you belong to.

Edit: Links to why the above is wrong in any case.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/"%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/"%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/%22%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/"%5Dhttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/'>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/[/url][/url][/url]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart"%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart"%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart%22%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart"%5Dhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart'>http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/02/daily-chart[/url][/url][/url]

Uhuh, pretty sure I'm arguing against a smarmy South African who is misusing statistics and going "who, me?"

On the other hand, if I've misunderstood what your saying, then just saying I'm "arguing against someone else" isn't helpful.

You're making a very serious error in applying broad statistics of an entire population to individuals, and then saying they are "more likely" to experience X versus Y, despite X being the result of choice.

This is absolutely the most thoughtless, retarded possible application of the statistics. To demonstrate how, I'll create an analogous statement unrelated to guns:

"The number of people with piercings in the US is higher than the number of people who die in car crashes, so you're more likely to get pierced than to die in a car crash."

Do you see how retarded this is? It conjures up roving gangs of bodymod artists, because it creates a false comparison between something that happens as the result of a choice but more frequently and an affliction, which is less common.

So, if you don't want to get your ear pierced, it's as simple as not getting your ear pierced. See?

Yes, if you're suicidal, having a gun near by is not doing yourself any favors. Yes, guns have a higher fatality rate than other methods (though this too is misleading - successfully killing yourself is frankly pretty easy if you put your mind to it, even without guns). No, this does not mean I am put at greater risk by owning firearms than by not owning them. Committing suicide is a choice, and prevention is very simple on an individual level: Don't do it.

[Sturgeon]

Also, if you take the 4.7 million prevented murders at face value, it means that around 80% of American should have fended off a murderer using a gun by the end their lives.

I don't know about you, but this makes the US seem positively apocalyptic.

Edit: or, to put it another way, every non gun owner in the US should be dead by now.

In fact, now that I think about it, this is a great way to test the DGU hypothesis. Is there any evidence that gun owners get murdered at significantly lower rates than non gun owners in the US?

Harr harr, very funny. It's not 4.7 million prevented murders, and it's not 4.7 million dead bad guys, either, it's 4.7 million defensive gun uses, and that's the widely publicized "high" estimate.

Now, you're likely asking "what's a defensive gun use?" There is not so far as I know an accepted definition, which is one reason the estimates are all over the place.

[Toxn]

Harr harr, very funny. It's not 4.7 million prevented murders, and it's not 4.7 million dead bad guys, either, it's 4.7 million defensive gun uses, and that's the widely publicized "high" estimate.

Now, you're likely asking "what's a defensive gun use?" There is not so far as I know an accepted definition, which is one reason the estimates are all over the place.

So is there any statistical evidence that owning a gun lowers your chance of getting murdered? Because that would be kind of a big thing in terms of proving efficacy as a self defense tool.

[Toxn]

Uhuh, pretty sure I'm arguing against a smarmy South African who is misusing statistics and going "who, me?"

On the other hand, if I've misunderstood what your saying, then just saying I'm "arguing against someone else" isn't helpful.

You're making a very serious error in applying broad statistics of an entire population to individuals, and then saying they are "more likely" to experience X versus Y, despite X being the result of choice.

This is absolutely the most thoughtless, retarded possible application of the statistics. To demonstrate how, I'll create an analogous statement unrelated to guns:

"The number of people with piercings in the US is higher than the number of people who die in car crashes, so you're more likely to get pierced than to die in a car crash."

Do you see how retarded this is? It conjures up roving gangs of bodymod artists, because it creates a false comparison between something that happens as the result of a choice but more frequently and an affliction, which is less common.

So, if you don't want to get your ear pierced, it's as simple as not getting your ear pierced. See?

Yes, if you're suicidal, having a gun near by is not doing yourself any favors. Yes, guns have a higher fatality rate than other methods (though this too is misleading - successfully killing yourself is frankly pretty easy if you put your mind to it, even without guns). No, this does not mean I am put at greater risk by owning firearms than by not owning them. Committing suicide is a choice, and prevention is very simple on an individual level: Don't do it.

You can't even formulate your analogy right. All I'm saying here is that, if there are more piercings than car crashes, you will be more likely to HAVE a piercing (certain caveats notwithstanding) than be in a car crash.

That such a simple point seems to elude you is astounding.

If more people die by suicide than murder then you, as one of the lumpen proles, are more likely to kill yourself than be killed by another person. That is all. Ard you really arguing the contrary here?

[Sturgeon]

So is there any statistical evidence that owning a gun lowers your chance of getting murdered? Because that would be kind of a big thing in terms of proving efficacy as a self defense tool.

 

You ask the police and the military that question. "Is there any statistical evidence that carrying a rifle lowers your chance of being killed in combat?"

[Sturgeon]

You can't even formulate your analogy right. All I'm saying here is that, if there are more piercings than car crashes, you will be more likely to HAVE a piercing (certain caveats notwithstanding) than be in a car crash.

That such a simple point seems to elude you is astounding.

If more people die by suicide than murder then you, as one of the lumpen proles, are more likely to kill yourself than be killed by another person. That is all. Ard you really arguing the contrary here?

 

Hahahah, no, sir, the argument you made was "there have been more suicides by firearm than murders by firearm, therefore you are more likely to kill yourself with your own gun than someone else is to kill you with theirs."

 

This is a total misapplication of statistics, and is completely illogical.

 

[Sturgeon]

I am gonna flip this around with made up numbers to help illustrate what I'm getting at:
 

 

 

I'm just speaking statistically, here. Suicide/death by accident is just more likely than murder in the US (12.1/100 000 versus 3.8/100 000). Ergo, owning a gun means that you're much more likely to get killed by it than by another person.

 

 

 

I'm just speaking statistically, here. Murder is just more likely than suicide in the US. Ergo, owning a gun means that you're much more likely to kill another person with it than kill yourself.

 

Now do you see how illogical your final statement is?

[Toxn]

You ask the police and the military that question. "Is there any statistical evidence that carrying a rifle lowers your chance of being killed in combat?"

Is the situation in any way analogous to that of the citizen gun owner?

 

In any case, the answer is pretty self-evident here. Owning a gun does pretty much squat for your chances of getting murdered. If it were otherwise, you would talk of nothing else.

 

 

Hahahah, no, sir, the argument you made was "there have been more suicides by firearm than murders by firearm, therefore you are more likely to kill yourself with your own gun than someone else is to kill you with theirs."

 

This is a total misapplication of statistics, and is completely illogical.

 

Ignoring the slight mischaracterisation of my argument, it is perfectly logical, and a perfect application of statistics.

 

I'm really trying to make this as simple as possible for you, and you just don't seem to get it (hence words like 'astounding'). I'll try again anyway:

 

You take a statistically average sample of the population, lets say 1000 000. You tot up how many of them die in a year and by what means.

120 will have died by suicide.

40 will have been murdered.

Of those 160 souls, roughly 50 will be gun owners.

40 of the gun owners will have committed suicide, while 13 will have been murdered.

As something like 50% of the suicides in the US involve a firearm, this means that damn near all your gun owner suicides will be by gun. Of your 13 gun-owning murder victims, 10 will have been shot to death (80% of homicides in the US involve a gun).

The score is thus 40-odd souls who killed themselves using their own gun versus 10 who were killed by someone else's. The maths is really that simple.

So yes; statistically, your own gun is the one most likely to kill you.

 

Per my comment to Bronze, note how tiny these amounts are. Of the 1000 000, about 7400 will die in a year. Of those, 1850 will be from heart disease. Compare this to the 160 dead and you get an idea of how insignificant both murder and suicide are in the grand scheme of mortality.

[Toxn]

I am gonna flip this around with made up numbers to help illustrate what I'm getting at:

 

 

 

Now do you see how illogical your final statement is?

That's perfectly logical, at least assuming that all murders happen by gun.

[Sturgeon]

That's perfectly logical, at least assuming that all murders happen by gun.

No it absolutely is not.

[Sturgeon]

In any case, the answer is pretty self-evident here. Owning a gun does pretty much squat for your chances of getting murdered. If it were otherwise, you would talk of nothing else.

Go fuck yourself, hon.

[Toxn]

Go fuck yourself, hon.

Truly you have answered my question here.

 

No it absolutely is not.

Is so.

 

 

Yes, we're at that level of discourse folks.

 

In any case, before I quit in a huff about Sturg's strange ideas about logic and statistics, I'm going to make my political position clear again. I am not arguing that we take people's guns away to stop suicides, nor that we take them away because they don't stop murders. They'd do little for the one and nothing for the other, and in any case your cheese burger habit is more likely to kill you overall. I'm arguing that guns are, in the grand scheme of things, a frivolity. They're toys, essentially. At least, for any society not currently engaged in a civil war.

[Sturgeon]

Is the situation in any way analogous to that of the citizen gun owner?

In any case, the answer is pretty self-evident here. Owning a gun does pretty much squat for your chances of getting murdered. If it were otherwise, you would talk of nothing else.


Ignoring the slight mischaracterisation of my argument, it is perfectly logical, and a perfect application of statistics.

I'm really trying to make this as simple as possible for you, and you just don't seem to get it (hence words like 'astounding'). I'll try again anyway:

You take a statistically average sample of the population, lets say 1000 000. You tot up how many of them die in a year and by what means.
120 will have died by suicide.
40 will have been murdered.
Of those 160 souls, roughly 50 will be gun owners.
40 of the gun owners will have committed suicide, while 13 will have been murdered.
As something like 50% of the suicides in the US involve a firearm, this means that damn near all your gun owner suicides will be by gun. Of your 13 gun-owning murder victims, 10 will have been shot to death (80% of homicides in the US involve a gun).
The score is thus 40-odd souls who killed themselves using their own gun versus 10 who were killed by someone else's. The maths is really that simple.
So yes; statistically, your own gun is the one most likely to kill you.

Per my comment to Bronze, note how tiny these amounts are. Of the 1000 000, about 7400 will die in a year. Of those, 1850 will be from heart disease. Compare this to the 160 dead and you get an idea of how insignificant both murder and suicide are in the grand scheme of mortality.

I literally restated your original statement. It wasn't at all a mischaracterization, so you can leave that right where you picked it up.

You're "astounded", huh? Well, then I'm P.T. Barnum, I guess, and you're a sucker.

It is really quite simple. I take one hundred people not wearing hats. I give two of those hundred red baseball caps, which they put on. I then turn to one of the others and say to him "you have a 2% chance of wearing a red baseball cap."

Of course I would then be full of shit, wouldn't I?

[Sturgeon]

Truly you have answered my question here.

Is so.


Yes, we're at that level of discourse folks.

In any case, before I quit in a huff about Sturg's strange ideas about logic and statistics, I'm going to make my political position clear again. I am not arguing that we take people's guns away to stop suicides, nor that we take them away because they don't stop murders. They'd do little for the one and nothing for the other, and in any case your cheese burger habit is more likely to kill you overall. I'm arguing that guns are, in the grand scheme of things, a frivolity. They're toys, essentially. At least, for any society not currently engaged in a civil war.

Your proof that guns don't prevent murders is that I (who am not a pro-gun activist, and therefore don't have literature waiting in the wings for arguments like this one, and I certainly don't have them handy on mobile) didn't immediately provide you with proof that they do?

And I'm the one having difficulties with logic here, you say?

[Bronezhilet]

Are these quotes screwed up for everybody, or just me?

[Sturgeon]

Are these quotes screwed up for everybody, or just me?

It's a mobile thing, I think.

[Scolopax]

Mobile as far as viewing it or posting it?  Quotes here are screwy for me too.

[Bronezhilet]

Mobile as far as viewing it or posting it?  Quotes here are screwy for me too.

I'm viewing on PC.