California Mathematicians Develop Equation to Prevent Shootings

[BainsBane]

California Mathematicians Develop Equation to Prevent Shootings
Mathematicians say that statistical data shows that gun control is the best option to save lives.

In an attempt to bring a scientific and data-driven approach to the debate surrounding gun control, two mathematicians from the University of California, Irvine have designed an equation based on statistical data that says reducing the availability of guns will reduce shooting deaths in America.

The husband-and-wife team, Dominik Wodarz and Natalia Komarova, used statistical data from existing studies on gun violence to create different measurements for their equation to predict what is the best method to prevent shootings. After plugging in numbers for different situations, the duo came to the conclusion that, at least for one-on-one shootings, gun control is the more beneficial option. Their findings were published on Friday in the journal PLOS ONE.

"We have now developed a scientific framework where we can argue about scientific data and assumptions, rather than having an emotional debate," Wodarz told U.S. News. "The framework has identified exactly what needs to be measured statistically in order to make these predictions."

Wodarz and Komarova evaluated factors such as the number of people who own guns, how many of those people carry a gun with them, and the likelihood that a person could avoid death by using a gun as defense. The team also looked at studies that evaluated the effect of reduced gun availability on the number of guns in the criminal population. Just as a navigation system in a car uses factors such as distance, speed limits and traffic conditions to find the optimal route between two points, the couple used these statistical measurements to devise the most ideal method to prevent firearm deaths.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/26/california-mathematicians-develop-equation-to-prevent-shootings


Study Findings here: http://www.usnews.com/pubfiles/uc-irvine-gun-study.pdf

[dipsydoodle]

1. Anything which helps

.

[napkinz]

2. You'll never see this reported on FAUX

Besides, you can't trust mathematicians.

Stick to the Bible for the facts!

[cantbeserious]

3. Does The NRA Understand Math

eom

[napkinz]

4. NRA Math ...

They believe in addition.

More guns, more guns, and more guns!

Woo-hooooo!

[BainsBane]

9. Here it is

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. NRA and GOP logic

[NickB79]

39. This study can be used to SUPPORT the NRA's talking point

Which seems to be something missed on most posters here who didn't read the ACTUAL source of the report:

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be
minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by
the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the
parameter values.

So, you could reduce gun violence two ways: either ban all guns, or give out guns like candy!

This study seems to have something for everyone.

[Nevernose]

45. Arm the poor!

Start handing out guns for free to poor people and minorities and watch how fast the NRA starts pushing for gun safety legislation.

[geckosfeet]

5. Interesting approach.

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be
minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by
the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the
parameter values. While there is strong indication that the model
assumptions and hence the properties are consistent with data, it
will be important to collect more data to back up the underlying
assumptions more strongly.

Dependence of the Firearm-Related Homicide Rate on Gun Availability: A Mathematical Analysis

Interesting conclusion.

Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to develop a mathematical model that spews out the positions of the two polar opposites in the gun control debate.

Tits on a bull as they say.

And your OP subject line is misleading - the model was NOT developed to prevent shootings.

[BainsBane]

10. I love how gun nuts hate the news

Interesting "analysis". Seems like some go to a lot of trouble to avoid reading or understanding the study. No surprise there.

The title of my OP is the title of the article, but gun nuts bury their heads in the sand and denounce anyone that doesn't regurgitate NRA talking points. Every time I post an article the gun evangelists complain they don't like the information. They invariably blame me for exposing DUers to facts they want suppressed. Thinking people of the planet don't share the gun nut commitment to willful ignorance. There is nothing the gun interests hate more than informed research and information, which is why gun nuts stand with the NRA is suppressing research on gun violence and the public's access to information. They are afraid of facts and the truth and stand with wealthy corporate interests in suppressing knowledge.

Everyone knows the last thing gun evangelists would ever want to do is to figure out how to reduce deaths. Where's the profit for the gun lobby in that? The profits are all in guns and funerals, so they do everything to maximize both. The pro-murder ideology revolves around maximizing bloodshed, and they work relentlessly toward that end.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. What's with this "you people"? Let's quit personalizing these debates & return to facts. nt

NOTE: The post this is a reply to has been edited since this reply was posted.

[BainsBane]

15. Okay, fair enough

[geckosfeet]

19. Just going by what the authors state. You are welcome to your own interpretations.

The tile of the published report is:

Dependence of the Firearm-Related Homicide Rate on Gun Availability: A Mathematical Analysis

You subject line is inaccurate and leading to you own bias, which is in direct contradiction to the spirit of mathematical analysis.

[BainsBane]

20. Conclusions

With this constrain in mind, the preliminary
parameterization of the model suggests that the firearm-induced
homicide rate might be minimized by a ban of private firearm
possession, and possibly reduced if gun availability is restricted to a
certain extent. Due to the preliminary nature of the data used for
model parameterization, however, this should not be viewed as a
policy recommendation, which will require detailed epidemiological studies that collect extensive data sets specifically geared
towards parameterizing the model. (3) Possibly the most important
contribution of our study is as follows. Our model is based on
several variables/parameters, and it shows in what way these
parameters may contribute to the delicate balance of factors
responsible for the prevalence of gun-related homicides. To
improve understanding, these crucial parameters need to be
measured by epidemiological and statistical studies.

http://www.usnews.com/pubfiles/uc-irvine-gun-study.pdf

[geckosfeet]

25. Nice cherry pick.

In an effort to present a more honest reperesentation:

This paper provides the first mathematical formulation to
analyze the tradeoff in the relationship between legal gun
availability and the rate of firearm-induced death: while more
wide-spread legal gun availability can increase the number of gunmediated attacks and thus the firearm-induced death rate, gun
ownership might also protect potential victims when attacked by
an armed offender, and thus reduce the firearm-induced death
rate. The main contributions of this study are as follows. (1) We
created a mathematical model which takes account of several
factors that are often discussed in the context of gun-induced
homicide. The model is based on a set of assumptions that are
supported by previously published empirical data, as was discussed
in detail.

The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be
minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by
the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the
parameter values. While there is strong indication that the model
assumptions and hence the properties are consistent with data, it
will be important to collect more data to back up the underlying
assumptions more strongly.

Dependence of the Firearm-Related Homicide Rate on Gun Availability: A Mathematical Analysis

Also, please link to the source of your excerpt.

[BainsBane]

32. Yours is from the abstract

Mine is from the conclusion and labeled as such. The link, as I have said three times, is in the OP.

[geckosfeet]

37. You are wrong. I link directly to the pdf of the study and quote directly from the conclusions.

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2013, 11:10 AM - Edit history (1)

You link to a bloggers anti-gun puff piece.

on edit: The blogger/you in the op also provide a link to a pdf of the study that I quote form.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. "An armed society is a polite society." [...] widespread free mental health care

In mathematics, it is not uncommon for two extremes (0 % and 100 %) to be solutions that minimize variables of interest.

If you want a solution that falls in the middle, you'll have to change the constraints, which may mean changing society.

Such changes might include widespread free mental health care with no caps and include all levels such as emotional counseling, parental mentoring, and free drugs (where applicable). Other changes might include housing for homeless people, fully funded public schools, legalization of marijuana, and a lot of progressive agenda items that would make Rs and Ts shit bricks.

[BainsBane]

17. What happened to discussing the facts in the study?

Suddenly you have no interest in that. I guess if they don't justify more guns, facts no longer matter.

[geckosfeet]

21. The study suggest justification for more guns- and no guns. They get to have it both ways.

The basic conclusion of the study: their model suggests more guns or or no guns will reduce gun homicide, depending on input parameters. read it. It is clearly stated in the conclusions. Not much of an endorsement for either position if you ask me, and pretty typical for a model of this type.

Please, don't try to parade this study as something it is not. We are not fools. You are only revealing your bias and willingness to mislead and ignore the researchers stated conclusions to support your own position.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. I discussed the facts of the results of the study and used that as a point of departure.

I'm not sure why you should get upset at a combination of facts and progressive ideas, especially when they are linked by my post.

[BainsBane]

27. I don't object to those measures you propose

In fact, I think they are great. What I don't like is when that becomes a way of avoiding a discussion about gun proliferation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Guns are a problem, but people are a bigger problem. Progressive solutions solve the bigger problem

Guns are a problem, but people are a bigger problem. Progressive solutions solve the bigger problem ...

... and that solves the gun problem.

[BainsBane]

31. Evidence shows you are wrong

If you look at data from countries with comparable standards of living, the US has the highest homicide rate. Researchers at Stanford have attributed that to gun policy. They say nothing else can explain the high homicide rate in the US. (See the Stanford Conference televised on CSPAN about a month ago). Our homicide rate is higher than the West Bank and much of the developing world. Pretending guns are not the problem is factually false.

Besides, you know full well we do not live in a political climate where your suggestions are going to be passed. You know that. So this is in effect a distraction to promote gun proliferation. If only we were Norway. Well, we aren't Norway, and if we were Norway there wouldn't be hundreds of millions of jobs. I also do not believe there is such a thing as a progressives pro-gun position. To be pro-gun is to value property and corporate profits about the public interest and human life, That is the height of Randian self interest.

You can create any ideological ideal fantasy you want, but the fact is guns kill and the higher the rate of gun ownership the higher the homicide rate. To fail to address the problem of gun proliferation is to show indifference to human life. The much lauded thread in the gungeon where a gun activist proclaims "my rights trump your dead" sums it up perfectly. Their stuff is more important than our lives. They truly believe that. There is nothing progressive about that blatant disregard for the lives of others. I know gun evangelists to not accept the premise I have articulated here, but that is nonetheless the effect of the policies they promote. It's like being a war hawk and pretending the ensuing deaths have nothing to do with promoting war. One directly causes the other. To pretend otherwise is to willfully ignore reality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Avoid binary thinking and especially pigeon-holing.

My position is not what you think it is ("justify more guns&quot and it is not simplistic like you think it is.

[Kolesar]

6. Will the GOP legislatures make it illegal for math teachers to talk about crime or trauma...

...to their students??

[cantbeserious]

7. Yes - Truth = Terrorism - It's A Brave New World

eom

[BainsBane]

8. In Arkansas they are training to carry concealed weapons in schools

which evidently is more important than math.

[Kolesar]

11. Ohio's forensic topic was "crime" when I was a high school junior on the debate team

These topics are not obvious. It is hard to find the causal effects in crime issues. Hence, emotion rules the topic and the PR agencies for the weapons industry prevail.

There is about no other society where weapon owners are so out of control, at least in the developed world.

[Bake]

14. What was it Mark Twain said?

Something about "lies, damn lies, and statistics?"

I'm curious about the underlying assumptions. Some here will hail the conclusions as mathematical proof simply because they support one's pre-existing position on banning firearms altogether (OP, e.g.). I'm curious about the underlying assumptions. The mathematicians may be correct, or then again, they may not be.

Bake

[BainsBane]

16. You don't need to wonder

The study itself is linked in the OP. Read it.

[BainsBane]

18. Or, in other words, "don't show me research that contradicts

my religion of gun worship." "The world is flat. It was created in 7 days. I knows it."

[Bake]

28. Thanks for proving my point

I knew it wouldn't take long. Nowhere did I criticize the article. I simply raised a question about underlying assumptions and you immediately go for the throat.

I can assure you that my religion does not involve guns.

Bake

[Motown_Johnny]

23. Person - Gun = Prevented Shooting

[BainsBane]

24. Such clear logic

is too much for the gun cabal.

[Robb]

47. Kicking for this reply. Well done.

On the OP, it appears the idea is we can fix this problem either by having a lot fewer guns in everyone's hands or a lot more guns in the hands of the well-trained only.

I would ask of the gun-favoring set this question: which is more palatable?

[eomer]

33. Seems pretty sketchy to me.

So they made a mathematical model based on reasoning out how they thought certain forces would influence the result of gun deaths. Then they went out and found a very small sample of data that fits the model. But they don't provide sufficient explanation of how they chose that small sample from among the data universe. While they discuss the need to control for a few factors like socio-economic conditions, they don't disclose any actual methodology for this control or any convincing case that there aren't other factors that would need to be controlled for, so a skeptic would conclude that they likely chose that sample because it fit the model and excluded others merely because they didn't fit the model.

And even so, that sample only provides a couple of points that fit the model somewhere in the middle range of the function. Two points does not, of course, validate the shape of the curve and especially doesn't validate that the extreme ends are a good fit.

Even while they are stating (premature) conclusions from their approach, there is a between-the-lines admission in the study that they really haven't shown much of anything but rather have suggested an approach that might, in the future, show something - a prospect of which I'm skeptical.

[geckosfeet]

38. It is sketchy. And inconclusive. The op climbs out on limb and tries to pass it off

as re-enforcing his/her own anti-gun position.

See my response here:
my initial response to the op

[HereSince1628]

34. heuristic but resolving very little

Moreover, tractable, generalizable mathematics typically requires simplification of the problem and it's assumptions. And mathematically speaking one walks away mostly better understanding only the things that were considered during the model building and it's analysis. But heuristics is actually one of the greatest goods that comes from such an exercise, so that outcome is not entirely unexpected or necessarily bad.

Still failure to incorporate realistic outcomes for exchange of gun confrontations, aka gunfights, (including the likelihood of collateral injury/death whether or not the gunman is subdued) would and does effect the social acceptability of the outcomes of gunfights and is likely to trip up many persons concerned about 'realistic' political considerations rather than workable mathematics.

The thought involved in considering the problem beyond the immediate mathematics is also interesting. In particular, for example, I note that the authors present certain scenarios concerning the availability and prevalence of legal and illegal guns among victims and attackers as being differentiated into urban vs suburban scenarios. The reality of such distinctions seem very fuzzy edged at best and are actually not required by the mathematics. So, why did the authors choose those names? It's likely a matter of their understanding of American culture. That perspective of the authors' cultural understanding is inescapably incorporated into the way they look at the various functional relationships upon which the model rests.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Gun ownership is up, concealed carry is way up, gun accidents and gun homicides are down.

Since 1998 there have been 171,920,643 NICS checks. That is a LOT of guns purchased. Yet gun homicides are down (2005 - 10,100) to (2011 - 8,583).

Emperical evidence beats theory. They need to go back to the chalkboard.

[Nunliebekinder]

36. So? The best way to reduce crime may be to

summarily execute all criminals. The "best" solution is rarely the most practical.

[napkinz]

40. kick

nt

[hack89]

41. So making guns more available will reduce gun violence?

glad you have come around. Interesting study - good to see a pro-gun study from you for a change.

[BainsBane]

42. No, I have not had a lobotomy nt.

[hack89]

43. Yet you support a study that presents two options to reduce gun violence

one option being more guns. Do you agree with the study now?

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. We weren't supposed to notice either the "guns for all" option or the altered title.

I suspect we will not be hearing any more about this study from certain posters now that some
inconvenient truths have been pointed out...

[Quantess]

46. Critics will immediately zero in on the mathematicians' foreign sounding names.

They will insinuate that these comrades can't possibly know what is good for America, because they aren't even Americans. Count on that.