Gun control/availability of guns

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house?

Check the homicide rate in Switzerland, especially in the big cities like Berne.

Also interesting (to me, at least) to cross reference that with:

Relative rankings on crime, e.g., burglaries, in which Switzerland (#13) has a higher burglary rate than the US (#17) (overall incidence, those with guns not specified). The UK (#7), according to the data, has an even higher rate of burglaries. Finland is #5 in buglaries, with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership (56 per 100 people) than Switzerland (46 per 100 people), although less than the US (90 per 100 people).

Looking at homicides via firearms: US is #8 w/3.6 firearm associated homicides per 100,000 people. Between Mexico (#7) and Belarus (#9). Anyone know want gun laws are like in either of those states? Switzerland isn't in the top 32.

If one compares that with firearms per 100 people (a less than perfect measure of availability), I don’t see any correlation. {Nice graphic attached to 1969912’s post here; derived from primary data here.}

Variables that have been found to correlate to high levels of gun ownership are (1) wealthy countries or (2) countries with recent, intense violent conflicts. The former is the case for US & western Europe; the latter reflects the situations in places like Angola and Columbia. See page 21 of the report noted above for a graph showing the range of GDPs and correlation with per capita civilian gun ownership. The authors discuss where that model breaks down, which it does. Where does gun ownership intersect with gun violence? My hypothesis is that there will not be a direct dependency found.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[freethefly 6]

The first link is for world statistics. The second is for states.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

I can prove availability DOESN'T drive it.

Violent crime continues to be high even in places with gun bans (DC)

That is not even remotely close to proof.

[kallend 1,647]

Take a look at:
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html

Particularly Table 2.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Could it just POSSIBLY be a cultural issue (gangs/drugs/lack of respect for the law/lack of responsibility) and not an availability issue?

I concur that there is a cultural issue (variable) at play, particularly w/r/t homicide. We’re debating 0.5%, 2%, at most 5% changes in violence levels. If one goes back to historical data:

Overall violence has declined dramatically as the impact of religion on western society has decreased and secular & civil-based law has increased.

(Now that I’ve got your attention.
Perception of relative homicide rates is an interesting thing.

England has criminal and court records going back over 800 years. What is observed is that with respect to homicide and other physical violence, the late 19th and overall 20th century was the safest, by a factor of 20!

See, for example Terance Miethe & Wendy Regoeczi’s Rethinking Homicide Exploring the Structure and Process Underlying Deadly Situations

In England the annual homicide rate increases as one goes back through the centuries:
-- 20th Century: 1 per 100k
-- 16th Century: 10 per 100k
-- 13th Century: 20 per 100k

Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms" notes that there was a sharp decline in murder rates with the Protestant reformation. English male aristocrats were extremely violent, with 26% dying violently before that. And another decline was observed with the introduction of continental Enlightenment ideals. [Tangent: A Farewell to Alms is a neat book that challenges from a global economics perspective some of Jared Diamond’s hypotheses in Guns, Germs, and Steel.]

Estimations (which of course get large error bars the further back in time you go) of homicide rates in pre-historical & pre-agricultural societies are as high or much higher. Estimations are usually based on study of remains noting those that exhibit blunt trauma.

---- ---- ---- ----

There’s also a bio-physical factor (more recent history and in the US):

There’s been observed a link (correlation … possible causation) between increase in violent crime and lead poisoning in US cities in the late 1970s & 1980s and with the accompanying decrease in crime in the 1990s as exposure to lead has decreased (via elimination of lead in gasoline & paint). Lead … not gun availability or gun control. (See attached graph.)

And this is contrasted with violence levels in the UK, which did not beginning eliminating lead until the mid-1980s and early 1990s and saw increase in violent crime in the 1990s. Hypothesis is to look for a corresponding decrease in violent crime in UK in now to 2015.

Popular press accounts and links to primary data here.

VR/Marg

p.s. Nigel: Thanks for the BBC link on the process/policy in Cincinnati.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[freethefly 6]

Quote

From a public health perspective, firearms deaths and injuries, whether intentional or unintentional, are a serious threat to the health of Canadians. An average of more than 1200 Canadians have been killed and over 1000 have been injured with firearms each year during the past 10 years. For example, in 1995, 911 Canadians committed suicide with firearms, 145 were killed with firearms in homicides, 49 died in "accidents," 6 were killed in legal interventions and 14 deaths were undetermined, creating an overall firearms death rate of 3.8 per 100,000.1 While some have suggested that firearms deaths and injuries are not serious problems compared to other causes of death such as cancer,2 public health professionals have tended to set priorities based not only on the rate of death but on the extent to which many of the deaths were preventable.3

Although the "911 Canadians committed suicide with firearms" sounds good from an agurment point these 911 suicides could possibly had happened regardless of a gun (hanging, slit wrist, overdose, jumping...). I think that suicide by gun should "maybe" be taken out of the equation but, I could be wrong as most gun crimes could also be perpetrated using another form of weapon (knife, baseball bat, taser, rock...).
Just something to ponder when arguing against guns.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Just something to ponder when arguing against guns.

I'm not arguing against guns per se. I'm arguing against the claim that owning a gun makes you safer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Take a look at:
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html

Particularly Table 2.

Thanks. Interesting data.

Comparing 3 countries:

Netherlands, Norway, & USA

Households w/firearms: 1.9%, 32.0%, & 41.0%
Gun homicides per 1M: 2.7, 3.6, & 62.4.

Huge disparity btw Netherlands and Norway in gun possession but the homicides rate are close (if not w/in statistical variance by year; data not given).

Norway is a comparatively homogenous state (ethnically, religiously, and economically & beautiful from an out-of-doors perspective!) It may make a case for Mike’s argument that it’s cultural issues, i.e., homogeneous culture may correlate to lower violence … & the gun ownership issue is unrelated.

Need some data that reflects other non-gun-related crime and some way to control for the relatively larger heterogeneity in Netherlands, which has a substantial young, non-integrating minority of Northern African and other Muslims (I think it’s close to 10% ....).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Just something to ponder when arguing against guns.

I'm not arguing against guns per se. I'm arguing against the claim that owning a gun makes you safer.

I would say that owning a gun does not make a person safer but does give a person a means to defend oneself. Take, for instance, a person breaks into your home while you are there. The gun didn't make you safe from the break in. Installing a steel door, dead bolts and bars on the windows along with ear piercing alarms will make you safer. Merely owning a gun will not. Owning a gun for defense is only that, for defense. It does not make you safer.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Thanks. Interesting data.

Comparing 3 countries:

Netherlands, Norway, & USA

Households w/firearms: 1.9%, 32.0%, & 41.0%
Gun homicides per 1M: 2.7, 3.6, & 62.4.

Huge disparity btw Netherlands and Norway in gun possession but the homicides rate are close (if not w/in statistical variance by year; data not given).

Norway is a comparatively homogenous state (ethnically, religiously, and economically & beautiful from an out-of-doors perspective!) It may make a case for Mike’s argument that it’s cultural issues, i.e., homogeneous culture may correlate to lower violence … & the gun ownership issue is unrelated.

Need some data that reflects other non-gun-related crime and some way to control for the relatively larger heterogeneity in Netherlands, which has a substantial young, non-integrating minority of Northern African and other Muslims (I think it’s close to 10% ....).

VR/Marg

But,

It is hard to claim that the heterogeneity in the USA is that much larger from Holland to justify the giant increase in gun homocides between the two countries.

Could the availability of guns make a difference there? I certainly think so.

[1969912 0]

Quote

If one compares that with firearms per 100 people (a less than perfect measure of availability), I don’t see any correlation. {Nice graphic attached to 1969912’s post here; derived from primary data here.}

This is interesting:

Go to NationMaster.com, and you can select from several different data sets and view data or graphs. Compare some to the "Nice graphic" referenced above ("Nice graphic" is attached below). A good staring point is:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

---------------

Quote

...firearms per 100 people (a less than perfect measure of availability)...

Yup. You may, however, find some who disagree.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Lindsey 0]

I would say that owning a gun does not make a person safer but does give a person a means to defend oneself.

That right there is the crux. Put whatever statistics in there that ya' like. If a person is, statistically, 90% likely to be killed by his own gun (advocating for the devil here), he's still the one who should be able to choose whether he wants a gun to defend himself. His ability to use that weapon is what affects those statistics. If he thinks he's in the best 1% in terms of being able to use a gun to defend himself, should he have to give his up because the other 99% aren't as capable as he is and put themselves at greater risk??? Hell no, imho. It's an individual's choice if he/she wants to own a gun....not the state's place to make that kind of choice for the individual, imho.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,427]

>Installing a steel door, dead bolts and bars on the windows along with
>ear piercing alarms will make you safer. Merely owning a gun will not.

I agree 100%.

I think any sane, law-abiding adult in the US should be able to own your basic gun if they want one, and if they are willing to exercise the vigilance required once you own a deadly weapon. But they should buy one because they want one, rather than make up reasons that any competent person SHOULD own a gun for their own protection.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Proving that availability DOESN'T drive gunkill rates is sufficient proof, as far as I'm concerned, at least for this discussion.

Forget the DC example. It's too easy to shoot down. The DC bans didn't reduce availability because guns are "streaming in" from other states. You're just begging for a national ban.

Actually, I believe the DC example is a good one. IF the availability of weapons in neighboring states drive crime in DC, then it would ALSO drive crime in those same states - definitely NOT the case, as DOJ stats show.

Quote

Rates of weapon use in violent crimes don't support your claim either (BTW, we're talking about gunkills, not gunviolence). Perhaps the 25% figure is due to choices made by the criminals and not due to availability. Prove that gun availability and murder rates do not rise and fall together.

It does support it, with my change of point to include all violent crime. Obviously, you can't have a gun murder without a gun (as I'm sure the anti's will come along and "inform" us of).

Re DC: I don't have time to look at the data right now, but my first question would be about population density. DC likely has a density much greater than that of a state comprised of several cities of varying pop density with much lower density areas in between? See any problems?


Re Rates of weapon use in violent crime: First, I'm trying to stay with just gunkills for two reasons:

1) Thread title, and;

2) When you start talking about "all violent crimes", you open the door to questions about the definition of "gun." Ditto for "violent crime". For example England/Wales considers bonking someone over the head with a Daisy BB Gun to be a gun crime (There are more than 20 Million Daisy BB Guns in circulation. Who'll stop the carnage?) It's not a big deal though, as long as we use consistent terms/definitions (not all states/PD's do so.)

True. You can't have a gun murder w/o a gun. I'm not sure what you meant by the rest of it. If you want to, post or PM more detail.

Thanks.

PS: You're twisting everything around and your mother wears combat boots

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

But,

It is hard to claim that the heterogeneity in the USA is that much larger from Holland to justify the giant increase in gun homocides between the two countries.

Could the availability of guns make a difference there? I certainly think so.

It might. I don't have anywhere enough experience (or familiarity w/demographic data) on the Netherlands (compared to USA & Norway).

Are the ethnic/religious/cultural minorities in the Netherlands isolated or integrated compared to in the US?
And how does one measure that? There should be quantifiable metrics.

How has it changed over time? Are rates of violence inversely proportional to stratification/isolation based on ethnic/religios/cultural divisions, i.e., more homeogeneous or more "melting pot" = less violence? What about people per unit land and differences per unit land.

In the US, if one controls for the lead issue, are homicide rates (per capita) significantly different in the 1995-now versus other time periods in which ethnic/religious/cultural stratification was greater or less, such as intense waves of immigration versus isolationist time periods?

What does the other data on other heterogeneous ethnic/religious/cultural states suggest?

The relatively lax drugs laws in the Netherlands versus in the US may make it an interesting test case vis-a-vis Mike's original hypothesis, especially if one starts to consider the impact of black-market activities on crime levels.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It's an individual's choice if he/she wants to own a gun....not the state's place to make that kind of choice for the individual, imho.

That's largely the privacy argument: the right to bear arms is a personal right (disentagled from the whole militia status) and restrictions that do not pose an "undo burden" are reasonable.

If I was to guess, I'd bet that's going to be the SCOTUS finding on the DC case. The strict interpretationalists (e.g., Justices Scalia & Thomas) will look to the 2nd Amendment ... but in the numbers game to get a majority, it will take those who don't adhere to strict interpretationalism (e.g., Justices Kennedy & Breyer) who are likely (imo) to argue unilateral laws are an "undo burden."

Of course, I could be very 'wring.'
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse.

Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house?

Back to DC again? The most untypical city in the entire USA. A city with guns readily available to anyone who can drive across a bridge into Virginia.

If your poster child for guns is DC, it shows that you have a pretty piss-poor case to make.

If YOUR poster child is that Virginia guns cause DC crime, you've got an even MORE piss-poor case.

Where's the Virginia crime from all those Virginia guns, Professor? Still can't answer that question, can you?

I'll go as far as to make the case that the availability of defenseless VICTIMS, rather than guns, is the main driver of violent crime.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse.

Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house?

Back to DC again? The most untypical city in the entire USA. A city with guns readily available to anyone who can drive across a bridge into Virginia.

If your poster child for guns is DC, it shows that you have a pretty piss-poor case to make.

If YOUR poster child is that Virginia guns cause DC crime, you've got an even MORE piss-poor case.

Where's the Virginia crime from all those Virginia guns, Professor? Still can't answer that question, can you?

I'll go as far as to make the case that the availability of defenseless VICTIMS, rather than guns, is the main driver of violent crime.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, comparing a city to a state is absurd and meaningless. Wanna compare Dallas to Vermont?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse.

Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house?

Back to DC again? The most untypical city in the entire USA. A city with guns readily available to anyone who can drive across a bridge into Virginia.

If your poster child for guns is DC, it shows that you have a pretty piss-poor case to make.

If YOUR poster child is that Virginia guns cause DC crime, you've got an even MORE piss-poor case.

Where's the Virginia crime from all those Virginia guns, Professor? Still can't answer that question, can you?

I'll go as far as to make the case that the availability of defenseless VICTIMS, rather than guns, is the main driver of violent crime.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, comparing a city to a state is absurd and meaningless. Wanna compare Dallas to Vermont?

Tell it to the folks that compile the UCR....and you still haven't answered my question.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,647]

DC is NOT a state. Just because it's listed for bureaucratic convenience along with states in some databases does not make it a state.

Why are there 50 stars on the national flag?

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Why are there 50 stars on the national flag?

Quote

Because a bunch of rag tag colonials defeated the largest, toughest and most disciplined army and navy that existed in the world at that time.

We beat the living shit out of your kings men.

(I mean that literally, since my ancestors came here with Von Steuben)

• Quote

[freethefly 6]

Quote

I'll go as far as to make the case that the availability of defenseless VICTIMS, rather than guns, is the main driver of violent crime.

Where's the proof that all of the victims were defenseless?
How many of the victims were merely innocent people and not active criminals/gang members themselves?
Considering that the mass majority of murder victims are killed by loved ones or friends (DoJ statistics), would it be best to arm against those you know?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Why are there 50 stars on the national flag?

Quote

Because a bunch of rag tag colonials defeated the largest, toughest and most disciplined army and navy that existed in the world at that time.

We beat the living shit out of your kings men.

(I mean that literally, since my ancestors came here with Von Steuben)

The French helped a bit.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Why are there 50 stars on the national flag?

Quote

Because a bunch of rag tag colonials defeated the largest, toughest and most disciplined army and navy that existed in the world at that time.

We beat the living shit out of your kings men.

(I mean that literally, since my ancestors came here with Von Steuben)

Whoosh. Here, let me help you a bit:
Why are there not 51 stars on the flag?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[1969912 0]

Quote

DC is NOT a state. Just because it's listed for bureaucratic convenience along with states in some databases does not make it a state.

Why are there 50 stars on the national flag?

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

Kallend,

Do you have any idea how God Damned stupid your response was? Why not make a useful, intelligent comment that addresses one or more possible problems with his suggested comparison.

In post #89 I pointed out one possible flaw:

".....my first question would be about population density. DC likely has a density much greater than that of a state comprised of several cities of varying pop density with much lower density areas in between? See any problems?"

See how easy that was? No attack. No attempt to demean anyone. No need to act like a complete fucking asshole. No need to demonstrate to the forum that I'm unable and/or unwilling to engage in rational debate. No need to intentionally interfere with those who wish to use the forum appropriately and discuss the OP's question..

Now let's talk about you. In your professional life, do you use the same kind of logical fallacies, failure to do research, personal attacks, unwillingness to respond in-context, belittlement, etc., that you use here when discussing/debating things? Your behavior in SC threads is not witty, clever, or funny, and is certainly not effective in any way. It's pathetic and disruptive, it makes you look like a major dickhead, does nothing to further your (apparent (because only very rarely do you make clear, concise claims)) argument, and serves only to interfere with thread discourse.

Your behavior seems to violate five of the ten rules/phrases in the forum Rules which are either highlighted or enumerated. Why the mods allow you (and another poster whom I'll refer to as "Agent LGBT - Licensed to Troll") to post in such a way, I have no idea. They're in charge and it's their decision. Given that, about all I can do is make a request of you. Here goes:

Kallend, if you are unable/unwilling to rationally, logically, professionally and politely participate in weapons-related threads, would you please simply refrain from posting in those threads? In other words, either participate constructively, or stay away. Go somewhere else to play your childish games.

Note that those to whom you direct your posts behave in similar ways, but it seems that you are nearly always the instigator. The others take your bait, but don't start the problem. Once your bait is taken, you push and push to the point that threads are often destroyed. I'm certain that if you were ignored, you would find something else to do (I've never taken a Psych. course though...) and not disrupt those threads. That would be nice, but depending on certain of your cerebral characteristics, it may take some time.

thanks,

jim

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG