America's gun violence

[GeorgeW]

The author argues along the lines that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well of course. I have never seen a firearm lift itself off the bench and shoot somebody.

 

Yes, people kill people, but they do it easily with the assistance of a gun. 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people - with a gun.'

 

And, it is possible for someone to die from a gun without an agent - accidents (which are relatively frequent).

 

Is it possible to kill someone with other available things? Well, of course, but more difficult. Knives don't work outside the distance of an arm length. Stones are hard to aim and aren't as sure. Explosives take some expertise and time (one doesn't get drunk and kill their cheating wife with an IED). Run over with a car? Yeah, but you have to lure them into the street. And, only explosives work as an alternative for mass murder.

 

George

 

P.S. And, why are gun supporters so adamant about guns if guns are just one of a number of alternative means of killing? Why not use something else to kill the bad guys?

Edited December 22, 2012 by GeorgeW

[JosephM]

Joseph, We could debate endlessly the founder's intent on any portion of the Constitution. I am sure I can find many citations of early writings to support my point. But, the fact remains that it was a very recent decision by a very right-wing Supreme Court that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

 

George

 

Yes, No need to debate it. Smarter men than me more well read than most in history and the constitution have already debated and decided. Calling them right wing Supreme Court takes nothing from their intelligence and knowledge of the facts and their clarification of the challenge to what was meant..

 

Joseph

[PaulS]

Maybe there's some hope this time 'round.

 

http://www.demandaplan.org/

 

[GeorgeW]

Calling them right wing Supreme Court takes nothing from their intelligence and knowledge of the facts and their clarification of the challenge to what was meant..

 

Intelligent? Yes. Informed? Yes. But, in my opinion, motivated by ideology.

 

George

[JosephM]

Paul,

 

Unfortunately that is not the message i got.

This further indicates that while fewer Canadian households have a

firearm, those that do, have more. This confirms most government

estimates of 15 to 20 million firearms in Canada, while in the US, there

are about 200 million (giving both countries similar per capita rates of

firearm ownership). If the rates of firearm ownership are similar in

countries with drastically different murder rates, then it's probably

not the firearms that are the problem.

 

Read more:http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/8-Doesn-t-the-US-have-many-more-guns-and-higher-murder-rate.html#.UNW5EOTLS69#ixzz2Fmw1vcUa

 

He seems to be pointing out that the real problem from area statistics says the problem is deeper than gun ownership as evidenced by a study of Canadian vs US densities

 

The homicide rate is usually always higher in denser populations so the makeup of the population has a lot to do with higher or lower homcide rates with guns. Austrailia is sparsely populated compared to the US and large cities and their makeup and social structure has more to do with gun crimes than guns itself

 

Each state in the USA has it's own laws. Generally, states with

strict firearm laws also have higher crime and homicide rates (and vice

versa). That doesn't mean that "gun control" leads to murder and crime,

but it doesn't seem to have ever lowered rates, either.

Many states, with similar population densities, have less "gun control"

than Canada, while having similar homicide rates.

The US has higher firearm- and non-firearm-related homicide rates. If

"gun control" made the difference between Canadian and US murder rates,then our non-firearm homicide rates should be similar, and they aren't.

 

Read more:http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/9-But-if-anyone-could-get-a-gun-like-in-the-US-wouldn-t-w.html#.UNW6heTLS69#ixzz2FmxO3fC8

 

Joseph

[JosephM]

Intelligent? Yes. Informed? Yes. But, in my opinion, motivated by ideology.

 

George

 

Fair enough George. We all have our opinion.

[GeorgeW]

The homicide rate is usually always higher in denser populations so the makeup of the population has a lot to do with higher or lower homcide rates with guns.

 

Really? How about Europe which is more densely populated than the U.S?

 

How about the U.S? According to the Violence Policy Center, "Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates . . . ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.”

 

The correlations? Gun laws and rates of gun ownership.

 

George

[PaulS]

Joseph,

 

Of course the problem is deeper than gun ownership, but whilst people are dilly-dallying trying to determine exactly what the underlying issues are and how to fix them, people continue to die by the thousands from firearms.

 

I think this guy is just wrong on his data and hence his conclusion. He claims a similiar gun per capita average - it's simply not, as the Wikipedia source pointed out. It's a little simplistic to say Canada has the same amount of guns per person but that's okay because they're just about all farmers and that's why there aren't as many murders!

 

Even though Australia may be more sparsley populated, it was before the new gun laws too, but the figures show a dramatic reduction in the homicide rate overall, and a reasonable reduction in the suicide rate overall. Coincidence?

Edited December 22, 2012 by PaulS

[JosephM]

Paul,

 

Your dramatic reduction started way before yolur strict gun laws (1997) went into effect according to your charts. ours has been declining on the average since 1992. This year may be an exception?

 

Joseph

[PaulS]

Paul,

 

Your dramatic reduction started way before yolur strict gun laws went into effect according to your charts. ours has been declining on the average since 1992. This year may be an exception.

 

Joseph

 

No, the dramatic reduction began around the mid-1980s, according to the chart dating from 1915. This was when laws started tightening in our 2nd most populous state - Victoria. 1988 saw extensive tightening there. Then followed the Howard Gun Laws in '96, and homicides further plummeted. The other chart only shows the decrease since 1990 and doesn't show the history prior.

Edited December 22, 2012 by PaulS

[PaulS]

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

[JosephM]

Really? How about Europe which is more densely populated than the U.S?

 

How about the U.S? According to the Violence Policy Center, "Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates . . . ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.”

 

The correlations? Gun laws and rates of gun ownership.

 

George

 

George,

 

Even in Europe violent crime is usually more prevalent in more densely populated areas as are homicides. I did not say by country, i said in more densely populated areas.

 

On another note, the UK is the violent capital of Europe . While with the exception of this year our violent crime pder capita has been decreasing since 1992, many European counties have seen an increase since then. We all have work to do but the fact of life is that as population grows and economies suffer, crime increases whether with guns or by other means. What i am saying is that research will show that "Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US,while the opposite was true thirty years ago." I think this is a clear indication that while there are more homicides when guns are present, crime itself, in general, is not related to the presence of guns.

 

Joseph

 

PS An interesting United Nations study on homicide rates and reasons.

[GeorgeW]

"Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US,while the opposite was true thirty years ago." I think this is a clear indication that while there are more homicides when guns are present, crime itself, in general, is not related to the presence of guns.

 

Joseph,

 

Of course there are other demographic and social aspects of crime - population age, wealth disparity, economic conditions, etc., but we are discussing guns and homicide, not pickpocketing, burglary, embezzlement, etc.

 

BTW, you didn't address the statistics in the U.S. - states with more restrictive gun laws (and denser populations) have fewer gun deaths than states with with laxer laws (and sparser populations).

 

George

[GeorgeW]

FWIW, according to U.N. statistics, the murder rate in the U.S. is 4.5 per 100,000 persons. The rate in Western Europe is 1.0. The rate in Canada is 1.6.

 

George

[PaulS]

George,

 

Even in Europe violent crime is usually more prevalent in more densely populated areas as are homicides. I did not say by country, i said in more densely populated areas.

 

On another note, the UK is the violent capital of Europe . While with the exception of this year our violent crime pder capita has been decreasing since 1992, many European counties have seen an increase since then. We all have work to do but the fact of life is that as population grows and economies suffer, crime increases whether with guns or by other means. What i am saying is that research will show that "Contrary to common perceptions, today both property and violent crimes (with the exception of homicides) are more widespread in Europe than in the US,while the opposite was true thirty years ago." I think this is a clear indication that while there are more homicides when guns are present, crime itself, in general, is not related to the presence of guns.

 

Joseph

 

PS An interesting United Nations study on homicide rates and reasons.

 

Joseph,

 

 

The author of your first article doesn't define 'violent crime' but with his reference to security guards in pubs & hotels, I suspect he's including the likes of fights and assaults in those precincts. Ceratinly there has been an increase of such crime here in Australia too, blamed predominantly on so many young people using methylamphetamine recreationally, which tends to make one more aggressive when under the influence. Thank heavens these people aren't armed as well. For all its evils, you're still more than 3.5 more likely to be murdered in the US than you are in the UK.

 

Interestingly, the UN report you cite briefly dicusses two theories concerning the correlation between firearms and homicides, but concludes

 

"...a significant body of literature tends to suggest that firearm availability predominantly represents a risk factor rather than a protective factor for homicide. In particular, a number of quantitative studies tend towards demonstrating a firearm prevalence-homicide association".

 

Even the UN can see that firearm availability = more murders!

Edited December 23, 2012 by PaulS

[GeorgeW]

For all its evils, you're still more than 3.5 more likely to be murdered in the US than you are in the UK.

 

And, then there are accidental deaths and suicides.

 

George

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

Of course there are other demographic and social aspects of crime - population age, wealth disparity, economic conditions, etc., but we are discussing guns and homicide, not pickpocketing, burglary, embezzlement, etc.

 

BTW, you didn't address the statistics in the U.S. - states with more restrictive gun laws (and denser populations) have fewer gun deaths than states with with laxer laws (and sparser populations).

 

George

 

George ,

 

I said violent crimes. Pick pocketing and embezzlement is not normally a violent crime

 

George ... Check New York City and some other dense cities with the strictest gun laws and i think you will still find a higher rate of homicides with guns or other means than the average sparsely populated city per capita . An FBI report shows Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter is 15.5 per 100,000 in new york city .

That report doesn't say percentage of guns used but the number of homicides is high for such strict laws.

District of Columbia (DC) is the worst

[JosephM]

Comparing the UK and US, there is no doubt that the lack of firearms does make it less likely you will be murdered in the UK than the US. The US rate is recorded at 4.5 per 100,000 as has been reported. Still there is more of a chance you will die from an auto accident here.

The violent crime rate in the US is 403 per 100,000 (2010) and in the UK the rate of violent crime is 2034 so you are more than 5 times more likely to suffer a violent crime in the UK. Agreed, you are more likely to live from it.... I know we are talking about guns and the death rates on this thread but all is related. I agree there is no argument that whenever there are more guns available for crime there are more deaths from crime but we are definitely not one of the 10 most violent societies (countries) and i feel safer here than walking in many other countries with higher rates of violent crime. And i am still in favor of the right to bear arms with proper checks and training required which will help reduce deaths both accidentally and intentionally even at the present cost of lives.

 

I would like to see us address the real problems rather than blame crime on the guns or assault weapons.

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

JosephM, if you don't see a problem with America's gun culture, what are these "real" problems in American society that you see as responsible for school shootings?

[JosephM]

JosephM, if you don't see a problem with America's gun culture, what are these "real" problems in American society that you see as responsible for school shootings?

 

Neon,

 

Problems are deeper than guns and just with school shootings... problems are in a myriad of areas of society including mental areas, judicial areas , prison system, economic including distribution of wealth, education, overpopulated areas, corruption , media, negativity and violence, religion, entertainment options, greed, government, and a host of others that society in general is and must address on an ongoing basis..

 

If you feel unsafe here because of gun homicides one can always choose a state in the US with less gun homicides than Australia , Canada , England or much of Europe. One can choose to move to New Hampshire Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, South Dakota, Iowa or Utah. All have less than 1 per 100,000 capita gun homicides. New Hampshire and Vermont are the lowest rates and have no state restrictive gun laws or bans on assault weapons. Neither does Wyoming, Iowa or Utah. All states mentioned are quite liberal in their state gun laws and only Hawaii has their own assault weapon ban. Perhaps someone could tell me why those states have such a low gun homicide rate per capita compared to those with the highest such as Louisiana, Maryland , Mississippi, California , Nevada, South Carolina and Illinois. It certainly doesn't correlate to an assault weapon ban or severe gun restrictions. BTW, California does have quite a few restrictions and an assault weapon ban

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Joseph, Can you cite the source of your claims in your Post #170? I have information that this is not correct regarding the rate of gun deaths in places like Wyoming.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

A minor fact loosely related to this topic. I currently reading the book "Team of Rivals" on which the movie "Lincoln" was based. (BTW, it is an excellent book, highly recommended). The author notes that Lincoln, although raised in a hunting society, would not hunt or kill any animal. The author says, "Lincoln's abhorrence of hurting another was born of more than simple compassion. He possessed extraordinary empathy."

 

George

[JosephM]

Joseph, Can you cite the source of your claims in your Post #170? I have information that this is not correct regarding the rate of gun deaths in places like Wyoming.

 

George

 

Here are two different sources but i did find a conflicting report on wyoming as you point out when you use FBI statistics

I'll give you that one as the data might be more current and the difference because of population more significant. (11 deaths-FBI) I still think the point of the post was significant in general.

 

http://en.wikipedia....States_by_state

 

http://flowingdata.c...rearms-murders/

 

PS. As you point out with Lincoln.... neither do i hunt animals or do i intentionally kill an animal bigger than a mosquito except for fishing..

[GeorgeW]

PS. As you point out with Lincoln.... neither do i hunt animals or do i intentionally kill an animal bigger than a mosquito except for fishing..

 

I grew up with guns and hunting. Shortly after I got out of college, some friends asked me if I would like to go hunting with them. I said yes. I lined up an animal in my sights but could not pull the trigger. I thought to myself, "why in the world would I want to kill that poor creature" and put the gun down. I have not picked up a loaded gun since.

 

George

[JosephM]

George,

Like you, i don't think i could pull the trigger either. However, I certainly would not forbid another should they choose to do so. Nor would i judge them for their difference. It is just not for me at this time.

 

PS Have a Merry and safe Christmas one and all.....

Joseph