Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumOne map that puts America's gun violence epidemic in perspective
Here's a map of firearm ownership around the world, using 2012 data compiled by The Guardian. The United States has nearly twice as many guns per 100 people as the next closest, Yemen 88.8 guns per 100 as opposed to 54.8 in Yemen. Here's how that looks mapped:
[center][/center]
How does this relate to homicide rates? Not simply. For instance, the United States has over 12 times as many guns per person as Honduras, but the 2012 US gun homicide rate per 100,000 people (2.97) is 1/22 of Honduras' (68.43). That's because, while guns make murder easier, wealthy industrialized countries generally have significantly lower rates of violent crime than comparatively impoverished ones.
But when you compare the United States to nations like Britain and Japan, it becomes clear that firearm ownership contributes to America's murder problem. The American firearm homicide rate is about 20 times the average among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (excluding Mexico).
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5797892/us-world-firearm-ownership-map
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Big fucking deal...
Look at Canada and Norway, they have a lot of guns too.
I think it proves that social ills, not guns, are at the root of violence.
Thanks for playing just the same.
thucythucy
(8,104 posts)has no "social ills?"
Big news to all the Canadians I know.
And "lots of guns" is fairly amorphous. According to the map, the US clearly has significantly more guns per capita than either Canada or Norway.
The "thanks for playing" repost is getting kind of old. Seems to me presenting discussions of gun violence as some sort of game is pretty crude and unfeeling, considering the sorts of horror we see in the headlines every day. Certainly, it does nothing to refute the stereotype of pro-gunners as borderline sociopaths, as in "Your dead children don't trump my second amendment rights."
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the more important number is households with at least one private gun. I doubt the accuracy of the number. That puts US, Norway, Canada, and Sweden within a couple of percentage points of each other. Finland is closer to 50 percent.
If you compare the gun ownership rates, and the most violent countries, there is an inverse relationship. The most peaceful countries have higher gun ownership rates.
There are more guns, possibly more gun owners, yet violence is dropping. We have all of these guns, yet most of them are in the safest parts of the country. Besides, in terms of world wide murder rates, ours is quite low.
thucythucy
(8,104 posts)I wouldn't know. Are pot smokers insisting on "open carry"--i.e. public consumption with the public forced to watch--in churches, hospitals, schools, Target stores. etc.? That's news to me.
It's a rather bizarre analogy, though, in that any lethality connected to marijuana (drive by SHOOTINGS, etc.) has to do with the substance being illegal, and thus inflated in value and open to exploitation by the underworld. As opposed to guns, which in and of themselves directly cause tens of thousands of deaths a year (including drug and gang related deaths). Along those lines, if you want a strained (or not so strained) analogy, every American who relies on cheap petroleum for income or entertainment is saying, "Your dead environment doesn't trump my riding mower/jet-ski/4 x 4." It seems none of us are guiltless.
As for comparing countries, didn't you start out by blaming the high incidence of gun deaths in the US, as opposed to Canada, on our "social problems?" So how it is this caveat doesn't work for countries with incredibly high rates of grinding poverty, dysfunctional law enforcement, corrupt criminal justice systems, etc.? It seems like you're saying, if a country is developed, has stricter gun controls, and a lower gun death and injury rate, it's not the gun controls at work, but the "lack" of "social problems." But if a country that has less guns, but enormous social problems, has a high incidence of violence, the fault isn't those self-same "social problems"--it's the lack of guns. Funny how that works.
And is the violent crime rate dropping in other developed countries as well, countries that don't fetishize firearms? I honestly don't know, but it would be worth checking. What's the violent crime rate doing in Japan--rising, or falling? How about France, Holland, Australia?
The point seems to be that the US has a far higher rate of gun deaths than any other developed nation in the world. The causes are no doubt varied and complex, but the fact that our society is awash in guns, so much so that most anyone can get one or more, legally or not, must also be a factor here.
But I know you don't believe that. Ah well, someday the tide will turn. Just as young people seem less bigoted about gay rights and marriage equality, from what I've seen they're also less besotted with firearms. Time will tell.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)My point was that the average bong owner is responsible for more gun violence than 99.9999 percent of all gun owners. Same with beer drinkers in the 1920s.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It adds to the stereotype of anti-gunners as being more interested in
methods of violence than the victims of violence
beevul
(12,194 posts)(Decided I didn't like that wording there)
Judging them by their actions, which lead to a logical conclusion, isn't adding to a stereotype.
thucythucy
(8,104 posts)You think people who favor stricter gun regulations simply don't care about non-gun deaths? Really?
And you ascribe this to an alleged "unfeeling" nature? As opposed, say, to someone up-thread whose first response to an OP about gun deaths is to "yawn"?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)There are some easy markers or 'tells' that show who the indifferent are:
Anyone that emphasizes methods of violence over rates of violence.
Anyone that counts suicide via gun as "gun violence"- I've yet to
see anyone refer non-sarcastically to other forms of suicide as "rope violence",
"pill violence", "pesticide violence", or "hibachi/carbon monoxide violence" (a method sometimes used in Japan and other places:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning#Suicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Delp#Death
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We have a post by a member and no discussion, at least none from their member account.
And the posting member is one of the two hosts of the "gun control reform activism group" that has a history of blocking anyone who isn't in lock-step with their point of view, so not much discussion going on over there.
The group, RKBA, is very permissive, it takes a LOT of poor behavior to be blocked.
So when one of the hosts of the other group posts here, it doesn't seem to be for discussion unless they actually engage in discussion, not by my way of thinking.
It seems to me more about playing games, thus the reference.
All of this matters not, our side is winning, I'm confident that the individual right to bear arms isn't going to go away.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)to another country to escape that, would you?
sarisataka
(18,857 posts)That show gun ownership per capita with an explanation that immediately points out there is not a direct relationship between ownership and violence is putting the epidemic in perspective.
I suppose if you call a trend that is flat or falling an epidemic it isn't much stretching to say there is a relationship that you just denied because it is true in some cases- especially if you exclude Mexico.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)yet they have significantly lower gun ownership rates than America. How is that possible?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)...all the bad guys from Central and South America come to US gun shows to arm up.
The ones that don't, buy from folks in the US via craigslist.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)thucythucy
(8,104 posts)How about, for starters, grinding poverty, dysfunctional or non-existent law enforcement, lack of social safety nets, all directly or indirectly the consequences of several centuries of imperialist intervention and exploitation by outsiders, in league with the local oligarchies.
There's a whole literature on how Central and South America have been fucked by imperialists. Check out "Bitter Fruit" for starters, about the US overthrow of the democratically elected government of Guatemala in the 1950s, and the decades of civil war that followed.
Would the easy availability of hundreds of millions of firearms make any of this better? Or would the death toll of the violence there be even higher? My suspicion is that adding unlimited or nearly unlimited firearms would only make matters worse.
hack89
(39,171 posts)How is that possible if more guns = more deaths?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...far more closely with violent crime and murder rates than "percentage of population
that own guns" does- and if we should be so uncouth as to point this inconvenient
truth out, it will be waved away as an 'NRA talking point'...
Logical
(22,457 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Can we agree that it is a very simplistic notion and is easily proven wrong.
Logical
(22,457 posts)drop. Guns make it really easy to kill someone. Yourself included.
It would not drop to zero but it would drop.
About 70% of murders are caused by guns. Remove them and murder gets a lot harder.
But I agree, more guns does not mean more murders.
Only about 9,000 guns a year are used to murder someone. We have 300 Million. 400 million would not cause more.
hack89
(39,171 posts)For most Americans, where they live is just as safe as any European country - even though they are surrounded by guns. That tells me the root causes are very specific to certain demographics. Extreme poverty immediately comes to mind. Let's fix root causes.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is more accurate to say with guns. The guns didn't cause the deaths of three Elliot Roger's victims any more than the machete caused the murders of the first three. In 2001, a guy about the same age, same issues killed four people with a car. I don't believe Christine was a Saab.
Logical
(22,457 posts)against a bat or knife anyday. So would you.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just that I find inanimate objects having psychic powers or a soul as absurd as you apparently find sky gods. You rush a gun, but run from mele weapons and knives. Besides, Jamaica's and Mexico's strict gun laws hasn't stopped the shooting or stabbings.
Logical
(22,457 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it gives grandma a fighting chance against thugs. The weapon doesn't make it easy to kill people, it is the mind set of the individual. Russia has more murders than the US, but almost none with guns. Guns are used in less than 20 percent of Mexico's murders, and 1/3 of Canadian murders.
Logical
(22,457 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)backed up with evidence that they wouldn't? How would you dis-invent guns?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Stating the obvious doesn't seem to get much traction around here.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)empirical evidence, facts, and history. All of that is absent. Just because you like it, doesn't make it logical. All of the evidence shows otherwise. The world was a much more violent place before guns were invented.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"The world was a more violent place before guns were invented"
You're kidding right? Tell me you're kidding.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm not saying guns had anything to do with it. I do think they deter the more predatory in our society, which has nothing to do with anyplace else. That is one reason, according to sociologists James Wright and Peter Rossi, we have fewer "hot burglaries" aka home invasions than other countries. According to the inmates they interviewed, they fear getting shot by the home owner than getting caught by the cops.
My claim is based on:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#History
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why the homicide rate in Europe began to drop in the 16th and 17th centuries is a matter of debate. The most widely accepted explanation stems from the work of Norbert Elias, a sociologist who in the late 1930's introduced the idea of a "civilizing process," in which the nobility was transformed from knights into courtiers, bringing in a new set of manners, and the modern state spread its power over the populace.
Official justice administered by courts replaced private vengeance conducted by feuds, fights and duels. Challenging conventional academic wisdom, Mr. Elias suggested, too, that the power of the state extended to cities first, so urban homicide rates would be comparatively low.
The introduction and use of firearms was purely coincidental and the rate of violence went down regardless of firearm proliferation, due to a combination of "state power" and a "civilizing process". Imagine how the rate of violence will be reduced when the US eventually undergoes a "civilizing process".
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Simply refuting that disinventing guns, or having a legally disarmed public creates a utopia. It really is an argument against Anarcho-capitalism. The relevant years are 1900-1930, when European murder rates were very low. It was also an era where concealed carry may have been fairly common (given the number of small pistols produced and sold in Europe at the time), and the laws were not as stringent as some parts of the US (especially in the South. The White Citizens Councils and the KKK were more effective in getting gun laws passed, including limits on concealed carry. Oh, then there are gangsters like Tim Sullivan.) In fact, it was the Klan that got universal background checks passed in Michigan, Missouri and North Carolina, almost got registration passed in Mississippi in 1954. But I digress.
In Europe, it had more to do with the labor movement and the red scare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1920s
It also disproves the canard (usually made by stupid people on CNN) that Europe solved its violence problems by gun control.
Some argue were were more "civilized" back then. There was a time when people wore three piece suits to the ball game. Dillinger robbed banks in suit and tie. Today, people go to graduations and weddings in flip flops, ratty tee shirt, and underwear hanging out.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Gangs and drug wars don't help. Gun control does not diminish violence, it controls the instruments of violence. It makes it a lot more difficult to kill people. The aim of gun control is not to reduce violence, but the consequences of violence wrought by a society which embraces firearms as problem solving tools.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Does this mean you are not a U.S. citizen?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It has nothing to do with citizenship, especially mine, which you appear to be overly concerned with.
I say "your problems" because I no longer live in the "land of the free, home of the brave" and have no desire to return there.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)You have told me everything I need to know.
I have never put anyone on ignore, I am not going to do it now either. I will just consider the source when I see you being critical of the U.S. Constitution and other U.S. laws, which do not apply to you. Your opinion is of no value to anyone on these subjects.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You might want to unwrap yourself from that flag you wear so proudly and realize that the world is a small place and US residency is not a requirement for participation in social media, political blogs or boards like DU.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I never said nor implied anything about U.S. residency and participation in social media. Participate all you wish. I did not say nor imply that you could not participate.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Otherwise, wtf do you care about where one has citizenship. Why is it relevant to anything?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you think living in a world where the US peddles its wares, including weaponry, gives me a "stake in the game"?
You really need to climb out of your xenophobic box. You might gain some perspective on life.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)You are free to have uninformed and baseless opinions, just don't use them to make public policy.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,626 posts)By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000. The 1992 national homicide rate for the United States was 9.3 per 100,000.
--http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/23/us/historical-study-of-homicide-and-cities-surprises-the-experts.html
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe it was the introduction of he potato into Europe that reduced the violence. Or maybe it was because we sent many of our more violent miscreants to the New World.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)You questioned the assertion that there was more violence before firearms were invented. I supported the assertion with evidence. Causality is an open question and another discussion.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)But then again, you are "going from the gut" rather than empirical evidence.
Fortunately, criminologists don't have that luxury. Since they appreciate the law of unintended consequences a lot better than you do, they understand that gun bans (or severe restrictions) would affect good citizens a lot more than criminals. Which means that said bans/restrictions could result in HIGHER victimization rates, and higher murder rates.
Did you know that you are LESS likely to be injured by a robber with a gun than with any other weapon - including no weapon? That's because the lethality of the gun means that victims are more compliant, and thus less likely to be injured. Thieves are pragmatic. They just want to get your money and disappear. Of course if the robber does pull the trigger, you are more likely to be severely injured or killed......but the point is, that rarely happens.
Logical
(22,457 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)What I was very obviously pointing out is that the facts relating to gun violence are not the least bit as self-evident as individuals like you believe they are. The subject is nuanced -- and sometimes counter-intuitive.
You reading comprehension skills, and/or logic skills are clearly severely lacking -- making your moniker quite a good joke!
Logical
(22,457 posts)And your "nuanced" actually means "made up shit".
If there were no guns there would be less murder. There is no debate that is not true.
There is no way to reach that goal I agree. But for anyone to say murders would not go down with no guns means they are so biased that they are not to be taken seriously.
Why do people carry guns for defense if they are not more lethal?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Way to miss the point, "Einstein"!
I never claimed that guns were not highly lethal. Reading comprehension FAIL!
What i said was that a gun's lethality means that the user rarely has to pull the trigger. This is true regardless of whether the gun is used offensively or defensively, with the obvious exception of criminal on criminal gun violence - which makes up 66% of the total.
And your "nuanced" actually means "made up shit".
Laughable, considering it's you who "goes from the gut" rather than empirical evidence. Try something brand new, "Logical". READ A BOOK rather than relying on ignorant/misinformed media bloviators.
But for anyone to say murders would not go down with no guns means they are so biased that they are not to be taken seriously.
So who ever said that? Point to when and where it was said, "Einstein". Why even bother bloviating on what "no guns" would mean since it's never going to happen? Bringing up these distractions only proves how little you really care about the victims of gun violence, because folks who care don't give a damn about anything but pragmatic questions.
Finally.....to address your first "point": It obviously makes no sense to give guns to criminals of any type because data demonstrates that killers escalate to murder after a long series of less serious crimes. It's only your ill logic that can come up with such infantile horsesh*t. Again, by virtue of the bankruptcy of your position you have to stuff words in the mouths of others.
Logical
(22,457 posts)explain why that is not a good idea based on your claim (with no links to proof I might add).
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)If you can't figure that out, -- gotta say I'm done with you at this point. You insist of persisting in this infantile issue re. why it's not a good idea to arm criminals? Seriously?
(And I actually did respond in a manner to your childishness when I pointed out that criminal behavior has been demonstrated to escalate.)
(with no links to proof I might add).
See, here's the the thing about "proof" --- it's not all found on the internet. Some of it is found in BOOKS. Quite frankly, with an person willing to engage in honest debate I'd expend the effort to dig around for it. The lack of integrity that you've displayed informs me that I'd be wasting my time, as no amount of evidence is ever good enough for people like you. You've established your MO very clearly by now, "Logical". There's no reasoning with someone who hasn't arrived at their position through reason in the first place.
Logical
(22,457 posts)I get it. You got nothing.
so that claim at this point is worthless. And you telling ME to research your claim is really classy.
OK, here is my claim, everyone who owns guns ends up killing someone. Really! It is true. Research it. I read it in a book! It is NOT my job to prove it. See how silly you sound now?
At least now you don't have to explain why we don't arm robbers with guns for the safety of the people they are robbing!
This has been maybe the funniest thread I have even been in.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Actually, it took me about 3 minutes on a search to find the proof from the Bureau of Justice. Scroll down to about the 1/3 mark on the page linked, and you find this: (under assault)
"Overall, about 1 in 4 assault victims were injured during the incident. Victims of firearm violence were less likely
than other victims to be injured."
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt
So my memory may be off a bit -- given that I referred to robbery rather than assault -- but since robbery is by definition an assault this statement likely applies to robberies as well.
See how silly you sound now?
At least now you don't have to explain why we don't arm robbers with guns for the safety of the people they are robbing!
No one ever has to explain an absurd statement made by another person. Guess you'll just never get that advanced concept.
Logical
(22,457 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)It was faster googling for it than digging through my copy of Kleck's "Targeting Guns." And once again your "logic" shines through. Somehow the fact that I found the proof on the internet means that it can't be found in a book as well!
Your desperation is showing!
Edited to add: Some of us are actually capable of remembering what we read......sometimes as long as years later!
Logical
(22,457 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Needing to continually change the subject, and playing the "low post count" card! Clearly, you're out of ammo.
Done here.
Logical
(22,457 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)One sincere apology deserves another!
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...people don't die in snowmobile accidents in Florida. Not because Florida is full of very safe, careful snowmobilers, but because Florida doesn't have any snow.
Ergo, you have to be a special kind of stupid (or unlucky) to die in a snowmobile accident in Florida.
Of course, our TOTAL homicide rate is far less than 20x that of comparative countries... who also have better primary education, better mental health care, better Gini index numbers, and more social services than us.
We're far more towards Honduras than the UK and Japan, at least in terms of wealth inequality, social services, education, etc.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Here are two maps that specifically indicate murder and violent death by country, the US doesn't seem to be of concern:
Murder:
Violent death:
Credit to http://www.worldmapper.org
Since 2/3 of our gun deaths are suicides, you'd think this map of suicides would look much different:
Suicides:
Go figure.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)built from scratch M16A1 clone. Of course it is just a semi-auto version. Correct lower receiver took a while to get.