School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[joesixpack]

I think it is saying the same thing:

3.5 times the rate for a roughly equivalent country is much higher in my book.

It also shows non-gun homicides being drastically higher.

 

[Alt+F4]

So, should we focus on why the driver lost it or banning PT Cruisers???

In Canada, is it easier to get a PT Cruiser or a gun? In the U.S. it's easier to get a gun. I get your point that you could kill someone with a pencil so shouldn't the issue be both; harder access to guns and a huge, difficult discussion regarding mental illness?

 

[Information Analyst]

Almost all of those will be shot-guns for clay pigeon shooting, and for shooting pheasants & rabbits.

The figures for 2011/12 show that at 31 March this year there were the following on issue for England & Wales:

Firearms Certificates = 141,820 covering 477,888 weapons
Shotgun Certificates = 562,696 covering 1,328,647 weapons

 

[Autolite]

unless you think in the long run that process would lead somewhere you don't want to go?

I think, in a nutshell, you've underscored a primary reason for the opposition we are seeing with respect to more gun control. I'm sure you'll find many who might say that we are already now heading in the wrong direction.

Consider also that 'redrawing-the-line' after the fact is much easier said than done. Gun control opponents are aware of this. An example might be Canada's recent enactment of the "Ending the Long Gun Registry Act".

It's a measure that took 15 plus years to realize even though Canada's Long Gun Registry was identified by many to be a smoke-and-mirrors facade and an ineffective waste of resources even BEFORE it came into force...

 

[jimbob]

It also shows non-gun homicides being drastically higher.

True it does: your article tallies with what I had understood before, but my data came straight from the US DOJ

I think there is an explanation.

I was listing firearm homicides as being about 70%, whilst handgun homicides are around 50%.

In your link I am not so sure about the conclusion and utility of the chart for this statement

There is indeed a strong correlation between murder rates and socio-economic development, which is even more striking considering the measurement used. Murders per gun is a metric that isolates the impact of gun ownership on the murder rate: someone who believes many civilian guns almost always lead to many homicides per capita and few to few would expect the green bars to be relatively flat, and not necessarily aligned with the kind of factors measured in the Human Development Index, things like poverty and failing institutions. This is obviously not the case at all.

I don't really see why one would use homicides per civilian gun on the y-axis as opposed to simple homicide rate as that seems to be begging the question.

In another thread I plotted this data, and the US does stand out.

The X-axes are fairly similar, In fact the human development index is probably better than per-capita GDP, as you can see from the outlier of Equatorial Guinea, which has a per capita GDP of $36.5k, but ranks really low in the human development index.

Note that I chose rank in this graph, as that is a more robust indicator than actual numbers, as it is independent of distribution type. That is why the axes seem reversed.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

If inequality causes crime, then why hasn't the US seen a rise in Jeffrey Dahmer style crime?

 

[Alt+F4]

If inequality causes crime, then why hasn't the US seen a rise in Jeffrey Dahmer style crime?

And keep in mind that under the U.S. legal system Dahmer was found to be sane.

 

[Checkmite]

A man with 47 guns and tens of thousands of dollars worth of ammunition has been arrested after making threats against a nearby elementary school.

 

[Cain]

Guns vs. Automobiles (and swimming pools)

If we concede that more guns -- like more cars or more swimming pools -- increases fatalities, then where does that leave us? Freedom is messy?

We use automobiles to transfer goods and people. For business and pleasure. There are safety requirements, and police officers pull people over while in transit for violations (by the minute, which is not often enough in my view). The fact people will die on the roads is a cost that must be weighed against immense benefits. Some heavy, unnecessary trucks/SUVs should be discouraged as they create externalities in the form of pollution and needless death.

In the case of firearms, the top argument in favor of guns is identical to the argument against them: safety. Since we're comparing like things, this is presumably a dispute that can be settled with evidence. Whatever improves safety, wins. But it doesn't work like that in the United States, and it's instructive someone would compare firearms to swimming pools. Swimming is fun! Gun rhymes with fun! There are other values at play on the pro-gun side beyond personal safety, and these values are more pronounced in the ideological and determined single-issue voters driving this debate.

Gun control people only concern themselves with firearms when this topic rolls around. Otherwise it's lukring in the background.

For the fanatical hobbyists (see any gun forum), chatting about firearms is something they do daily. If they're not firing guns, then they love talking about them.

 

[jimbob]

If inequality causes crime, then why hasn't the US seen a rise in Jeffrey Dahmer style crime?

ETA: I'd guess that
Inequality makes crime more likely, but isn't actually a direct cause, and Jeffrey Dahmer style crime is of a completely different type to a more rational gang-style crime.

 

[shuttlt]

I think, in a nutshell, you've underscored a primary reason for the opposition we are seeing with respect to more gun control. I'm sure you'll find many who might say that we are already now heading in the wrong direction.

Oh, I'm sure it's the primary reason for lots of things. Some people want to live in a culture where there are lots of guns. If some measure comes in that reduces gun ownership there will probably end up with fewer people who want to live in a culture with lots of guns because they are less likely to own a gun or be into gun culture. You are then more likely to get more laws restricting guns and so it goes. I don't know why you would think that this gradual process is a bad thing though, unless you think there is something intrinsically good about gun ownership. People will find other hobbies. The sum total of human happiness will not suffer. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK don't have any desire to own a gun. US culture would take a long time to get from where it is now to there, but if it ever did, you (or rather your childrens children) wouldn't miss guns. Why would that be a bad place to be?

 

[Meadmaker]

I was all set to jump on the anti-gun bandwagon after this rampage. I have been on the fence about gun control for a long time, never thinking it was a very important issue. I was generally supportive of the right to own weapons, but thought that bans on high capacity semi-automatics and automatics was a good thing. I couldn't see a need to fire lots of bullets very quickly. Still, I never voted based on it. It just wasn't important to me.

In reaction to this story, I was leaning toward saying to heck with it, and calling for a ban on at least those sorts of weapons that fired lots of bullets, and maybe putting very, very, severe restrictions on any sort of gun ownership.

Then I remembered Switzerland.

Has that subject come up? I haven't read the whole thread. I don't know if it is still the law there, but at one time, Swiss men were required to have assault rifles in their homes, and they didn't have a high murder rate or a problem with spree killers. Does anyone know if that's still the case?

They've got more guns than we do, but not our problems. I wonder what the difference is. What makes America unique, but in a very, very, bad way?

 

[Montag451]

Interesting comment in one of the other threads.

Argument was that crimes committed with fully automatic weapons are unheard of (or at least very rare).

So if banning the use of fully automatic weapons has been so effective in the states, why would banning other guns not be as easily effective?

I accept the argument that butters will try other methods, or even just Aquiring illegal weapons. Where are the cases of the criminals Aquiring fully automatic weapons?

Maybe if they are harder to get they just move down the gun food chain. So removing semi auto guns would lead to single shot or revolvers. Remove the revolvers etc etc.

Oops forgot guns are cool so they are ok

 

[Montag451]

I would be confident if all the spree killer had was muzzle loaders the. The death tolls would be lower

 

[joesixpack]

True it does: your article tallies with what I had understood before, but my data came straight from the US DOJ

I think there is an explanation.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450cdc9de2aa62.jpg[/qimg]

I was listing firearm homicides as being about 70%, whilst handgun homicides are around 50%.

In your link I am not so sure about the conclusion and utility of the chart for this statement



I don't really see why one would use homicides per civilian gun on the y-axis as opposed to simple homicide rate as that seems to be begging the question.

In another thread I plotted this data, and the US does stand out.

The X-axes are fairly similar, In fact the human development index is probably better than per-capita GDP, as you can see from the outlier of Equatorial Guinea, which has a per capita GDP of $36.5k, but ranks really low in the human development index.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1449450ccefff3409d.jpg[/qimg]
Note that I chose rank in this graph, as that is a more robust indicator than actual numbers, as it is independent of distribution type. That is why the axes seem reversed.

The graph I was most referring to was the one demonstrating the difference in non-gun homicide between the US and the Western European countries. My main point was that the US is a significantly more violent culture, even if guns were taken out of the picture. I had taken exception to the assertion that "gun culture" was the cause of gun violence in the US, as opposed to the other giant difference in culture between the US and the EU/UK, to wit, the much higher homicide rate. It seems only about one third of homicide here is gun related, taking guns out of the picture would still leave the US a far more dangerous place in which to live.

 

[shuttlt]

They've got more guns than we do, but not our problems. I wonder what the difference is. What makes America unique, but in a very, very, bad way?

This may have something to do with it from Wikipedia:

"Switzerland is among the world's most prosperous countries in terms of private income."

They also seem to have low unemployment etc. etc. etc.

As for spree killings, there was the Zug massacre. Different countries are different though. It may be that Swiss cultural differences outweigh other factors. Perhaps it's the same as how some people can handle alcohol and others keep drinking too much and getting into fights. The fact that John Wayne could supposedly drink everybody under the table, have a shower and then turn up to work on no sleep doesn't necessarily mean that I can. Perhaps some cultures handle guns better than others.

 

[Autolite]

I don't know why you would think that this gradual process is a bad thing though, unless you think there is something intrinsically good about gun ownership. Why would that be a bad place to be?

What you interpret as the 'gradual process' of suppressing a gun culture others might see as a deliberate attack on hard won personal rights and/or freedoms. I suppose you could say that it's a matter of perspective.

Consider that the overwhelming vast majority of legal firearm owners are responsible, conscientious and law abiding. (Especially true here in Canada where it's been shown that most incidents involving the criminal use of firearms have been carried out by unlicensed individuals in possession of illegal, or illegally obtained, guns).

Explaining to the masses that they must forfeit rights/privileges due to the actions of the comparatively few with criminal intent or mental instabilities will not be an easy sell...

 

[jimbob]

The graph I was most referring to was the one demonstrating the difference in non-gun homicide between the US and the Western European countries. My main point was that the US is a significantly more violent culture, even if guns were taken out of the picture. I had taken exception to the assertion that "gun culture" was the cause of gun violence in the US, as opposed to the other giant difference in culture between the US and the EU/UK, to wit, the much higher homicide rate. It seems only about one third of homicide here is gun related, taking guns out of the picture would still leave the US a far more dangerous place in which to live.

I am not sure that you can remove the ownership of guns from the violence.

If I was going to mug someone who might be armed with a gun I might try coshing them first (a gun might make a noise and attract attention).

I'd suspect that a gun culture encourages a generally violent culture.

 

[shuttlt]

What you interpret as the 'gradual process' of suppressing a gun culture others might see as a deliberate attack on hard won personal rights and/or freedoms. I suppose you could say that it's a matter of perspective.

Sure, but it could only happen as part of the democratic process. Cigarette smokers have found their hobby, or what ever you want to call it, fall out of favour. I don't see why gun owners losing their pet "right" is more significant. The "freedoms" society values comes and goes. If you told smokers in the 50s what the future looked like they probably wouldn't have been happy. Now they are on the wane and there are all sorts of restrictions. A hundred years ago I could have happily gone down the road to the chemist and bought some heroin. I probably would have wanted to continue being able to. Things change. Society moves on. I don't see that that is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing that the hard won rights of 19th Century heoine users, or 20th century smokers different to the hard won rights of gun owners? If so, why?

Consider that the overwhelming vast majority of legal firearm owners are responsible, conscientious and law abiding. (Especially true here in Canada where it's been shown that most incidents involving the criminal use of firearms have been carried out by unlicensed individuals in possession of illegal, or illegally obtained, guns).

I don't see why this is important. Most people don't do bad things. That doesn't mean it' a good idea to act as if the actions of the minority didn't have a disproportionate impact. Also, in order for increased gun laws there would have to be a will in society to do so. If there was a will in society to do so, why would it be a bad thing?

Explaining to the masses that they must forfeit rights/privileges due to the actions of the comparatively few with criminal intent or mental instabilities will not be an easy sell...

I really don't care. Have lots of guns if you want. You'd be just as happy with something else that couldn't be used to kill people half so easily. I don't understand what is so special about them that makes gun ownership an issue of "freedom" where smoking and being able to buy heoine from the corner shop and driving at 200km/h on the freeway is OK to be restricted in one way or another. Is it arbitrary, or is there something about guns that make them special?

 

[Ziggurat]

What makes America unique, but in a very, very, bad way?

The drug war is a big part of it.