Bowling for Columbine question

[bignickel]

No, haven't had a chance to see the movie yet.

But was watching the 60 Minutes interview with filmmaker Michael Moore last night.

Taking the risk of starting yet another out-of-control gun thread, I have one question about something brought up on the program:

Canada had maybe 600 gun-related homicides one year, United States over 10,000, but both countries have, roughly, the same amount of guns.

True? Any web links you can provide, pro or con this assertion, would be helpful.

 

[Guest]

No, haven't had a chance to see the movie yet.

But was watching the 60 Minutes interview with filmmaker Michael Moore last night.

Taking the risk of starting yet another out-of-control gun thread, I have one question about something brought up on the program:

Canada had maybe 600 gun-related homicides one year, United States over 10,000, but both countries have, roughly, the same amount of guns.

True? Any web links you can provide, pro or con this assertion, would be helpful.

I saw the film, and I remember this being the most surprising fact that came out of it. It suggests quite clearly that the availability of guns in the US is not the reason for its enormous firearm homicide rate. It suggests the reason is the attitude and willingness of people in the US to pull the trigger. Shoot first. Think later.

 

[Thanz]

Canada had maybe 600 gun-related homicides one year, United States over 10,000, but both countries have, roughly, the same amount of guns.

This wasn't exactly made clear in the movie. They showed numbers of gund deaths, and numbers of guns, but did not give per capita numbers. The lack of clear stats was one of the failings of the movie, IMO.

However, it is true that the number of gun deaths in Canada is vastly below the US. The murder rate in general is also much lower.

The numbers that are needed, IMO, are guns per capita, gun owners per capita, and gun deaths per capita.

Sorry, but I have no links or actual numbers, which kind of makes this a useless post. But now that I have typed it, I'll post it anyway. Again, sorry.

 

[aerocontrols]

Well..

No, haven't had a chance to see the movie yet.

But was watching the 60 Minutes interview with filmmaker Michael Moore last night.

Taking the risk of starting yet another out-of-control gun thread, I have one question about something brought up on the program:

Canada had maybe 600 gun-related homicides one year, United States over 10,000, but both countries have, roughly, the same amount of guns.

True? Any web links you can provide, pro or con this assertion, would be helpful.

No. America has 80 million gun owners, with an average number of guns of around 4, which works out to about 1 gun per person.

Canada has 7 million guns in 10 million homes, according to Spinsanity.

I recommend all Spinsanity's stuff. Here is their Michael Moore list of articles, though their Limbaugh list is longer. (scroll up)

 

[corplinx]

I think the person with the best insight in that movie was Charlton Heston. I think diversity is a big factor in american gun violence, sad but true. The US is a much more diverse country than other countries with equal or less gun control. I think there is no tie that binds us all together. A criminal doesn't see his victim as a fellow American. His victim may be a different race, religion, and may not even speak english. I think perhaps a national civil service program would do us more good than a gun ban. Require a year or two of work for the government like some of the european countries do.

 

[Mike B.]

Despite UCE's mental picture of a bunch of cowboy hat wearing Americans running around shooting each other, the gun violence in America is remarkably localized.

New Hampshire, a state with a large amount of gun ownership, (Live Free or Die is the State Motto) has a murder rate of close to zero.

Inner city areas of course have huge murder rates...

Corp,
I don't think it is diversity in the way you say.
Much of gun violence is black on black. That is indeed uncomfortable, but I don't have a solution for that. It is also something perhaps people do not like to talk about because it is scary.

BTW,
I do not own a gun and really think some gun control is a good thing...

 

[a_unique_person]

This site has a small comparitive table

there is a table on the page that shows the source of the figures. What I get from it is that, although the US has more violence than other countries, it's gun violence is much more extreme than non gun violence.

As to the issue of blacks killing blacks, it smacks of racism, not in the sense that it doesn't happen, but in the sense that gun laws that allow whites to have a toy to play with make guns much more available for homicide for others.

 

[crackmonkey]

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you implying that white men buy their 'toy' guns and black men steal them and commit murder with the guns?

 

[Advocate]

As to the issue of blacks killing blacks, it smacks of racism, not in the sense that it doesn't happen, but in the sense that gun laws that allow whites to have a toy to play with make guns much more available for homicide for others.

It seems very odd for me to be telling a liberal this, but I would suspect that the most important factor in black on black violence is not racism or gun availability. It's poverty and the drug trade. Anyone have any statistics on how many of these incidents are drug related? When a group of people see the drug trade as their best way of making money, there is bound to be an increase in violence. IMHO this is the case in many poor urban areas (many of which are also largely black). Banning guns will not reduce violence, at least not by much. What we need is an increase in opportunities to make money in fields where shootings are not an occupational hazard. And just to clarify, I am not blaming poor urban blacks for the drug problems. What I am saying is that the disproportionate violence may have its roots in the drug trade and in the poverty that allows it to thrive.

 

[Ed]

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you implying that white men buy their 'toy' guns and black men steal them and commit murder with the guns?

The implication is that whites see guns as toys and blacks, not appreciating the toy value, use them for murder. it suggests that blacks are not quite up to the level of whites in this respect and smacks of racism. It also suggests that black on black homicide is partly the fault of whites, maybe entirely, who knows. One thing is for sure though, it ain't the black folks at fault.

 

[Ed]

SNIP

violence may have its roots in the drug trade and in the poverty that allows it to thrive.

yup. And an 80% out of wedlock birthrate for blacks almost garentees poverty for a large segment of the black population. I know, let's have another federal program.

The sad thing is that liberals could never bring themselves to point a finger of blame at blacks for any aspect of their plight and the stupid conservatives won't push condom use. Looks like our black brothers are well and truely screwed for another generation or so.

 

[crackmonkey]

... and black men, apparently without the means to purchase guns themselves, commit theft in order to get the white man's guns so they may commit murder and mayhem. Makes those black men sound like a bunch of murdering crime machines, doesn't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

It seems very odd for me to be telling a liberal this, but I would suspect that the most important factor in black on black violence is not racism or gun availability. It's poverty and the drug trade. Anyone have any statistics on how many of these incidents are drug related? When a group of people see the drug trade as their best way of making money, there is bound to be an increase in violence. IMHO this is the case in many poor urban areas (many of which are also largely black). Banning guns will not reduce violence, at least not by much. What we need is an increase in opportunities to make money in fields where shootings are not an occupational hazard. And just to clarify, I am not blaming poor urban blacks for the drug problems. What I am saying is that the disproportionate violence may have its roots in the drug trade and in the poverty that allows it to thrive.

i had been reflecting on this angle, too, and chuck's spin was that it is due to race, but i would agree it is more to do with drugs and poverty. That is, the example of NH is, I assume, a relatively wealthy area as well as being white.

Are there figures for homicide rates for poor whites as well? My guess is that they are higher than those for rich whites.

My idea also, is that stricter gun laws would make guns less available, (and reduced supply would reduce their availability for criminals too), but it is just the fairy tale ideals of the wealthy whites that are being used to justify the presence of weapons for everyone.

 

[corplinx]

Its not just drug related black on black crime. Your inner city is statistically going to be poor and black. In other words, you have a huge pool of victims and marks.

I live near Memphis which is usually the most violent city in the US. You have black criminals with guns carrying out lots of home invasions on other black in the inner city.

Why? Because inner city blacks aren't usually armed. If they are armed its a piss-poor weapon. Poor people cannot afford a 500 dollar reliable handgun and a 100 dollar training class so they know how to use it. Meanwhile, whites in the suburbs buy security systems, buy expensive and reliable handguns, and take gun training classes.

 

[corplinx]

Are there figures for homicide rates for poor whites as well? My guess is that they are higher than those for rich whites.

Not sure, I know there are anomylies like the mississippi delta white poor who did not have high murder/crime.

What is it about urban areas and poverty that seem to bring out the worst in people?

 

[rikzilla]

yup. And an 80% out of wedlock birthrate for blacks almost garentees poverty for a large segment of the black population. I know, let's have another federal program.

The sad thing is that liberals could never bring themselves to point a finger of blame at blacks for any aspect of their plight and the stupid conservatives won't push condom use. Looks like our black brothers are well and truely screwed for another generation or so.

Ed...you the man....

Crackmonkey and you have AUP pegged to a tee. The guy has no integrity...he doesn't even know how to fake being a good liberal very well.

-zilla

 

[a_unique_person]

Ed...you the man....

Crackmonkey and you have AUP pegged to a tee. The guy has no integrity...he doesn't even know how to fake being a good liberal very well.

-zilla

?? are you saying that blacks don't have a crime problem? All i'm doing is trying to look at the facts. if they have a high crime problem, then they do. if it involves a lot of shooting with guns, then it does. nothing racist about that. what is racist is just saying it is all their fault, or just ignoring the problem.

 

[Advocate]

Not sure, I know there are anomylies like the mississippi delta white poor who did not have high murder/crime.

What is it about urban areas and poverty that seem to bring out the worst in people?

I don't think there is as much opportunity for the kind of crime you get in urban settings among the rural poor. Thus, I would expect their crime rate to be lower. IMHO it is the poverty and the urban setting that leads to the kind of violence we are talking about. And you're right, it's not just drugs. And kind of criminal "business" sets up the same dynamic of fighting between rivals and there is also the whole predator/prey world view you referred to.

I think we would all get a lot more mileage out of dealing with the poverty and crime issues than we would by trying to ban guns. And isn't that the whole point - to reduce the violence?

 

[Walter Wayne]

Just a side note.

Canadian ownership handguns if far below the states. As I recall, while the percentage of households with guns is that different, US has four times the number of households with guns.

Walt

 

[bignickel]

Here's a top-of-the-head thought:

How about the Feds ban handguns.... and then do a handgun to rifle exchange program?

It would certainly be a boon to the hunting industry. Camaflague jacket and pants sales would go thru the roof. More hunting clubs then ever before!

I wonder what Charleton Heston would say? "Moses supposes..."