You guys and your guns...

[Seth]

Here is a reference from the American National Institute of Health. It is always a problem finding references that are unbiased, especially American references, since so many people have strong personal biases for or against free use of firearms. The NIH should be one of the few free of such bias.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/
And I quote :


" In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

Simply, the more guns, the more murders. QED.

The NIH is anything but unbiased. It's grossly and deliberately biased against guns, and has been for a long time. They say right there in your quote that they "cannot determine causation" and are instead using correlation as an excuse to rant on against guns. But they always completely ignore the number of times that guns are used for lawful self-defense, and they also ignore things like the correlation and causation link between swimming pools, bathtubs, and five-gallon buckets, all of which kill many more children and adults every year than lawfully owned firearms do.

[Seth]

Jim

I understand your point, and there is truth in it.

Certainly, a ban on hand guns would not cause an immediate miraculous reduction in homicides, for the simple reason that the wrong people who own such guns would not give them up. However, over time, the shortage of hand guns would lead to even the nasty buggers having fewer such guns, and the homicide rate would then drop.

No, it wouldn't, it would go up, just as homicides and violent crime in the UK went up in the years after their gun bans were enacted. You completely ignore the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who use firearms to lawfully defend themselves every year who would be victims of violent crime and homicide if they were disarmed.

[Jason]

Here is a reference from the American National Institute of Health. It is always a problem finding references that are unbiased, especially American references, since so many people have strong personal biases for or against free use of firearms. The NIH should be one of the few free of such bias.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/
And I quote :


" In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

Simply, the more guns, the more murders. QED.

However, guns used in homicide, especially homicides committed by adolescents and young adults, may often be obtained on the street. If, as has been reported,32–34 it is relatively easy for adolescents and young adults to acquire illegal guns on the street, the association between household gun ownership incidence and rates of homicide committed by this age group might be diluted by this alternative source of firearms. Because individuals murdered by 15- to 24-year-olds tend to be other 15- to 24-year-olds,35 this may explain, in part, our finding that the association between household firearm ownership and the rate of homicide was stronger among adults 25 years and older than it was among younger adults and adolescents. Consistent with this possibility, others have found that in areas with few guns and strict gun control laws, criminal adolescents and young adults appear to obtain their firearms via gun runners who purchase the weapons in states with more permissive gun laws

And:

We found, consistent with previous work, that homicide rates were higher in areas with higher rates of urbanization, poverty, and nonlethal violent crime (not shown),25–28 but many other factors may affect homicide rates. It is not clear, however, whether accounting for these or other areawide characteristics would increase or reduce the magnitude or significance of the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.

And:

However, this result does not rule out the possibility that reverse causation or a noncausal explanation accounts for the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide. It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition.

I cannot draw that same conclusion. I could just as easily reverse it and say 'The more murders, the more guns'. The study did not, and could not, control for the fact that in areas of high homicide incidence the cause of higher gun ownership (for which they have admittedly only statistics on 'legal' guns) could well be self-defence. All they've discovered is that in areas of with a higher level of homicide incidence there are higher levels of gun ownership.

[Blind groper]

Correlation is not causation, or had that fact escaped you? And 8000 tragic deaths each year (which number I doubt to begin with) doesn't begin to compare to the 80,000 to two million or more people who are protected by their firearms against criminality. Without those guns, the death toll could be much higher in a nation of 300 million people.

I hate that phrase of correlation and causation, since it is normally used to cover up ignorance and a very weak argument. However, Seth is using it incorrectly anyway, since you cannot correlate two numbers.

Two thirds of all murders in the USA are done with firearms, versus usually less than 10% in other advanced western nations. And two thirds of all firearms murders in the USA are done with hand guns despite the fact that hand guns are only a quarter of all the firearms in the USA. It is not some correlation/causation mix up to conclude that, in terms of what leads to murder, hand guns are a much bigger problem than other types of firearms.

Compare this to France where there are sizable numbers of rifles in civilian hands, but very few hand guns. Firearms murders are in the 150 to 400 per year range, and hand gun murders usually 0 to 2. This is a pretty damn strong hint that fewer hand guns mean fewer hand gun murders, do you not think? Exactly the same thing applies to every other western nation with tight control over hand guns. In the USA by comparison we get 100 million hand guns and 8,000 hand gun murders. I think France has the better deal!

On Seth's suggestion that all those guns mean protection from criminals. Bullshit!
All those other advanced western nations, whether France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Britain etc., with much fewer guns than the USA also have a fraction of the murders. If guns were needed for protection, then a lack of guns would mean more murders. The data shows that fewer guns means fewer murders and hence less need for protection.

I think that Seth has this unhealthy fascination with tools that kill people, and refuses to believe that this could be wrong for society.

[Seth]

Correlation is not causation, or had that fact escaped you? And 8000 tragic deaths each year (which number I doubt to begin with) doesn't begin to compare to the 80,000 to two million or more people who are protected by their firearms against criminality. Without those guns, the death toll could be much higher in a nation of 300 million people.

I hate that phrase of correlation and causation, since it is normally used to cover up ignorance and a very weak argument. However, Seth is using it incorrectly anyway, since you cannot correlate two numbers.

Two thirds of all murders in the USA are done with firearms, versus usually less than 10% in other advanced western nations. And two thirds of all firearms murders in the USA are done with hand guns despite the fact that hand guns are only a quarter of all the firearms in the USA. It is not some correlation/causation mix up to conclude that, in terms of what leads to murder, hand guns are a much bigger problem than other types of firearms.

Compare this to France where there are sizable numbers of rifles in civilian hands, but very few hand guns. Firearms murders are in the 150 to 400 per year range, and hand gun murders usually 0 to 2. This is a pretty damn strong hint that fewer hand guns mean fewer hand gun murders, do you not think? Exactly the same thing applies to every other western nation with tight control over hand guns. In the USA by comparison we get 100 million hand guns and 8,000 hand gun murders. I think France has the better deal!

The fallacy here is the presumption that the weapon used to murder or commit violent crime matters. It doesn't. People who murder other people will find a weapon to kill them with, be it a cricket bat or an automobile.

On Seth's suggestion that all those guns mean protection from criminals. Bullshit!

Tell that to the up to 2 million people per year who use their firearms to protect themselves.

All those other advanced western nations, whether France, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Britain etc., with much fewer guns than the USA also have a fraction of the murders. If guns were needed for protection, then a lack of guns would mean more murders. The data shows that fewer guns means fewer murders and hence less need for protection.

Not necessarily. You think that murders are the only category of crime that are either committed or defended against through the lawful use of firearms. This is not the case.

I think that Seth has this unhealthy fascination with tools that kill people, and refuses to believe that this could be wrong for society.

It's wrong for our society, which is why I have the same "unhealthy fascination with tools that kill people" that the Founders had, and support their plan to keep the populace well armed for several valid reasons, self defense being one of them. I find myself in good company in that regard and don't really give a flying fuck what hoplophobes who are slaves to both their government and any criminal who chooses to victimize them thinks about it.

I carry a gun because it's important to me to be able to protect myself, my family, and others against the predations of violent criminals of every stripe, and the handgun is hands down the most effective, most efficient, most compact tool that gives me a range of options should it become necessary to defend myself. Nothing else matters. Social policy doesn't matter. What criminals do with their firearms doesn't matter. What you think doesn't matter. I have an absolute and unassailable right to be armed for self defense and will not allow anyone to remove or infringe upon that right because to do so is immoral in the extreme. I am not responsible for what someone else does with their firearm, good or bad, and my possession of a firearm is not a threat to anyone but an attacker, and is a positive force for good. No one has a right to disarm me based on some bogus statistical argument about murder rates because that violates MY civil rights. And that is true of EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET, without exception. All of them have the right to be armed for self defense with effective tools that will stop a threat instantly. When they develop the "Phaser" that will reliably and instantly render an attacker immobile and unconscious, I'll swap my H&K .45 USP Compact in. Until then, you may choose to be disarmed as may anyone else, but you may not make that choice for me. Any attempt to do so will be deemed an attack on me and my civil rights, and I'll respond as necessary to preserve my rights and my safety.

[Blind groper]

Nothing else matters. Social policy doesn't matter. What criminals do with their firearms doesn't matter. What you think doesn't matter. I have an absolute and unassailable right to be armed for self defense and will not allow anyone to remove or infringe upon that right because to do so is immoral in the extreme.

This vehemence and determination that what you want, rather than what society needs, is what is important to you, is a sign of a very unhealthy and arrogant attitude.

Nor is there any such thing as "rights" in the sense you use the word. Rights are simply the privileges and permissions that the people in power choose to grant to the ordinary people. They change over time, and they change from place to place. There is nothing concrete about these rights, unless you are religious and choose to call them granted by God.

The "right" to bear arms is not part of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights - the leading international document on the topic. It is not granted by any other advanced western nation. In short, it is an aberration.

[Seth]

Nothing else matters. Social policy doesn't matter. What criminals do with their firearms doesn't matter. What you think doesn't matter. I have an absolute and unassailable right to be armed for self defense and will not allow anyone to remove or infringe upon that right because to do so is immoral in the extreme.

This vehemence and determination that what you want, rather than what society needs, is what is important to you, is a sign of a very unhealthy and arrogant attitude.

No, it's the sign of sanity in a free individual. My life is not a statistic that some bureaucrat gets to play with when making laws about my personal safety. My life and safety is more important than what society needs or wants, period.

Nor is there any such thing as "rights" in the sense you use the word. Rights are simply the privileges and permissions that the people in power choose to grant to the ordinary people. They change over time, and they change from place to place. There is nothing concrete about these rights, unless you are religious and choose to call them granted by God.

My rights derive from my status as a living human being, not as a function of a grant from anyone or any government. Try to take them away and I will do whatever is necessary to prove that point.

The "right" to bear arms is not part of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights - the leading international document on the topic. It is not granted by any other advanced western nation. In short, it is an aberration.

Fuck the UN and it's Charter. It has no jurisdiction over me or my rights, it only has jurisdiction over slaves like you.

[Clinton Huxley]

Seth, what do you do when you fly and can't take a gun onboard?

[SteveB]

Seth, what do you do when you fly and can't take a gun onboard?

That's when the government can get you. Don't fly is the only conceivable answer.

[JimC]

Seth, what do you do when you fly and can't take a gun onboard?

That's when the government can get you. Don't fly is the only conceivable answer.

And keep your eye out for black helicopters...

[Blind groper]

My rights derive from my status as a living human being, not as a function of a grant from anyone or any government. Try to take them away and I will do whatever is necessary to prove that point.

I used the word "arrogant". It is always nice to be proven correct.

[JimC]

My rights derive from my status as a living human being, not as a function of a grant from anyone or any government. Try to take them away and I will do whatever is necessary to prove that point.

I used the word "arrogant". It is always nice to be proven correct.

Taken to the extreme, his road leads to Waco, Texas...

[pErvinalia]

Seth, what do you do when you fly and can't take a gun onboard?

That's when the government can get you. Don't fly is the only conceivable answer.

And keep your eye out for black helicopters...

Fuck I've missed Seth's brand of insanity!

[Clinton Huxley]

I imagine Seth putting on nightvision goggles and grabbing a shotgun before going to the loo in the night.

[Wumbologist]

I hate that phrase of correlation and causation, since it is normally used to cover up ignorance and a very weak argument. However, Seth is using it incorrectly anyway, since you cannot correlate two numbers.

Seth's biggest failure here is that he is unintentionally lending credence to the idea that there is even a correlation that you've shown, when there isn't. Your argument is that more guns, and particularly more handguns, equals more crime. This might look valid if you just look at the US (or rather a snapshot, as trends of gun ownership rates don't correlate that way with violent crime rates), and it helps if you're completely ignorant of American culture and particularly of inner city gangs. However, it becomes much harder to accept the idea that there is any sort of correlation when you look at the bigger picture. Switzerland has high rates of gun ownership and low violent crime. Jamaica has exorbitant violent crime, and a blanket ban on firearms. Japan has a near-total ban on firearms and low violent crime. More guns equals more crime sometimes and less crime others. Less guns equals less crime sometimes and more crime others. The correlation, when looking at the big picture, is non-existent.

Two thirds of all murders in the USA are done with firearms, versus usually less than 10% in other advanced western nations. And two thirds of all firearms murders in the USA are done with hand guns despite the fact that hand guns are only a quarter of all the firearms in the USA. It is not some correlation/causation mix up to conclude that, in terms of what leads to murder, hand guns are a much bigger problem than other types of firearms.

The problem is murders, not the tools being used to commit them. The type of people who are doing the bulk of the murdering in the US aren't going to stop because you ban guns, even if you do a really good job of making sure they can't actually get them.