Bang, Bang, Yer Dead!

[JimC]

Your homicide rate is still way above any comparable nation, whatever ups and downs it has had, with whatever debatable correlation with a raft of factors.

As I have said before, as long as those on the other side of this argument are prepared to look the consequences in the eye, accept the facts and still maintain that your gun freedoms are worth the extra deaths, then fair enough.

Maintaining anything else is rather ostrich-like...

[Jason]

Lak covered what I was trying to say in his posts.

In Canada semi-auto rifles and shotguns are not restricted weapons (There are three classes of firearms in Canada: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited) and do not require anything beyond a standard Possession and Acquisition Licence to purchase and own. Handguns are restricted weapons and require you to meet the same criteria as a non-restricted license with the small addition of handgun related safety training and testing. It is not hard to own a handgun in Canada. It's as easy as getting your non-restricted license, you just have to pay more and answer 50 or so more multiple choice questions. Yet, apparently in spite of this, we have a firearm-related homicide rate of 0.76 per 100,000 (less than 25% that of the USA).

My point is that Dave is on the right track. You have to treat the cause and not the symptoms.

[Seabass]

Your homicide rate is still way above any comparable nation, whatever ups and downs it has had, with whatever debatable correlation with a raft of factors.

As I have said before, as long as those on the other side of this argument are prepared to look the consequences in the eye, accept the facts and still maintain that your gun freedoms are worth the extra deaths, then fair enough.

Maintaining anything else is rather ostrich-like...

The far left side of the graph shows a homicide rate at the turn of the previous century of 1.1 to 1.2 per 100k. At that time, there were almost no gun restrictions in effect.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1256087

I'd say willfully ignoring other factors which contribute to violence, while fixating solely on guns, is rather ostrich-like.

[JimC]

Your homicide rate is still way above any comparable nation, whatever ups and downs it has had, with whatever debatable correlation with a raft of factors.

As I have said before, as long as those on the other side of this argument are prepared to look the consequences in the eye, accept the facts and still maintain that your gun freedoms are worth the extra deaths, then fair enough.

Maintaining anything else is rather ostrich-like...

The far left side of the graph shows a homicide rate at the turn of the previous century of 1.1 to 1.2 per 100k. At that time, there were almost no gun restrictions in effect.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1256087

I'd say willfully ignoring other factors which contribute to violence, while fixating solely on guns, is rather ostrich-like.

Certainly other factors are always potentially present, but are you prepared to baldly assert that your liberal gun laws and wide availability of hand guns and semi-automatic rifles has no effect whatsoever on your homicide rate in comparison to other western nations with very few such weapons in circulation?

Blind groper in the previous thread to this one presented some pretty effective data and arguments supporting a causal effect, while still admitting the existence of other factors...

[Warren Dew]

I think most people have missed my point about semi-automatic rifles.

That's okay, you're missing their points, too, so everyone's even.

Their points mainly consist of "I have the right to do whatever I want, and fuck the consequences..."

And your point is, "no one should ever be allowed to defend themselves", it seems.

[Blind groper]

Hi Guys

I just got back from a scuba diving trip, and I have been away from my computer for the last 4 days. I find 6 pages of posts I have missed. So If I fail to address something here, please forgive me.

I did a little bit of research into gun ownership and overall crime rates. I took the official stats for total crimes, and divided by population for each of 17 advanced western nations to see if there was a relationship. I found no relationship.

For example, the USA has 89% firearm ownership, and has an overall crime rate of 0.04 per person per year.
Switzerland has half the gun ownership and near enough to exactly the same crime rate.
(Note here. I cannot assume that official crime rates in one country are measured exactly the same as in another country, so these figures should be seen with large error bars).
Greece had the lowest overall crime rate at 0.01, and gun ownership of 22%.
Spain was 0.02 and 10%.

However, some nations with low gun ownership had quite high crime rates. Germany 30% and 0.08
Sweden 32% and 0.12

So, to everyone who thinks gun ownership increases or reduces crime rates, it appears not to do so. Hand gun ownership rates, though, relate well to homicide rates. Most nations have very low hand gun ownership, of course, except the USA.

The large number of nations out of the 17 with high overall crime rates compared to the USA leads me to believe that the high homicide rate in the USA is not related to larger numbers of criminals. The high homicide rate in the USA compared to the other advanced western nations has other causes. And the widespread hand gun ownership is the obvious first choice.

[Seabass]

Your homicide rate is still way above any comparable nation, whatever ups and downs it has had, with whatever debatable correlation with a raft of factors.

As I have said before, as long as those on the other side of this argument are prepared to look the consequences in the eye, accept the facts and still maintain that your gun freedoms are worth the extra deaths, then fair enough.

Maintaining anything else is rather ostrich-like...

The far left side of the graph shows a homicide rate at the turn of the previous century of 1.1 to 1.2 per 100k. At that time, there were almost no gun restrictions in effect.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1256087

I'd say willfully ignoring other factors which contribute to violence, while fixating solely on guns, is rather ostrich-like.

Certainly other factors are always potentially present, but are you prepared to baldly assert that your liberal gun laws and wide availability of hand guns and semi-automatic rifles has no effect whatsoever on your homicide rate in comparison to other western nations with very few such weapons in circulation?

Blind groper in the previous thread to this one presented some pretty effective data and arguments supporting a causal effect, while still admitting the existence of other factors...

I've made no such assertion, nor would I.

Maybe I'm just a crazy gun nut wacko (Never in my life have I owned or even fired a gun, by the way), but I prefer to address the source of the problem, rather than the symptoms. Sure, guns make it easier to kill, but they do not provide people with incentives or reasons to kill.

Yes, guns are efficient, no doubt about it. More guns in a population which has murderers in it probably means more murders. However, as I stated earlier, I prefer to treat the problem at its source.

It seems there are two different paths we can take with regard to lowering violence in this country. One choice involves restricting freedom of law abiding citizens who use their guns primarily for recreational target shooting, hunting, and personal defense. The other involves increased freedom for people who like a good buzz from time to time, increased tax revenue from legalized drug sales, elimination of drug related organized crime, a decrease in gang turf wars, a massive decrease in incarceration rates, fewer jails, fewer jailers, fewer drug enforcement agents, fewer inmates, far fewer resources spent on fighting drug related crime, more productive people in the work force, less violence in Mexico and South America, less in the way of Drug War related subsidies to South American countries........ and the list goes on and on.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.


We've already experience very low murder rates in the past, before all this prohibition madness began. Granted, it was a century ago, and times have changed, and there's no guarantee drug legalization will bring us back to 1.2/100k. But I would prefer to try the liberal approach before we resort to the authoritarian approach. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the history of prohibition. We ignore them at our peril.

[Blind groper]

Seabass

I agree with you that the war on drugs is idiotic. I could offer my recipe for managing the drug problem, which does not involve those silly laws, but that is not the thread theme.

However, looking back a page, at your graph on homicide rates over time, I see that the biggest leap in homicide rate in the USA was about 1903. Jump from 1 to 5 killings per 100,000 per year. That does not relate to the drug war. I suspect it was actually an artifact of the recording methods. As some of the other changes may have been. Accuracy in keeping those records increases over time, and I have little faith in the accuracy of those records more than 50 years ago.

Guns and homicides.
Obviously the desire to kill is a problem. However, you must also address the business of capability to kill. If a person wants to kill someone else, but lacks the means, then the killing does not happen. I strongly suspect that a country like Iceland, with the very low homicide rate of 0.3, does not have that low rate purely because everyone is nicer than nice, and no one ever wants to harm anyone else. The fact that most Icelandic people do not own tools for killing people must play a massive role in keeping the homicide rate down.

Here is a thought, I would be interested in receiving feed-back on. I admit that this is a speculation, and may be wrong. But I am just thinking. If we look at the USA homicide rate of 4.2 killings per 100,000 people per year, and we realise that half are done with hand guns, then there are 2.1 killings per 100,000 per year which are not done with hand guns. That is still higher than any other of the advanced western nations, except Finland (2.2). Why are there more killings in the USA, even after we remove the hand gun effect?

Is it possible that there is an additional cultural effect, related to gun culture? I am talking about the belief that violence is a solution to inter-personal conflict. This may be a result of what Hollywood and its allies pump out. No only the glorification of the gun toting hero, but the allied glorification of dealing with enemies with other violence, such as we see in bar room brawls, street fist fights, or other fights using assorted make shift weapons.

Could Americans* be subject to a belief that using violence against people they do not like is a valid means of solving problems?



*I do not mean all Americans. Just those that commit crimes.

[Seth]

What you're missing ,Seth, is that there will be no revolution.

This may or may not be the case. Every tyrant thinks he'll rule forever, but revolutions happen anyway.

Maybe some small insurrections by some malcontents who never made it past adolescent fantasies about wild west, but they will be efficiently dealt with by the government as always.

I'm sure that's what King George and General Cornwallis said. They were wrong too.

And, you seem to forget, your idealogy is only adhered to by a small percentage of people, you'd never survive.

Since my ideology is based in the principles, foundations and history of this country, and it involves preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, I'd say you're more than a little wrong.

All around you would be other factions, including natives, who'd wipe your so-called militia off the map in a couple of years.

Natives? I'm a native. Every person born in this country is a native.

I'd be fine. I live in Canada. Good fishing and hunting all around me, and no militias. I welcome your insurrection and bet you that I would have less difficulty surviving than you. Anybody who thinks they can survive by digging in will be buried in the hole they dug. All the militias in Colorado and Montana would be fighting amongst each other for control because they could not get along. It's you who is one of the sheeple, you just can't see it. And that would be your demise. Good luck, and don't let anyone piss in your airshaft.

Wear your chains lightly, slave-boy.

[Seabass]

Seabass

I agree with you that the war on drugs is idiotic. I could offer my recipe for managing the drug problem, which does not involve those silly laws, but that is not the thread theme.

Factors which contribute to gun violence are relevant to a discussion about gun violence.

However, looking back a page, at your graph on homicide rates over time, I see that the biggest leap in homicide rate in the USA was about 1903. Jump from 1 to 5 killings per 100,000 per year. That does not relate to the drug war. I suspect it was actually an artifact of the recording methods. As some of the other changes may have been. Accuracy in keeping those records increases over time, and I have little faith in the accuracy of those records more than 50 years ago.

Well, that's convenient. Let's just ignore data that runs counter to your preferred hypothesis.

Guns and homicides.
Obviously the desire to kill is a problem. However, you must also address the business of capability to kill. If a person wants to kill someone else, but lacks the means, then the killing does not happen. I strongly suspect that a country like Iceland, with the very low homicide rate of 0.3, does not have that low rate purely because everyone is nicer than nice, and no one ever wants to harm anyone else. The fact that most Icelandic people do not own tools for killing people must play a massive role in keeping the homicide rate down.

Again, Iceland is not the U.S.

Iceland does not share a two thousand mile border with a third world country. Iceland does not take in twenty percent of the world's immigration. Iceland was not used as a dumping ground for slavery. Iceland did not fight a bloody civil war which left its south devastated, destitute, demoralized, and backward. Iceland is not situated next door to the south American drug trade. Iceland does not have Mexican and Black gangs fighting for turf in Baltimore, Philly, Newark, Oakland, South Central L.A.

How many times must this be explained?

Here is a thought, I would be interested in receiving feed-back on. I admit that this is a speculation, and may be wrong. But I am just thinking. If we look at the USA homicide rate of 4.2 killings per 100,000 people per year, and we realise that half are done with hand guns, then there are 2.1 killings per 100,000 per year which are not done with hand guns. That is still higher than any other of the advanced western nations, except Finland (2.2). Why are there more killings in the USA, even after we remove the hand gun effect?

Is it possible that there is an additional cultural effect, related to gun culture? I am talking about the belief that violence is a solution to inter-personal conflict. This may be a result of what Hollywood and its allies pump out. No only the glorification of the gun toting hero, but the allied glorification of dealing with enemies with other violence, such as we see in bar room brawls, street fist fights, or other fights using assorted make shift weapons.

Could Americans* be subject to a belief that using violence against people they do not like is a valid means of solving problems?



*I do not mean all Americans. Just those that commit crimes.

Come on now, let's not blame Hollywood. That's no better than Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman blaming Twisted Sister for all our problems in the '80s.

The U.S. isn't the only country that makes violent movies:




Martyrs - France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_(film)

Irreversible - France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irr%C3%A9versible

Inside - France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_(2007_film)

High Tension - France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Tension

Audition - Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audition_(film)

Tokyo Gore Police - Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Gore_Police

The Ring - Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(film)

Oldboy - Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldboy

Raid: Redemtion - Indonesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raid:_Redemption

Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels - U.K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock,_Stoc ... ng_Barrels

Girl with the Dragon Tatoo - Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_w ... 2009_film)

A Serbian Film - Serbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Serbian_Film

The Human Centipede - Dutch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_centipede

Romper Stomper - Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romper_Stomper



Sorry, not buying the "Americans glorify violence" angle.

[Woodbutcher]

What you're missing ,Seth, is that there will be no revolution.

This may or may not be the case. Every tyrant thinks he'll rule forever, but revolutions happen anyway.
Who''s your tyrant?

Maybe some small insurrections by some malcontents who never made it past adolescent fantasies about wild west, but they will be efficiently dealt with by the government as always.

I'm sure that's what King George and General Cornwallis said. They were wrong too.

That's been a while, or is it in your living memory?
And, you seem to forget, your idealogy is only adhered to by a small percentage of people, you'd never survive.

Since my ideology is based in the principles, foundations and history of this country, and it involves preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution, I'd say you're more than a little wrong.
Sorry' but it's only YOUR interpretation. Most people disagree with you.

All around you would be other factions, including natives, who'd wipe your so-called militia off the map in a couple of years.

Natives? I'm a native. Every person born in this country is a native.
Tell that to the Sioux. You're an illegal immigrant.

I'd be fine. I live in Canada. Good fishing and hunting all around me, and no militias. I welcome your insurrection and bet you that I would have less difficulty surviving than you. Anybody who thinks they can survive by digging in will be buried in the hole they dug. All the militias in Colorado and Montana would be fighting amongst each other for control because they could not get along. It's you who is one of the sheeple, you just can't see it. And that would be your demise. Good luck, and don't let anyone piss in your airshaft.

Wear your chains lightly, slave-boy.

No chains in Canada, chum. You wear ones of your own making, and will never be free. Watch your back, the tyrant's minions are keeping an eye on you...

[Blind groper]

Well, that's convenient. Let's just ignore data that runs counter to your preferred hypothesis.

I suggested that old data is less reliable than recent. I think that is reasonable.

On Iceland versus USA.
Iceland has five times the overall crime rate, compared to the USA. That alone shoots down most of your arguments as to why they have such a low murder rate. Obviously, they have sufficient criminals to get a high murder rate. but they do not have the guns.

[Sælir]

Well, that's convenient. Let's just ignore data that runs counter to your preferred hypothesis.

I suggested that old data is less reliable than recent. I think that is reasonable.

On Iceland versus USA.
Iceland has five times the overall crime rate, compared to the USA. That alone shoots down most of your arguments as to why they have such a low murder rate. Obviously, they have sufficient criminals to get a high murder rate. but they do not have the guns.

Where on earth did you get this information?

[Blind groper]

Where on earth did you get this information?

There is a list on Wiki of total crimes committed each year by country. I simply divided total crimes by population to get crime rates per capita for the 17 advanced western nations mentioned on that list. Both Iceland and the USA were listed.

[Azathoth]

Erm, you know the Icelandic stats include traffic violations don't you? Your data is worthless, try again.

http://logreglan.is/default.asp?cat_id=1216