Guns Used.....cont

[Ian]

Of course guns kill people. Sometimes it's people who don't need to be killed who are killed by criminals, other times it's people who do need to be killed by law-abiding citizens. More often though, it's criminals who are prevented from committing crimes by law-abiding citizens with firearms.

Which is why our violent crime rate is half of that of the UK, and is going down.

Seth, you're just making stuff up as you go.

The US's violent crime rate is about three to four times that of the UK's, depending on how you judge the statistics. The homicide rate is between four and five times the UK's rate; moreover, nearly 70% of US homicides are committed with a firearm. Moreover, statistics are mixed (FBI vs BJS) that US violent crime rates started ticking upwards again in 2011.

Owning a gun means you a *far* more likely to use it against a friend, family member or neighbor than against a criminal assailant. One study found that only around 3.6% of homicides committed in or near a gun owner's home were against a stranger. All together, a gun in your house or on your person is more than 2000% more likely to be used for something other than self-defense against a criminal.

Now, I'm sure none of that is going to mean anything to you because you'll probably go finding some skewed statistic or story to back up the world view that you want to see rather than viewing data objectively. And it's not like I'm in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment anyway; I'm just mocking the insipidly false notion that more guns correlates to less crime. So instead of going down that road, I wanted to get your opinion on something much more specific. I own a gun, but I keep it inside a keypad-activated safe, which almost (but not quite) negates any likelihood of theft or having someone besides me (i.e. my kids) discharge it by accident. So the question is: what do you think about the idea of requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance? I'd be perfectly fine with paying it, especially since my rate would likely be lower if I could verify that I have a secure storage space for the weapon. I also think that sort of policy would lead to more safety measures and thus fewer accidents and/or reckless behavior; I'm sure even you would agree that responsibility among gun owners is something which could always be improved. I suppose I can guess your thoughts on the subject, but go ahead and post about it if you like.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course guns kill people. Sometimes it's people who don't need to be killed who are killed by criminals, other times it's people who do need to be killed by law-abiding citizens. More often though, it's criminals who are prevented from committing crimes by law-abiding citizens with firearms.

Which is why our violent crime rate is half of that of the UK, and is going down.

Seth, you're just making stuff up as you go.

The US's violent crime rate is about three to four times that of the UK's, depending on how you judge the statistics. The homicide rate is between four and five times the UK's rate; moreover, nearly 70% of US homicides are committed with a firearm. Moreover, statistics are mixed (FBI vs BJS) that US violent crime rates started ticking upwards again in 2011.

Regarding intentional homicides, the US is higher, but some specific areas skew that number up, like Puerto Rico and Washington DC, which have astronomically high rates, and then nine states have rates that 2.0 per 100,000 or less. We are very varied in these rates, and it does not have anything apparently to do with firearm availability.

Regarding violent crimes overall, my recollection is that the UK is about 4 times more violent than the US, per capita.

Owning a gun means you a *far* more likely to use it against a friend, family member or neighbor than against a criminal assailant.

Sometimes those friends and family members and neighbors ARE the criminal assailants. When you're house gets robbed, it is far more likely that it gets robbed by someone who knows you, or is a relative. They know your habits and schedules, and they may even know where your stuff is.

One study found that only around 3.6% of homicides committed in or near a gun owner's home were against a stranger. All together, a gun in your house or on your person is more than 2000% more likely to be used for something other than self-defense against a criminal.

This study is really meaningless, because of course people will know more of the people "in or near" their home. Most of the people we let in our homes or who come in our homes are not strangers. A woman is far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime committed by her husband, boyfriend or other male relative or friend than a stranger. The same stat likely applies to knife and bat crime too.

Now, I'm sure none of that is going to mean anything to you because you'll probably go finding some skewed statistic or story to back up the world view that you want to see rather than viewing data objectively.

I'm not sure you're right about the violent crime stats. Violent crime is more than homicides, and last time I checked the UK was one of the most violent countries in the first world, if not the most violent.

And it's not like I'm in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment anyway; I'm just mocking the insipidly false notion that more guns correlates to less crime. So instead of going down that road, I wanted to get your opinion on something much more specific. I own a gun, but I keep it inside a keypad-activated safe, which almost (but not quite) negates any likelihood of theft or having someone besides me (i.e. my kids) discharge it by accident. So the question is: what do you think about the idea of requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance? I'd be perfectly fine with paying it, especially since my rate would likely be lower if I could verify that I have a secure storage space for the weapon. I also think that sort of policy would lead to more safety measures and thus fewer accidents and/or reckless behavior; I'm sure even you would agree that responsibility among gun owners is something which could always be improved. I suppose I can guess your thoughts on the subject, but go ahead and post about it if you like.

I like the idea of exploring the notion of mandatory liability policies. HOWEVER, there would likely be unintended consequences that we need to guard against, like criminals who get shot committing crimes making claims on these policies and gaining windfalls. When these policies pay out is very important. But it is definitely worth a public discussion. I am not sure that there is an insurance market for this, though. Is there? Can you get insurance to cover accidental discharge of a firearm that you own but which through your negligence or lack of security gets in the hands of children or strangers? Would it pay out if a thief steals the gun and then murders someone with it? What would it pay? How would the insurance company assess the risk, since the actuarial tables depend on the victim's demographics? Who gets the money? The victim? What if you didn't do anything wrong, like you who has the gun in the safe, and then someone shows up and steals the whole safe? Does your insurer (you) still have to pay out? Or, is it in the case of negligence?

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure it would end up doing anything to reduce gun crime. In fact, if insurance policies are around to compensate victims, it would seem to be a disincentive to be careful. After all, the insurance will pay, and a negligent person won't wind up personally on the hook for the financial damages.

[Ian]

Regarding violent crimes overall, my recollection is that the UK is about 4 times more violent than the US, per capita.

Nope. The US is far more violent; three to four times more, in fact, and four time five times more in terms of intentional homicide. I was talking about overall per capita rates.

But what do I know about objectively analyzing crime data? I'm only a professional analyst with a criminal justice degree who uses UN statistics to back up my words.

Sometimes those friends and family members and neighbors ARE the criminal assailants. When you're house gets robbed, it is far more likely that it gets robbed by someone who knows you, or is a relative. They know your habits and schedules, and they may even know where your stuff is.

Okay, but what's your point? My point is that in the US those assailants you might know are much more likely to end up dead in any given incident.

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding violent crimes overall, my recollection is that the UK is about 4 times more violent than the US, per capita.

Nope. The US is far more violent; three to four times more, in fact, and four time five times more in terms of intentional homicide. I was talking about overall per capita rates.

I'm willing to be corrected, and I don't have my source at my fingertips right now. but, can you cite a source?

But what do I know about objectively analyzing crime data? I'm only a professional analyst with a criminal justice degree who uses UN statistics to back up my words.

I wasn't telling you you don't know what you're talking about. I am only letting you know that my understanding was that while the US rates for intentional homicide were higher than the UK -- like 4 times higher -- I recall reading stats not too long ago where the UK was much higher in violent crimes per 100,000 overall -- including all violent crimes, not just homicides. Again, can you link to the stats?

Sometimes those friends and family members and neighbors ARE the criminal assailants. When you're house gets robbed, it is far more likely that it gets robbed by someone who knows you, or is a relative. They know your habits and schedules, and they may even know where your stuff is.

Okay, but what's your point? My point is that in the US those assailants you might know are much more likely to end up dead in any given incident.

An assailant you know deserves as much to be repelled as an assailant you don't know. that's my point. If a woman's husband is trying to attack her violently, then a bullet to his face isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Doing some googles, I have to question your stats on the US being 4 or 5 times more violent than the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

[Ian]

Does that look like a reliable, objective source to you?

Do some more googling.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the crime/homicide rates being so much higher in the US was not to prove a correlation with guns, but to disprove Seth's weird claims that 1) the UK was twice as violent and 2) that it's because of fewer guns. False data + heavy bias = bad analysis

[Coito ergo sum]

Does that look like a reliable, objective source to you?

Yes, because it cites the European Commission and the UN.

Do some more googling.

I have been and what I'm finding is that the UK is at the top, depending on the year first or second, in violent crime in the EU, and is about 4 times as violent, relative total violent crime as the US. The only area where the US is more violent is with intentional homicides.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned the crime/homicide rates being so much higher in the US was not to prove a correlation with guns, but to disprove Seth's weird claims that 1) the UK was twice as violent and 2) that it's because of fewer guns. False data + heavy bias = bad analysis

I think he's right about the UK being much more violent than the US. I'm not sure if it's twice or more than twice, but I'm looking for the primary data. The secondary sources I'm finding say the US far less violent.


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea0_1357 ... comments=1

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behavior

[Coito ergo sum]

I can't find the stats that show Britain has a lower violent crime rate than the US.

Since you're an expert, you ought to have them readily available. Can you give a link?

[Ian]

Jeez, put your snide in check. Unlike Seth, I merely bothered to look up some information before I formed and posted an opinion on it.
And call me arrogant if you like but I very much consider myself more objective about the subject than him.
(FYI: The "source" you posted was a skewed analysis used by the UK's Conservative party (via The Telegraph newspaper) to trash crime trends during Labour's last term. Suppose I posted some official data which had been filtered through the lens of the DNC or MoveOn.org, would you find that convincing?)

But if you're going to make me sit down for a couple minutes and cite my own sources...

Intentional homicide rate in the US: 4.8/100k
Intentional homicide rate in the UK: 1.2/100k
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime (UNODC): http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and ... cs2012.xls

Overall violent crimes rate in the US: 386/100k
Source: FBI's Uniform Crime Report http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... -u.s.-2011
Overall violent crime rates in the UK: ~353/100k (see next paragraph)
Various sources (note: the UK doesn't have a one-stop source like the FBI's UCR, including the Home Office; their stats are divided by England & Wales, Scotland, and N. Ireland). But one good place to look is the Office of National Statistics: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-sta ... sept-2012/

But, there are various categories of major violent crimes which have their own statistics worth distinguishing: rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. In the US those rates are 26, 113 and 241/100k, respectively. In the UK they are 23, 80 and 230/100k (note: assault in particular is defined somewhat differently in the UK compared to the US - violent crimes against persons are categorized as with injury or without injury. Moreover, bar fights account for an awful lot of this number in the UK).
But nevermind all that for now. Unlike homicide, rape, for example, is massively underreported and underconvicted everywhere. So official statistics aren't too important for this discussion even if they are higher in the US. Same with assault and robbery; the police can only speculate on how often these crimes actually happen compared to how often they're reported. Moreover, from what I gather they're more likely underreported in the US than in the UK due to the nature of many US inner city areas and the locals' relations with the police. But the point is that murder statistics are much more definitive anywhere.

Overall violent crime has increased in the UK in the last fifteen years, whereas it has decreased in the US. But other data suggests that in the UK it has been falling again recently: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-sta ... -2012.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... land-wales

So anyway, yes the US is more violent than the UK - though upon further review I admit not three to four times as much if we're going to lump all types of violent crime together. But even if Britain were more violent than the US except for homicide, aren't the homicide statistics by themselves worth the sole focus of the discussion?? I shouldn't have even mentioned other types of crime besides homicide, except that Seth tried to do that without singling out the murder rates. I'd say discussing homicide rates is an order of magnitude more important than discussing assault rates. I for one would be OK with living in a country with a higher assault rate if I knew I was four times more likely to live through being assaulted! Even if we were to call the overall violent crime rates comparable between the US and the UK (and we could), it proves a big point about guns that the US's homicide rate is nowhere near comparable but rather quadruple the UK's rate (and the UK's rate has fallen for ten years, by the way - their most recent peak in homicides was 2003). And 68% of US homicides happen with guns... and yet guys like Seth manage to not only see no correlation between that oddly quadruple rate and guns, but actually tell themselves there's somehow an inverse correlation. And then he gives people like me a hard time for calling him factually incorrect and biased. Judging analysis like his to be poor sounds overly generous to me.

[JimC]

[Warren Dew]

Which is why our violent crime rate is half of that of the UK, and is going down.

Seth, you're just making stuff up as you go.

The US's violent crime rate is about three to four times that of the UK's, depending on how you judge the statistics.

Assault victim percentage: 133% higher in the UK. Rape victim percentage: 125% higher in the UK. The U.S. has about 400% more total population, but only 82% more total crimes.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Uni ... ates/Crime

Seth's right, and you're the one just making stuff up as you go. As usual.

[FBM]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/08/polit ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Gun focus shifts from ban to checks and trafficking

Washington (CNN) -- Eight weeks after the massacre of 20 Connecticut first-graders, a ban on the kind of semi-automatic rifle used by the killer remains elusive -- if not impossible.
Such a ban became a rallying cry for victims' families, advocacy groups and politicians supporting tougher gun laws in the emotional aftermath of the Newtown shootings in December.
President Barack Obama still calls for updating a 1994 assault weapons ban that expired 10 years later as part of his package of steps intended to reduce chronic gun violence in America, especially in major cities.
However, fierce opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association and millions of American gun owners has shifted debate away from prohibiting specific weapons to making it harder for criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill to obtain guns.
Along with a renewed ban on semi-automatic weapons, Obama also wants to limit magazine clips to 10 rounds, expand background checks to all gun sales, crack down on gun trafficking, and strengthen efforts to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

...

Too much for some, not enough for others, I imagine. But at least something is happening.

Way too long to quote in entirety, so follow the link for the rest, if you're interested.

[MrJonno]

The UK is 4 times more violent than the US was lifted from a Daily Mail article

Interesting comment from A British libertarian site about this, basically the US doesnt even record nationally the most common forms of assault

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/20 ... an-the-us/

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Jason]

Hell yeah.. chicks with guns rule.