Violent crime still going down.

[pErvinalia]

I fervently agree with

edit: fuck you, page break!

[FBM]

[Hermit]

It wasn't intended to be a fervent statement.

Orly? <---- fervent

<---- ferventer

<---- fermentest

<---- furtive fugitive

[FBM]

Furrier statements:

[Jason]

After taking some time to look up some more actual facts I finished up exporting this table of statistics into a spreadsheet and sorted them to produce a couple of graphs.

Blind Groper, would you be so kind as to match your assertion that more guns equal more murders with this graph?



And, Seth, would you please do likewise with your contrary one with this one? I'll be happy to provide you with another one that shows that you wrong in regard to your more general assertion that "more guns equals less crime", once you have replied to the question I have directed to you on five previous occasions.

District of Columbia: Gun ownership <5%. Murders per 100,000 > 20%

Wyoming: Gun ownership >60%. Murders per 100,000 <5%

More guns, less crime. Fewer guns, more crime.

If you drew the lines I think you'd find that the murder rate is very very slightly on decline compared to a rapid rise in gun ownership. If there is causation it is extremely slight. DC is one hell of an outlier.

[Blind groper]

Murder rates, and crime rates overall are in decline. I have always said that. In the USA, in 1970, the murder rate was 10 killings per 100,000 people per year, and today it is under half that. Murder rates are declining.

However, the murders that do occur are related to guns. How can they not be when two thirds are carried out with guns? With the exception of Switzerland, developed nations have a murder rate that correlates well with the amount of gun ownership. The USA has the highest gun ownership and the highest murder rate. Japan has the lowest of both. Others fall in between.

Switzerland is interesting, with a high gun ownership and low murder rate. But it is worth noting that in terms of percentage, it has more of its murders carried out by guns than even the USA. Three quarters of murders in Switzerland are done by guns. If it did not have all those guns, the murder rate might be even lower still.

Seth will say that without guns, people would use other means. Yes they would. But not successfully. Data shows than 1 in 4 of those people who receive a bullet will die from that bullet. However, with stabbings, only 1 in 400 who receives a stab wound will die from that. This means that if those violent people cannot lay their hands on guns, and have to rely on knives, the homicide rate will plummet.

[Blind groper]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wir ... e-violence

The reference above would be good reading for those Americans who have an open mind on the subject.

It points out that the USA is not a "peace loving country". It is the most violent of all developed nations, and has a third world level of violence in a first world economy.

The USA is married to guns. It is the biggest manufacturer of guns, and the biggest exporter of guns, including to third world totalitarian states. It is the only first world nation with essentially no gun control (at least for second hand weapons). It has the highest gun ownership and the highest murder rate, two thirds of which are carried out using guns.

Seth and others like him will try to tell us that guns are good, but the facts say otherwise. It would be, perhaps, interesting to speculate on how strong the gun lobby in congress would be if guns were not so important to the economy. Opposition to gun control is probably based far more on $$$$ that the rationalisations presented.

[JimC]

Blind groper wrote:

Seth will say that without guns, people would use other means. Yes they would. But not successfully. Data shows than 1 in 4 of those people who receive a bullet will die from that bullet. However, with stabbings, only 1 in 400 who receives a stab wound will die from that. This means that if those violent people cannot lay their hands on guns, and have to rely on knives, the homicide rate will plummet.

Perhaps. However, it may not be clear cut. When someone is shot, in most cases, the intent will be to kill. However, that may not be the case in stabbings, at least to the same extent. Without guns being available, more of the stabbings might be done with definite and serious intent to kill, raising the proportion who die from stab wounds.

None of which alters the fact that, getting away from interminable comparisons between US states, it is still abundantly clear that the murder rate in the US, mostly via hand-guns, is significantly higher than economically similar countries with much fewer guns in circulation. No amount of obfuscation will change that.

[Blind groper]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... aves-lives

Since Jim has just spoken, let me shift the focus to Australia. 'Some' have said that the tightening of gun laws in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre made no difference. 'Some' speak with forked tongue!

In fact, as the above reference points out, the level of gun deaths in Australia dropped from 2.6 deaths per 100,000 people per year to under 1. That is all gun deaths, from murder to suicide to accident.

In addition, there has not been any mass gun murders. Before the new gun laws were passed, Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years. It has not had even one since.

Tightening gun laws saves lives.

[Blind groper]

Looking at Switzerland

This country is a bit of a puzzle, in that it is an outlier on the gun murder statistics. So I did a bit more research. It appears that their high gun membership carries a price, after all. The price is more suicides.

Switzerland has one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world, at more than 14 suicide deaths per 100,000 people per year, which is a third more than New Zealand, for example. As in most countries, more males commit suicide, and a third of them suicide using a firearm. This percentage using firearms is higher than any developed nation except the USA. But the USA has more firearms.

So even though Switzerland does not fit the graph for gun ownership versus homicides, it most definitely does in the gun ownership versus suicide.

More guns bring more deaths, including Switzerland.

[Seth]

Murder rates, and crime rates overall are in decline. I have always said that. In the USA, in 1970, the murder rate was 10 killings per 100,000 people per year, and today it is under half that. Murder rates are declining.

However, the murders that do occur are related to guns. How can they not be when two thirds are carried out with guns? With the exception of Switzerland, developed nations have a murder rate that correlates well with the amount of gun ownership. The USA has the highest gun ownership and the highest murder rate. Japan has the lowest of both. Others fall in between.

Switzerland is interesting, with a high gun ownership and low murder rate. But it is worth noting that in terms of percentage, it has more of its murders carried out by guns than even the USA. Three quarters of murders in Switzerland are done by guns. If it did not have all those guns, the murder rate might be even lower still.

This is the core of your fallacious reasoning. You insist that fewer guns in society in general will result in fewer gun-related murders, but the facts in the US prove that you are wrong. It's not the absolute number of guns in a society, it's who has possession of them. As we can see from Switzerland's example, a high rate of gun possession does not equate to a high murder rate because the vast majority of those guns are not in the hands of violent criminals, they are in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The same effect is seen in the data provided here in the US. There is no correlation between the absolute number of guns in a particular state and the crime rate in that state, but what you fail to analyze is the proportion of armed criminals to armed citizens. You simply assume that every gun is equally likely to be used in a crime as every other gun is. This is patently false and has been proven to you time and time again. Studies show that less than 0.004 percent of all guns are ever used in any kind of crime at all. It seems pretty clear to me that the vast majority of that very small number of guns are ones in the possession of criminals who possess them with the explicit intent of using them to commit crimes. I think the fact is that of those guns, the vast majority of them that are actually used to commit crimes are possessed by black youths between 15 and 20 living in large metropolitan areas who are involved in gang related activities.

Yes, there are a small number of guns that are used by ordinary persons with no criminal record to commit random acts of violence such as the recent shooting in Colorado at Arapaho High School, where a student with absolutely no record whatever of violence shot and killed a classmate before killing himself. But the number of guns involved in this sort of spontaneous violence by otherwise law-abiding people is a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of all guns in the US that are used deliberately to cause harm.

The appropriate and rational response to a microscopic fraction of situations where someone just goes nuts and shoots someone else without any warning or prior criminal intent is not to ban guns for everyone else any more than it's reasonable to ban automobiles because some people get drunk and kill others with them. It's just nonsense.

As for armed criminals who illegally possess guns to facilitate their crimes, be it for profit or for gang street cred, no law, including outright gun bans, is going to stop them from acquiring and using guns that they are already forbidden to possess or use.

Disarming the vast, huge, overwhelming number of law-abiding gun owners who never use their guns for anything but lawful purposes to try to deal with armed thugs and gang members is like executing members of the Temperance League because drunk drivers kill people. They are simply not responsible for gun violence in any way at all and by disarming them you are not preventing gun violence, you are ensuring more gun violence because you are leaving everyone BUT the criminals and gang members without the means to defend themselves effectively.

Yes, I know you flatly dismiss the millions of times per year that guns are used lawfully in self defense, but that's just ignorance and deliberate mendacity on your part that has no connection to reality.

Seth will say that without guns, people would use other means. Yes they would. But not successfully. This means that if those violent people cannot lay their hands on guns, and have to rely on knives, the homicide rate will plummet.

What crap. Of course it's desirable to disarm criminals. But it's NOT desirable to disarm their potential victims in a vain and useless attempt to disarm criminals. By taking away guns from the law abiding citizen you are doing nothing but guaranteeing more and more victims of violent crime because criminals will ALWAYS find a way to be armed in furtherance of their criminal activities. Taking guns away from the law-abiding will not merely have no effect on preventing criminals from being armed with deadly weapons, it will have an extremely harmful effect on victims, as the statistics shown here in re the District of Columbia amply demonstrates. It's not called the "murder capitol of the United States" for nothing.

Again, your fallacy is in presuming that all guns are equally likely to be involved in a crime when this is obviously and provably not the case.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Your idea that disarming criminals but not law abiding citizens is good in theory. But we live in a practical world. How the hell are you planning to achieve that?

It is actually impossible. If you provide hand guns for law abiding people, then criminals will also have hand guns. Especially in the USA where there is nothing to prevent those hand guns being sold on the second hand market to just anyone.

No. Australia got it right. They tightened gun laws, and banned the most hazardous weapons, and they dropped gun homicide and suicide dramatically as a result.

The USA could do the same. Not by depriving law abiding citizens of firearms. But by eliminating the weapons that take the most lives. For the USA, that is hand guns.

It will not be that easy, of course. It will not happen overnight. And there will be enormous opposition from the more barbaric people in the USA. But it can be done, bit by bit.

For a start, change the ludicrous laws permitting second hand guns to be sold without background checks. Make it illegal for any person to own a hand gun without a proper hand gun permit. New or second hand. Make it a crime to conceal a hand gun on your person. That will be a blow to criminals who like to carry hand guns in concealment.

Seth,

You talk of hoplophobes. But you should realise that there are also hoplophiles.

Hoplophilia is a mental illness, characterised by an obsessive and unhealthy love of firearms. It creates enormous harm to society, including a massive increase in both murders and suicides.

A hoplophile can be recognised by the number of unnecessary guns he owns. A sporting rifle or shotgun to kill pests or hunt meat for the table is one thing. But those who own guns for no purpose other than killing people can be identified as hoplophiles, and are thus recognisable as " a sandwich short of a picnic."

[Seth]

Seth

Your idea that disarming criminals but not law abiding citizens is good in theory. But we live in a practical world. How the hell are you planning to achieve that?

It is actually impossible.

Exactly correct!

If you provide hand guns for law abiding people, then criminals will also have hand guns.

If you forbid handguns for law abiding people then criminals will STILL have handguns. And they will have knives, machetes, bottles of gasoline, rags and matches, clubs, arrows, boards, potato peelers, lamps and rocks, all of which are used to kill and injure people with.

Especially in the USA where there is nothing to prevent those hand guns being sold on the second hand market to just anyone.

The law strictly prohibits the transfer of any firearm to a disqualified person and levies harsh federal prison sentences on people who do so, which means you're wrong.

No. Australia got it right. They tightened gun laws, and banned the most hazardous weapons, and they dropped gun homicide and suicide dramatically as a result.

More cherry picking. Gun homicide and suicide are not the only categories of violent crime of concern, and in point of fact violent crime in Australia climbed, and has continued to climb since the ban.

The USA could do the same. Not by depriving law abiding citizens of firearms. But by eliminating the weapons that take the most lives. For the USA, that is hand guns.

Except it won't work because criminals won't turn in their handguns.

It will not be that easy, of course. It will not happen overnight. And there will be enormous opposition from the more barbaric people in the USA. But it can be done, bit by bit.

Actually it can't because the Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear a handgun specifically is a protected right under the 2nd Amendment.

For a start, change the ludicrous laws permitting second hand guns to be sold without background checks.

They have tried that in many places. It doesn't keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, as the crime rate in DC amply proves.

Make it illegal for any person to own a hand gun without a proper hand gun permit. New or second hand.

Tried that too. Has no effect on keeping guns away from criminals.

Make it a crime to conceal a hand gun on your person. That will be a blow to criminals who like to carry hand guns in concealment.

Yo, dude! It's illegal for a criminal to carry a concealed handgun already. In fact it's illegal for a criminal to so much as lay a finger on a firearm or as much as a single round of ammunition and has been for a hundred years or more. And yet that law hasn't prevent criminals from illegally carrying concealed hand guns now has it? Are you really this dense? Do you actually fail to understand that everything you suggest has been tried somewhere in the US in the last 100 years and every such effort has failed utterly, and failed worst of all in those places where the anti-gun laws are the most draconian...like Chicago.

The only gun regulation that has had a demonstrable positive effect on reducing gun violence is the widespread enactment of "shall issue" concealed carry laws that allow law abiding citizens to be armed in public for self defense.

That's it.

Nothing else has been remotely effective at keeping guns of any kind out of the hands of criminals. You might cite all the various background check rejections as proof, but you'd be largely wrong. Something like 70 percent of such NICS denials are eventually overturned on appeal because of errors in the system, and there is absolutely no evidence whatever that any of the other 30 percent did not eventually get a firearm without a NICS check anyway. All we know is that a specific transaction was denied, not that it "kept a gun out of the hands of a criminal." It may have kept THAT gun out of his hands, but that says nothing about getting it from an illegal source. Worse, the prosecution rate on the part of the feds for violations of the GCA, like falsifying the Form 4473, lying or making a straw purchase for a known disqualified person is less than 5 percent when it should be 100 percent. In other words, the feds themselves are refusing to enforce the very laws that they claim prevent criminals from getting guns...which they don't.

Seth,

You talk of hoplophobes. But you should realise that there are also hoplophiles.

Hoplophilia is a mental illness, characterised by an obsessive and unhealthy love of firearms. It creates enormous harm to society, including a massive increase in both murders and suicides.

A hoplophile can be recognised by the number of unnecessary guns he owns. A sporting rifle or shotgun to kill pests or hunt meat for the table is one thing. But those who own guns for no purpose other than killing people can be identified as hoplophiles, and are thus recognisable as " a sandwich short of a picnic."

The good thing about the US is that hoplophobe fuckwits from other countries don't get to tell us what's "unnecessary" to the enjoyment of our civil rights and what isn't.

[Blind groper]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/austra ... -shootings


The reference above describes the most successful new gun laws in recent years. In Australia. Violent crime went down. Homicides went down. Suicides went down. All because of a major reduction in gun ownership.

Seth, the experiment has been done. Results very, very successful. Reduce gun ownership and reduce crime. Yes it happened.

The problem is that you are still hung up on your own emotional obsession with guns. You cannot see past those emotions to see the reason behind. Guns are used to kill people. Reduce the number of guns and crime will not rise. In Australia, violent crime fell. Reduce gun ownership and there will be a lot more people continuing to live, who would otherwise be killed.

[Hermit]

No. Australia got it right. They tightened gun laws, and banned the most hazardous weapons, and they dropped gun homicide and suicide dramatically as a result.

More cherry picking. Gun homicide and suicide are not the only categories of violent crime of concern, and in point of fact violent crime in Australia climbed, and has continued to climb since the ban.

That's a bit rich, coming from a bloke who picks two data points out of 51 to "prove" an inverse relationship between gun ownership and murder rates in order to conclude that more guns = less crime.

Selecting the same two geographical locations that you did I can "prove" that it is not gun ownership, but population density that determines murder rates. To wit:

District of Columbia, 10298 people/square mile, 16.5 murders/100,000
Wyoming, 5851 people/square mile, 0.9 murders/100,000

The relationship between murder rates and population density is quite simple to discern, and abundantly clear, don't you think?

Rainbow quite rightly ridiculed exactly that sort of brazen cherry picking by remarking: "By carefully selecting statistics you can also show that Gay Marriage causes Libertarianism." You just do it more brazenly than most. Hence the irony of you of all people accusing others of doing so.