Connecticut (et al)

[Hermit]

As Harris writes --

Thirty percent of urban households have at least one firearm. This figure increases to 42 percent in the suburbs and 60 percent in the countryside. As one moves away from cities, therefore, the rate of gun ownership doubles. And yet gun violence is primarily a problem in cities. It is the people of Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, Little Rock, and Stockton who are at the greatest risk of being killed by guns.

Along with most of the developed world, about 80% of the US population live in cities and their suburbs. How would that translate on a per capita basis in each of the city, suburban and rural levels respectively as far as the risk of being killed by guns is concerned? I suspect Sam Harris is indulging in a piece of underhandedness, but then I never thought much of that expert on everything's pontifications even before he held forth on "objective moral values" a few years ago.

[Jason]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

[MrJonno]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

Well I would agree with that to the extent that most crime is due to high population density, but so what most of humanity lives in such an environment so its not a fixable problem its just life

[pErvinalia]

Regarding violent crime, just came across this astonishing article that sources studies that pretty much link high crime rates to lead ingestion (mainly via gasoline lead). It may not necessarily be as simple as living density (i.e. cities vs country).

Put all this together and you have an astonishing body of evidence. We now have studies at the international level, the national level, the state level, the city level, and even the individual level. Groups of children have been followed from the womb to adulthood, and higher childhood blood lead levels are consistently associated with higher adult arrest rates for violent crimes. All of these studies tell the same story: Gasoline lead is responsible for a good share of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century.
When differences of atmospheric lead density between big and small cities largely went away, so did the difference in murder rates.

Like many good theories, the gasoline lead hypothesis helps explain some things we might not have realized even needed explaining. For example, murder rates have always been higher in big cities than in towns and small cities. We're so used to this that it seems unsurprising, but Nevin points out that it might actually have a surprising explanation—because big cities have lots of cars in a small area, they also had high densities of atmospheric lead during the postwar era. But as lead levels in gasoline decreased, the differences between big and small cities largely went away. And guess what? The difference in murder rates went away too. Today, homicide rates are similar in cities of all sizes. It may be that violent crime isn't an inevitable consequence of being a big city after all.

The gasoline lead story has another virtue too: It's the only hypothesis that persuasively explains both the rise of crime in the '60s and '70s and its fall beginning in the '90s. Two other theories—the baby boom demographic bulge and the drug explosion of the '60s—at least have the potential to explain both, but neither one fully fits the known data. Only gasoline lead, with its dramatic rise and fall following World War II, can explain the equally dramatic rise and fall in violent crime.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... k-gasoline

Well worth the read.

[Seth]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

Perhaps that's because as a rule, the dependent class live in regions of high population density because a) the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas; and b) they choose to live in and near other members of the dependent class for sociological reasons.

The cure for the individual suffering from a high crime rate in an urban slum seems perfectly obvious to me: move out of the slum.

[Seth]

Seth

I was debunking your statement which was that guns were increasing. The reference shows you were talking shit.

No, your "references" were talking shit. It's all speculation, not facts.

Also, note the time scale. You said gun numbers had increased over 20 years, and the survey graphs have showed they dropped over 20 years. Over 15, they have not changed much, but over the longer time scale, numbers dropped. Your earlier statement was simply wrong.

No they don't.

We know that, when two factors are linked by a cause and effect relationship, the factor that is the cause will change first, and the effect will follow after a time delay. If gun ownership is a cause, and murder rate is an effect, a drop in gun ownership will precede a drop in murder rate.

Not true. Correlation is not causation.

According to the more reliable GSS survey in the earlier graph, gun ownership peaked in 1990, and has been dropping since. Homicide rate in the USA peaked in 1991 and has been dropping since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Which fails to explain, again, the explosion in gun sales. You CLAIM that it's fewer people buying more guns each, but you have zero credible evidence that this is the case.

This is fully consistent with my statement that gun ownership is a major factor causing homicides.

Well, certainly gun possession by murderers is a major causative factor in gun homicides, but so what? Nobody wants murderers to have guns.

[Blind groper]

Which fails to explain, again, the explosion in gun sales. You CLAIM that it's fewer people buying more guns each, but you have zero credible evidence that this is the case.

Incorrect. I posted the evidence. When you simply deny evidence you do not want to believe in, it is not rational debate

On the lead hypothesis. I looked in town versus country murder rates a while back. The difference is actually minimal. If you remove from the comparison, the city high crime areas, murder rates in the country are actually higher than in the city. This does not support the lead hypothesis.

[laklak]

Thing is, gun ownership in the U.S. can only be estimated by polling. No one actually has any idea how many gun owners there are. I seriously doubt that the massive increase in gun sales is due only to existing owners. I think people lie about it. Doesn't matter, though. Even the lowest estimates put it at around 100,000,000 people, almost 20 times the population of New Zealand and 5 times that of Australia. Put another way, if the same number of guns (appx 270,000,000) existed in New Zealand that would work out to about 68 firearms for every man, woman and child.

I only post this to highlight how entrenched guns are in U.S. society, and how difficult it would be to remove those weapons.

[macdoc]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

[Seth]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

[orpheus]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

[pErvinalia]

Put another way, if the same number of guns (appx 270,000,000) existed in New Zealand that would work out to about 68 firearms for every man, woman and child.

My children only have 7 guns each..

[pErvinalia]

I'm not sure what Sam or Coito are getting at, but there seems to be a valid point hidden away in there: gun violence is primarily a sociological problem endemic to regions of high population density.

Perhaps that's because as a rule, the dependent class live in regions of high population density because a) the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas; and b) they choose to live in and near other members of the dependent class for sociological reasons.

The cure for the individual suffering from a high crime rate in an urban slum seems perfectly obvious to me: move out of the slum.

Another great Seth contradiction. You don't think it might be difficult to move out of a slum because, as you say "the costs of living are lower than they are in rural areas"?

[pErvinalia]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Absolutely he would! We've been down this road with him before. He'll fight to death for the sanctity of the constitution; until that constitution is changed in a legal way, as specified in the constitution itself, in a way that he doesn't like.

[orpheus]

Funny how the bylaws are effective against pets.... just sayin'..

You don't have a constitutional right to keep and bear pets. I do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That trumps bylaws.

Seth, as a hypothetical question: were the 2nd Amendment to be repealed/changed, would you still ally yourself with the US Constitution? Would you choose to retain your guns, thus becoming an outlaw (as opposed to a "law-abiding gun owner")?

Absolutely he would! We've been down this road with him before. He'll fight to death for the sanctity of the constitution; until that constitution is changed in a legal way, as specified in the constitution itself, in a way that he doesn't like.

Oops, you're right. I forgot about that.