Victor_inox
New member
Why even bother to obtain a firearm, any criminal can get BB gun and everyone will let flat on the floor anyway. Let`s outlaw BB guns!
:lasercannon:
:lasercannon:
Anything goes thread
- Thread starter -JD-
- Start date
- Status
Hepar
New member
OK, I'll do my best to answer where I can. Let me begin by saying that no amount of restrictions or regulations will ever solve the problem nor will any other solution. This country has a violence problem and to solve that would take changes on so many levels that it is impossible.
Now, to my comment about Chicago. They have shown that many of the guns used in crimes within Chicago were acquired either outside of Chicago (where the laws are different from those in the city) or Indiana. So, anytime anyone points out Chicago's gun problem in relation to their strict gun laws, it's a moot point. Let's look at statistics since everyone here seems to love them. Which state has the highest gun death rate per capita? Alaska. And do I feel like it's just a coincidence that they also have some of the most lax laws when it comes to gun ownership? I don't. But that also doesn't mean I blame the lax gun laws to the high rate. Again, there are many other factors that are involved than simply that.
OK, so your questions then:
How do we deal with the criminals that procure them illegally?
No idea. It's shown that simply having automatic high sentencing to illegal guns does not work. But I'm open to any and all suggestions.
If they find out that even 1 illegally procured gun comes from outside the country do we build walls around the country?
My reaction to that is, let's not get too ridiculous here. I never mentioned anything to the like in regards to any sort of restrictions.
If we find out if one was sent via a shipping service (FedEx,UPS,DHL,USPS). Do we search every package before it arrives?
If it was sent illegally and is found to be an often source of procurement, then I do feel like there needs to be steps taken. Again, I'm not saying that means I feel like every package needs to be opened and searched.
If we find out that 1 firearm was stolen from a legal owner do we prosecute that owner of the firearm for not taking enough actions to secure their now stolen firearm?
Again, let's not get too ridiculous here. If I mention something that even comes close to implying something like that, then it is a warranted question.
And the final question. Let's just say we implement a massive gun measures. If they are not sixes full in reducing gun deaths by 70-80%. Would be in favor of repealing them?
Who said anything about massive gun measures? But this then goes to my opening statement about how no amount of measures or regulations will solve the real issue.
Look, I don't own any guns. But I enjoy shooting them very much. That being said, I personally would have no issues if I had to go through a few more steps to own one. Even if they weren't required by any regulation or law, if someday I were to buy one, I would also take classes on gun use and safety and would continue to do so through owning it. And if I read in the paper about someone else who killed someone with an illegal gun, I wouldn't react with, "well why do I have to do this when people are going to get them anyways." That's just not how I am with anything. Comparing ones life to another's in that way gets you nowhere. Do your part and go from there.
Last edited:
Thefishguy77
New member
On the Chicago reference. The reason I brought up sweeping gun measures. Is the fact that most times Chicago gets brought up it is countered by your point of that the guns come from outside Chicago. The only way I see to stand with that argument is to make the rest of the country the same as Chicago. This will only apply to law abiding citizens. This will also potentially criminalize millions of formally law abiding citizens. I don't see how this would change anything.
As to Alaska well if we look in to to it. There is a huge mental illness/drug/alcohol problem In Alaska. A big part of it is in the native population and the poor. Also more people are armed in Alaska because it is one of the only states in the union that we are not the apex predator.
My big thing is the main stream democrats (gun control agenda) want to ban or register all guns. Hillary in 2015 said she wanted to abolish the NRA and ban all handguns if she could. Even though some of the very first NRA chapters that were opened were in the south. To help the blacks keep from getting killed by the KKK. The Mainstream democrats preach gun registration. Too many people have knowledge of the bad thing that have happened in the last 100 years with gun registration. Mao, hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, even though some countries haven't abused registration the ones that have are enough to keep people like myself wary of the possible abuse of power.
No amount of gun control will stop crime. We need criminal control. Now there is the point that education and stoping crime at a ground level young kids. (Parenting, better police relations, more honest reporting of facts of situations). Your from Washington correct. Do you remember the "issaquah school shooting" about 4 years ago. There was a mentally ill man walking down front street with a gun. They put the school, 1/3 mile away, on lockdown. All the news agencies instead of waiting for facts lead with shooting at issaquah high school. Never came on to school grounds or got that close to the school.
As far as taking classes when purchasing that should be a personal choice. It shouldn't be mandatory, that is just watering down our right to bare arms. You have the right to bare arms "if you take a, government?, approved class". Now I am for gun education in elementary schools. Young enough to teach basics. This way if a child encounters a firearm outside they know first and foremost to walk away. But since kids don't always do the "smart" thing they know how to clear it and know basic firearms safety.
I-594 in Washington was opposed by most all law enforcement as a do nothing law that would not stop any criminal. But it got passed and nothing has changed except to force people to follow new laws or become criminals. I actually went to a Sammamish city hall meeting where they were hearing from the publics wither or not they should support the law. When members of the sheriffs department said they do not feel it is a good idea they were dismissed at the 2 minute mark. The city council got an overhaul with people in the next election. But listening to sheriffs deputies saying this would do nothing put it in perspective.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As to Alaska well if we look in to to it. There is a huge mental illness/drug/alcohol problem In Alaska. A big part of it is in the native population and the poor. Also more people are armed in Alaska because it is one of the only states in the union that we are not the apex predator.
My big thing is the main stream democrats (gun control agenda) want to ban or register all guns. Hillary in 2015 said she wanted to abolish the NRA and ban all handguns if she could. Even though some of the very first NRA chapters that were opened were in the south. To help the blacks keep from getting killed by the KKK. The Mainstream democrats preach gun registration. Too many people have knowledge of the bad thing that have happened in the last 100 years with gun registration. Mao, hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, even though some countries haven't abused registration the ones that have are enough to keep people like myself wary of the possible abuse of power.
No amount of gun control will stop crime. We need criminal control. Now there is the point that education and stoping crime at a ground level young kids. (Parenting, better police relations, more honest reporting of facts of situations). Your from Washington correct. Do you remember the "issaquah school shooting" about 4 years ago. There was a mentally ill man walking down front street with a gun. They put the school, 1/3 mile away, on lockdown. All the news agencies instead of waiting for facts lead with shooting at issaquah high school. Never came on to school grounds or got that close to the school.
As far as taking classes when purchasing that should be a personal choice. It shouldn't be mandatory, that is just watering down our right to bare arms. You have the right to bare arms "if you take a, government?, approved class". Now I am for gun education in elementary schools. Young enough to teach basics. This way if a child encounters a firearm outside they know first and foremost to walk away. But since kids don't always do the "smart" thing they know how to clear it and know basic firearms safety.
I-594 in Washington was opposed by most all law enforcement as a do nothing law that would not stop any criminal. But it got passed and nothing has changed except to force people to follow new laws or become criminals. I actually went to a Sammamish city hall meeting where they were hearing from the publics wither or not they should support the law. When members of the sheriffs department said they do not feel it is a good idea they were dismissed at the 2 minute mark. The city council got an overhaul with people in the next election. But listening to sheriffs deputies saying this would do nothing put it in perspective.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Hepar
New member
OK, so if you apply the laws of Chicago everywhere and that would potentially criminalize formally law abiding citizens, then could you cite examples of legal gun owners being criminalized in Chicago?
10 points for staying on the woowoo train......
Hepar
New member
To your other points.
Alaska, agreed. I said that I feel like there are many other factors in play.
And the silliness of comparing and of this to Stalin, Mao or anyone else of the like is also laughable to me. Hitler actually loosened gun ownership in his reign. True, if you were Jewish that would be a different story, but if you think anything would have changed had more Jewish people been armed, you're crazy.
No amount of gun control will stop crime? 100% agree. I said it before and I will agree with it now. Look at any regulations or controls on things outside of the gun debate and tell me if they solve the issue 100%. Nope.
As far as the Issaquah shooting, I do remember it. And that is a symptom of how we are with news, not the news source itself. We need the information immediately and as a news source, if you're not in the front of the pack you are in the back. So, if any of those sources waited, they would be left behind. Which forces them to report information immediately that may not be accurate.
For the record, I do agree with many of your points and see your side on many issues.
Gunslinger-13
New member
Well, let's see here, based on the FACTS states with strict gun control laws, get MOST of their guns traced back to OTHER states with strict gun control laws:
That's data straight from the BATFE tracking these guns. BATFE is DEFINITELY NOT pro gun.
So gun control isn't working in areas it is enacted- so you blame other states around it that don't have gun control- we just need more gun control right? Wrong.
If that were the case- then places with outright bans (Brazil, England, Australia, etc) would not have as much violent crime as places like the USA, Yemen, Finland, Sweden- except they typically have GREATER amounts of violent crime.
Again- many factors at work here, but it shows the logical fallacy that is less guns=less crime. It just isn't so. We have tons of data from all around the world to shred that tripe to pieces.
And that AGAIN points us to what I have been positing here from the start and continue to provide data points for:
It's cultural and socioeconomic in nature.
Thefishguy77
New member
The only reason I give examples with Mao, hitler, ect. Is because history repeats its self. As to hitlery and armed Jews. It is a long subject that very few can truly understand myself included. You must begin with the understanding of the Weimar Republic and how that was set up and how and why them at failed. They government used restrictions and laws to prevent groups of people for expressing their opinions that disagreed with the government. They also began to pass laws that prevent those groups of people from owning weapons and they could be used in political violence and or upheaval.
That is such a 10,000' view that people that understand it would say it is an inaccurate view. Not because it is wrong but because it leaves out so many small events that allowed those events to take place. If anyone would like to learn about it you just need to look up Weimar Republic, Weimar effect, ect. It goes in to hyperinflation and so many other areas. A lot of them mirror what is happening in the world today. That is one main reason the hitler argument is still being brought up.
I am not trying to be argumentative and am probably doing a poor job of it.
I don't know how to address the news issue as the only way I can see is to completely stop watching/listening to it. And that's a slippery slope to walk down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
"Reasonable" is RELATIVE. "Common sense" is RELATIVE.
I'm glad you brought up the Harvard study and Canada, because it literally reiterates what I've been positing here this entire damn time- IT'S a CULTURAL and SOCIOECONOMIC problem, not a gun problem.
IF "guns" were the problem then anywhere guns were in greater numbers you would see marked and testable increases in overall violent crime per capita and suicides per capita- BUT YOU DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The anti-gun folks are so desperate to vilify guns and blame them for all the problems, but it's just pure folly.
We have serious mental health issues, serious addiction problems, serious problems with crime, serious problems with our economy, and serious problems with certain segments of our population- those combine to create this culture of violence, evil, etc.
Guns themselves are STILL used FAR MORE to prevent violent crime and SAVE lives than they are used in the commission of violent crime or taking of lives- does this not mean a damn thing to you?
So when you believe it is "reasonable" to enact greater gun control I believe it is unreasonable. What you call "Common Sense" I call nonsensical.
Who benefits from gun control and who is weakened from it?
The criminal who ALREADY has illegal guns and would continue to get them illegally regardless of the laws enacted and continue to use them, or the law abiding citizen who will follow the laws- Let's take for instance the recently divorced single mother who was battered and beaten by her ex-husband and afraid of her ex who threatened her life coming after her- would a mandatory waiting period forcing her to "wait" for a gun and/or mandatory training/education that she may not even have the funds to pay for (It's a defacto poll tax- which is unconstitutional by the way) in the first place benefit her?
Please use the data I've posted. It's really a lot to go through and cogitate on, but if you put the time in you will have the data necessary to see why it isn't a "gun problem".
Listen, here in the USA we are all citizens on equal footing. Limiting only military, police, body guards for the rich to have access to guns or just certain types of guns is literally creating classes of citizens who are afforded different rights and protections- that's just bonkers and runs counter to everything our Constitution and founding documents embody.
If you're okay with it in Canada, that's swell, stay there beholden to the state. Here in the USA, we are not okay with being subjects, not okay with our rights being shit on for a false sense and false promise of "safety".
There is no safety, no one can protect you; you only have the ability to try and provide for your own well being. Safety is a farce created by folks who wish to control others by engineering and manipulating their emotions.
Freedom isn't safe. Freedom isn't always loli-pops and butterflies, but having rights and the freedom to practice those rights is magnificent, beautiful and I REFUSE to trade it in for ANY reason.
Especially not this feel-goodery nonsense that if suddenly everyone who never used a gun in a criminal or evil fashion were to just give certain types up, or not be allowed to have certain capacity magazines or if we would just quit being "unreasonable" and allow more control of them by the state that we would somehow be "safer" for it.
The raw data collected from here and abroad completely shreds to pieces the premise of gun control being "Safer" and having any net positive gain to society.
We have seen it time and time again throughout our recorded history- going back to the earliest instances- when the "commoners" or ""peasants" are deprived their means to self defense and by extension their means to dissent or revolt against oppressive rule- people die in massive numbers by men who seek to control them at the tip of a spear, at the tip of a sword, at the tip of an arrow or the tip of a gun.
I for one am glad the founders of this country had the knowledge and foresight to give us the bill of rights and include them in our founding documents as a nation- EVERY SINGLE LAST AMENDMENT INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS I find to be a gift and a treasure.
Gunslinger-13
New member
Last edited:
-JD-
New member
Round and round we go...
You contradict yourself. You cite countries with high gun ownership and lower homicide rates, but completely ignore the fact that most of those countries have gun control measures.
You also seem to continue to argue as if someone is advocating for the complete removal of guns, a point no one is making. It's non sense.
Gunslinger-13
New member
The USA has "gun control measures" too, so what's your point? Every country and nation in the world has some form of gun control- so please specify your point???
I am not contradicting myself in the least. I'm showing that it isn't JUST about the GUN, or the GUN CONTROL, it is about a lot of factors,mostly cultural and socioeconomic, how many times do I have to spell it out and provide data points?
I spoke to outright bans as well as "more gun control".
Again- more gun control ITSELF, has not shown; anywhere in the world; to be the cause of decreased violent crime or suicide. It just hasn't- show me some data pointing that direction.
I've given you TONS of raw data backing up what I am positing, you have just given me opinions. So please, show me the raw data and cite your sources that show which specific gun control measures have an affect on violent crime per capita or suicide per capita.
Do you not understand, that Canada having stricter gun control is a correlation, but not necessarily causation to anything?
If it were then why does Canada have more suicides than the USA?
You put too much focus on the gun,and not enough on the plethora of factors involved in violent crime and suicide.
Last edited:
palerider01
Junior Member
Banning an object to curb human behavior is stupid. Fix the behavior problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gunslinger-13
New member
Nope, wrong again. It was a confluence of factors that lead to increased violent crime in the UK, you know those cultural and socioeconomic ones I've been CONSISTENTLY pointing out, yet you keep ignoring and reading/seeing what you want instead of the big picture and the overall message of what I have been positing.
RE the UK, it's obvious that gun control alone didn't decrease violent crime- like, just maybe it is a multi faceted problem-eh? That should be a clue for you or anyone else looking at the data and the reality of the situation...
But, if you want to keep blaming guns only when it is obvious from facts that's just a scapegoat and not the real issue, go right on doing it. I'll continue to post data point after data point refuting it.
Gunslinger-13
New member
Here's some more fo ryou:
If you look at the data, you WILL see that the factor of greater gun control, or outright bans doesn't have the same affect in every country- wow, that might point to it not just being about the "Guns" or the "Gun control measures' which is what I have been getting at this entire time.
So if it isn't just about the guns themselves or the gun control measures put into place and other factors are to blame- how is gun control the answer?
Please posit the type of gun control measures you believe have a positive affect, why they do/would here in the USA and we can discuss them. Post data points to back it up and we can discuss them.
If it's licensing and registration you seek, well here's some data to go look at:
Gun Facts | Licensing and Registration | Gun Control
Here's some more:
So when you think I am contradicting, or "having it both ways" I am not. I am simply pointing out the overwhelming conclusion of the data that gun control doesn't equal less violent crime or suicides. That is not me arguing that more guns equals less violent crime and less suicide either- I have not said that once. Merely linking to data that shreds to pieces the idea that less guns=less crime more gun control=less crimes.
I could definitely correlate loosening of gun control to less crime, but again other factors are heavily involved and I don't even need to do this.
All I need to do is show that these gun control measures you want DO NOT have an impact on violent crime rates or suicide rates- because YOU are the one who is saying that they do and basing it solely off of the GUN, and nothing else.
Can you look at the data and see this?
If you look at the data, you WILL see that the factor of greater gun control, or outright bans doesn't have the same affect in every country- wow, that might point to it not just being about the "Guns" or the "Gun control measures' which is what I have been getting at this entire time.
So if it isn't just about the guns themselves or the gun control measures put into place and other factors are to blame- how is gun control the answer?
Please posit the type of gun control measures you believe have a positive affect, why they do/would here in the USA and we can discuss them. Post data points to back it up and we can discuss them.
If it's licensing and registration you seek, well here's some data to go look at:
Gun Facts | Licensing and Registration | Gun Control
Here's some more:
So when you think I am contradicting, or "having it both ways" I am not. I am simply pointing out the overwhelming conclusion of the data that gun control doesn't equal less violent crime or suicides. That is not me arguing that more guns equals less violent crime and less suicide either- I have not said that once. Merely linking to data that shreds to pieces the idea that less guns=less crime more gun control=less crimes.
I could definitely correlate loosening of gun control to less crime, but again other factors are heavily involved and I don't even need to do this.
All I need to do is show that these gun control measures you want DO NOT have an impact on violent crime rates or suicide rates- because YOU are the one who is saying that they do and basing it solely off of the GUN, and nothing else.
Can you look at the data and see this?
Hepar
New member
If the argument is for gun ownership to avoid a militant takeover of this country, my response would be godspeed if you think that the people could mount any sort of defense against that as it stands now. Good luck to any group against our ships, tanks, jets, etc etc.
And I know you're not being argumentative. Which is why I continue to engage you. While both of us have most definitely been guilty of being so on particular topics and responses, I feel that for the most part it's leaned towards debate than argument. I feel that we could sit down over beers and have these discussions and it not end up with either of those beers being thrown onto the other person. Arguments really never lead anywhere. I'm trying my best to avoid those, but again I am just as guilty as other with engaging in them from time to time.
-JD-
New member
I can't even.....
Smh
No one is "blaming guns". I'm really not sure how many more ways I can say this before it gets in.
A variety of socio-economic factors, sure. All of which are exacerbated by easy access to an abundant weapon supply. Again you seem to conveniently forget when citing foreign statistics that most of the countries with high gun ownership and lower homicide rates have strict gun control (compared to the us) and/or require some form of training/education.
Thefishguy77
New member
And I would never waste a beer by throwing it FYI. [emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-JD-
New member
"More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking
In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship.
As Sorenson explained, scientists can’t conduct a random experiment. So, instead, researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very fragile,” says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject to what control variables researchers use. “Everyone knows there’s other things than guns that cause crime,” says Wellford, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. So these models become very complex and slight changes can cause very different results, he says.
The National Research Council review of the available research on guns and crime found that studies comparing similar geographic areas, such as urban areas to urban areas, known as “case-control studies,” showed that “violence is positively associated with firearms ownership.” But when looking at larger areas, such as countries, the National Research Council report found “contradictory evidence.” Both types of studies, said the report, failed to address factors involved in buying a gun — it’s not a random decision. And gun ownership data itself is lacking — it comes only from public opinion surveys.
Eighteen experts participated in the NRC report, including those in criminology, sociology, psychology, economics, public health and statistics. The NRC’s conclusion: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”
Wellford says the new literature that has emerged since that 2004 review “doesn’t change in any way the conclusions from our report.”
Why can’t a statistical relationship prove a causal one? There are many other factors besides the presence of guns. Adam Lanza, the shooter in the elementary school killings in Newtown, “had lots of things going on in his life and one of them was access to multiple weapons,” says Wellford, himself a gun owner. “It’s hard to parse out what the effect is of having the gun, but there’s no question there’s some effect.” But is it 2 percent, 10 percent, 100 percent of the causal model? “We don’t know.”
Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, says he would “bet a lot of money” that the prevalence of guns increases homicide, all other things being equal. “I think the evidence is very consistent with the notion that more guns have made us less safe.” But it’s “almost impossible” to prove a causal relationship. “All the data are consistent with a causal relationship, but it’s very hard to say anything is causal,” he says.
Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” But, again, the 2004 report said: “None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.”
There’s also a chicken-and-egg question when it comes to gun violence. Did the violence come first, and then the guns followed, or the other way around?
“I don’t think any of us believe the arrow points in one direction,” says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis and an emergency room doctor. It’s “probably true that rising crime leads to a perception of increased threat and, therefore, an increase in the prevalence of gun ownership.” And it’s “also the case that making firearms more available is followed by an increase in firearm crime.”
An International Comparison
The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides with guns among advanced countries. But, again, those are statistics and not demonstrative of a causal relationship.
The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded in its report that studies comparing large geographic areas, what it called “ecological studies,” didn’t show a distinct trend, and instead “provide[d] contradictory evidence on violence and firearms.”
One problem in comparing various countries is the wealth of other factors, besides the mere presence of guns, that can affect whether a homicide occurs, such as the economy, general crime rates, and laws governing guns. Another issue is that the data isn’t all that great. Gun ownership numbers are largely based on public opinion surveys, and the reliability of numbers can vary widely from country to country. “We don’t have good data on the prevalence of ownership on all the countries we’d want to have it on,” says Wintemute.
The numbers in the chart above are from the Small Arms Survey. The project gives high and low estimates, along with an average. We used the average numbers. They show the U.S. with 88.8 guns for every 100 people. That’s No. 1 in the gun ownership rate in the world. Switzerland, with 45.7 guns per 100 people, is No. 3 in the world, with nearly half the rate of the U.S. Switzerland also requires military service. (Yemen is No. 2, with 54.8 guns per 100 people.)
Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center School, told the Washington Post that “Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns,” and moving away from having those in the army keep guns at home.
The Small Arms Survey acknowledges that its numbers are approximations and making these estimates is far from an exact science. In addition to surveys, it relies on gun registration, experts, other indicators such as firearm suicides, and comparisons to similar countries. It says: “All gun numbers—even those that seem most accurate—approximate reality or reveal only part of it. They should be used with caution.”
The firearms homicide rate, and homicide rate overall, is also higher in the U.S. than other advanced countries, such as Canada, Australia and those in Europe, according to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. gun homicide rate was 3.2 per every 100,000 people in 2010, according to UNODC figures. The UNODC measures “intentional homicide,” which is “an unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.”
The international data show that country-to-country comparisons are inherently difficult to make — and, as the NRC said, provide “contradictory evidence.” For instance, Latin American countries with high levels of firearm homicide show low levels of gun ownership. Honduras has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 per 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 68.43 per 100,000 people, and Colombia has a gun rate of 5.9 and firearm homicide rate of 27.09, as shown in this chart produced by the Washington Post using the same data we have cited here.
But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”
Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
http://smartgunlaws.org/resources/g...-the-link-between-weak-laws-and-gun-violence/
In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship.
As Sorenson explained, scientists can’t conduct a random experiment. So, instead, researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very fragile,” says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject to what control variables researchers use. “Everyone knows there’s other things than guns that cause crime,” says Wellford, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. So these models become very complex and slight changes can cause very different results, he says.
The National Research Council review of the available research on guns and crime found that studies comparing similar geographic areas, such as urban areas to urban areas, known as “case-control studies,” showed that “violence is positively associated with firearms ownership.” But when looking at larger areas, such as countries, the National Research Council report found “contradictory evidence.” Both types of studies, said the report, failed to address factors involved in buying a gun — it’s not a random decision. And gun ownership data itself is lacking — it comes only from public opinion surveys.
Eighteen experts participated in the NRC report, including those in criminology, sociology, psychology, economics, public health and statistics. The NRC’s conclusion: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”
Wellford says the new literature that has emerged since that 2004 review “doesn’t change in any way the conclusions from our report.”
Why can’t a statistical relationship prove a causal one? There are many other factors besides the presence of guns. Adam Lanza, the shooter in the elementary school killings in Newtown, “had lots of things going on in his life and one of them was access to multiple weapons,” says Wellford, himself a gun owner. “It’s hard to parse out what the effect is of having the gun, but there’s no question there’s some effect.” But is it 2 percent, 10 percent, 100 percent of the causal model? “We don’t know.”
Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, says he would “bet a lot of money” that the prevalence of guns increases homicide, all other things being equal. “I think the evidence is very consistent with the notion that more guns have made us less safe.” But it’s “almost impossible” to prove a causal relationship. “All the data are consistent with a causal relationship, but it’s very hard to say anything is causal,” he says.
Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” But, again, the 2004 report said: “None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.”
There’s also a chicken-and-egg question when it comes to gun violence. Did the violence come first, and then the guns followed, or the other way around?
“I don’t think any of us believe the arrow points in one direction,” says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis and an emergency room doctor. It’s “probably true that rising crime leads to a perception of increased threat and, therefore, an increase in the prevalence of gun ownership.” And it’s “also the case that making firearms more available is followed by an increase in firearm crime.”
An International Comparison
The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides with guns among advanced countries. But, again, those are statistics and not demonstrative of a causal relationship.
The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded in its report that studies comparing large geographic areas, what it called “ecological studies,” didn’t show a distinct trend, and instead “provide[d] contradictory evidence on violence and firearms.”
One problem in comparing various countries is the wealth of other factors, besides the mere presence of guns, that can affect whether a homicide occurs, such as the economy, general crime rates, and laws governing guns. Another issue is that the data isn’t all that great. Gun ownership numbers are largely based on public opinion surveys, and the reliability of numbers can vary widely from country to country. “We don’t have good data on the prevalence of ownership on all the countries we’d want to have it on,” says Wintemute.
The numbers in the chart above are from the Small Arms Survey. The project gives high and low estimates, along with an average. We used the average numbers. They show the U.S. with 88.8 guns for every 100 people. That’s No. 1 in the gun ownership rate in the world. Switzerland, with 45.7 guns per 100 people, is No. 3 in the world, with nearly half the rate of the U.S. Switzerland also requires military service. (Yemen is No. 2, with 54.8 guns per 100 people.)
Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center School, told the Washington Post that “Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns,” and moving away from having those in the army keep guns at home.
The Small Arms Survey acknowledges that its numbers are approximations and making these estimates is far from an exact science. In addition to surveys, it relies on gun registration, experts, other indicators such as firearm suicides, and comparisons to similar countries. It says: “All gun numbers—even those that seem most accurate—approximate reality or reveal only part of it. They should be used with caution.”
The firearms homicide rate, and homicide rate overall, is also higher in the U.S. than other advanced countries, such as Canada, Australia and those in Europe, according to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. gun homicide rate was 3.2 per every 100,000 people in 2010, according to UNODC figures. The UNODC measures “intentional homicide,” which is “an unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.”
The international data show that country-to-country comparisons are inherently difficult to make — and, as the NRC said, provide “contradictory evidence.” For instance, Latin American countries with high levels of firearm homicide show low levels of gun ownership. Honduras has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 per 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 68.43 per 100,000 people, and Colombia has a gun rate of 5.9 and firearm homicide rate of 27.09, as shown in this chart produced by the Washington Post using the same data we have cited here.
But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”
Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
http://smartgunlaws.org/resources/g...-the-link-between-weak-laws-and-gun-violence/
Last edited:
- Status
