Gun Stats

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

DaveP

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
3,142
Location
France
Number of Americans:                      321M
Guns:                                                            270M

Number of Brits:                                      64M
Guns:                                                                4M

US Gun deaths 2014                        12,570
UK Gun deaths 2014                                30

Nothing to add
DaveP


Sources: 1. CIA World Fact Book 2. UNODC 2012 3. Small Arms Survey 4. Everytown Research (as of 11 November 2015) 5. Gun Violence Archive 6. Home Office, Police Scotland Yard.
 
I bet there are also US statistics that claim those 12,570 dead people were all dangerous criminals and luckily the righteous Englishmen have that many guns so they can defend themselves  :eek:  Just kidding.  No, that's indeed a pretty high number of dead marshalls ;)
 
Please: US, not "American". America is a big place and most of it is not gun-crazed.

You are showing essentially 1 gun for everybody in the US.

I am in one of the more gun-crazed parts of the US, Maine. MOST folks round here average less than half a gun. A gun in one house not the next.

What may be unique in the US is the few mass collectors who possess hundreds of guns. Safes and trailers full. Is a lone wolf with 400 guns more dangerous than if he only has 4 guns?
 
I'm firmly of the belief that, were we to have the same proportion of gun ownership here in the UK as in the US, we'd have the same level of gun-related incidents.  When someone says 'guns don't kill people, people do', I reply 'of course, they just make it much easier to kill'.

Getting a converted starter pistol in the UK requires underworld connections. Getting a semi-automatic would require contacts that are criminal A-list. Getting a semi-automatic in the US is rather easier...
 
Please: US, not "American". America is a big place and most of it is not gun-crazed.
PRR,

I do realise what you are saying is true, but you have all grown up in the society that you now find yourselves in and the view from outside the bubble is quite different.

I guess you value the right to bear arms so highly that it causes you to make the safety checks a lower priority in case it reduces your rights?  Just guessing here :-\

Automatic weapons should only ever be in the hands of the military, not in the hands of those expecting WW3, a zombie attack, the mentally ill or the grudge bearers of this world.  The availability of such weapons just ensures that recent events will follow in ever more frequent succession.
It's a cause and effect that even a child could follow.

I certainly don't say this from any feeling of moral superiority,  (British hamfisted actions probably initiated the paranoia back in the 1700's).

I say it in the spirit of sadness that you would have for a friend who has taken a wrong turn in life.

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
Please: US, not "American". America is a big place and most of it is not gun-crazed.
PRR,

I do realise what you are saying is true, but you have all grown up in the society that you now find yourselves in and the view from outside the bubble is quite different.
Some of us inside the bubble americans manage a world perspective. I believe at least one of PRR's points was that the americas involve two continents, and even N. America is three countries with different cultures.  (Ask PRR about heroin overdoses in rural Maine, a much larger problem than gun ownership IMO).
I guess you value the right to bear arms so highly that it causes you to make the safety checks a lower priority in case it reduces your rights?  Just guessing here :-\
It will be interesting to see how we respond to Orlando. The knee jerk reaction to take guns away from law abiding citizens is not in my judgement a good idea. It seems being on a "do not fly list", should make gun ownership more of a challenge. I do favor making it harder for crazy people bent on terror to arm up.  It appears there were some balls dropped with this individual.
Automatic weapons should only ever be in the hands of the military, not in the hands of those expecting WW3, a zombie attack, the mentally ill or the grudge bearers of this world.  The availability of such weapons just ensures that recent events will follow in ever more frequent succession.
It's a cause and effect that even a child could follow.
It is hard to buy fully automatic weapons here (legally), and not very fair for use for hunting game animals. Note the AR-15 used by this miscreant is similar to the military M-16 that is fully automatic, but the AR-15 is only semi-automatic. (Back in the '70s I had a roommate who owned an AR-15. I was just recently out of the military so thought it just a silly boy's toy. ) Of course the AR-15 is a serious high muzzle velocity weapon so can do plenty of damage.

As I have posted numerous times we need to improve communication between law enforcement, and even mental health professionals.  It is too early for me to speak intelligently about this particular event since all the facts are not out yet, and in this hyper-partisan environment both political sides are in full spin mode. 
I certainly don't say this from any feeling of moral superiority,  (British hamfisted actions probably initiated the paranoia back in the 1700's).
Paranoia? Our founders were fearful of more than GB, they were fearful of all human nature when too much power is accumulated in too few hands (like a strong central government).  Read the "Federalist Papers" for more insights, about out paranoia.
I say it in the spirit of sadness that you would have for a friend who has taken a wrong turn in life.

DaveP
Back at you and thanks for feeling sad.  ::)  We have lots of work to do over here and over there too..

What is with all the lager louts rioting at football games in Europe this week? Maybe they need to pick a more appropriate target for all that anger.

The good news is that ISIS is being hurt on the ground where they live, but like a cornered animal they will continue to strike out before finally going silent (if ever). And the rouge philosophical seed they planted will be with us for a long time, and draw more crazy people toward the philosophy to use as an excuse for more bad behavior. 

I feel a little embarrassed about making such a huge deal about 50 killed in the US while I pretty much read daily reports about similar terrorist attacks all around the world.  I do not mean to downplay 50+ killed a few hours down the road from where I live, but this is only a big deal because it happened here. This will surely dominate the campaign news cycle for some time to come. I was getting a little tired of arguing about what bathroom people can use.

RIP for all the innocents killed. This will be fodder for multiple different political affinity group spin meisters (a crisis is a terrible thing to waste).

JR

RE:  "outlawing all guns...".  in many parts of the world, where gun have been tightly restricted, terror attacks have shifted to knife stabbings, cars ramming crowds, car bombs, and whatever. Asymmetrical attacks have far more options than just guns. It is a too easy answer for a difficult problem and at best modulates the behavior not prevents it. Criminals don't follow the rules. 

PS: I have neighbors who are not what I consider gun nuts, but own multiple weapons. Shot guns and long rifles, they actually use for hunting game. Side arms they use for both hunting (protection) and personal protection. I am more comfortable with a current neighbor's ten guns, than my old roommate's one AR-15 (boy's toy) while living  in suburban southern CT.  In fact that AR-15 was stolen once when our house was broken into, but police recovered it.
 
Fascinating how brains get programmed differently in different cultures (or countries in this case).

And we all believe we've figured it out ourselves.
 
micaddict said:
Fascinating how brains get programmed differently in different cultures.

And we all believe we've figured it out ourselves.
what you mean "we" _______ ...  (finish that joke yourself, the version I was thinking of was Tonto talking to the lone Ranger) ;D ;D ;D

The science-art of persuasion has been studied and practiced for centuries.

I guess that applies to this thread on several levels. 

JR
 
We all as in we all.

Attaching facts and figures will not change set minds.
(Cigarette packages anyone?)

And now for something positive.
Ben and Veronica Sneesby use gun metal.
Not to turn into ploughs, but into ... microphone parts.  :)

Carry on.
 
PRR said:
Please: US, not "American". America is a big place and most of it is not gun-crazed.

You are showing essentially 1 gun for everybody in the US.

I am in one of the more gun-crazed parts of the US, Maine. MOST folks round here average less than half a gun. A gun in one house not the next.

What may be unique in the US is the few mass collectors who possess hundreds of guns. Safes and trailers full. Is a lone wolf with 400 guns more dangerous than if he only has 4 guns?

But the thing that's interesting with the statistics, from what I recall seeing, is that incidents of gun violence goes down with fewer gun owners. As you point out, some people stocking up on arms doesn't make them more dangerous from a certain standpoint, but the statistics seem to show that fewer weapon owners = less firearm induced deaths.

So, reduce gun ownership and you reduce gun violence. In most of the world that's obvious. It might be to many Americans, but they should all stand up and proudly proclaim that the freedom to own weapons provides us with a net positive even when factoring in this extreme gun violence we see. In other words it's worth it.

Personally I don't think it is. I think gun ownership ideally should be allowed, but apparently Americans have a problem with it, so it shouldn't.
 
JohnRoberts said:
It will be interesting to see how we respond to Orlando. The knee jerk reaction to take guns away from law abiding citizens is not in my judgement a good idea.

But the problem with that view is that there's a fair amount of people that are law abiding citizens until they break the law. And between those two points they've acquired their guns. That's a problem.

JohnRoberts said:
It seems being on a "do not fly list", should make gun ownership more of a challenge. I do favor making it harder for crazy people bent on terror to arm up.  It appears there were some balls dropped with this individual.

According to what I heard that wasn't really the case, at least not from the standpoint of law enforcement. He was investigated and they found nothing. So what can you do? And the no-fly list is quite possibly a bit difficult to deal with. I recall seeing examples of people that shouldn't be on that list at all.

Anyway, back to this latest moron; I agree with you that crazy people shouldn't be allowed to own weapons, but the question is how you determine that. The ex-wife basically gave a description of him that makes it clear to me that he should absolutely not have owned guns (duh) and also shouldn't have been in authority positions. He worked as a guard somewhere if I understand it correctly, and honestly, that makes sense to me (meaning I'm not surprised but I think it's wrong). So I agree with you here that something is amiss when a person with such problems can buy weapons. But what's the solution?

Only think I can think of is that the ex-wife should have gone to the authorities and pressed charges, and hopefully it'd have led to some conviction or something. But honestly I have a hard time seeing just what procedures exist that are equal and can be fairly enacted without treading on the right to bear arms.

JohnRoberts said:
RE:  "outlawing all guns...".  in many parts of the world, where gun have been tightly restricted, terror attacks have shifted to knife stabbings, cars ramming crowds, car bombs, and whatever. Asymmetrical attacks have far more options than just guns. It is a too easy answer for a difficult problem and at best modulates the behavior not prevents it. Criminals don't follow the rules. 

But most of those things use items made for different usages. If they use bombs from fertilizer etc then that's a substance that has peaceful uses, just like cars. Guns have one purpose. And it's still arguably the case that less gun violence = fewer deaths, period. In other words just because there are alternatives doesn't mean they'll be used. I read an article on Australia having gotten rid of weapons and saw a sharp drop in this type of crime overall, meaning those criminals actually did not seek other alternatives to the same degree.

I think one way of looking at it is that with an efficient weapon it's easier to jump into action and then that is harder to stop. If this knucklehead had only had access to a car, would he have attempted the same thing? Would he have succeeded? My guess is no.
 
We really have an absurdly high level of gun fetishism here in the US.  Lots of people just love to use their 'toys' on the weekend, and have begun to believe they are a requirement for personal safety.  If you live in a rural area with no nearby neighbors or police, and there's a significant amount of drug related crime (lots of places), I would venture a gun was historically always on site for both hunting and security, with security now being the overriding concern for many.  Add the fetishism/glorification bit to the recipe and there's more of them, and add stupid careless people to that and you can expect to see the rise in accidental/preventable shootings we experience.  Add the 'rights' arguments to that and it becomes extremely difficult to gain consensus on how to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, you even come to a point where it's suggested we are infringing their rights by creating obstacles to their own protection needs, in the absence of proof they really shouldn't have one.  All of which both embraces and ignores the central point of a gun, to kill or injure.  An odd thing to embrace and ignore in a 'civilized' world.  All my relatives are rural farm people.  Some want nothing to do with a gun other than hunting, which they don't need to do anymore, and some won't leave their house without one.  Any of them citing security would suggest a 12 gauge shotgun for home security or a handgun for portable security.  None would suggest use of anything remotely military-derived, which probably expresses a lack of both fetish and paranoia.  I don't feel the need for one myself, in any circumstance, and have a lot better things to spend my money on.
 
I think one way of looking at it is that with an efficient weapon it's easier to jump into action and then that is harder to stop. If this knucklehead had only had access to a car, would he have attempted the same thing? Would he have succeeded? My guess is no.
Not long a ago a guy in Tokyo drove his car into a stream of innocent people, and when he bumped into a lamppost, jumped out of the car and continued stabbing people at random with a knife. Crazy is crazy, and fanatic is fanatic -- no matter what the "weapon". Just that guns are more effective (especially at a distance!). I'm all for making it more difficult to be effective in this respect.
 
US Gun deaths 2014                        12,570
UK Gun deaths 2014                                30

Nothing to add
Sorry, I have to nuance :
If you look more closely to the stats, you will see that more than 60% of the US deaths are suicides.
If you take into account all murders, not only firearms, then the number of killed in US is "only" 3.8 times more than in UK.
Switzerland has almost 2 times less deaths by firearms than UK when it has 1 gun for 2 residents.
So the correlation is not so obvious.

 
mattiasNYC said:
But most of those things use items made for different usages. If they use bombs from fertilizer etc then that's a substance that has peaceful uses, just like cars. Guns have one purpose. And it's still arguably the case that less gun violence = fewer deaths, period.

I shoot targets.  I have NEVER killed anything with a firearm.
Best,
Bruno2000
 
JPK said:
If you look more closely to the stats, you will see that more than 60% of the US deaths are suicides

True, I don't know anyone who's shot another person, but around a dozen who've taken themselves out. 
 
> I do realise what you are saying

"America" runs from Canada through US to Mexico and beyond.

I do not have statistics handy, but the Canadian attitude towards guns seems very different than the US (which BTW is highly conflicted). Mexico is known for gun violence because of some specific incidents like prolonged revolution and now the drug gangs; may not be as ingrained as rabble-rousers claim. more
______________________
> Ask PRR about heroin overdoses in rural Maine, a much larger problem than gun ownership IMO

They are related. Mainers can get guns easily and use them to pay drug-runners coming up from the lower 47. NYC, VA and others complain about Maine-sourced guns coming into their communities illegally.

FWIW, honest heroin seems to be rare here, but every possible heroin analog turns up in the news. Also an epidemic of meth/crack/whatever you brew-up in a One Pot and contaminate a whole house or motel wing. I found a spoon by the side of the road and only later realized it was probably for cooking/snorting some such thing. Wasn't dirty, was burnt drug.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top