Gun Stats

[john12ax7]

The key question is really if the amount of guns increases the amount of violence. If you look at a broad section of data the best conclusion is that it is inconclusive.

So a better discussion is how can we solve the underlying mental and socio economic factors that contribute to violence. This is the actual root of the problem.

 

[mattiasNYC]

The key question is really if the amount of guns increases the amount of violence. If you look at a broad section of data the best conclusion is that it is inconclusive.

So a better discussion is how can we solve the underlying mental and socio economic factors that contribute to violence. This is the actual root of the problem.

But from what I've seen there is indeed a correlation that makes sense, logically. It isn't just the amount of guns owned that is the issue, because there's a lot more "stockpiling" of guns now than before. The other issue is just how many individuals (households) own weapons. When that figure drops, so does gun violence. And it makes sense if we're counting incidents, because you don't get more incidents just by virtue of a "household" having 10 guns instead of 1 or 2.

 

[john12ax7]

The key question is really if the amount of guns increases the amount of violence. If you look at a broad section of data the best conclusion is that it is inconclusive.

So a better discussion is how can we solve the underlying mental and socio economic factors that contribute to violence. This is the actual root of the problem.

But from what I've seen there is indeed a correlation that makes sense, logically. It isn't just the amount of guns owned that is the issue, because there's a lot more "stockpiling" of guns now than before. The other issue is just how many individuals (households) own weapons. When that figure drops, so does gun violence. And it makes sense if we're counting incidents, because you don't get more incidents just by virtue of a "household" having 10 guns instead of 1 or 2.

Guns vs gun violence is an issue people focus on, but why? If there are more cars there are more car accidents. Logically more of something leads to more use and abuse.

The actual question is do guns affect the rates of violent crime. This is much more murky. Is the US more like  Europe, Asia, Africa, South America? It's not an easy answer.

If you look at the US on a state by state basis the data is essentially flat. Gun ownership doesn't actually affect the rates of violent crime.

 

[DaveP]

I think we can all agree that just having guns around sensible people does not induce them into criminality.  The case of the Swiss reserve army demonstrates that fact.  Where it all goes pear shaped is the availability to the mentally ill and those with grudge issues.

This happens because guns are so much part of the furniture in the US that obtaining one is just too easy.  You also have gun fairs without background checks and different rules in different states that can be exploited.  The concept that guns are taken for granted is exemplified by the incredible accidents that you have over there.  kids shooting their mothers through the car seats, kids killing their mother from the gun in the purse at the check-out.  Guns are not treated with the respect that they deserve unlike the Swiss reserve guys.

The availability of assault weapons outside of the army or a gun club has no excuses at all and is just plain crazy, I think if you could all agree to close that loophole it would be a step in the right direction.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

But from what I've seen there is indeed a correlation that makes sense, logically. It isn't just the amount of guns owned that is the issue, because there's a lot more "stockpiling" of guns now than before. The other issue is just how many individuals (households) own weapons. When that figure drops, so does gun violence. And it makes sense if we're counting incidents, because you don't get more incidents just by virtue of a "household" having 10 guns instead of 1 or 2.

Guns vs gun violence is an issue people focus on, but why? If there are more cars there are more car accidents. Logically more of something leads to more use and abuse.

The actual question is do guns affect the rates of violent crime. This is much more murky. Is the US more like  Europe, Asia, Africa, South America? It's not an easy answer.

According to the info on Australia it does affect the rates of violent crime in that while incidents of mass shootings and gun violence dropped it wasn't negated by people using different means instead.

But you're also avoiding the issue of the efficiency of that violence. While you can certainly kill people with a knife I think there's a good reason why the worst mass murders in the US have taken place using guns of different kinds. So even if the rate remained the same, i.e. the amount of violent crime incidents remained the same, it would be an acceptable argument that fewer people got hurt as bad as with more guns involved.

If you look at the US on a state by state basis the data is essentially flat. Gun ownership doesn't actually affect the rates of violent crime.

Yes it does, you just bypassed what I wrote that you quoted. If the data is just "gun ownership" then typically in order to come to the conclusion you listed above it's the total amount of weapons owned relative to rates of crime. But as I said, it's of lesser relevance than how many people actually own weapons, not how many they own.

If in a state you have
- 1,000 incidents and
- 1,000 criminals using
- 1 gun each, out of
- 100,000 people owning 1 gun each, in the year 2000, and then you have

- 500 incidents and
- 500 criminals using
- 1 gun each, out of
- 50,000 people owning 3 guns each, in the year 2016, then you will see the pro-gun lobbyists telling people that increased gun ownership (150,000 arms compared to only 100,000) decreased crime. In other words they'll argue that guns are part of the solution. But they ignore that fewer people owned more weapons. The more people that own (or have access to) weapons the bigger the risk.

See my point?

 

[john12ax7]

The US is unique in that it is highly developed but also has a huge drug problem. So you cannot just compare it to Australia (or anywhere else).

I see your point, but I'm not talking about NRA data, they cherry pick just like the other side does. I am referring to rates of gun ownership. So percentage of households that own guns vs per capita homicide rate for example.

In terms of efficiency, yes that is an area where there can be a discussion of what is necessary for civilians. I'm not sure what the answer is on that one.

 

[mattiasNYC]

The US is unique in that it is highly developed but also has a huge drug problem. So you cannot just compare it to Australia (or anywhere else).

I see your point, but I'm not talking about NRA data, they cherry pick just like the other side does. I am referring to rates of gun ownership. So percentage of households that own guns vs per capita homicide rate for example.

I understand what you're saying, but "rates of gun ownership" is often measured as guns owned within a population group, i.e. guns per capita - not rates of households with guns. I forget where I have the exact study I read last, but here's the result of a very quick googling:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/

"Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide."

The keyword is "household".

In terms of efficiency, yes that is an area where there can be a discussion of what is necessary for civilians. I'm not sure what the answer is on that one.

I think the easiest thing to do is to not allow people to own certain types of weapons.

 

[PRR]

> You mean you can't pass a law to take away guns?

One of the pet grudges of the revolt of 1776 was that the King was taking property. In his eyes, the colonies should pay for their own upkeep plus turn a profit for him. Food, beer, homes, trees.... in 'our' eyes he was a greedy grabber.

No, the US government is not supposed to confiscate private property without much deliberation.

"The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. ....reflected the lingering resentment over the widespread efforts of the British to confiscate the colonists' firearms...

"The Third Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing individuals to provide lodging to soldiers...

"The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures of either self or property by government officials."

Yes, Uncle Sam DOES take our stuff. More every century. Latest is the demand to buy health insurance to prop an overgrown system and appease large lobbies.

But say that Recording Consoles were determined to be bad for society, and must be taken-away. Would you stand for it? Even if "compensated" ($25 like gun turn-ins?), loss of your consoles would ruin your livelihood and dent your self-image.

I don't know how Australia did it.

 

[nielsk]

To return to the original inquiry, this posting delivers most of the currently available statistics in a clever manner:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4qUsgHa4Y

Question:
If a child on the playground picks up a stick and starts hitting other children with it, does one respond by giving all the other children sticks?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Yes, Uncle Sam DOES take our stuff. More every century. Latest is the demand to buy health insurance to prop an overgrown system and appease large lobbies.

I don't agree with the "private property" argument at all. 

But say that Recording Consoles were determined to be bad for society, and must be taken-away. Would you stand for it? Even if "compensated" ($25 like gun turn-ins?), loss of your consoles would ruin your livelihood and dent your self-image.

I don't know how Australia did it.

First of all, contrary to a console-owner, I'm betting most gun owners don't actually make a living using their guns. Secondly, my self-image should be put before the lives of innocents? I beg to differ. Lastly, consoles aren't created to kill or destroy things whereas guns are, so if they were considered bad for society I'd agree on that basis. But not only that, if I lived on the country side I could absolutely see myself owning a gun if I was single and didn't have children - AND I would hand that over if gun laws were changed and I wouldn't complain about it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am disappointed by the knee jerk reaction to see every sensational shooting as an argument for new gun legislation.  The Brady bill was triggered by the assassination attempt on Pres Reagan (and injury to Brady). The 2013 mental health legislation I posted about was precipitated by the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, but tangled up since then in divided government's competing interests for patient privacy sometimes to the detriment of public safety.

I find it really difficult to look at the Orlando night club shooting as anything other than radical Islamic inspired terrorism (killing gay people seems consistent with radical islam). If this was a hate crime it was hate for America and the west,

Yes we need to study this to learn what we could have done better. Strike one, the shooter was removed from a watch list, reportedly because they thought he was being bullied by co-workers due to anti-islamic prejudice.  A gun store owner tried to report him for trying to buy ammo and body armor, but didn't have his name (How can a gun store not use video cameras?) , that was strike 2, lastly his wife reportedly was supportive in his research of public targets including disney and gun/ammo buying trips. It's a crime to not share prior knowledge of an attack. Strike three looks like we blew that one, in the crystal clarity of hind sight.

While it's hard to put numbers on this it appears political correctness is influencing the public safety information gathering and prosecution of possible threats. I am not in favor of more big brother, but it seems trying to buy body armor is a big ass red flag. Maybe a kid who cheered the 9/11 attacks might have an attitude problem and deserve more scrutiny.

Carry on arguing about semi-automatic rifles that resemble assault weapons, ignore the large group of people in the middle east working to kill us.

Brussels just arrested a bunch of terrorist, but it appears an attack is still imminent for the big European soccer matches, not that the fans are acting much better .

JR

PS: As I have done before (albeit rarely), I agree somewhat with Pres Obama's statements that ISIL, has suffered reverses on the ground over there. Yes Iraqi forces have almost cleared them completely  from Fallujah, and they are also being pushed back in Syria. But this is little and late.  As ISIS gets cornered they send out more suicide attacks to Baghdah, or Turkey, etc. A sign of weakness not strength, but they are far from being handled. They need to be decisively destroyed on the ground, so they no longer look like an attractive magnet for other unstable young people to be drawn to.  Their free run for several years has allowed them to expand into other countries and spread a lot of hate.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Ok John, but your entire post reads like "Guns don't kill people.....bla bla bla..." The same is true for anything from nuclear weapons to tanks to surface-to-air missiles to military jets, and for the most part we don't allow the average Joe to own those things. Why? Because the potential damage caused by them is too great.

And talking about middle eastern terrorists is just a red herring in the gun debate. How many deaths in the US are caused by them? How many of the mass shootings are?

 

[rob_gould]

1000 mass shootings in the USA in the last 1260 days. Not all of them make it to the national or international news. I don't know how anyone can claim that the USA doesn't have a gun problem. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence?CMP=fb_gu

Wow.  Sometimes an infographic speaks a thousand words eh.

 

[rob_gould]

I find it really difficult to look at the Orlando night club shooting as anything other than radical Islamic inspired terrorism (killing gay people seems consistent with radical islam). If this was a hate crime it was hate for America and the west,

There appears to be more to it than this.  The guy seems to have had connections to the gay scene that were clearly at odds with his rationale for the actions he took.  What I would describe as knee-jerk is the automatic blaming of his actions on purely (his interpretation of) his religious beliefs.

This is an important and interesting case cos it seems to me that there's a lot of background here which, though nothing to do with the easy access to guns in the US, is absolutely critical to consider when blame is being apportioned by politicians and the media.  And it isn't being given much consideration from what I've seen.

 

[thermionic]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do

Statistically, more people get shot by toddlers than terrorists each year in the USA. If that doesn't illustrate cast iron logic for gun control, nothing will. But logic has never been part of the debate...

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ok John, but your entire post reads like "Guns don't kill people.....bla bla bla..." The same is true for anything from nuclear weapons to tanks to surface-to-air missiles to military jets, and for the most part we don't allow the average Joe to own those things. Why? Because the potential damage caused by them is too great.

And talking about middle eastern terrorists is just a red herring in the gun debate. How many deaths in the US are caused by them? How many of the mass shootings are?

Are you saying this discussion was not inspired by the terrorist attack in Orlando? I submit the gun control discussion is political distraction away from the middle east situation that this administration insists is handled. The disproportionate focus on the AR-15 is because it is widely recognizable (and very popular (not for me, reminds me of when I carried a M-16, the real deal). It was not even the weapon used in orlando. BTW Assault rifles (full automatic) are already illegal.

I am completely in favor of a "no buy" list, not unlike the no fly list but including crazy people off their meds, spousal batterers, etc, but this infringement of the second amendment cannot ignore the fifth amendment's promise of due process. We need a properly vetted "no buy" list, not some casual enemies list from administration aparatchniks (we've seen how they behave within the IRS). It needs to be vetted by the judicial branch that is still almost independent (but less so all the time) .

JR

PS: Not unlike a drivers license to drive a car, I would like to see more firearms training, but such a requirement to restrict a constitutional enumerated right, would be like making voters pass a test before voting. Good idea (really good idea) but not going to happen.  :'(

 

[JohnRoberts]

I find it really difficult to look at the Orlando night club shooting as anything other than radical Islamic inspired terrorism (killing gay people seems consistent with radical islam). If this was a hate crime it was hate for America and the west,

There appears to be more to it than this.  The guy seems to have had connections to the gay scene that were clearly at odds with his rationale for the actions he took.  What I would describe as knee-jerk is the automatic blaming of his actions on purely (his interpretation of) his religious beliefs.

it is still early in the investigation, while he openly declared allegiance to ISIS on his 911 call during the attack.

I am not smart enough to know all his motives, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck.

This is an important and interesting case cos it seems to me that there's a lot of background here which, though nothing to do with the easy access to guns in the US, is absolutely critical to consider when blame is being apportioned by politicians and the media.  And it isn't being given much consideration from what I've seen.

It is distracting blame away from bad policy decisions that allows ISIS to grow and prosper in the ME for years (they are finally losing some ground, but need to have their home base turned into glass).

Lets not forget we are just months away from a presidential election. Gun control is a popular topic  to excite the liberal/progressive voters, while terrorism is just an embarrassment and a loser topic.  I can't ignore the political forces at work.

JR

PS: I sure hope EU is able to roll up the reportedly several terror cells planning to disrupt the football games. Brussels apparently got a few of them last week..

 

[mattiasNYC]

Ok John, but your entire post reads like "Guns don't kill people.....bla bla bla..." The same is true for anything from nuclear weapons to tanks to surface-to-air missiles to military jets, and for the most part we don't allow the average Joe to own those things. Why? Because the potential damage caused by them is too great.

And talking about middle eastern terrorists is just a red herring in the gun debate. How many deaths in the US are caused by them? How many of the mass shootings are?

Are you saying this discussion was not inspired by the terrorist attack in Orlando? I submit the gun control discussion is political distraction away from the middle east situation that this administration insists is handled. The disproportionate focus on the AR-15 is because it is widely recognizable (and very popular (not for me, reminds me of when I carried a M-16, the real deal). It was not even the weapon used in orlando. BTW Assault rifles (full automatic) are already illegal.

But you can't say the same thing after non-Muslim mass shootings in the US though, can you? It's not a distraction because they are two different issues... Like someone just posted, there have been a tremendous amount of children killing or harming others using weapons. Is that a distraction from the mid-east as well?

The fact remains that had this guy not had this type of weapon he probably wouldn't have killed as many people. That's the point. You can't escape that.

What you are ignoring - completely - in what I said above is that there's a hierarchy of items where at a certain point we no longer allow people to privately own and operate them. The deciding factor of where that threashold is seems to be just how dangerous the items are. So here we are, with yet another mass shooting in the US where innocent people die, and all some want to do is look somewhere else, as if the tools aren't an issue here.

PS: Not unlike a drivers license to drive a car, I would like to see more firearms training, but such a requirement to restrict a constitutional enumerated right, would be like making voters pass a test before voting. Good idea (really good idea) but not going to happen.  :'(

I don't entirely disagree.

it is still early in the investigation, while he openly declared allegiance to ISIS on his 911 call during the attack.

I am not smart enough to know all his motives, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it may be a duck.

I think it's fair to say that he probably went to that club a bit more than he needed to if the purpose was planning the attack. And therefore one can question his understanding and devotion to fundamentalist religion, which tends to be staunchly anti-gay. It does however fit very well with the suggestion that perhaps he was 'secretly' gay and couldn't really deal with it. Hiding behind religion seems quite appropriate in that circumstance. Heck, religion may even have been a cause of that discomfort, but in neither case does it mean that his "war" or "allegiance" really was the core issue and therefore ISIS is really a secondary issue in this incident.

 

[ppa]

I think that the problem is the guns on the criminals' hands only. Criminals don't need any law authorization to use weapons.
They don't care so much if there are laws pro or against guns. They use them in any case. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

I think that the problem is the guns on the criminals' hands only. Criminals don't need any law authorization to use weapons.
They don't care so much if there are laws pro or against guns. They use them in any case.

And how do they get the guns? Somewhere some law abiding citizen does something which leads to a criminal getting a weapon. It can be storing it unsafely, lending it someone that can't be trusted, selling it etc. The criminals don't build their own weapons, they get them from somewhere.

Saying that laws don't solve problems because criminals by definition don't follow laws is just silly. You can say the same about rapists. Why make rape illegal since rapists don't follow the law anyway? Or insider trading?.....