Man tries to rob a person with a pellet gun - gets shot by real gun.

[Mr. Whippy]

firiki,

I appreciate those are your beliefs.  But just like religion, beliefs are just that--beliefs without proof or supporting data.  No one can "prove" a religion wrong or right because....

it's just a belief and is held because of faith, not fact or data.

I posted direct links to a systematic review of the data generated in the United States of America which directly examines the sales/ownership o guns and the rates of gun related crimes (not just murders but shootings etc) over a 17 year period.  Did you read that or did it disagree with your core beliefs and therefore ruled irrelevant?

The fact is, factors leading to violence are generally NOT related to gun ownership rates--at least looking at US data.  Trying to compare between different cultures (ie US to Australian for example) is frought with all sorts of confounding data, which is difficult if not impossible to tease out statistically speaking.

I appreciate you have a strongly held belief.  I respect that.  However, looking at actual data,  I do not share your belief.  The facts (at least in the US) do not support your beliefs.

As for mass shootings:   It is actually a condemnation of US mental health system.  People can't readily access it, people can't afford it, and it has woefully inadequate infrastructure to help those in need. 

Do you know the #1 source of mental health delivery in the US?

The prison system.

[Mr. Whippy]

I forgot

[Syph007]

When stuff like this happens I feel bad for the old guy.  He had to no choice but protect himself and now has to live with someones death on his mind.  Justified, but that can still mess you up and its the fault of the other guy completely.

Same thing happens to idiots riding bikes in traffic here getting killed.  No one charges the driver since the cyclist cut in front of him, but the cyclist is dead and the poor person driving killed someone.  I feel bad for the driver.

[firiki]

Did you read that or did it disagree with your core beliefs and therefore ruled irrelevant?

  No, I haven't read it yet. At first I didn't have the time and then I completely forgot about it. Thanks for the link and the reminder 

Please allow me to explain the core of my beliefs, as you nicely put it: The more guns are scattered around the greater the chances of something going wrong. That's it in a nutshell; lots of unnecessary risk, if you will. I think it stands to reason.

Let's take an imaginary town for example. It has a population of 1000, ages 20-80 and everybody is packing at least one firearm. In this town you never know who might shoot whom, nor when or why. In the end, this town seems unhospitable to me, a stranger.

I understand the settlers colonising the vast New World needed lots of guns for various reasons, in this time and age I am uncertain this need is realistic. Furthermore, I could argue that such widespread firearms ownership could be undermining social cohesion.

Regarding crime+gun ownership+inequity, here's an article for your consideration

http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop#

I forgot

(Image removed from quote.)

Those aren't pocketable 

Signed,

Javert 

[Mr. Whippy]

I forgot

(Image removed from quote.)

Those aren't pocketable 

Signed,

Javert 

This one is as pocketable as the onion you're planning on eating for lunch.

[Etherealicer]

From the 2013 report:
(Image removed from quote.)

This graph is a lie, in 1993 the homicide rate was unusual high



If you look at the decade 2000 to 2010 the firearm homicide rate is not declining but more or less stable. Also in 2013 12,042 people died in gun homicide. Considering a population of 320.2 mio Americans that is 3.76 per 100'000, so still in the ballpark putting emphasis on the stalling homicide rate rather than a decline.

[AimlessWanderer]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

Sorry, can't link the data properly on my phone. Basically this is a table of data from 2012 which shows gun ownership per head of capita in the US at 14 times higher than the UK. It also shows the gun murder rate per head of capita in the US at 42 times higher than the UK. It lists a myriad of other countries too, which will have rates varying both ways.

Not trying to "compete" or win an arguement here, I've already said I think that's futile, just offering up a data source for allmembers to see how their county varies against others.

[Mr. Whippy]

From the 2013 report:
(Image removed from quote.)

This graph is a lie, in 1993 the homicide rate was unusual high

(Image removed from quote.)

If you look at the decade 2000 to 2010 the firearm homicide rate is not declining but more or less stable. Also in 2013 12,042 people died in gun homicide. Considering a population of 320.2 mio Americans that is 3.76 per 100'000, so still in the ballpark putting emphasis on the stalling homicide rate rather than a decline.

The graph is most certainly NOT a lie since you're ignoring the OTHER variable:  Number of guns purchased/owned (which has SKY ROCKETED in that same time perioid).  If the hypothesis of "More guns means more deaths" were true, the homicide rate should show an increase.  But it does not.  Therefore the hypothesis is not true.  I don't have the time to go back through and select out other graphs, but crime rates didn't "spike" in 1993, it was the peak of a gradually increasing rate that began in the 1970's.

Most who look objectively at the gun violence rates will tell you that what appears to be MOST associated with gun violence is rates of organized crime (drug trafficking, prostitution, etc).  The "War on Drugs" (much like prohibition) has done nothing to lessen usage or prevalence of drugs in the US.  All it has done is criminalize a public health problem, incarcerate huge number of young poor (primarily African American) males and worsen rates of violent crime.  A strong argument could be made that the same would occur if one were to "outlaw" firearms.  Again, the US has huge land borders that cannot be easily monitored, both northern and southern, in addition to huge coastal borders. 

If there's anything the "War on Drugs" as shown in the US, it's that criminalizing a commodity that is in high demand doesn't get rid of it, it merely increases the violence level associated with obtaining it.

[Mr. Whippy]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

Sorry, can't link the data properly on my phone. Basically this is a table of data from 2012 which shows gun ownership per head of capita in the US at 14 times higher than the UK. It also shows the gun murder rate per head of capita in the US at 42 times higher than the UK. It lists a myriad of other countries too, which will have rates varying both ways.

Not trying to "compete" or win an arguement here, I've already said I think that's futile, just offering up a data source for allmembers to see how their county varies against others.

I would like you to separate out the murder rates for a minute (go back to the article I linked).  If you pull out black on black murder, you will see a vastly different result.  The real question is, why is black on black violent crime so astronomically high compared to every other crime rate.

As a white male, my risk of being a victim of violent crime is slightly higher than yours, but again, when there is so much black on black crime near by me, is it any wonder there's some spill over?


Edit to add:

You know that table has a bias yes?  In a country where firearms are not readily available, a gun would not be the weapon of choice for murder.  Perhaps bludgeoning or stabbing would be.  Therefore just looking at "gun associated homicides" is already a biased data set.

Also, please note that as #1 nation in guns per capita, the theory of more guns more deaths should put the US much higher than #28 (if one is to seek an objective correlation).

Clearly something other than gun ownership leads to increased gun homicide rates.

[Lichtbote]

Hmm, when it´s mostly a black to black problem .... then there should not be the need to carry a gun for the white part.

It´s stated in this thread as needed for protection, but if the white part is no more endangered than here ...... i don´t see that need.

[AimlessWanderer]

Honestly Nate, I stopped off for a coffee and a toilet break whilst on the road, and dipped into here while having a coffee, and then looked for a quick comparison data source and found that. In truth, I aven't digested that article fully, which is partially why I just offered it forward as a data source.

I fully agree there are a wide range of issues that contribute to violent crime, irrespective of the weapon chosen/available. I thought that data source might be of interest due to the amount of different locations and cultures covered. I might get chance to read it in more detail later 

[Etherealicer]

From the 2013 report:

This graph is a lie, in 1993 the homicide rate was unusual high

If you look at the decade 2000 to 2010 the firearm homicide rate is not declining but more or less stable. Also in 2013 12,042 people died in gun homicide. Considering a population of 320.2 mio Americans that is 3.76 per 100'000, so still in the ballpark putting emphasis on the stalling homicide rate rather than a decline.

The graph is most certainly NOT a lie since you're ignoring the OTHER variable:  Number of guns purchased/owned (which has SKY ROCKETED in that same time perioid).  If the hypothesis of "More guns means more deaths" were true, the homicide rate should show an increase.  But it does not.  Therefore the hypothesis is not true.  I don't have the time to go back through and select out other graphs, but crime rates didn't "spike" in 1993, it was the peak of a gradually increasing rate that began in the 1970's.

Most who look objectively at the gun violence rates will tell you that what appears to be MOST associated with gun violence is rates of organized crime (drug trafficking, prostitution, etc).  The "War on Drugs" (much like prohibition) has done nothing to lessen usage or prevalence of drugs in the US.  All it has done is criminalize a public health problem, incarcerate huge number of young poor (primarily African American) males and worsen rates of violent crime.  A strong argument could be made that the same would occur if one were to "outlaw" firearms.  Again, the US has huge land borders that cannot be easily monitored, both northern and southern, in addition to huge coastal borders. 

If there's anything the "War on Drugs" as shown in the US, it's that criminalizing a commodity that is in high demand doesn't get rid of it, it merely increases the violence level associated with obtaining it.

I actually wanted to change "lie" to "misleading" but apparently I'm too late . Also I would like my post seen as a discussion of the graph not the incident in the original post (I don't care for thugs).

I think, availability for guns (more specifically handguns) is so high in the USA that selling more does not make much of a difference anymore. So I agree selling more guns does not increase the homicide rate in a short run but it will delay any control over guns should such controls ever be instated.
From what I can observe here in Switzerland is that carrying a weapon increases the chance of escalation of brawls (you can't use what you don't carry). I think that is what Lichtbote meant. If people are unarmed they still might fight but its much less likely to be lethal (good data are available considering domestic violence in the US in households with and without guns.).

[Mr. Whippy]

Honestly Nate, I stopped off for a coffee and a toilet break whilst on the road, and dipped into here while having a coffee, and then looked for a quick comparison data source and found that. In truth, I aven't digested that article fully, which is partially why I just offered it forward as a data source.

I fully agree there are a wide range of issues that contribute to violent crime, irrespective of the weapon chosen/available. I thought that data source might be of interest due to the amount of different locations and cultures covered. I might get chance to read it in more detail later 

No problem Al. 

My real point is, the US violent crime rate is a complex problem.  When Pew investigated gun violence in particular, their findings strongly contradicted the impression that most Americans had about US violence rates.  Their conclusion was, media sensationalism was a major driver for the irrational fear.

Drilling down into the data shows that gun violence appears to be different in different sectors of the population, and likely has different underlying causes.  A solution as coarse as, "just ban all the guns", is likely not the panacea some would think.   I won't go into constitutionally protected rights. 

[Mr. Whippy]

From what I can observe here in Switzerland is that carrying a weapon increases the chance of escalation of brawls (you can't use what you don't carry). I think that is what Lichtbote meant. If people are unarmed they still might fight but its much less likely to be lethal (good data are available considering domestic violence in the US in households with and without guns.).

I think this point is true.  And I think it's an excellent argument for levels of licensing amd training as to where/when a person can carry a weapon.  At some point, your right to owning a weapon has to cede to another person's right to not be intimidated by your brandishing a weapon during a traffic altercation (for example).

Your point on domestic violence is also completely correct.  Again, the US system is SUPPOSED to have a way for therapists/physicians/law enforcement to flag an individual who should not own a firearm--but somehow it's never been fully implemented and there are no penalties for failing to register a patient. 

[Aloha]

Oddly enough when deaths by gun is looked at much of the data is related to "civilized" nations ( whatever that means ) so US is top on the list.  When the data is looked at of all nations then US in perspective ( gun ownership/population ) the data looks quite different.   

MrW make a great point when you factor out the criminals killing criminals and even suicide by gun the data looks quite different in terms of who's at risk.

The violence by guns here in California tends to be criminal on criminal and suicide so our stats might look quite scary as compared to small town America or anywhere else in the world.

The need for some to want to carry a gun for protection is vast, some reasons include being seen as an easy target, living in an area adjacent to high crime area, work type, as well as many other reasons.   
 
   

[Etherealicer]

MrW make a great point when you factor out the criminals killing criminals and even suicide by gun the data looks quite different in terms of who's at risk.

Yes, but suicide is a major side effect of gun ownership. Suicide by gun is easy and effective. Especially, spontaneous suicides happen way more in households with guns.

[Mr. Whippy]

MrW make a great point when you factor out the criminals killing criminals and even suicide by gun the data looks quite different in terms of who's at risk.

Yes, but suicide is a major side effect of gun ownership. Suicide by gun is easy and effective. Especially, spontaneous suicides happen way more in households with guns.

WELL...

Suicide is a completely different discussion.  There is a huge variation in cultural norms about who/when/what situations if any, is suicide a legitimate personal choice.   

[Aloha]

The data includes death by gun and suicides by gun is included which skews the number right? 

Didnt mean to bring up another debatable topic 

[Mr. Whippy]

The data includes death by gun and suicides by gun is included which skews the number right? 

Didnt mean to bring up another debatable topic 

You are correct.  Pew included them, since they are recorded as gun violence.  You are also correct that when people broadly look at gun violence statistics, they do NOT tease out the gun related suicides for data analysis (even though in countries where there is no personal gun ownership suicides still occur, just by other means).

[lister]

Suicide is the only use of a gun for shooting at humans I find completely acceptable, although sad.

[Aloha]

Suicide is the only use of a gun for shooting at humans I find completely acceptable, although sad.

Messy tho 

[Etherealicer]

MrW make a great point when you factor out the criminals killing criminals and even suicide by gun the data looks quite different in terms of who's at risk.

Yes, but suicide is a major side effect of gun ownership. Suicide by gun is easy and effective. Especially, spontaneous suicides happen way more in households with guns.

WELL...

Suicide is a completely different discussion.  There is a huge variation in cultural norms about who/when/what situations if any, is suicide a legitimate personal choice.   

Not entirely, guns provide an easy and very effective method for suicide. So, in similar social circumstances there is no difference in the suicide rate between households with and without guns*. However, the chance of completed suicide is much higher with guns resulting with a higher death by suicide rate in households with guns within the same demographics. Its also not necessarily the gun owner that commits suicide but his/her children. Independent of means the chance for relapse is 10% means a whole lot of families would not loose their child if they didn't own a gun.
This is a huge discussion here in Switzerland as we have lots of guns too and an incredibly high suicide rate. Here, its mostly the service rifle and the personal ammo. It's one of the reasons that some people here want the military rifles stored in the barracks (its not necessary to have them at home anyway, mobilization is not that fast).

*with the exception of spontaneous suicide, which is more prevalent in households with guns due to the availability of "means for suicide".

[Chako]

Same problem here in Canada. The RCMP safety course everyone has to take to get their gun licence warns of suicide statistics. Reason why they want the ammunition stored locked and separate from the firearm. Statistics have shown that suicide rates drop when the person trying to end it all is forced to go on a key finding mission.

[Mr. Whippy]

MrW make a great point when you factor out the criminals killing criminals and even suicide by gun the data looks quite different in terms of who's at risk.

Yes, but suicide is a major side effect of gun ownership. Suicide by gun is easy and effective. Especially, spontaneous suicides happen way more in households with guns.

WELL...

Suicide is a completely different discussion.  There is a huge variation in cultural norms about who/when/what situations if any, is suicide a legitimate personal choice.   

Not entirely, guns provide an easy and very effective method for suicide. So, in similar social circumstances there is no difference in the suicide rate between households with and without guns*. However, the chance of completed suicide is much higher with guns resulting with a higher death by suicide rate in households with guns within the same demographics. Its also not necessarily the gun owner that commits suicide but his/her children. Independent of means the chance for relapse is 10% means a whole lot of families would not loose their child if they didn't own a gun.
This is a huge discussion here in Switzerland as we have lots of guns too and an incredibly high suicide rate. Here, its mostly the service rifle and the personal ammo. It's one of the reasons that some people here want the military rifles stored in the barracks (its not necessary to have them at home anyway, mobilization is not that fast).

*with the exception of spontaneous suicide, which is more prevalent in households with guns due to the availability of "means for suicide".

You would know moreso than I, but I thought there was a lot of "imported" suicide in Switzerland (people desiring to commit suicide traveling to Switzerland) because of the laws regarding suicide being less of a hinderance.

Edit:

So that reads a little like free association.  What I was getting at is, There is a perception that the Swiss society is more tolerant of assisted suicide and then by extension, suicide in general.  That would imply (to me at least) that a higher suicide could be expected because it carries less of a social stigma and is generally viewed less negatively.  Whether they attempt with a gun, poison or jumping from a window, it's rate is influenced by social mores.  In that case, it's difficult to compare suicide rates between those nations with lots of guns and those with no guns, since social mores can be so different.  Suicide is far more complicated than simply gun available or not.  In fact, in the US, female suicide is almost never gun related.  Male suicide is frequently by gun.  Just that one demographic has all sorts of complexity: It's ok to sell guns to women but not men?

[Etherealicer]

MrW make a great point when you factor out the criminals killing criminals and even suicide by gun the data looks quite different in terms of who's at risk.

Yes, but suicide is a major side effect of gun ownership. Suicide by gun is easy and effective. Especially, spontaneous suicides happen way more in households with guns.

WELL...

Suicide is a completely different discussion.  There is a huge variation in cultural norms about who/when/what situations if any, is suicide a legitimate personal choice.   

Not entirely, guns provide an easy and very effective method for suicide. So, in similar social circumstances there is no difference in the suicide rate between households with and without guns*. However, the chance of completed suicide is much higher with guns resulting with a higher death by suicide rate in households with guns within the same demographics. Its also not necessarily the gun owner that commits suicide but his/her children. Independent of means the chance for relapse is 10% means a whole lot of families would not loose their child if they didn't own a gun.
This is a huge discussion here in Switzerland as we have lots of guns too and an incredibly high suicide rate. Here, its mostly the service rifle and the personal ammo. It's one of the reasons that some people here want the military rifles stored in the barracks (its not necessary to have them at home anyway, mobilization is not that fast).

*with the exception of spontaneous suicide, which is more prevalent in households with guns due to the availability of "means for suicide".

You would know moreso than I, but I thought there was a lot of "imported" suicide in Switzerland (people desiring to commit suicide traveling to Switzerland) because of the laws regarding suicide being less of a hinderance.

Oh, we call that "assisted suicide*" and its only for the terminally ill. I for one don't consider that suicide but rather leaving on your own terms.

* Actually we call it "Sterbehilfe" which would translate to "helping to die"

[Mr. Whippy]

Heh.  I went back and edited my post to clarify.

BTW, there have been several documented "non-terminal" assisted suicides in Switzerland.  It makes quite the tabloid fodder in the US.