Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Happy Jack

Most violent? USA vs England ... The upside to Guns

Recommended Posts

 

 

Our high rate is largely driven by extremely high rates in inner city areas, many of which have very strict gun control laws. Out in the sticks where the gun (and - horrors - slingshot) ownership rate is high, the crime rate is not. It's a big country and trying to analyze our problems by looking at national rates can miss a lot.

 

Just as with any country, except here at PA we only appear to analyse the internal data for errors or clarity not external data. If anyone cares to analyse the Aus data you will find hot spots that skew the totalled numbers just as you will for the UK

 

So there's areas - such as inner city areas where more people choose firearms as solutions to their problems. Is this an acceptable statement? it should be because most of those in favour of the status quo have accepted this notion or even posted words to similar effect in other threads. I really don't see that widely accepted statistics can be debated even if you try & dice them up into something that's marginally more palatable

 

In terms of the thread itself, relevance is key. Generating lists of leaders who have committed genocide has little relevance. If there was an American among them then you could argue relevance but amazingly there's not. Creating a false argument to say the reason there's no American on the list is because of the 2A is equally irrelevant & bordering on idiotic. Cobbling different data sets together & thumping your chest about it is also irrelevant etc

 

If there's integrity in the status quo argument, then deconstruct a reliable & constant data set to determine what each countries violent crimes are, how the data is gathered, how it is reported, why it's reported etc. You can again dice & manipulate the source data into whatever form you like but the reliable numbers don't change. The US has a problem with violence (again, this is widely accepted by all here) & a large number of people who choose firearms to solve their problems. The comprehensively scrutinised & documented homicide rates between countries supports this as do the methods of homicide plus the prevalence of firearms in violent crimes

 

Please, anyone prove me wrong with reliable data & analysis

 

You'll note that nowhere have I apportioned blame or responsibility to the mechanism. People make the choices to operate the mechanism & this is the problem. Again, I believe this is widely accepted here but hey, prove me wrong

 

I don't need to prove you wrong or prove I'm right. You live in AUS where you have no constitutional rights. That's fine with me, you seem to like it, so who am I to judge? IN the US, the RKBA is a constitutionally protected right. Deal with it. It ain't going anywhere anytime soon. So attempting to apply other culture's norms to this situation is both irrelevant and stupid and a waste of time. Let me type this slowly for you..... we have a constitutionally protected right (with some narrow limits) to own a gun. Period. Dot.

 

Does the US have a violence problem? Yes, in some selected areas. Are guns the choice of weapon in most cases to commit homicide? Yes. But the discussion can stop right there - because one does not cause the other. We don't have a violence problem BECAUSE of guns. We have a violence problem because of our war on drugs, inner city poverty, glorification of violence in ALL of our media 27/7, and many other societal issues that have all been said many times here before.

 

Look at the spike in homicides and crime in the 70s soon after Nixon's war on drugs was declared. The number of guns in our society didn't suddenly change. We've had guns in homes for decades and yet we didn't have this problem before. Guns in the 40's, 50s and 60s were plentiful and easy to get. You could walk into any hardware or department store in town and walk out with a rifle or handgun in about 30 sec. No background check, no ID, no waiting period - it was cash and carry...... Yet we didn't have blood in the streets.

 

The most telling stat though that disproves your elk's theories about numbers of guns in a society being causal to the homicide and crime rate is that since the 90s, there has been a surge in gun sales while at the same time there has been a significant drop in murder rates. Its been a steady inverse relationship. I can post the graph for you if you would like, but I know you've seen it before.

 

And as several have said here already - every time you try to equate numbers of guns with crime and murder rates - that argument falls flat on its face when you look at states and cities with lots of guns and loose rules with low murder rates and then other states with extremely tough gun laws and practically no legal gun sales and their murder rates are off the scale. Whites have the most guns by far, yet they commit murder at far lower rates than blacks.

 

The real answer in those cases is NOT the gun, but all the underlying factors like poverty, welfare, drug crime, gangs, breakdown of society, lack of respect, etc.

 

Focusing on the implement is the lazy man's (and I would say coward's) way. Talking about banning a piece of metal and plastic is easy. Doing the things to address the root causes of that violence is hard, takes time and doesn't win elections.

 

I wrote the bolded bit above to save the job of writing all that out. But thanks for agreeing with me

 

It seems you've thrown me over the fence into unicorn land. I haven't suggested firearms be taken away or restricted, I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the suggestion that the US is safer because of firearms. If you want to make it a black/white thing that's your call...I prefer the term 'poverty' because it (poverty) affects all races to varying degrees

 

Whatever interpretation or relativities you apply to the US statistics you also need to apply to the UK. Some areas in the UK will have higher instances of violence, some can be racially isolated, some will report these types of crime more readily. It's a nonsense thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The police are not afraid, just lazy. You are afraid apparently. When I asked you what you were defending yourself from you said "anything and everything".

 

 

Nah, I don't protect myself from things. Never had one threaten me. Here's how the exchange actually went:

 

 

 

 

So Tom, tell me, who are you protecting yourself from?

 

Anyone and everyone, as soon as I get some more surgical tubing. Behold my military hardware and cringe in terror!

 

assault-slingshot.jpg

 

 

Obviously, my response was intended to convey the fact that I live in a state of abject terror. My intent to buy surgical tubing and put down slave revolts and overthrow the government is very real. Nothing about my response was intended to mock the fact that adults can't even buy slingshots in your country. It's nice to have a serious discussion, isn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed this bit

 

You live in AUS where you have no constitutional rights. That's fine with me, you seem to like it, so who am I to judge?

 

Let me type this slowly for you..... we have constitutionally protected rights. Period. Dot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm simply pointing out the flaws in the suggestion that the US is safer because of firearms.

 

Where did I suggest that? I don't think we are necessarily safer from violence strictly because of firearms. Nor do I think we are in more danger because of firearms. Unfortunately, its a chicken or egg thing...... however, the CDC has conclusive evidence that the use of a gun for protection against violent assaults results in far better outcomes than any other means of self-protection. If we could magically get all the guns and other weapons out of criminal's hands - I would be more than happy to lock up my guns and only use them for fun and not need them for self-defense. But what is continually lost in these discussions is that not only is self-protection a right but they are also a protected right to be used for the "common defense".

 

So even if all the shitbags could be magically cleansed of all their deadly weapons and we didn't have a violent society anymore - I would STILL have the constitutionally protected RKBA.

 

I honestly don't think that the rights of US citizens are being over looked. It's never out of mind for me

 

The topic of the thread is suggesting that the US is safer than the UK because of firearms, I doubt you would suggest the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The police are not afraid, just lazy. You are afraid apparently. When I asked you what you were defending yourself from you said "anything and everything".

 

 

Nah, I don't protect myself from things. Never had one threaten me. Here's how the exchange actually went:

 

 

>>>

 

So Tom, tell me, who are you protecting yourself from?

 

Anyone and everyone, as soon as I get some more surgical tubing. Behold my military hardware and cringe in terror!

 

assault-slingshot.jpg

 

 

Obviously, my response was intended to convey the fact that I live in a state of abject terror. My intent to buy surgical tubing and put down slave revolts and overthrow the government is very real. Nothing about my response was intended to mock the fact that adults can't even buy slingshots in your country. It's nice to have a serious discussion, isn't it?

 

 

Definitely no mocking there Tom. I know you have guns to keep the bad men away and the government under control in your street.

 

Can't recall a single countryman complaining about the slingshot embargo. Just someone in Florida?

 

 

I do have one gun specifically intended for self-defense against criminals. The rest are not primarily for that purpose. If I wanted a good government-overthrowing gun, I'd get a mean looking rifle with a standard capacity magazine. We're allowed to own those here.

 

Are you saying Aussies are unanimous in their support for the slingshot ban? Do you agree that slingshots have a lethality unrequired by citizens outside a war zone?

 

Just too darn dangerous to trust your fellow citizens with such a scary implement, huh? And I'm the one living in fear? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Like every other school boy I played with them but have no interest now, they are school boy toys. The fact that some legislation considers them lethal is of no interest to me in principle or in practice. I, or anyone I know is not disadvantaged, none are even aware of the situation other than perhaps gun license holders, perhaps. Any school boy who wants to still builds and uses them.

 

I suspect slingshots have something in common to weed in Australian society. Don't hit anyone with the slingshot and don't sell any weed you grew and all will be good. Step out of line and the current law will be applied. Seems to be how it is working.

 

 

Things that don't interest me in practice, such as mean looking weapons bans, still interest me in principle because I might one day decide to buy a mean looking weapon and because I agree with this sentiment from old-tyme blogger Thomas Paine:

 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

 

Perhaps they just banned slingshots for no reason at all, just impulsive desire to ban things that no one wants. Either that, or someone wants them and must be kept in line for fear they will do something terribly lethal.

 

I agree that gun control is a lot like drug control. I'm not sure why people who want to use marijuana or slingshots need to be kept in line, but I know that efforts to do so are dangerous to liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ever read Animal Farm?

 

Bah

So with nuclear weapons, Americans are more equal than non-Americans

 

You're right ISIS deserved Nukes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ever read Animal Farm?

 

Bah

So with nuclear weapons, Americans are more equal than non-Americans

 

You're right ISIS deserved Nukes too.

WTF happened to Bah?

Bah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ever read Animal Farm?

 

Bah

So with nuclear weapons, Americans are more equal than non-Americans

 

Nukes don't kill people. People pushing the nuke buttons kill people. Nukes for all, I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray is correct. I posted this on another thread. Pay attention:

 

Statistically, guns in the hands of sane, law biding citizens DOES NOT lead to more violence or crime. On the contrary, it prevents it. The enactment of concealed carry laws uniformly results in less crime, not more. There is virtual universal gun ownership in Switzerland, including automatic weapons, and there it is not a problem. Rural America has the highest rates of gun ownership and the lowest crime rates against both property and person. Legal ownership of firearms among white Americans is among the highest in the world, and the homicide rate among the same population is below Belgium. If you look at the black population of America, the legal ownership of guns is the lowest but their homicide rate is 57x that of their white counterparts, and Hispanics are 23x that of their white counterparts. Rural America, which has the highest per capita gun ownership also has the lowest crime rates.

 

Gun violence is almost exclusively a problem of the inner cities. This has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with MISSING FATHERS. The growth of violent crime there parallels the rate of illegitimacy as do the other urban pathologies of poverty and poor education. There were over 11 homicides a couple of weeks ago in Chicago; many months log more than 40 killed, more casualties than U.S. troops in suffered Afghanistan last year.

Stop blaming guns. This is NOT a problem with guns; it is a problem with absent fathers and dysfunctional families. Gangs composed of fatherless young men are the purveyors of gun violence, and they are the progeny of the socialist nanny state which has for decades been destroying black America. These children are raised by single mothers, wedded not to productive adult men serving as role models for their children, but to Uncle Sugar. In a real sense, these are the democrat party's (Obama's) illegitimate children --this is what liberalism begets.

So, if you want to address the real problem of violence and crime in America, it is societal and a direct result of egregious "progressive fuckery". Not guns.

As someone once said, we need a national conversation about Chicago and the spoils of liberalism, not firearms. Leave our guns alone.

 

 

 

 

 

Pay attention?

 

 

 

This crap was disputed with eleven studies on that thread.

Your defense was nine disgraced studies by John Lott, one by "Harvard" (which had nothing to do with Harvard, but rather a libertarian publisher using the name) and one by Mark Gius...a four-pager which I liked. There is another one out there you didn't find, but ONLY one that I know of.

 

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

 

Pasted from <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study?CMP=twt_fd>

 

 

Abstract

Background

A variety of claims about possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness burden, and the risk of firearm-related deaths have been put forward. However, systematic data on this issue among various countries remain scant. Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion “guns make a nation safer” has any merits.

Methods

Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for firearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation and was obtained from the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends. Age-standardized disability-adjusted life-year rates due to major depressive disorder per 100,000 inhabitants with data obtained from the World Health Organization database were used as a putative indicator for mental illness burden in a given country.

Results

Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11). In a linear regression model with firearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor (P <.0001) of firearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance (P = .05) only.

Conclusion

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/

 

NGS, from above:

"The enactment of concealed carry laws uniformly results in less crime, not more."

 

Do concealed-weapon laws result in less crime?

Another sustained critique was by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, who wrote a 2003 paper titled “Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis.” They said:

We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile. Minor changes of specifications can generate wide shifts in the estimated effects of these laws, and some of the most persistent findings — such as the association of shall-issue laws with increases in (or no effect on) robbery and with substantial increases in various types of property crime — are not consistent with any plausible theory of deterrence.

The Pinocchio Test

Gohmert’s statement was declarative and sweeping: “The facts are every time guns have been allowed, concealed-carry has been allowed, the crime rate has gone down.”

 

The actual evidence is much murkier — and in dispute. Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased. Even those sympathetic to Lott’s research suggest that any decline in the crime rate from right-to-carry laws is more sporadic — as opposed to Gohmert’s claim that crime rate always goes down.

 

Three Pinnochios granted. (Boston Globe article)

 

NGS, your Switzerland baloney from the 9-year-old Shoots Uzi Instructor thread was also discredited there. Were you paying attention?

 

This article directly contrasts multiple claims of Wayne LaPierre:

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159858&page=2&hl=switzerland#entry4657538

 

 

Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland

This section assesses gun control opponents’ claim that Switzerland and Israel have permissive gun control laws.

The Swiss federal government requires gun permit applicants to demonstrate need for protection against a specific risk and pass weapons safety and firearm use regulation tests (Swiss code RS 514.54, ch. 6, art. 27 (1997)). Permit holders may own only one handgun for 6 months, after which they must renew their permit every 3 months (Swiss code RS 514.54, ch. 2, §1, art. 8 (1997))

Gun ownership in Switzerland

Poe called Switzerland “the most heavily armed nation on earth, per capita,” with 2 million guns7,8. At the time of his writing, Poe was not correct: the 2002 Small Arms Survey estimated 1.2 million civilian firearms in Switzerland, or 16 per 100 residents29, versus 83–97 civilian firearms per 100 residents in the US for the same period21 Swiss firearm ownership increased between 2002 and 2007 Small Arms Surveys because military rifles were released to the public due to drastic army size reductions30,31. In 2007, Switzerlandhad 31–60 total firearms per 100 residents, about the same as Finland, and less than the estimated 83–97 per 100 in the US and 29–81 per 100 in Yemen31.

On a per-household basis, the nationally representative ICVS data find that, compared with Swiss households, more US households own handguns and at least as many own firearms (Figure 1). A quarter of Swiss households reported that they own a gun for army service. Few Swiss households, less than 13%, own a gun for non-military reasons. Gun advocates claim that Swiss own guns due to tradition7,32,33, but more than six times as many US households reported owning a gun because they’ve “always had one” (Figure 2). Gun advocates claim that Swiss own guns because shooting contests are the national sport32,33, but only 5% of Swiss households reported owning guns for sport versus 12% of American households. Eight times as many American households reported owning a gun for “self-protection” as did Swiss.

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide, homicide of females, and murder-suicide34. Swiss gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to report having seriously injured others35. Respondents who owned a handgun or more than one gun reported more violence than respondents who owned long guns or just one gun35. These findings imply that either owning a gun makes these men more violent, or that more violent men choose to own guns and Swiss law does not screen out violent men.

Switzerland has a large proportion of firearm suicide relative to other European countries, and the proportion increased as household gun ownership increased between 1983 and 200036. Within Switzerland, Swiss cantons with greater household firearm ownership had more firearm suicide between 1998 and 2007, and firearm suicide decreased as household firearm ownership declined in this decade37. Military weapons account for about 40% of firearm suicides in Switzerland37 and at least a third of murder-suicides34.Firearm prevalence in Switzerland is also proportional to the prevalence of firearm homicide of women but not men38. These ecological studies are correlational, but Martin Killias notes that they are unlikely attributable to confounding by violent crime. High rates of violent crime might induce firearm ownership, but there is no “third variable which, simultaneously, might push people to buy guns, to kill female partners (but not male opponents), and to commit assault or suicide, but not robbery.”38.

Conclusions

Swiss and Israeli gun ownership is rare, regulated stringently such as by putting the burden of proof on permit applicants to demonstrate a specific need for a gun, and neither country encourages gun ownership. The extensive gun control in both countries do not prevent guns from being associated with violent deaths, but increased gun control in the Israeli army may have reduced gun suicide. The evidence from Switzerland and Israel seems to concur with the public health literature finding3.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3267868/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NGS, you seem to be playing to primitive emotion, and little more. The issue is complex.

 

This statement is more urban myth.

NGS, above: Gun violence is almost exclusively a problem of the inner cities.

 

Pay attention. I have a few sources which say that 1200 homicides/yr are gang-ralated, about 11% of our total. This one counts 1900, or 17%.

Neither figure indicates an "almost exclusive" inner-city homicide problem in the USA.

Number of Gang-Related Homicides*

*Because of the many issues surrounding the maintenance and collection of gang-crime data, caution is urged when interpreting the results presented below. For more information regarding this issue, see: www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ#q5.

The number of gang-related homicides reported from 2007 to 2011 is displayed by area type and population size.

  • From 2007 through 2011, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.
  • The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged more than 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011.

Pasted from <http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems>

Arming the populations against modern governments is not all it's cracked up to be. Let's look more closely.

Hitler took the guns. If only to affirm Godwin’s Law, the most frequently used example of gun control leading to genocide is that of Nazi Germany. At a superficial glance, gun advocates do appear to have a point. After all, didn’t Hitler praise gun control? Hitler clearly lays out his beliefs here: “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

However, like many widely circulated pro-gun quotes, this attribution is fake. There is no evidence that Hitler actually made these remarks. In reality, Hitler was relatively pro-gun. Most of the strict gun control was implemented by the Weimar Republic in direct response to rising street violence and to prevent an armed coup from either the Nazis or Communists. And to a small degree it was successful, as it prevented Hitler from seizing power by armed insurrection. The “gun control” law implemented in 1938, when the Nazis were fully in power, actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership. If the “armed populations prevent tyranny” maxim held, the Germans could have removed Hitler from office with relative ease.

When presented with these facts, gun advocates typically reply that their theory still holds, as Hitler did do his utmost to prevent Jews (as well as Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, communists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses) from owning weapons. Therefore, if they had been armed, genocide could have been averted. However, the notion that small groups of armed Jews could have succeeded where the entire Polish and French armies failed is completely inane. It took the combined might of the US, Britain, Russia, and our allies to finally defeat Hitler and his allies. Comparing this reality to the Red Dawn narrative of armed resistance gun advocates offer highlights how little merit the “guns prevent tyranny” hypothesis has. The few instances of armed resistance such as the Warsaw uprising were quickly annihilated.

Stalin took the guns. The hypothesis that a heavily armed Russian population could have stopped Stalin and communist rule completely overlooks the massive civil war (1917-22) that culminated in the triumph of communist forces. Lenin and Stalin didn’t need gun control. They simply annihilated any domestic threats to their rule. As Omer Bratov, a historian from Brown University, explains about Stalin, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.” It also defies logic that where the military might of Nazi Germany failed, scattered bands of Russian resistance could have somehow succeeded.

The Turks took the guns. It is true that the Ottomans/Turks seized the weapons of many Armenians. But the Turkish government also took the Armenian’s right to speech, property, livelihood, etc. Anything the Turks could take, they did. Seizing their weapons was simply one of many tools used by the Turks to carry out genocide, not the cause. The idea that a better armed Armenian population would have stopped the genocide is naïve. Although some Armenians were able to hold out versus the government (with the help of the Russian military or French naval forces), most batches of armed resistance were annihilated with artillery bombardment and overwhelming military force. As the Armenian National Institute explains, while the armed resistance was noble, it was ultimately the International awareness and pressure on Turkey that saved the remnants of the Armenian population.

Mao took the guns. Like the Russian case, the idea that Mao’s gun control allowed him to commit genocidal acts completely overlooks how Mao gained power in the first place: a massive civil war. If guns could have stopped Mao, they would have then, not at the height of his power. It also overlooks the fact that any type of gun laws would have had only a negligible influence of gun ownership as the vast majority of Chinese peasants (those bearing the brunt of Mao’s disastrous policies) were too poor to even consider owning a gun. Gun policy shouldn’t enter any meaningful discourse on Mao’s rule.

Guatemala took the guns. The rationale for Guatemala’s wanton slaughter of the Mayan population was to eliminate the threat of Marxist rebels by removing their support base. Guatemala’s genocidal acts were a response to an armed threat, not an opportunistic assault to take advantage of a recently disarmed population as some gun advocates suggest. The tactics to remove this armed resistance, unfortunately, involved the slaughter of unarmed civilians, and was spurred by decades (if not centuries) of pent up racial tensions. It was the presence of armed resistance, not the absence of it, which led to further atrocities.

Idi Amin took the guns. The Ugandan case is a prime example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action. Gun advocates point to a 1970 Uganda law that restricted firearm ownership and regulated the types of weapons a citizen could own as the gateway to genocidal acts beginning in 1971 under the rule of Idi Amin. Had the population not been “disarmed,” the people of Uganda could have stopped the reign of terror. However, this analysis completely overlooks two very basic facts. First, the gun law implemented in 1970 was mostly an extension of a colonial firearms law dating back to 1955, meaning the number of gun owners would not have changed substantially. Second, the idea that the gun law was stage one of genocide is not viable, as the law was implemented in 1970 and Idi Amin did not seize power and begin killing people until 1971.

Pol Pot took the guns. The claims of Cambodian gun control leading to genocide is, like the Uganda case, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that conveniently ignores the fact that there was a massive five year civil war from 1970-75 in which the Republican forces protecting the “one million educated people” were decisively defeated. As Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” states the idea that gun control led to genocide in Cambodia and the other countries mentioned represents “a cartoonish view of the complex events” and the people touting these ideas “don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war.”

Conclusion

Even if the gun advocates’ deeply flawed reading of history was accurate, applying the lessons from these countries to the US is foolish. None of the above countries had well established democratic traditions at the time. Most of these nations were suffering from battlefield defeats or economic catastrophe. In no way do these scenarios bear any resemblance to the US. Even if gun control was the gateway to genocide in these countries (which was definitively not the case), such analysis overlooks the vast host of causal socio-economic and political factors that led to these tragic events. Extrapolating these flawed conclusions to domestic gun policy, in the words of James Madison, “must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.”

Takeaways:

  • Militias were largely ineffective in our own Revolutionary War.
  • Militias in the modern era have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty.
  • Liberty and the degree of gun ownership in a society are uncorrelated.
  • Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
  • Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.
  • Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.

Pasted from <http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, oh. Here comes the gun control spam artist. It is exponential!

 

You, and the whole damn Gun Club Choir, could always offer better information than I have. (That's the whole idea here.)

Go ahead, back up your claims.

 

Instead, I find a pattern of...

 

.misinformation_zps1feda6a5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News flash! No. Body. Cares. If you yourself is worried about the 'large number of guns in private citizens v hands', then you can start and set an example by giviving yours away to some LEO's in your 'hood. But until the day you do that, you'll just go down in history as the biggest tool and troll ever on S/A.

 

Hipocrite fuck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, oh. Here comes the gun control spam artist. It is exponential!

 

You, and the whole damn Gun Club Choir, could always offer better information than I have. (That's the whole idea here.)

Go ahead, back up your claims.

 

Instead, I find a pattern of...

 

.misinformation_zps1feda6a5.jpg

 

Yes we could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Pay attention?

 

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore....

Pasted from <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study?CMP=twt_fd>

 

 

Abstract

Background

...Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion “guns make a nation safer” has any merits.

Methods

Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for firearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation...

Results

...there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33)...

Conclusion

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country,...

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/

 

...

 

Do concealed-weapon laws result in less crime?

...Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased....

 

 

 

High gun ownership makes countries less safe? Gun ownership is notoriously difficult to estimate, but it's a pretty safe bet that nearly 100% of concealed weapons permit holders are gun owners. In all your research, have you run into any statistics comparing crime rates among permit holders to the crime rates among the Permitless Ones? The ones I have seen show signficantly lower crime rates among my elk than among Permitless elk. Seems strange that the people with the highest gun ownership rate should have the lowest crime rate, doesn't it?

 

Did you notice the shifting goal posts, highlighted in red above? They decided to use crime rate as an indicator of safety, found no correlation, so their conclusion talks about... firearm-related death rates. What happened to their indicator and why do their conclusions talk about something other than their indicator? I think the answer is simply because "there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33)" and that's not the answer they wanted, so they went fishing around for suicides to conflate with violent crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The below from another thread some of you have seen. But because the same bullshit is being peddled here, here tis again.

 

Crime rate is it? Maybe we should just look at deaths by firearm. Compare and contrast two English speaking countries with different laws on firearms. Now you are expected to chop this up and we get into the argument on detail on P= till we disappear down the rabbit hole. Not necessary but they are the tactics used by the gun lobby to confuse. Was the same with tobacco.

 

There seems to be a very strong correlation (approaching 1.0) between the country with the most guns and the one with the most gun deaths per 100,000 people.

 

From above post;

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

 

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year (Homicides)

USA = 3.6

Australia = 0.13

(27.7 times more than AUS)

 

But the most interesting one, highlighting the difference between the policies is the Unintentional gun deaths

USA = 0.3

Australia = 0.07

 

Does this really need discussion?

 

The murder rate (all weapons) in Oz is about 1.2 per 100K

 

The murder rate in the US is about 2 per 100k white people

 

The US rate continues to fall while the Oz rate heads upward.

 

If Oxz ever truly abandons its whites only practices and diversifies then we can talk again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime rate is it? Maybe we should just look at deaths by firearm.

 

 

That was the conclusion of the study I referenced, but that's not what they set out to look at.

 

What happened to their indicator (crime rate) and why do their conclusions talk about something other than their indicator? I gave my answer above. What's yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll need to recalculate, random, if you are to earn your pay.

 

The wiki article uses this one as a source and the source has updated 2012 information.

 

Turns out the US rate has fallen from 3.6 to 2.83.

 

We must have banned some guns while I wasn't looking. In fact, given our sustained decline, we must have been banning them continuously for quite a while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misinformation Jack, no wonder they pay you for this shit, that's not bad, but tell me, white people? What about the other Americans? Cherry picking Jack.

 

When comparing countries, demographics matter. Australia's historical white only policies has left your country with a small minority population. When you have the diversity as the US then let's compare again.

 

 

The real Cherry here is you isolation of Firearm homicides vs total homicides. Aussie's love pointy things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Pay attention?

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

Background

...Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion guns make a nation safer has any merits.

Methods

Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for firearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation...

Results

...there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33)...

Conclusion

The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country,...

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/

...

Do concealed-weapon laws result in less crime?...Certainly, it appears such laws have not increased the crime rate, as opponents had feared, but it is equally a stretch to say such laws are a slam-dunk reason for why crimes have decreased....

 

High gun ownership makes countries less safe? Gun ownership is notoriously difficult to estimate, but it's a pretty safe bet that nearly 100% of concealed weapons permit holders are gun owners. In all your research, have you run into any statistics comparing crime rates among permit holders to the crime rates among the Permitless Ones? The ones I have seen show signficantly lower crime rates among my elk than among Permitless elk. Seems strange that the people with the highest gun ownership rate should have the lowest crime rate, doesn't it?

 

Did you notice the shifting goal posts, highlighted in red above? They decided to use crime rate as an indicator of safety, found no correlation, so their conclusion talks about... firearm-related death rates. What happened to their indicator and why do their conclusions talk about something other than their indicator? I think the answer is simply because "there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33)" and that's not the answer they wanted, so they went fishing around for suicides to conflate with violent crimes.

 

Only a fraction of our crime rate involves gun use.

This is where your practiced spin is being introduced, I guess.

 

Same for when you introduce violent crime stats; you are introducing false equivalents.Nixononcredibilitydefinitionofdisinforma

I did not introduce crime rate, the researchers you quoted did. Then they ignored it. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High gun ownership makes countries less safe? Gun ownership is notoriously difficult to estimate, but it's a pretty safe bet that nearly 100% of concealed weapons permit holders are gun owners. In all your research, have you run into any statistics comparing crime rates among permit holders to the crime rates among the Permitless Ones? The ones I have seen show signficantly lower crime rates among my elk than among Permitless elk. Seems strange that the people with the highest gun ownership rate should have the lowest crime rate, doesn't it?

 

The stats on CCP's are a mixed bag. An unflattering picture can easily be painted, but if they are saints as you say, fine by me.

Conclusion 1. Among those who believe they are knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about the literature

74% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement (that permissive gun laws reduce crime) , while

14% agree or strongly agree with statement.

Conclusion 2. 81% disagree, 10% agree: A large number of researchers who are familiar with the subject disagree with the statement (that in the U.S. guns are used far more often in self defense than they are used in crime).

Conclusion 3. 89% agree, 8% disagree. A large number of researchers agree that having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide. http://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey-3-Results.pdf

Did you notice the shifting goal posts, highlighted in red above? They decided to use crime rate as an indicator of safety, found no correlation, so their conclusion talks about... firearm-related death rates. What happened to their indicator and why do their conclusions talk about something other than their indicator? I think the answer is simply because "there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33)" \ ahem, omitted by Tom...thereby dismissing the "more guns less crime" hypothesis

and that's not the answer they wanted, so they went fishing around for suicides to conflate with violent crimes.

 

It seems you are splitting the quotes for your own ends, Tom. Here is their idea in context (and its point: the idea you simply omitted)

We used the crime rate per 100,000 population as an indicator of safety of the nation. There was no significant correlation (r = 0.33) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (P = .10), arguing against the notion of more guns translating into less crime.

As for indicators being mandatory in study conclusions, I'm not qualified to say where they belong, or how they relate, or don't relate. However, an "indicator" sounds like a standard of measurement to build a conclusion, not some fixed concept required in a conclusion.

But what about the the two other study conclusions, which are in agreement with this study conclusions? No measurable safety or cultural peace is surfacing in these studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I did not introduce crime rate, the researchers you quoted did. Then they ignored it. No, they didn't. They used that crime rate in their next sentence to discount "more guns, less crime." Why?

 

Hi Tom. A communist plot, maybe? Because such researchers are corrupted to the core, and cook the books all day long? (All researchers do that, or guns will come out smelling just rosy.)

 

 

Here's a serious, pertinent question: how did you like my homework on Gary Kleck?

You have put yourself in a position (by quoting his DGU figures) where you must defend him...and his criminal-gun-use laden numbers.

 

 

CDCflagrantlyviolatedNRAbasmoredoctorssm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

High gun ownership makes countries less safe? Gun ownership is notoriously difficult to estimate, but it's a pretty safe bet that nearly 100% of concealed weapons permit holders are gun owners. In all your research, have you run into any statistics comparing crime rates among permit holders to the crime rates among the Permitless Ones? The ones I have seen show signficantly lower crime rates among my elk than among Permitless elk. Seems strange that the people with the highest gun ownership rate should have the lowest crime rate, doesn't it?

 

The stats on CCP's are a mixed bag. An unflattering picture can easily be painted, but if they are saints as you say, fine by me.

 

 

No, they're really not. The anecdotes are a mixed bag. There is the occasional person who gets a concealed weapons permit and then commits a violent crime, but that's very rare. Much more rare than the same kinds of crimes among Permitless Elk.

 

You can only paint an unflattering picture by focusing on the few and ignoring the many.

 

Prove me wrong. If they really are a mixed bag, let's see some of that reputable research showing CWP holders with a higher crime rate than Permitless Elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did you notice the shifting goal posts, highlighted in red above? They decided to use crime rate as an indicator of safety, found no correlation, so their conclusion talks about... firearm-related death rates. What happened to their indicator and why do their conclusions talk about something other than their indicator? I think the answer is simply because "there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33)" and that's not the answer they wanted, so they went fishing around for suicides to conflate with violent crimes.

It seems you are splitting the quotes for your own ends, Tom. Here is their idea in context (and its point: the idea you simply omitted)

We used the crime rate per 100,000 population as an indicator of safety of the nation. There was no significant correlation ([/size]r[/size] = 0.33) between guns per capita per country and crime rate ([/size]P[/size] = .10)

arguing against the notion of more guns translating into less crime.

As for indicators being mandatory in study conclusions, I'm not qualified to say where they belong, or how they relate, or don't relate. However, an "indicator" sounds like a standard of measurement to build a conclusion, not some fixed concept required in a conclusion.

 

 

Their "Methods" section in post 229 above says:

 

"Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation..."

 

But it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mikewof, on 04 Sept 2014 - 23:26, said:

NGS, on 04 Sept 2014 - 19:33, said:

Chicks-with-guns-620x551.jpg

 

Your gun slapfight aside, when did it become the in thing to take photos of holding bare-ass babies? They shit and piss like friggen racehorses. I'll bet that a solid 1/4 of these photos leave those stylish moms with a shirtfull of piss and crap.

Damn Mikewof - what is your problem with white women/mom's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are around 450,000 hunters in Michigans woods on opening day of fire arm season. I wonder what they'd all say if you stood in front of all of them and said they need to give up their guns and pasttime because criminals in big cities will not stop shooting people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're really not. Present your sources, please. The anecdotes are a mixed bag. There is the occasional person who gets a concealed weapons permit and then commits a violent crime, but that's very rare. Much more rare than the same kinds of crimes among Permitless Elk.

 

You can only paint an unflattering picture by focusing on the few and ignoring the many.

 

Prove me wrong. If they really are a mixed bag, let's see some of that reputable research showing CWP holders with a higher crime rate than Permitless Elk.

 

Not gonna play that. It's your turn, isn't it?

 

My figures have been presented--yours are iffy, effectively meaning both Lott and Kleck.

 

And two others were presented (by NGS, as you left him twisting in the wind).

 

Let's discuss the "Harvard" study by Kates and Mauser first.

The REAL Harvard gun researcher points out that the Harvard Law Review is "evidently not peer-reviewed." Hemenway wrote about it (and this report is not "new", its from 2007. The libertarian publishing company called the Harvard Law Review dredged it up in 2013).

 

 

6. Kates and Mauser see the world as a dichotomous one filled with only bad guys and good guys,

criminals and decent-law-abiding citizens. The criminals are very bad, and the good guys are always

good. In their world they seem to believe the bad guys can always get guns, and the good guys will

always use guns appropriately. The policy conclusions are clear. In a more realistic model, there is a

continuum of people with good and bad behavior, and how they behave depends on their disposition

that day (e.g., are they tired, drunk, afraid) and the situation. In the latter model, the effects of various

policies become an empirical question.

7. Kates and Mauser are often confusing because they are talking about homicide, and then they

present claims about “violence” or “violent crime” (e.g., 653). But most violent crimes have little to do

with guns. Guns primarily make hostile interactions much more lethal.

8. While Kates and Mauser often cite the old Wright studies of criminals, they don’t cite many of the

more interesting findings (e.g., three quarters of felons who fire guns in criminal situations claim to have

had no prior intention of doing so, and about half who fire guns while committing crimes claim to have

done so in self-defense) (Wright, Rossi & Daly 2003).

Kates and Mauser (pp671) cite as correct that there are "more defensive gun uses than crimes committed

with firearms" in the U.S. All Studies show the opposite. [...]

Too many of the other claims by Kates and Mauser are also misleading; most of the issues are discussed

in Private Guns and Public Health, which tries to discuss all the relevant scientific literature, rather than

just one side for some debate. The Kates and Mauser article is simply a one-sided polemic, usually

misleading, and does not deserve much attention.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

 

The other random study NGS presented, that of Mark Gius, was a keeper.

The internet search function has featured it prominently, but clipped it.

 

New Study Demolishes Almost Every Gun Control Myth<https://usahitman.com/nsdegcm/> “These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level,” the abstract concludes.

 

Molested by being clipped, not unlike how TR does business. Here is its actual ending:

There may, however, be other explanations for these results. Laws may be ineffective due to loopholes and exemptions. The most violent states may also have the toughest guns control measures. Further research is warranted in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's where all your shit goes right out the window---and that if the 'murder rate' has gone up lately, that tells me that more bad guys are getting their cumupence and being killed.

 

I for one see absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had our first 'murder' in this town in ten years here on Monday early, just a block over. Twente six year fuk-apple convicted felon, met head, well known thief & with multiple r/o's against him tries breaking into his ex-wife's house at 0530. She and her/his two kids are there and so are two other guys. Gary Tucker catches one right between the eyes. Pretty sad but he was really just a piece of shit with no redeeming social value, and was basically just taking up space where a palm tree could have been. Oh well, good riddance. And glad no one else got hurt.... ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always tell when jocal is loosing an argument (as well as his sanity) when he resorts to the photoshop option......

 

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't hold up my end in any direct discussion. I lack facts, too, etc.

 

I dedicate this post to the Hardheads. You know who you are.

 

 

***MORE GUNS LESS CRIME? NOT SO FAST.

Here are 20 studies, most newer then Lott and Kleck's work, from a variety of credible sources, which refute this premise.

 

#1.(Newest) July, 2014 Conclusions of Harvard University periodic survey of gun researchers:

Among those who believe they are knowledgeable or very knowledgeable about the literature

 

(1)A large majority disagree that guns are used in self defense far more than they are used in crime.

 

(2) A sizeable majority of firearms researchers disagree with the statement that the change in state level concealed carry laws in the U.S. over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.

74% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement while

14% agree or strongly agree with statement.

 

(3) A large majority of firearms researchers agree that in the U.S., having a gun increases the risk of suicide.

89% agree or strongly agree

8% disagree or strongly disagree

http://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2014/05/Expert-Survey-3-Results.pdf

 

 

#2. SIEGAL 2013: a thirty-year look at 50 states

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership

and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010.

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio=1.009; 95% confidence interval=1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

 

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Studies analyzing data over long periods are valuable because they assess the effects of variation in gun availability not only between states but within states over time. Although we are aware of no multiyear studies of interstate variation in gun ownership and homicide rates since 1999, national data from the General Social Survey show that the prevalence of household gun ownership has decreased by approximately 12% since then.http://ajph.aphapubl...JPH.2013.301409>

 

Quote

The results of the research are consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher levels of firearm homicide.

 

Siegel noted that the study did not determine causation, allowing that it is theoretically possible that people are more likely to purchase guns if they live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide. But he said the issue warrants further study. “In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, last year, many states are considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths. This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates...”

 

#3. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

 

#4.

Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

 

#5.

Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

 

#6.

Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

 

Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harv...guns-and-death/>

 

#7.

Duggan, More Guns, More Crime

Economist Mark Duggan: Rate Of Gun Ownership "Significantly Positively" Correlated With Incidence Of Homicide. A study by economist Mark Duggan found that "changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related," as he reported in "More Guns, More Crime" in the Journal of Political Economy in 2001. Duggan wrote:

My findings reveal that changes in homicide and gun ownership are significantly positively related. This relationship is almost entirely driven by the relationship between lagged changes in gun ownership and current changes in homicide, suggesting that the relationship is not driven simply by individuals' purchase of guns in response to increases in criminal activity.

[...]

These findings contradict the results from recent work suggesting that legislation allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) caused a significant decline in violent crime (Lott and Mustard 1997). [Journal of Political Economy, 2001]

 

Pasted from <http://mediamatters....ohn-lott/191885

 

#8.

Firearm ownership and homicide across the United States

 

Debate over firearm laws in the United States flares with every tragic event — Columbine High School in 1999; Virginia Tech in 2007; Tucson in 2011; Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., in 2012, to name just a few — and the issue is never far from the national consciousness. Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership as well as one of the highest rates of homicide. Reviews of the research literature suggest that it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, but some U.S.-based studies have drawn significant correlations between gun ownership and murder rates.

In any case, more than half of the homicides in the country in a given year are typically committed with firearms, according to FBI data. Still, over the period 2000-2012 the Pew Research Center has found a significant shift in public opinion toward favoring gun rights.

A 2002 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, “Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across U.S. Regions and States, 1988-1997,” looked at the ratio of homes owning guns and the homicide rate in the given area.

The study’s findings include:

 

 

  • In the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership, an average of 53% of households owned firearms; in the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership, an average of 13% of households contained firearms.
  • From 1988 to 1997, the high-gun states had more than 21,000 individuals who were homicide victims, compared with 7,300 in the low-gun states.
  • People living in the high-gun states were 4.2 times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide than those in the low-gun states, and 1.6 times more likely to die in a non-gun-related homicide.
  • After controlling for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, per capita alcohol consumption, and violent crimes other than homicide, the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide remained significant.

The researchers state that the study shows that “in areas with more firearms, people of all ages were more likely to be murdered, especially with handguns.” The study does not provide information about causation, however — for example, local homicide rates could drive gun acquisition.

Tags: crime, safety, guns

 

By Rozanne Larsen | March 21, 2011

- See more at: http://journalistsre...h.q1EtTYGT.dpuf

#9

From two 30/yr. veteran researchers, (formal peer review criticisms of Lott and Kleck)

Kleck and Lott's formal peer review conclusion (by Dr. Daniel Webster)

Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that

gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott’s and Kleck’s research

indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in

previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead

to more deaths.

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

(From a Hemenway Book Review)

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws

By John R. Lott, Jr. 225 pp. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1998. $23. ISBN: 0-226-49363-6

Not surprisingly, Lott's model fails several statistical specification tests designed to determine its accuracy, and other models lead to very different results. For example, Jens Ludwig, an economist at Georgetown University, uses a different statistical approach and finds that the movement to shall-issue laws has, if anything, caused homicide rates to increase.

One would have expected that, given the problems with Lott's model, it would have gone back to the drawing board. Instead, Lott decided to go public, writing this book, holding press conferences, and presenting his results as if they proved that permissive gun-carrying laws actually save lives.

Sometimes it is not the model that Lott uses but the data that are just plain wrong. For example, in the one analysis not involving carrying laws, Lott takes data on gun ownership from 1988 and 1996 voter exit polls and purports to show that higher levels of gun ownership mean less crime. According to the polling source, Voter News Service, these data cannot be used as Lott has used them — either to determine state-level gun ownership or changes in gun ownership. For example, the data from the exit polls indicate that gun ownership rates in the United States increased an incredible 50 percent during those eight years, yet all other surveys show either no change or a decrease in the percentage of Americans who personally own firearms.

Overall, Lott deserves high marks for attempting to study an important and difficult issue and for assembling and sharing his data; he deserves failing marks for pressing policy makers to use his results despite the substantial questions that have been raised about his research. Permissive gun-carrying laws may increase or decrease crime, and knowing the effect is critical for determining appropriate policy. Unfortunately, Lott's results do not provide credible evidence one way or the other.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199812313392719>

 

#10. The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report:

The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy

Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, Alexandria Zhang

NBER Working Paper No. 18294

Issued in August 2012

NBER Program(s): LE

For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the panel thought the NRC's panel data regressions showed that RTC laws decreased murder, but the other 17 responded by saying that “the scientific evidence does not support” that position.

We evaluate the NRC evidence, and improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2010. We also present evidence using both a more plausible version of the Lott and Mustard specification, as well as our own preferred specification (which, unlike the Lott and Mustard model presented in the NRC report, does control for rates of incarceration and police). While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models and re-affirm its finding that the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. We disagree with the NRC report’s judgment on one methodological point: while the NRC report states that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed in these panel data regressions, our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 21 - 70 percent.

Our paper highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC’s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and county panel data models conducted over the entire period with and without state trends and using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. If one narrows the focus to the most complete data (state data over the entire 1977-2010 period) or the period from 1999-2010 (thereby removing the confounding influence of the crack cocaine epidemic) and looks at the dummy and spline models using our preferred specification, then there is always evidence within the four estimates for each of the seven crime categories that RTC laws are associated with higher rates of crime. In six of the seven crime categories, the finding that RTC laws increase crime is statistically significant at the .05 level, and for robbery, it is statistically significant at the .10 level. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis.

 

Pasted from <http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294>

 

  1. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Publication Date: November 2009

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770#entry4660096

#11

Conclusion

The data analyzed in this report relate to the following 10 indicators of gun violence:

Overall firearm deaths in 2010

Overall firearm deaths from 2001 through 2010

Firearm homicides in 2010

Firearm suicides in 2010

Firearm homicides among women from 2001 through 2010

Firearm deaths among children ages 0 to 17, from 2001 through 2010

Law-enforcement agents feloniously killed with a firearm from 2002 through 2011

Aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011

Crime-gun export rates in 2009

Percentage of crime guns with a short “time to crime” in 2009

While many factors contribute to the rates of gun violence in any state, our

research clearly demonstrates a significant correlation between the strength of

a state’s gun laws and the prevalence of gun violence in the state. Across the key

indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun

laws collectively have a level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104

percent higher—than the 10 states with the strongest gun law.

[…] The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence analysis shows that eight of these states (showing the highest gun-violence rankings) are among the 25 states with the weakest gun laws.

While the strength of a state’s gun laws is just one factor in the prevalence of gun-related violence in the state and cannot alone account for gun violence, there is a clear link between weak gun laws and high levels of gun violence across the United States.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15524-a-50-state-analysis-of-gun-violence-and-its-link-to-weak-state-gun-laws>

#12

(Anarchist NGS Found this one for me)

Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis –

With Some Help From Moody and Marvell, 20pgs

Abstract

Shall-issue†laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue's more guns, more crime conclusion.

Pasted from <http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v5y2008i3p269-293.html>

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&page=2#entry4661142>

#13

This one is from a UPenn Professor. Courtesy of

phillysailor, on 02 Sept 2014 - 12:28, said:

I've read several peer-reviewed articles about firearm statistics during a course on epidemiology, and discussed several of them with an author of a series, an epidemiologist at UPenn. I have no idea of his political leanings, but the upshot of his research was that homicides were more likely in America due to the greater average lethality of assault, i.e., guns enable homicides by making it easier to kill. The rates of violent assault was the same across most first world nations. Most murder victims (at the time, this may have changed) were inebriated, and most lethal use of guns in the home were against family members, boyfriends & girlfriends, and suicides. More neighbors were shot and accidental shootings occurred than true 'home defense' situations, but that was buried in the data: it was not the point of the study, nor did the prof press the point. The data echoed the data above: homicides were more likely in homes with guns than without, and suicide attempts were more likely fatal on the first attempt, and more successful in general, if a gun was in the home.

None of this is particularly exciting, or surprising. But it is informative, and was made possible only by CDC derived data. A national repository for data that encompasses many, many more subjects than simple disease, as has been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread. "Backlash" to research, and data, is bad science, and a poor foundation for meaningful debate about policy. You really do not want your physician to only be informed about topics which are "politically acceptable." America's science, research and medical prowess is highly regarded the world over. It should give one pause to restrict such efforts just because the conclusions are unpalatable.

Relying on science = liberal? Ok, then by your definition, I am a liberal. But I am also a physician. Would you want me to practice based upon tradition and my right to sustain centuries-old practice? Are persons and groups with all-consuming passions (such as anti-vaccine advocates) the best arbiters of research goals?

#14

Fig. 2 p 35 makes strong support that the 10 states with strongest and weakest guns laws, across 9 out of 10 key measures of gun violence, uniformly fit the idea that the average gun violence rates of states with weak gun laws are above the national average, while those states with strong guns laws fall below.

Overall, the strongest vs weakest state gun law results are summed up as "weak laws, bad outcomes."

weaklawsbadoutcomes_zps2e45ca2a.png#15

#15

Truthmeter reads low: 2 out of 10, from Factchecker

Do more guns lead to less crime?

2:53 pm, Dec 22, 2012 | Written by Mark Robison

http://blogs.rgj.com...-to-less-crime/>

#16

They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

Pasted from <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study?CMP=twt_fd>

#17

**States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death

Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming Have Highest Gun Death Rates

Washington, DC--States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2008 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Wyoming. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.38 per 100,000 for 2008. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York and New Jersey (tie). (See rankings below for top and bottom five states. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart11.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “The equation is simple. More guns lead to more gun death, but limiting exposure to firearms saves lives.” The total number of Americans killed by gunfire rose to 31,593 in 2008 from 31,224 in 2007.

http://vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm>

#18

Fleegler, Background checks, permit requirements have decreasing homicide rates.

  1. States with most laws have lower mortality rates, study finds

States with more gun laws have fewer gun-related deaths, according to a new study released Wednesday by Boston Children's Hospital.

The leader investigator behind the research hopes the findings will drive legislators to pass gun reform across the country and increase federal funding to research on gun laws and violence. However, at least one critic argues that the study fails to take into account several important factors such as the types of laws, enforcement of laws, and gun ownership rates in states.

"Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler, the study's lead investigator and a pediatric emergency doctor at Boston Children's Hospital. "Legislators should take that into consideration."

Fleegler and researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health studied information from all 50 states between 2007 to 2010, analyzing all firearm-related deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and data on firearm laws compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

2o. Brearly 1932;

21. Seitz 1972;

22. Lester 1990;

23. Brehman 1999

aaflorida_zps85b12ee8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw gun-owning-hipocrite, every day you seem to pull another handful of 'studies' that feel prove your point (though which none of has yet to figure out exactly what it is). Yet everyday you scream out that we still need more fuking 'studies'. Why?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can always tell when jocal is loosing an argument (as well as his sanity) when he resorts to the photoshop option......

 

 

...LOAD OF CRAP

 

 

 

I hate to be the one to bring you the news -- AGAIN, but America doesn't care what you think, Jokeawf.

 

rtc.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

gun_control_experts.jpg

You forgot your other pin up boy - Pol Pot

 

aahitler_zps27fe4230.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pay attention. I have a few biased sources which say that 1200 homicides/yr are gang-ralated, about 11% of our total. This one counts 1900, or 17%.

 

BS and utterly false. I will take the word of the National institute of Justice over your agenda driven BS. The NIJ clearly and unambiguously says that:

 

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes.

Jeff, as a matter of honor and honesty, DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT mess with my text as written. (The red, above, was added.)

Your disinformation about gang homicides driving US gun fatalities has been debunked elsewhere.

You seem to twist the facts on different subjects.

As for my "bias" on this subject, or lack of it, I will let the following sources speak for themselves.

************************************

Number of Gang-Related Homicides

In any given year from 2002 to 2009, from 1,000 to 1,300 gang-related homicides are documented and reported in the largest cities in the National Youth Gang Survey. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

(expanded info from the final graph in this source)

2007 1,975 gang homicides

2008 1,659

2009 2,083

2010 2,020

2011 1,824

2012 2,385

. <http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems#homicidesnumber>

******************

Source 2.

How many gang related deaths occur within the US each year?

Charles Rachlis

In any given year from 2002 to 2009, from 1,000 to 1,300 gang-related homicides are documented and reported in the largest cities in the NYGS.

Pasted from <http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_gang_related_deaths_occur_within_the_US_each_year>

Pasted from <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gang_related_deaths_occur_within_the_US_each_year>

*****************************************

Source 3.

Circumstances.

The mix of circumstances surrounding homicides has changed

over the last two decades

The number of homicides—

n resulting from arguments declined by nearly half from 10,300

homicides in 1980 to 4,696 homicides in 2008, but as of 2008

remained the most frequently cited circumstance of the known

Circumstances

n that occurred during the commission of another felony, such as

a robbery or burglary, declined from about 5,300 homicides in

1991 to 2,600 homicides in 2000, then stabilized ,

n involving adult or juvenile gang violence increased from

about 220 homicides in 1980 to 960 homicides in 2008. Gang

violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all

homicides in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports)

************************************

Source 4.

This statistic shows the total number of youth gang-related homicides in the United States from 2006 to 2010, as reported by surveyed police departments and sheriff's offices. According to the collected data, 2,020 cases of youth gang-related homicide were reported in the United States in 2010.

Pasted from <http://www.statista.com/statistics/246707/total-number-of-gang-related-homicides-in-the-united-states/>

**********************************

Source 5. Huffpo.

The Source of Jeff's Misinformation?

In a scathing critique of ABC's recent report "Young Guns," Dana Loesch

that most gun deaths were the result of gang violence; therefore, America has a gang problem, not a gun problem. Her claim appears to be supported by sites positing that "a staggering 80 percent of gun homicides are gang-related." As it turns out though, not only is her statement factually incorrect, as the majority of gun deaths are suicides, but there is not a shred of evidence to support her characterization that gangs are the driving force behind firearm violence.

Unfortunately, Dana Loesch's sentiment is shared by many gun advocates, including the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre...

Do We Have a Gang Problem or a Gun Problem?

Posted: 04/03/2014 1:40 pm EDT

Evan DeFilippis Become a fan

Data Analyst, Writer, ArmedWithReason.com

Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it's the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

According to the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the number of gangs and gang members has been on the rise for some time now, increasing by more than one-third in the past decade. Between 2010 and 2011, for example, there was a 3 percent increase in the number of gangs, but an 8 percent decrease in gang-related homicides. If gang violence was truly driving the gun homicide rate, we should not see gang membership and gun homicide rates moving in opposite directions.

The most recent Centers for Disease Control study on this subject lends further credence to our claim. It examined five cities that met the criterion for having a high prevalence of gang homicides: Los Angeles, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Long Beach, California; Oakland, California; and Newark, New Jersey. In these cities, a total of 856 gang and 2,077 non-gang homicides were identified and included in the analyses. So, even when examining cities with the largest gang problems, gang homicides only accounted for 29 percent of the total for the period under consideration (2003-2008). For the nation as a whole it would be much smaller.

The 80 percent of gang-related gun homicides figure purporting to support Loesch's claim, then, is not only false, but off by nearly a factor of five. The direct opposite is necessarily true: more than 80 percent of gun homicides are non-gang related. While gang violence is still a serious problem that needs to be addressed, it is disingenuous to assert that the vast majority of our gun problem (even excluding suicides) is caused by gangs.

In spite of this, LaPierre's proposed solution to gun violence is to "contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least 10 cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms."

That same CDC study, however, also refutes LaPierre's claim that the drug trade is fueling gun-violence, saying, "the proportion of gang homicides resulting from drug trade/use or with other crimes in progress was consistently low in the five cities, ranging from zero to 25 percent."

Furthermore, a 2005 study done by Cook, Ludwig and Braga found that nearly three in five homicide offenders in Illinois in 2001 did not have a felony conviction within the 10 years prior to the homicide. Looking at just violent felons excludes a huge subset of potential criminals that become violent in the presence of a firearm.

Gun advocates' blind focus on gangs, drugs and violent felons overlooks the larger gun problem facing America. It is irresponsible and disingenuous for some of us to brush off our staggering death toll from firearms merely as the product of gangs or even violent criminals. Recognizing America's high homicide rate for what it is -- a gun problem -- is the first step in solving it.

Pasted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html>

*******************************

Source 6. (This is a test. Do some fact-checking. It's typical misinformation.

This is a second one for Simple Jeff and The Pinheads to quote ad naseum. It claims 11,500 gang homicides .)

Percentage Of Gang Related Homicides In The United States?

Posted on July 31, 2012 by Stranger

Someone stopped by searching for “percentage of gang related homicides in the united states.”

The FBI says that essentially 80 percent of the crimes reported to police, are gang related in one way or another.

However, that does not include murder, where the primary motive for gang related murders are gang rivalries; or as the FBI has described it; “friction between rivals in some criminal enterprise.” The secondary motive for gang related murder is “friction between partners in some criminal enterprise.” And of course the tertiary, third, most common reason for murder is stopping the mouths of witnesses or victims of crimes committed by gang members: followed by victims of gang initiations.

For various reasons the total number of gang related homicides appears to be about 11,500; while the total for the rest of us is about 3,000. Essentially, then; the percentage of gang related homicides in the United States is about 74 percent – and rising as the number of murders among the general population declines.

For those of an analytical turn of mind, that means the homicide rate among law abiding Americans is about 1.0 to 1.1 per 100,000 population.

Stranger

Pasted from <http://extranosalley.com/?p=29375>

aaguncrimedata_zps23e903a0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree I cannot take Jocal seriously knowing he owns a gun. Its almosts a "he protesteth to much" thing. Like he wants his gun taken before he uses it on 'some asshole' in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking gun control advice from JokeAwf is like taking cooking tips from Jeffrey Dahmer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly beyond comprehension. Unless someone else in the home wants it there - which is understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back and read my link title which I went and highlighted in red because you obviously missed that part. Ooops, I changed your post again.

 

Let me re-emphasize that again ...... AND during the commission of felony crimes. I never once said it was ALL gang-related. But the DOJ and FBI clearly say that the vast majority of gun related homicide occurs during the commission of a felony crime and gang-related activity. They are NOT, as you have falsely stated many times here, as a result of domestic violence in the home. Your very fuzzy metric of "shootings between acquaintances" as it is somehow too dangerous to have a gun in the home is total BS. Acquaintances can be anything from two drug dealers getting into an argument over a street corner, to two gang-bangers who knew each other in school getting into a shootout or any number of other similar situations.

 

My good man, this discussion began about gang homicide numbers.

The early discussion can be found, and is well-summarized, here.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707#entry4616092>

It was the SECOND ricochet off this one.

Holy Shit. Again?

Posted by JBSF on 11 June 2014 - 09:27 PM in Political Anarchy

Furthermore, the 12x rate is not all because of mentally disturbed kids. The vast majority of our homicide rate is inner city drug related crime and gang activity. [...]

Simple Jeff, you have your facts wrong.

I tried to give you room to save face, when I provided five sources saying we have ~2000 gang homicides/yr, div. by 11,000 homicides in 2012 = 18% U.S. homicides are gang-related.

It's too high, we both agree on that, but it's not the "vast majority" of the U.S. gun problem you have repeated.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but where are your hard numbers?

You can't weasel out of this. (Because your disinformation is repeated, and quoted, several more times below.)

About 85% of homicides in the USA are among friends, family, and yes associates.

When may we advance this conversation? The actual numbers shed a different light on guns, AWAY from your fear and disinformation re: gangbangers and stranger-criminals.

who commits more gun crime, liberals or conservatives?

Posted by JBSF on 18 September 2013 - 01:14 AM in Political Anarchy

Well, given that the majority of the murders in the US (VAST MAJORITY) are commited in the inner city urban areas - I think they are likely firmly blue voters.

Thanks Obama!

 

How would you folks remodel the NRA?....

Posted by JBSF on 03 May 2013 - 10:49 PM in Political Anarchy

But you continually rail on about the supposed "gun culture" as if people like me, and CF, and AGITC, and LenP and Sarosa and Tom Ray, etc have ANYTHING in common with the urban thugs in Chicago and similar who are committing the vast majority of the "gun crime".

 

#4384391The real roadblock to stopping gun violence? The NRA or Jocal?

Posted by JBSF on 13 November 2013 - 03:02 AM in Political Anarchy

The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers, most likely as a directly result of the drug trade. If we ended the "war on drugs" - I'm betting the violent crime rate would plummet overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree I cannot take Jocal seriously knowing he owns a gun. Its almosts a "he protesteth to much" thing. Like he wants his gun taken before he uses it on 'some asshole' in the future.

 

A person can own a gun and still be sensible.

We gunowners are ALL compromised, but few admit it or discuss it.

The degree of awareness is key here... I find that denial is the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, you may be mistaken (dead wrong) that gang homicides are generally connected to simultaneous crimes.

If you want a broad look at gangs, BTW, this link had a good overview.

<http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems>

(See below) NVDRS figures, show at most a 25% ratio of drug trade activity and any gang homicide--and that within a notoriously gang-infested city. Your 92%-gun use in gang homicides figure may be highlighted in red, below.

Simple Jeff, one of your own sources, the CDC (supposedly claiming high gang homicide ratios during other criminal activity), is clearly being misquoted here (by yourself):

Gun Control Advocates, Restraining Order thread

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said:

The CDC and the DOJ categorically stated that something like 75%+ of gang related murders happen as part of the commission of a crime.

Here is the actual CDC finding, from a few years ago. (If you have more current info, or that DOJ info, I'm sure you'll share it.)

Study: Gang Homicides — Five U.S. Cities, 2003–2008

January 27, 2012 /

"The finding that gang homicides commonly were not precipitated by drug trade/use or other crimes in progress also is similar to previous research; however, this finding challenges public perceptions on gang homicides (5). The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use, crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime (5). Gangs and gang members are involved in a variety of high-risk behaviors that sometimes include drug and crime involvement, but gang-related homicides usually are attributed to other circumstances (6). Newark was an exception…[…]

 

"The study, which appears in the January 27, 2012 online edition of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), found more than 90 percent of gang homicide victims were male, victims were more likely to be young, and 92-96 percent of gang homicides involved firearms. Findings also show gang homicides usually did not result from other crimes in progress or bystander deaths; instead, they involved youth responding to gang-related conflict."

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/gang_prevention.html>

 

 

Gang homicides account for a substantial proportion of homicides among youths in some U.S. cities; however, few surveillance systems collect data with the level of detail necessary to gang homicide prevention strategies. To compare characteristics of gang homicides with nongang homicides, CDC analyzed 2003–2008 data from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) for five cities with high levels of gang homicide. This report describes the results of that analysis, which indicated that, consistent with similar previous research, a higher proportion of gang homicides than other homicides involved young adults and adolescents, racial and ethnic minorities, and males. Additionally, the proportion of gang homicides resulting from drug trade/use or with other crimes in progress was consistently low in the five cities, ranging from zero to 25%. Furthermore, this report found that gang homicides were more likely to occur with firearms and in public places, which suggests that gang homicides are quick, retaliatory reactions to ongoing gang-related conflict.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Jeff. Here's to better discussions on a very interesting topic.

Cliffy says you used to carry a certain intellectual curiosity.(Clink!)

 

 

EpicJeffbignosetoo_zps86be97f7.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woman stabs husband with squirrel for not buying beer Christmas Eve

 

http://americablog.com/2014/01/woman-stabs-husband-squirrel-buying-beer.html

This is a story I somehow missed a few weeks ago, but it’s just too good to pass up. A South Carolina woman, Helen Ann Williams, was arrested on Christmas Day for stabbing her common-law husband with a ceramic squirrel the night before.

His crime? Heading out to buy beer, finding the store closed, and thus returning home to his wife empty-handed – it was Christmas Eve, after all.

His wife was apparently so incensed about her husband being beer-less, she picked up a ceramic squirrel (who doesn’t have a ceramic squirrel?), hit him over the head with it, then stabbed him in the shoulder and chest.

stabbed-husband-with-squirel.jpg

Helen Ann Williams

According to NBC, it was no joke. The police found the man covered in blood with cuts on his shoulder and face, and a huge gash in his chest.

But the best part of the whole thing? The final line in the NBC story online:

 

The condition of the squirrel wasn’t reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites