| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2014 12:28:40 PM · #51 |
Another example that doesn't fit the narrative that "less guns equals less murders" is Iceland. They rank 15th in the world for gun ownership per capita yet have one of the lowest murder rates. Other countries which have a surprisingly high number of guns and low murder rates: Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France.
But, listen, in full disclosure of my opinion, I am no fan of the NRA and I think reasonable gun control is both a good idea and very unlikely to happen in this country given our Constitution and modern interpretation. I just don't think there is as strong a correlation between guns and murders as the narrative expresses.
I also think the astute arguer might look into the number of handguns in those counter-example countries and see if there is something there.
I'm just here to throw fuel on the fire or, perhaps, to actually make people think. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:37:44 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Cory:
By this logic, we can dramatically lower the number of car accidents by selling more trucks, since if there are fewer cars on the road, clearly there will be fewer car accidents. |
Trucks are just bigger cars like a assault weapons are bigger guns, and a big reduction in vehicles from baseline would indeed mean fewer traffic accidents. In other news, drowning is more likely in areas with pools or bodies of water.
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 13:06:46. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:39:56 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also think the astute arguer might look into the number of handguns in those counter-example countries and see if there is something there. |
I think that it's been pretty clear for a while is that the problems are largely based on the easy availability of cheap handguns, and to some extent rapid-fire semi-automatic quasi-military weapons, not the long guns typically used for hunting.
I think it might also be useful to track whether murder rates in those countries change as/if their populations get more heterogenous ...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just here to throw fuel on the fire ... |
As we've long suspected ... ;-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:49:10 PM · #54 |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 12:54:39 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=DrAchoo]I'm just here to throw fuel on the fire ... |
As we've long suspected ... ;-) |
You didn't finish Achoo's sentence but rather left it as you wanted. Here is what he said....
"I'm just here to throw fuel on the fire or, perhaps, to actually make people think"
Here is what he said, in my opinion...."I'm just here to actually make people think"
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 12:59:53. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 01:05:02 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Another example that doesn't fit the narrative that "less guns equals less murders" is Iceland. They rank 15th in the world for gun ownership per capita yet have one of the lowest murder rates. Other countries which have a surprisingly high number of guns and low murder rates: Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, France. |
All of which have less than half the U.S. rate of gun ownership and much stricter gun control laws. Automatics, semiautomatics, rifles over 8mm caliber and most handguns are banned in Iceland, and the guns you can get require a license, registration, purchase from a legal gun dealer, training course, police test and medical/mental exam. Police also inspect homes for proper storage. This is the country you choose for comparison? Shockingly (LOL), these countries all rank among the top 10 in gun suicides. Switzerland was fairly lax until the 1990's when the crime rate spiked and that country had become the de facto source for European terrorists and Balkan warlords. Now they have gun control laws that would give the NRA a conniption, with even stricter measures pending. Meanwhile, back in the land of the free...
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 13:05:29. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 03:30:41 PM · #57 |
Guns are simply tools used for a purpose. Like a car, a truck, a hammer or a motorcycle, screwdriver or a knife. All can be used responsibly, all can be used safely. It depends on the operator.
Some people who have no use for something see the consequences of its irresponsible use and become outraged at the fact such a thing is even allowed to exist at all. Then they decide their views should be self-righteously imposed on everyone since in their judgement, such things are nothing more than implements of death and destruction, that will practically kill everyone who lays eyes on it.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2014 04:44:46 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are simply tools used for a purpose. Like a car, a truck, a hammer or a motorcycle, screwdriver or a knife. All can be used responsibly, all can be used safely. It depends on the operator.
Some people who have no use for something see the consequences of its irresponsible use and become outraged at the fact such a thing is even allowed to exist at all. Then they decide their views should be self-righteously imposed on everyone since in their judgement, such things are nothing more than implements of death and destruction, that will practically kill everyone who lays eyes on it. |
Some people who cling to fear and paranoia imagine any mention of gun control as your all-or-nothing scenario and launch into excuses, denial and slippery slope diatribes to block universal background checks and loophole closures that the vast majority support. Guns are simply tools that can be used safely and responsibly for sport or hobby with the same sort of safety measures and regulations that we already readily accept for cars and trucks (see Australia or Iceland). You can't drive a battle tank to work without special permit or even cruise in a Honda without qualifying license, registration and safety inspections, and we do more to track fishing licenses than guns without wild rants that the government might come for your tackle box. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 05:25:05 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Guns are simply tools used for a purpose. Like a car, a truck, a hammer or a motorcycle, screwdriver or a knife. All can be used responsibly, all can be used safely. It depends on the operator.
Some people who have no use for something see the consequences of its irresponsible use and become outraged at the fact such a thing is even allowed to exist at all. Then they decide their views should be self-righteously imposed on everyone since in their judgement, such things are nothing more than implements of death and destruction, that will practically kill everyone who lays eyes on it. |
Some people who cling to fear and paranoia imagine any mention of gun control as your all-or-nothing scenario and launch into excuses, denial and slippery slope diatribes to block universal background checks and loophole closures that the vast majority support. Guns are simply tools that can be used safely and responsibly for sport or hobby with the same sort of safety measures and regulations that we already readily accept for cars and trucks (see Australia or Iceland). You can't drive a battle tank to work without special permit or even cruise in a Honda without qualifying license, registration and safety inspections, and we do more to track fishing licenses than guns without wild rants that the government might come for your tackle box. |
That's because there's no right to drive, it's a privilege. Fishing is also a privilege.
You're casually dismissive of that right and willing to restrict it to the point that it's no longer a right but a privilege because you choose not to exercise it yourself. You'd save a lot more lives and do society a lot more good by putting your efforts into improving driver education and placing greater requirements on having the privilege to drive than in rescinding people's rights.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2014 06:24:13 PM · #60 |
See, now is where the Aussie steps in again.
What the f*** do you mean? Fishing is a privilege???! Rubbish. Where I come from, fishing is most definitely my right!
(It may be slightly controlled, legislated and restricted in certain areas, but definitely still my right.)
;) |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 07:27:01 PM · #61 |
| Sorry Pam but anything that can be taken away is a privilege, it sucks, true. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 07:30:35 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by see:
Sorry Pam but anything that can be taken away is a privilege, it sucks, true. |
Precisely why we need to fight for our right to party. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 07:40:05 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by see:
Sorry Pam but anything that can be taken away is a privilege, it sucks, true. |
Precisely why we need to fight for our right to party. |
3MTA3 |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 07:41:49 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by pamb:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by see:
Sorry Pam but anything that can be taken away is a privilege, it sucks, true. |
Precisely why we need to fight for our right to party. |
3MTA3 |
Yes! |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 07:43:51 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by pamb:
See, now is where the Aussie steps in again.
What the f*** do you mean? Fishing is a privilege???! Rubbish. Where I come from, fishing is most definitely my right!
(It may be slightly controlled, legislated and restricted in certain areas, but definitely still my right.)
;) |
Yeah..... Sorry Pam, unless you are an indigenous Australian it's not a right anymore!
runs and ducks for cover |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 10:12:43 PM · #66 |
I found this to be quite surprising. Someone did the work of figuring out the correlation coefficient between number of guns per capita and murder rates by country. For those who aren't up on their statistics there are only two things to know about correlation coefficients (which is abbreviated as "r"). A positive r means that as one increases the other does too (in this case more guns would mean more murders). A negative r means that as one increases the other decreases (in this case more guns would mean fewer murders). The value runs between 0 and 1 (positive or negative). A value of zero means no correlation. The two are not related at all. A value of one means a perfect correlation. It is finally important to know that correlation does not infer causation and doesn't reveal the direction of "cause and effect". In other words, if guns and murders are correlated it could be that more guns lead to more murders, but it could also be that more murders lead to higher gun ownership.
Got that?
So, what is the correlation for all countries between gun ownership and murder rate? r=-0.199 Interpretation: as gun ownership goes up murder rates go down but the link is very weak.
The blogger then wonders if it's all those African wars that are skewing things. So he reruns the statistics for countries with a murder rate below 5 per 100,000. The correlation? r=-0.109 Interpretation: as gun ownership goes up murder rates go down but the link is even weaker (essentially nonexistent).
What about western world only? r=.472 A ha! As guns go up so do murders and the link is stronger (although .47 would still be considered only weak to moderate). However, the blogger correctly notes that the US is such an outlier that it alone skews the stats. Without the US? r=-0.16
Frankly, I've always thought it makes sense that more guns=more homicides, but these simple statistics show a powerful argument that it isn't the case at all. The link is very weak and, if anything, is inverse. All we really know is the United States has both a lot of guns and a lot of murders, but I don't think we can declare much else.
Go read the page. It's pretty well done. All statistics are garnered from two Wikipedia pages.
BTW, on a different page, the same blogger does the stats for murder rate and gun ownership by state. The correlation is literally zero.
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 22:18:15. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 10:30:11 PM · #67 |
The statistics are basically useless if you consider only gun murders and not gun deaths (including suicide, "justifiable homicide" and accidental death). The basic question is whether or not more guns = more people dying.
Unless, that is, you only pity murder victims, and think that the emotionally troubled and careless deserve to die ... |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 10:44:43 PM · #68 |
| I think you might also figure in the number of those who NEEDED to be shot. There are some in that category too you know. Wouldn't you agree? |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 10:50:09 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The statistics are basically useless if you consider only gun murders and not gun deaths (including suicide, "justifiable homicide" and accidental death). The basic question is whether or not more guns = more people dying.
Unless, that is, you only pity murder victims, and think that the emotionally troubled and careless deserve to die ... |
The other problem with these types of stats is the reliability of the data. The data only takes into account known civilian owned guns…that’s fine for countries with national gun registry and strict control but what about all the illegal guns and countries that have no registry? Have a look at some of the countries towards the bottom of the list guns per capita! Ghana, Rwanda and Malawi.
The numbers are based on the average of figures provided by the Small Arms Survey, in the Small Arms Survey 2007,[3] unless other sources are provided, and are an estimation based on dividing the total number of known civilian-owned guns in a country by the total population of that country. As some people may possess multiple firearms, this number does not necessarily represent the percentage of people who possess guns in each country.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2014 11:01:15 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The statistics are basically useless if you consider only gun murders and not gun deaths (including suicide, "justifiable homicide" and accidental death). The basic question is whether or not more guns = more people dying.
Unless, that is, you only pity murder victims, and think that the emotionally troubled and careless deserve to die ... |
Basically useless is a bit strong, isn't it? It speaks to what we generally fear, being killed by someone else with a gun. If you are worried about taking your own life with a gun, then this may not apply.
You are welcome to your opinions, but I think this is compelling enough that I will cease to argue that fewer guns would mean fewer murders. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 11:07:10 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are worried about taking your own life with a gun, then this may not apply. |
So as long as you yourself are not suicidal, then suicide is not a "problem" for you or society? Funny, I think most doctors seem to find it closer to a public health emergency ... |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 11:18:40 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I think you might also figure in the number of those who NEEDED to be shot. There are some in that category too you know. Wouldn't you agree? |
Ha! Yes. Absobloodylutely. I can think of a few.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2014 11:18:58 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are worried about taking your own life with a gun, then this may not apply. |
So as long as you yourself are not suicidal, then suicide is not a "problem" for you or society? Funny, I think most doctors seem to find it closer to a public health emergency ... |
I mainly think you are attempting to explain away contradictory information in order to keep a preconceived idea. Don't worry, we all do it. It's human nature.
If you actually want to discuss the suicide issue, you will need to present the correlation coefficient for suicide and gun ownership and how the data is strong enough to countermand the data above concerning gun ownership and simple homicides.
Message edited by author 2014-01-25 23:19:48. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 11:33:47 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
That's because there's no right to drive, it's a privilege. Fishing is also a privilege.
You're casually dismissive of that right and willing to restrict it to the point that it's no longer a right but a privilege because you choose not to exercise it yourself. You'd save a lot more lives and do society a lot more good by putting your efforts into improving driver education and placing greater requirements on having the privilege to drive than in rescinding people's rights. |
BZZZT, again. You're 0 for 2. |
|
|
|
01/25/2014 11:46:23 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you actually want to discuss the suicide issue, you will need to present the correlation coefficient for suicide and gun ownership and how the data is strong enough to countermand the data above concerning gun ownership and simple homicides. |
Wish granted, and the same holds true for homicides (a little more robust than "someone did the work"). Here's another, and another and another. The correlation is quite obvious.
Message edited by author 2014-01-26 00:08:15. |
|
