Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The estimated US intentional homicide rate was 5x higher than the UK's in 2011. So, the UK has a lower homicide rate and a lower firearm death rate. You commit a series of fallacies in attempting to shoehorn the data to fit your narrative. Further, intentional homicides specifically does not include unintentional homicides and suicides. When you say, "in both cases there is no evidence that gun control measures reduced homicides," the equivalent question is "there is no evidence that a lack of gun control measures reduced homicides." It is not always possible to tease out different causes of broad trends.
No there is no fallacy.
The figures don't lie and I'm not shoe-horning anything.
The US firearms homicide rate for 2011 is 3.55/100,000. The UK's firearms homicide rate for the same year is 0.05/100,000, the US rate is 71x higher than the UK rate, is that false?
The UK has a homicide rate of 1.0/100,000 and a firearms homicide rate of 0.05/100,000 therefore has a homicide rate that is 20x it's firearms homicide rate (to whit, you are 19 times more likely to be killed in the UK if you are killed by a means other than firearms) is that false?
The US has a homicide rate of 4.7/100,000 in 2011, therefore it's homicide rate is 4.7x higher than the UK for that year, it's firearms homicide rate is 3.55/100,000 and has a homicide rate that is 1.32 times higher than it's firearms homicide rate, is that false?
Is 1.0 approximately 50% higher than 0.65? (hint to increase 66% to 100% requires 33% more, but is a 50% increase in the original percentile).
The UK's homicide rate is higher than it was prior to gun control the figures show it. Australia's homicide rate did not begin to fall prior to 2004. How is that shoehorning? Look at the homicide rates, it's there in black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Multiple studies have looked at Australia's gun control efforts and come to different conclusions, ranging from "no evidence of impact" to "evidence of major impact." I have seen no study that comes to the result "evidence of no impact" or "evidence of negative impact."
I'm not saying that there was or was not impact, I'm saying that in Australia for 8 years post firearms regulation there was no evidence of impact, or evidence of no impact, there was no identifiable impact on homicide rates.
In the UK I'm saying that the homicide rate has increased to rates higher than prior to the three rounds of firearms regulations.
I'm drawing no conclusions other than if firearms regulations intended purpose is to reduce homicides it failed to do so in Australia for eight years post regulation, and the UK has a higher rate than it did prior to regulations beginning in 1968. Can you dispute those conclusions?
If you wish to hear my logical interpretation it's the following. Either firearms regulation had low or no impact on homicides, such that other factors created an increase in homicide higher than the impact that firearms regulations had. That being so it would make sense to identify and control those factors in preference to firearms. If we can identify and control those factors that led to an increase in homicides equal or greater to regulation of firearms, we would see a greater reduction in homicide than we may see if we regulate firearms.
If the reduction in homicides is the purpose, then that is the conclusion I derive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You also fail to note that Australia passed a series of gun control laws in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. That may or may not connect to the dramatic decline in Australia's homicide rate from the 90s to the 2000s. It also may or may not connect to the dramatic decline in firearm deaths in Australia. I imagine it contributes--it is not likely the only contributing factor, but it may well be one.
Australia did not, if anything Australia actually removed restrictions on firearms leading up to 1996, in 1956 people could not own handguns, in 1957 they could. In 1996 Tasmania you could own fully automatic weapons, the only state in Australia you could. NSW and other states in the 40's and 50's restricted ownership of military caliber rifles (in fear of communist uprisings) in the 70's these restrictions were lifted. There were some shootings in the 80's which led states to enact registration and some limitations on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, but no bans. Only in 1996 after Port Arthur were there significant changes to firearms regulations on the Federal Scale (you were aware that firearms laws prior to 1996 were generally State level, no?). So how far do you wish to go back to examine the effects of changing firearms laws?
Well lets look, pretty much from 1976 to 2004 Australia's homicide rate has hovered around 1.7/100,000 to 2.0/100,000 which is a reasonable and narrow tolerance (<20%). So what effects of the gun control laws in the 70's 80's and 90's are we looking for? From 1970 to 2004 the only years it was out of that band were
1988 (2.4), 1989 (2.1), 1998 (1.52), 2004 (1.50).
In 28 years 24 were within that band. I'm still not seeing much of a change, certainly no trend, there are no two consecutive years lower than the 2.0-1.7 band other than post 2004, which is 8 whole years after the Australian NFA.
Look if you want to say firearms homicides are more important than homicides, be honest. However if you want to do that you'd need to correct for ownership of firearms between countries, as well as population and number of homicides. People without cars aren't killed driving their cars. People without guns will most likely have lower firearm homicide rates, but may not have lower homicide rates.
Other countries also should be looked at to include france, Norway, canada, and others and per capita, the U.S. is ranking just fine in defense of its citizens using firearms. The mindset is different...look at the terrorist on the train. Actually it's amazing that france called it terrorism and the ft good shootings were workplace violence.
there is nothing wrong with laws, regulations, policies, SOP, standards.....but they need to make sense and also be 'at least' ''slightly'' enforceble
"arms" are a right, and the "government" is restricted from making any laws that infringe that right, but they certainly can (and most conservatives even support) make standards...ie a waiting time...background check (enforcing that convicted felons are not allow to purchace....enforcing (especially with todays electronic medical reocrds) that people with mental problems not be allowed (BTW with electronic medical record, there is NO HIPA issue, as no one has to say the '''exact'' issue, an electronic redflag will automaticly ber posted))
banning guns, or ammo is not going to prevent one of these incidents that have happened...not one
how well did the ban on alcohol go in the 1920's....did it stop people from drinking...not...but it sure made a lot of people rich, like Joe Kennedy
Well I certainly agree with the facet of human behavior where you tell someone they can't do something and they'll show you how they can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
yes ...more education, more training.......require some classes.....heck most of us, who LEGALLY own handguns have taken the CC class
easier background checks.....heck with today's technology a COMPLETE background check could be done in MINUTES,...too include medical
Well then how about we get the states out of the picture and just have one simple federal system along with the education and training?
You mentioned mental health in your 1st post above: How much are gun owners willing to spend for better mental health awareness and coverage? It seems a lot of you folks have strong opinions on ACA and welfare in the other threads, are you willingly to compromise some?
A good question. Why have any laws. I have observed that when a dealing with an actual root cause there is a resulting effect on the symptom. When a placebo is utilized there is no statistically significant reduction in the observed symptom. When the incorrect root cause is addressed, the symptom is often unchanged or can actually become worse.
The statistics on gun control would seem to indicate that the laws being implemented are making the symptoms more severe, ie...increasing crime rates, higher shooting incidents, etc... and are therefore likely to be addressing the wrong root cause.
It would be my guess that the gun is NOT the cause of the crime or shooting events. Since violent crime increases when guns are not legally available, the availability of the gun is not the trigger for crime. There should be a corresponding decrease in violent crime if the two were directly linked. In fact, since there appears to be an inverse correlation it makes more sense to believe more gun availability would decrease crime IF in fact gun availability is related at all.
It is more logical to think that there is another, as yet unaddressed, cause for violent crime and the rate of shootings instead of continuing to try to address crime with gun control.
Back to your question. We have laws because they define a mode of behavior for those inclined to conform to rules and to provide a means of discipline or punishment against those who do not. It is not expected that those with a criminal inclination will obey the laws, but that the penalty of that disobedience will reduce the frequency or permit incarceration or at least provide avenues for restitution.
In this case, possession or ownership of the gun is not what we wish to control and measure. The directives in the gun control laws attempt to control the possession, and thus fail to reduce the true condition, crime. We have laws against the crimes committed already, but are unable or unwilling to enforce them. The effect now is that our gun control efforts are just as logical as trying to control teen pregnancy by outlawing sex. Yes, the complete absence of sex will eliminate teen pregnancy, but unless we outlaw all sex and enforce it strictly, teen sex will still occur. Just like gun crime now, teen pregnancy will continue because not every one will obey the law. Current gun control depends upon steps to eliminate the ability of someone possessing a gun because criminals will continue to use them if they are available, so teen pregnancy would similarly only be controllable if teens are completely unable to find a way to find sex. Like with gun possession, not all sex flows through legal channels, so complete unavailability must be enforced. adults have been know to have sex with minors, so we must conclude that adults will no longer be allowed to have sex either so that availability is completely eliminated.
yeah, I don't see that working any better than how we address guns either. But, if it did we would not have to worry about guns for too many more years either unless they actually do learn to shoot themselves without human interaction.
I appreciate the effort. However, guns laws don't work because of the war on drugs and a patchwork of gun laws with loopholes. I'd throw in a our crap mental health policies to explain the massacres, as mental health is costly and there's a vocal group in this country that doesn't much like spending.
I will be the first to say that we really need to rethink our stance on the war on drugs, and criminalizing folks for what they put in their bodies. Honestly, I say make 'em all legal, because if you're stupid enough to ingest stuff like heroin, or crack, then eventually Darwin is going to catch up with you. Of course, then there is no excuse then to knock over a convenient store to get your fix, or kill someone in a drug deal gone bad, and if you do, then you get punished harshly for the violence you've committed. At any rate, prohibition of anything be it drugs, alcohol, guns, whatever causes more harm to innocent peope than the actual substance or object being banned due the black market that is created.
Guns and drugs go hand in hand. You can't crack down on drugs without getting control of the guns.
.
Well I certainly agree with the facet of human behavior where you tell someone they can't do something and they'll show you how they can.
Well then how about we get the states out of the picture and just have one simple federal system along with the education and training?
You mentioned mental health in your 1st post above: How much are gun owners willing to spend for better mental health awareness and coverage? It seems a lot of you folks have strong opinions on ACA and welfare in the other threads, are you willingly to compromise some?
what type of compromise are you talking about, I am not sure where you are going with that, please explain
1. the ACA...what I dont like about the ACA is 2000 pages of circle talk...and mandating people BUY insurance they cant afford
2. welfare..should be a helping hand up...
3. I am pretty sure the NSA and the FBI watch the internet (social boards etc) for people making statements that would be construed as threats...ie risk management, to find some of the threats to the USA of its people
4. most conservatives and EVEN THE NRA have zero problems with background checks....easier background checks.....heck with today's technology a COMPLETE background check could be done in MINUTES,...too include medical (and a 'red flag' will NOT violate hipa laws either)
5. better medical documentation and referalls.....if some one has a mental issue..document it for jiminy crickets sake..... young adults like adam lanza should have been committed to an institution long ago...and had the doctors and his mother actually seeked help for the boy, he would have
6. most conservatives and EVEN THE NRA have zero problems ......more education, more training.......require some classes.....heck most of us, who LEGALLY own handguns have taken the CC class....and the standard could set set federally, but the states have control of how they do it, to accomplish the mission
7. better communication between all of our alphabet/federal/state/city/local agencies.....that would help too, and not only about purchasing weapons, but all other things too such as missing child support, revoked licenses, voting registration, laudenberg rules, medical mistakes(would it be nice if doctor A knew that doctor B perscribed this, so he/she can NOT perscribe something that will counteract/bad side effect medicine(to include RX(A) knowing that RX(B) filled dis,dat or the other ding, etc)))
8. over 50% of the homeless are Vets, and over 85% of the homeless are homeless becuase of mental health issues... yet the liberals NEVER address it
WHAT ARE THE LIBERALS GOING TO DO/POLICY/FUND TO HELP WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSSUES THAT ARE PLAGUING AMERICA......?????????
but to ban guns and to confisgate all weapons would not only be a violation of our 2nd amendment right...but also of the 4th amendment.......... the funny thing is liberals were all up in arms (pun intended) about "stop and frisk" saying it violated the 4th amendment.......hmmmm
I've said it before and I will say it again. Nothing about this issue will ever be addressed properly, until many in this country face reality. Something many Americans don't seem capable of doing any longer.
That reality is to face up to why are guns, so extremely important in this country. It won't work any longer with many in this country, that the 2nd Amendment is the be all end all reason. Or that the Gov't is going to ban all guns in this country. We all know that is never going to happen. So why all this love for guns, that even the most limitless laws upsets people so much. Such as banning assault rifles. I still don't get why anyone needs some of these types of guns. It would seem to me many put guns, before human life in this country anymore. If not explain to me why nothing has been done since Sandy Hook. That day speaks volumes on this issue. Actually we all know the reason. Politics. Politics because Politicians are representing the views of many Americans. Those views want nothing in our laws to even attempt at curbing violence. I mean lets be honest about it. Many just don't give a rat's ass if we all lost someone as long as there were no laws, limiting their guns or methods of getting them in this country. Even if the laws said they could have all their guns, they would just have to pass a proper check to purchase them. Even that is beyond what they can tolerate. So evidently many just want a free for all. Gets guns all over the place and everyone have them.. It's actually a disgrace and makes me more and more ashamed, to be associated with a country behaving like this. . I'm actually embarrassed by the whole ignorant issue, when people from other countries ask me about all these constant shootings.
So my point is nothing gets done on either end, until people are completely truthful as to why guns are so important in this country.
The figures don't lie and I'm not shoe-horning anything.
The US firearms homicide rate for 2011 is 3.55/100,000. The UK's firearms homicide rate for the same year is 0.05/100,000, the US rate is 71x higher than the UK rate, is that false?
The UK has a homicide rate of 1.0/100,000 and a firearms homicide rate of 0.05/100,000 therefore has a homicide rate that is 20x it's firearms homicide rate (to whit, you are 19 times more likely to be killed in the UK if you are killed by a means other than firearms) is that false?
The US has a homicide rate of 4.7/100,000 in 2011, therefore it's homicide rate is 4.7x higher than the UK for that year, it's firearms homicide rate is 3.55/100,000 and has a homicide rate that is 1.32 times higher than it's firearms homicide rate, is that false?
Is 1.0 approximately 50% higher than 0.65? (hint to increase 66% to 100% requires 33% more, but is a 50% increase in the original percentile).
The UK's homicide rate is higher than it was prior to gun control the figures show it. Australia's homicide rate did not begin to fall prior to 2004. How is that shoehorning? Look at the homicide rates, it's there in black and white.
I'm not saying that there was or was not impact, I'm saying that in Australia for 8 years post firearms regulation there was no evidence of impact, or evidence of no impact, there was no identifiable impact on homicide rates.
In the UK I'm saying that the homicide rate has increased to rates higher than prior to the three rounds of firearms regulations.
I'm drawing no conclusions other than if firearms regulations intended purpose is to reduce homicides it failed to do so in Australia for eight years post regulation, and the UK has a higher rate than it did prior to regulations beginning in 1968. Can you dispute those conclusions?
If you wish to hear my logical interpretation it's the following. Either firearms regulation had low or no impact on homicides, such that other factors created an increase in homicide higher than the impact that firearms regulations had. That being so it would make sense to identify and control those factors in preference to firearms. If we can identify and control those factors that led to an increase in homicides equal or greater to regulation of firearms, we would see a greater reduction in homicide than we may see if we regulate firearms.
If the reduction in homicides is the purpose, then that is the conclusion I derive.
Australia did not, if anything Australia actually removed restrictions on firearms leading up to 1996, in 1956 people could not own handguns, in 1957 they could. In 1996 Tasmania you could own fully automatic weapons, the only state in Australia you could. NSW and other states in the 40's and 50's restricted ownership of military caliber rifles (in fear of communist uprisings) in the 70's these restrictions were lifted. There were some shootings in the 80's which led states to enact registration and some limitations on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, but no bans. Only in 1996 after Port Arthur were there significant changes to firearms regulations on the Federal Scale (you were aware that firearms laws prior to 1996 were generally State level, no?). So how far do you wish to go back to examine the effects of changing firearms laws?
Well lets look, pretty much from 1976 to 2004 Australia's homicide rate has hovered around 1.7/100,000 to 2.0/100,000 which is a reasonable and narrow tolerance (<20%). So what effects of the gun control laws in the 70's 80's and 90's are we looking for? From 1970 to 2004 the only years it was out of that band were
1988 (2.4), 1989 (2.1), 1998 (1.52), 2004 (1.50).
In 28 years 24 were within that band. I'm still not seeing much of a change, certainly no trend, there are no two consecutive years lower than the 2.0-1.7 band other than post 2004, which is 8 whole years after the Australian NFA.
Look if you want to say firearms homicides are more important than homicides, be honest. However if you want to do that you'd need to correct for ownership of firearms between countries, as well as population and number of homicides. People without cars aren't killed driving their cars. People without guns will most likely have lower firearm homicide rates, but may not have lower homicide rates.
Note: 3 of the top 6 negative correlations with gun deaths are gun control measures.
You are making conclusions that are unsupported:
"to whit, you are 19 times more likely to be killed in the UK if you are killed by a means other than firearms." I assume you mean that you are 19 times more likely to die in a homicide without a firearm than in a homicide with a firearm. Yet you are less likely to die in any kind of homicide in the UK than you are to die in a homicide with a firearm in the US.
You are trying to compare the UK homicide rate 50 years ago to the present day and attribute the difference solely to gun control measures. That doesn't make sense and you have shown no correlation.
"I'm drawing no conclusions other than if firearms regulations intended purpose is to reduce homicides it failed to do so in Australia for eight years post regulation, and the UK has a higher rate than it did prior to regulations beginning in 1968. Can you dispute those conclusions?"
The homicide and murder rates fall steadily from peaks of 2/100,000 & 1.8/100,000 in 1998 to 1.3/100,000 & 1.1/100,000 in 2012. There is noise, but a clear trend. Those are declines of 35% and 39%, respectively.
UK: You can't compare 1968 and 2010-12 and imagine that the differences are all attributable to 1968 firearms regulations. You have shown no evidence supporting that theory. You are also ignoring gun regulations in the 80s, 90s, and 00s (and contemporaneous homicide declines). You are also ignoring that the UK homicide rate is lower than the US firearm-only homicide rate.
And by focusing on homicides, you completely ignore suicides and unintentional deaths. Most firearm deaths are suicides, and there is a great deal of study strongly suggesting that fewer guns leads to fewer suicides.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
15 year old "gunman" murders in Australia
Gun Control Does Not Work
