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.
I suspect you are kidding, I hope so. I can't remember the last time there was a story about a school or theater or public place where someone started taking people out in numbers with a blunt object. You have really got to be numb in the head and/or heart not to recognize the level of emotion, pain and suffering that goes with any atrocity committed.
Remember when back in the day it was airplane hijackings? Today it is mass shootings, terrorism. What is so hard to understand about the public outcry in all these cases, that more needs to be done, better needs to be done?
I can't and won't deny that lots of efforts are not as sensible or successful as we would like. That sentiment is certainly not only when it comes to gun-control but just about everything else we try to do when it comes to reducing crime, violence, drug abuse, tax evasion and on and on...
I get those arguments a lot better than I get the ones that suggest the effort is "anti-gun" and all about "photo-ops" and the like. Here again, we do no one any favors with all the "them vs us" rhetoric when it is really them (who perpetrate gun violence) against all of us (law-abiding citizens).
It's true hammers kill more than rifles.
It's also true banning objects wouldn't reduce murder - Look at Canada, UK and Australia. None of their gun bans reduced murder rate.
Japan's annual suicide rate has hovered around the 30,000 mark since the late 1990s, making it one of the highest rates in the world. And they have few guns. People will find a way to do it.
Maybe because lack of guns, the Japanese have no way of releasing their frustration so they are just killed by ropes. We should ban ropes so that they wouldn't be able to kill themselves.
I for one highly respect proper analysis, good statistics -- facts, and I certainly have never attempted to use facts or numbers in any sort of "disingenuous" manner. At worst, I have posted statistics like these with the hopes of comments that might either further support or better clarify what should be known when it comes to comparing "apples with apples." In this regard, I do appreciate this comment by wutitiz...
Even better, however, would be the numbers that actually do break out these subsets of deaths by firearms, because for the most part the more commonly reported statistics do attempt to match like with like. IOW, if suicides are counted in the American numbers, they are included as well with the numbers of other countries.
With any such analysis, I think the sane approach is to take murders and homicides in their totality, then worry about breaking down whether they were gun related or not.
Quote:
Here, for example, is perhaps a better or at least different look at these numbers a little more specifically defined:
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has a site called Global Study on Homicide. Rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants.
Intentional homicide, as defined by UNODC, is "unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person".
By region
UNODC murder rates, most recent year (generally 2012)
Region/Rate/Count
Americas/16.3/157,000
Africa/12.5/135,000
World /6.2/437,000
Europe/3.0/22,000
Oceania/3.0/1,100
Asia 2.9 122,000
Breakdown by continent, but combining North and South America? By lumping us in with Central and South America, it's an excellent ploy to make the USA look absolutely awful. All of the top 6 nations in murder rate are in the Americas. But what has that got to do with the USA? Honduras has a murder rate of 84.3 per 100,000. That is WAAAY higher than the USA's 4.7 per 100,000. Barely even the same planet there.
When you look at the numbers, it's quite remarkable that there are so many nations where guns are completely illegal that manage to out-murder and out-suicide the USA by huge margins. It is noteworthy that France, Iceland, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Hungary and Japan all have higher suicide rates than the USA -- which would tend to cast serious doubt on whether the legality of firearms actually increases suicide rates.
It is claimed but not proven that murder and suicide rates are higher if you have widespread ownership of guns. Therein lies the problem with the entire gun-control movement: We don't for certain that we'd be any better off if they had their way. The arduous journey of disarming America, which they believe so strongly in, is a high price for uncertain results.
With any such analysis, I think the sane approach is to take murders and homicides in their totality, then worry about breaking down whether they were gun related or not.
Breakdown by continent, but combining North and South America? By lumping us in with Central and South America, it's an excellent ploy to make the USA look absolutely awful. All of the top 6 nations in murder rate are in the Americas. But what has that got to do with the USA? Honduras has a murder rate of 84.3 per 100,000. That is WAAAY higher than the USA's 4.7 per 100,000. Barely even the same planet there.
When you look at the numbers, it's quite remarkable that there are so many nations where guns are completely illegal that manage to out-murder and out-suicide the USA by huge margins. It is noteworthy that France, Iceland, Belgium, Finland, Poland, Hungary and Japan all have higher suicide rates than the USA -- which would tend to cast serious doubt on whether the legality of firearms actually increases suicide rates.
It is claimed but not proven that murder and suicide rates are higher if you have widespread ownership of guns. Therein lies the problem with the entire gun-control movement: We don't for certain that we'd be any better off if they had their way. The arduous journey of disarming America, which they believe so strongly in, is a high price for uncertain results.
Gun ownership does not even have a correlation with murder rate or suicide rate, let along causation. None whatsoever.
But hey, facts and truth don't matter in this debate!
This is why I seriously doubt the truthfulness and ethics of the pro gun control people.
With any such analysis, I think the sane approach is to take murders and homicides in their totality, then worry about breaking down whether they were gun related or not.
Breakdown by continent, but combining North and South America? By lumping us in with Central and South America, it's an excellent ploy to make the USA look absolutely awful.
A good point, but again I don't think there is any "ploy" here other than to get at the numbers fairly and accurately. I apologize because it seems I didn't provide the link from where these numbers came, but anyone could Google them like I just did again to get a closer look.
If you do have a closer look, you will see that the U.S. doesn't do all that bad compared to the average of all countries -- true. However, what I don't much like seeing is which countries do worse than us vs better. I don't think our rate or rank is anything for any of us to be proud about.
If you have a look at the complete list, the great majority of countries that we consider the more advanced and civilized, where you are more likely to vacation for pleasure rather than avoid out of fear of bodily harm, those countries have a better rate and lower ranking than we do.
I don't get much comfort knowing that places like Venezuela and South Africa rank worse than we do...
A good point, but again I don't think there is any "ploy" here other than to get at the numbers fairly and accurately. I apologize because it seems I didn't provide the link from where these numbers came, but anyone could Google them like I just did again to get a closer look.
If you do have a closer look, you will see that the U.S. doesn't do all that bad compared to the average of all countries -- true. However, what I don't much like seeing is which countries do worse than us vs better. I don't think our rate or rank is anything for any of us to be proud about.
If you have a look at the complete list, the great majority of countries that we consider the more advanced and civilized, where you are more likely to vacation for pleasure rather than avoid out of fear of bodily harm, those countries have a better rate and lower ranking than we do.
I don't get much comfort knowing that places like Venezuela and South Africa rank worse than we do...
Agreed, it's by no means a matter pride that our murder rate is so high. How much of that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the negative impacts of Prohibition and then by the War on Drugs? How much of our murder rate is currently a direct result of each of those?
The mistaken assumption is that because we have the most liberal gun ownership laws in the world, our murder rate is much higher as a result. I'm not at all convinced that there even is a direct correlation between people having guns and murder rates. Too many nations massively out-murder the USA in which guns are strictly illegal. I know it seems like an obvious logical leap, but logical leaps of any kind must be based upon facts and never an "it seems obvious to me" supposition.
Case in point, you mentioned that you are of the opinion that having guns around = easier to commit suicide = higher suicide rate ... but then Japan, France, Finland and several others beat the USA at suicide. So what seems like an obvious conclusion doesn't necessarily hold up when you look at it more closely.
You have really got to be numb in the head and/or heart not to recognize the level of emotion, pain and suffering that goes with any atrocity committed.
You've got to be numb in the head to seriously believe that public policy should be based on an emotional response to a statistically insignificant event. The financial cost and loss of freedoms required to completely eliminate these tragic events would be astronomical.
Quote:
Remember when back in the day it was airplane hijackings? Today it is mass shootings, terrorism. What is so hard to understand about the public outcry in all these cases, that more needs to be done, better needs to be done?
Seriously? Media-induced irrational hysteria (aka, "public outcry") is your metric by which an issue is deemed worthy of intense government intervention?
Luckily, our founding fathers had the foresight to understand the perils of a pure democracy. People who think like you are precisely the reason everything isn't decided by referendum.
A good point, but again I don't think there is any "ploy" here other than to get at the numbers fairly and accurately. I apologize because it seems I didn't provide the link from where these numbers came, but anyone could Google them like I just did again to get a closer look.
If you do have a closer look, you will see that the U.S. doesn't do all that bad compared to the average of all countries -- true. However, what I don't much like seeing is which countries do worse than us vs better. I don't think our rate or rank is anything for any of us to be proud about.
If you have a look at the complete list, the great majority of countries that we consider the more advanced and civilized, where you are more likely to vacation for pleasure rather than avoid out of fear of bodily harm, those countries have a better rate and lower ranking than we do.
I don't get much comfort knowing that places like Venezuela and South Africa rank worse than we do...
The problem with lists like that, especially on Wikipedia where anyone can edit it, is not every county counts crimes, even homicides the same. In the US every death is marked a homicide until proven otherwise, natural causes, suicide, accident, etc. In the UK a death isn't counted as a homicide until someone is convicted for the killing. That will skew the stats, but it is never accounted for, particularly by people who have an agenda to paint the US in a negative light.
It's also rather absurd to boil the murder rate down to one number for the entire US. Idaho has a murder rate of 2 / 100,000, in Louisiana it's 10.3, New Hampshire is 0.9 / 100,000. Baltimores homicide rate is 49/100,000 and East St. Louis is an absurd 86/ 100,000! Clearly there are some very bad cities in the US which drag up the US average but don't reflect the vast majority of the country. An 86/100k murder rate 3,000 miles away doesn't make me feel unsafe.
Agreed, it's by no means a matter pride that our murder rate is so high. How much of that wouldn't exist if it weren't for the negative impacts of Prohibition and then by the War on Drugs? How much of our murder rate is currently a direct result of each of those?
The mistaken assumption is that because we have the most liberal gun ownership laws in the world, our murder rate is much higher as a result. I'm not at all convinced that there even is a direct correlation between people having guns and murder rates. Too many nations massively out-murder the USA in which guns are strictly illegal. I know it seems like an obvious logical leap, but logical leaps of any kind must be based upon facts and never an "it seems obvious to me" supposition.
Case in point, you mentioned that you are of the opinion that having guns around = easier to commit suicide = higher suicide rate ... but then Japan, France, Finland and several others beat the USA at suicide. So what seems like an obvious conclusion doesn't necessarily hold up when you look at it more closely.
All well put.
Tell me, how did Prohibition affect the murder rates today? I'm not sure those "negative impacts" have more to do with our murder rate today over the exceptional number of guns in America, or whether this too is more assumption than substantiated fact, but I'm curious to know more about this.
I am also curious about the full story when it comes to these countries that "massively out-murder the USA in which guns are strictly illegal." Which are these countries? Hopefully you are not introducing those where tribal warfare with machetes is the leading cause of murder! I did a quick Google check, and found this:
• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.
While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
Finally, the statistics around suicide are also complex and problematical, because the number and causes from one country to the next, regardless the manner, are all too often a function of what is going on in those countries that more directly correlates to cause. I too don't think a gun is really "cause" for anything. It is the person who has access to a gun that has cause, not the gun. However, I am a little more concerned about the person with a gun over the one without when it comes to the cause of doing harm.
You've got to be numb in the head to seriously believe that public policy should be based on an emotional response to a statistically insignificant event. The financial cost and loss of freedoms required to completely eliminate these tragic events would be astronomical.
Seriously? Media-induced irrational hysteria (aka, "public outcry") is your metric by which an issue is deemed worthy of intense government intervention?
Luckily, our founding fathers had the foresight to understand the perils of a pure democracy. People who think like you are precisely the reason everything isn't decided by referendum.
My comment should not be equated to mean I "seriously believe that public policy should be based on an emotional response..."
Maybe close would be to simply recognize that attention of public policy makers is appropriate when something like 20 children (and 6 adults) are murdered in a mass shooting. Then too when such an exceptional event starts to become less exceptional. Can't believe this even needs saying...
"Media-induced irrational hysteria" you say? What is my metric you ask? Do you mean how many before we should consider the matter worthy of public attention?
Please when it comes to the foresight of our Founding Fathers and lessons thereof. You need not explain to me, anyway, the reason for referendum. I have never suggested otherwise and never will. Hopefully our opinions somehow make a difference when it comes to what Congress decides, and I am no fool to think that any opinion here matters more than what Congress decides, and thank goodness for that, because all too many of the opinions expressed here seem perfectly accepting of yet another mass shooting.
Just chock up the emotions around all that to "media-induced irrational hysteria." Right...
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.
Thanks!
