Thread: Guns in the USA

An interesting interview in the latest New Scientist magazine. 28 September 2013, page 30.

Professor Garen Wintermute in a professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program, at the University of California.

He makes a lot of interesting points about guns in the USA. The following facts are from his interview.
Guns cost 30,000 lives each year in the USA, about the same as car accident deaths. It appears there is a major effort inside the American government to avoid learning the truth about this problem. Research into motor vehicle accident deaths is $ 4 million per year, and into gun deaths is only $ 200,000. Prof Wintermute says this is a conscious and deliberate policy.

With so little research, Americans do not even know the major rsk factors, or the best ways to lower the death toll. Statistics are sparse.

There are a few other points too, which I will raise if the discussion makes them relevant.

Originally Posted by skeptic

An interesting interview in the latest New Scientist magazine. 28 September 2013, page 30.

Professor Garen Wintermute in a professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program, at the University of California.

He makes a lot of interesting points about guns in the USA. The following facts are from his interview.
Guns cost 30,000 lives each year in the USA, about the same as car accident deaths. It appears there is a major effort inside the American government to avoid learning the truth about this problem. Research into motor vehicle accident deaths is $ 4 million per year, and into gun deaths is only $ 200,000. Prof Wintermute says this is a conscious and deliberate policy.

With so little research, Americans do not even know the major rsk factors, or the best ways to lower the death toll. Statistics are sparse.

There are a few other points too, which I will raise if the discussion makes them relevant.

Does this number include:

Suicides

Justifiable homicides

Killings by law enforcement agencies?

jocular

The CDC is even prohibited from studying the issues related to gun...quite unique given their mission and ability to study just about every other problem that presents a hazard.

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by skeptic

An interesting interview in the latest New Scientist magazine. 28 September 2013, page 30.

Professor Garen Wintermute in a professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program, at the University of California.

He makes a lot of interesting points about guns in the USA. The following facts are from his interview.
Guns cost 30,000 lives each year in the USA, about the same as car accident deaths. It appears there is a major effort inside the American government to avoid learning the truth about this problem. Research into motor vehicle accident deaths is $ 4 million per year, and into gun deaths is only $ 200,000. Prof Wintermute says this is a conscious and deliberate policy.

With so little research, Americans do not even know the major rsk factors, or the best ways to lower the death toll. Statistics are sparse.

There are a few other points too, which I will raise if the discussion makes them relevant.

Does this number include:

Suicides

Justifiable homicides

Killings by law enforcement agencies?

jocular

Those numbers are used to pad the figures and New Scientist is known to do articles on this non-scientific yet political issue. Clearly, someone at New Scientist has an agenda.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The CDC is even prohibited from studying the issues related to gun...quite unique given their mission and ability to study just about every other problem that presents a hazard.

Just about every problem... The Center for DISEASE Control, you mean? Wow, I had no idea that firearmitis was caused by a Virus...

Just about every problem... The Center for DISEASE Control, you mean? Wow, I had no idea that firearmitis was caused by a Virus...

Funnily enough, the CDC also keeps statistics on domestic violence, suicide, accidental deaths of various kinds.

The full name of the organisation is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just because they're best known for tracking contagious diseases, it doesn't detract from their prime objective being to keep track of all public health problems. For example CDC - Child Passenger Safety - Motor Vehicle Safety - Injury Center

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Just about every problem... The Center for DISEASE Control, you mean? Wow, I had no idea that firearmitis was caused by a Virus...

Neither are car crashes, traumatic brain injury, falls, child abuse, drug overdose, suicide, lead poisoning, chemical safety, construction site risks or child abuse. But they research those as well.

Ok... So the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has been using its funding to research things far outside of its purpose, including car crashes and whatnot... people began to question the inflated budget- this led to the restriction of the inflated budget from spending tax dollars outside of what its original assigned responsibilities were... and now people say, "The CDC has been prohibited from doing studies on firearms."

Maybe it's because it was bloating the funding.

Maybe it's because it kept shoving itself into studies on things that are not diseases nor related to disease prevention.

Maybe it's not prohibited from studies on firearms, but frivolous spending outside of its scope...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Ok... So the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has been using its funding to research things far outside of its purpose, including car crashes and whatnot.

No, that is its purpose. Sort of how the DMV in most states also licenses trailers even though they don't have motors, or how NOAA also looks at temperatures on land.

Maybe it's not prohibited from studies on firearms, but frivolous spending outside of its scope...

No. They didn't just cut that money. They put it back into the CDC, specifically into traumatic brain injury (which isn't a virus either.) It was done at the request of the NRA, who was worried they would lose sales if CDC studies showed gun ownership increased the risk of death. They feared specifically that "firearm-related injury research at the CDC would amount to 'antigun' political advocacy." (from an APA paper.) It's something of a chilling admission from the NRA that they know they can't let research be done into that area, because it would show those dangers.

The equivalent would be Monsanto fearing that research on food-borne disease might impact their profits, and then managing to get all funding for such diseases cut.

Originally Posted by billvon

No, that is its purpose. Sort of how the DMV in most states also licenses trailers even though they don't have motors, or how NOAA also looks at temperatures on land.

Oh Come on. You cannot be serious...
Trailer for Motor Vehicle is to Motor Vehicle as Firearm is to diabetes?

Originally Posted by billvon

Maybe it's not prohibited from studies on firearms, but frivolous spending outside of its scope...

No. They didn't just cut that money. They put it back into the CDC, specifically into traumatic brain injury (which isn't a virus either.) It was done at the request of the NRA, who was worried they would lose sales if CDC studies showed gun ownership increased the risk of death. They feared specifically that "firearm-related injury research at the CDC would amount to 'antigun' political advocacy." (from an APA paper.) It's something of a chilling admission from the NRA that they know they can't let research be done into that area, because it would show those dangers.

The equivalent would be Monsanto fearing that research on food-borne disease might impact their profits, and then managing to get all funding for such diseases cut.

This is total nonsense. You're basically claiming that the NRA dictates what goes on in a Democrat majority (currently) government in a mad cap conspiracy laden caper.

The CDC has been broader than just disease for more than 40 years, serving as not only the consolidated collection and reporting for all deaths in the US, but often asked to report on workplace, home and recreational risk, as well as emergency medical response systems. They made their first report about gun injuries in 1993, a tiny fraction of the work they've done on a variety of health topics.

In a way it's sad when an Australian knows more than Americans about one of our most important federal agencies.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

In a way it's sad when an Australian knows more than Americans about one of our most important federal agencies.

That particular Australian is a particularly well rounded and well informed and highly scientific individual. Your comparison simply fails to apply.

You may be correct on the other aspect, though. It does stand to reason, however, that the CDC acting as the Center for Death Control is a bit--- Odd.

I think I made a valid point in questioning any claim that the CDC is specifically prohibited from making such studies and I believe that should be heavily examined.
Consider how often claims are spun that are not very accurate to the perspective of the other side, such as claims made about Obamas Health Care Plan.

I think I made a valid point in questioning any claim that the CDC is specifically prohibited from making such studies and I believe that should be heavily examined.

It's easy for an Australian to remember the ban on research into gun violence.

1996 Australia: Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which led to a massive program of guns being made illegal and those guns that are legal are held in strict security.

1996 America: NRA-Inspired, Congressionally Enacted, Funding Ban Stymies Gun Safety Research - Science Careers Blog

The current law reads: ”None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the centres for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

From this article. How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research | Business Insider Australia

Originally Posted by adelady

I think I made a valid point in questioning any claim that the CDC is specifically prohibited from making such studies and I believe that should be heavily examined.

It's easy for an Australian to remember the ban on research into gun violence.

1996 Australia: Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which led to a massive program of guns being made illegal and those guns that are legal are held in strict security.

1996 America: NRA-Inspired, Congressionally Enacted, Funding Ban Stymies Gun Safety Research - Science Careers Blog

The current law reads: ”None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the centres for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

From this article. How The NRA Killed Federal Funding For Gun Violence Research | Business Insider Australia

Invalid- One is a blog, the other is an opinionated media article in a country that has banned certain firearms when it got upset over the event in the first link you cited.

Invalid. What's invalid? The US has unusual, not to say extraordinary, attitudes and policies about guns unlike anything else in the other advanced democracies.

I was just pointing out how easy it can be for an Australian to know as much as, oftentimes more than, Americans do when it comes to their firearms laws.

Further background on the law which effectively banned CDC research in this area

Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

(My emphasis.)

Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze

Guns do not cost 30,000 lives per year. The misuse/negligence/rightful usage of firearms costs 30,000 lives per year. A kid may accidentally kill themselves/others, no fault of the gun, fault of the owner of the gun and whoever taught/didn't teach the child proper safety. An individual may commit suicide with a gun, but only to avoid suicide via hanging/asphyxiation/jumping/overdose/etc. Crime usage accounts for a significant portion of gun related deaths, crime usage is also negligent usage of a firearm. The figure of 30,000 lives does not take into account the variables, extenuating circumstances, etc. The other figure that would need to be addressed would be the number of lives saved by firearms. This would include...
Any instances where a firearm deterred would be thefts/assaults/, where the life of the individual could have been endangered. Any failed suicide attempts with a firearm, as other suicide methods may have yielded different results. Any occurrences of a human using a gun to scare off possible animal attacks. Any time a gun was used to retaliate against intruders. The list goes on. In the end, you'll have a largely inflated number based on assumptions such as the one listed in the OP.

Shlunka

I googled suicide and gun.
The New England Journal of Medicine has an excellent article readily available.

Couple of points about guns and suicide from the article.

1. Guns (along with hanging and jumping off a high place) have the highest 'success' rate in suicide. At least 90%.
2. Gun suicides in the USA are at least 60% of the total number of successful suicides.
3. The majority of suicides are done on impulse, and those who fail to die will not usually attempt suicide again.
4. The main method of attempting suicide in the USA is drugs, and this is nearly always unsuccessful.
5. Would-be suicides who have the impulse, have the impulse for a short time only - a few minutes to a couple hours.
6. If they do not find an easy method of committing suicide in that time, they do not try.

In other words, having a gun in the home drastically increases the chances of a successful suicide, either by the gun owner or spouse or child. If you are a parent, then owning a gun will substantially increase the odds of losing a child to suicide. Other methods are not so frequently used. For example, jumping from a high place is only 2% of all American suicides.

To Neverfly

I take it from your comments that you are American and a gun owner.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Shlunka

I googled suicide and gun.
The New England Journal of Medicine has an excellent article readily available.

Couple of points about guns and suicide from the article. (...) In other words, having a gun in the home drastically increases the chances of a successful suicide, either by the gun owner or spouse or child. If you are a parent, then owning a gun will substantially increase the odds of losing a child to suicide. Other methods are not so frequently used. For example, jumping from a high place is only 2% of all American suicides.

Are you referring to one of these studies?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by skeptic

To cogito.

I won't give you a single reference, since there are many.

However, if you google "new england journal of medicine suicide" you should get all the data you need. As I am sure you know, the NEJM is one of the world's most reputable peer reviewed medical research journals. Get your data from there, and you can be sure the data is sound. Lots of net references to suicide are unsound.

I found studies (Sloan, J.H. et al., 1990, Loftin, P. et al., 1991, Kellerman, L.A. et al., 1992) that seem to confirm your claims.

(cf. Suicidality in Human Blood.)

Originally Posted by adelady

Invalid. What's invalid? The US has unusual, not to say extraordinary, attitudes and policies about guns unlike anything else in the other advanced democracies.

I was just pointing out how easy it can be for an Australian to know as much as, oftentimes more than, Americans do when it comes to their firearms laws.

Further background on the law which effectively banned CDC research in this area

Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

(My emphasis.)

Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze

Sounds like Conspiracy Claims to me.

I pointed out that it's invalid and you responded with an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

In a way it's sad when an Australian knows more than Americans about one of our most important federal agencies.

That particular Australian is a particularly well rounded and well informed and highly scientific individual. Your comparison simply fails to apply.

Really? As if being well-rounded and well informed about science shouldn't be an American trait?

And it's rather off the mark in any case, since I'm not sure how being scientific translates into knowledge about other nation's federal programs.

--
And it's rather silly to call attempts by the NRA and other gun supporters to stop the CDC from exploring gun violence when the language which effectively stopped them from doing their mission to investigate health threats were put right into the passes legislation such as this from the 1997 Omnibus appropriations bill: "That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

They expanded the language in 2003 and even more to apply to all federal agencies in 2012.

No doubt true, Lynx. But it is also widely known that the NRA has a strong influence on congress, and has managed to stymie a wide range of initiatives on gun control.

It's true™!!!111 The NRA is the Illuminati!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control"

Is that equivalent to saying "Anyone who finds evidence supporting gun control will be guilty of misuse of funds."?
That would not be a very honest way to research safety issues with guns - it threatens to punish anyone that provides evidence that disagrees with anti-gun control.

Whether it was the NRA's influence - or just personal bias on the part of the law makers - it definitely discourages honest research into guns.
My first question would be: "What are they trying to hide?"

One thing the NRA isn't is the Illuminati. They're out there, front and centre, with explicit and specific political policies and objectives.

Which they didn't have until 1977.

A summary of a book on the subject.
NRA took hard right after leadership coup - SFGate

Fortunately, there are a few researchers not funded by government, and they are able to report on their findings. So far, this does not look good for the gun lobby. There is little doubt that having a gun in the home adds substantially to the risk of both suicide and of being murdered (or being the murderer).

I looked up a couple of other points.
1. Of the 100,000 people shot each year, about 25,000 to 30,000 die in spite of good medical treatments being available.
2. The second most common way of being murdered in the USA is by being stabbed. There are British stats for stabbing deaths, and it turns out that only 1 in 400 people getting stabbed dies of his/her wounds. Compared to the 1 in 4 for guns, that means guns are 100 times more lethal than knives.

The conclusion is that, if guns were not available to those who commit murder, even with knives, the murder rate would drop dramatically.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by jocular

Does this number include:

Suicides

Justifiable homicides

Killings by law enforcement agencies?

jocular

Those numbers are used to pad the figures and New Scientist is known to do articles on this non-scientific yet political issue. Clearly, someone at New Scientist has an agenda.

No, Neverfly they are not used to pad the figures. The figures are for deaths as a consequence of the use of a gun. Not for any single cause. They address the fact that a certain number of people die each year through gun use. That is what is reported.

The circumstances in which these gun deaths occur can be subject to many kinds of scientific analysis, so contrary to your faith based belief this is a scientific issue as well as a political one. And I have little doubt that the NS does have an agenda: it's editors think the deaths of 30,000 US lives is a matter that deserves some attention. Of course, if you are quite happy to see that number of people killed, for the most part unecessarily, then I have a small sand bucket you can use.

Originally Posted by John Galt

No, Neverfly they are not used to pad the figures. The figures are for deaths as a consequence of the use of a gun. Not for any single cause. They address the fact that a certain number of people die each year through gun use. That is what is reported.

The circumstances in which these gun deaths occur can be subject to many kinds of scientific analysis, so contrary to your faith based belief this is a scientific issue as well as a political one. And I have little doubt that the NS does have an agenda: it's editors think the deaths of 30,000 US lives is a matter that deserves some attention. Of course, if you are quite happy to see that number of people killed, for the most part unecessarily, then I have a small sand bucket you can use.

Incorrect. They have been used (A LOT) to claim "Accidental Deaths due to firearms" while padding the numbes with suicides- What they don't tell you is that the suicides make up over 70% of the numbers.
Suicide is not an accident. It is done with intent.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control"

Is that equivalent to saying "Anyone who finds evidence supporting gun control will be guilty of misuse of funds."?
That would not be a very honest way to research safety issues with guns - it threatens to punish anyone that provides evidence that disagrees with anti-gun control.

Nods and it's worked, the fraction of research about guns by government agencies dropped by more than 90%, even though the CDC, FBI and other agencies still track it as a huge safety issue.

And it goes deeper than just the research. It translates into inability to publish and push gun related safety messages to the public...which is another of their missions. So while you might see your doctors waiting room with brochures about all manner of home safety such as using electrical plug safety covers, looking twice and hitting the horn before backing your car, moving the handle of your frying pans towards the center of the stove, securing your prescription drugs and many other things...something as simple a message as common sense as keeping your gun locked and away from children will violate the law. In my lifetime the NRA has gone from an organization that had science in their moto, was the foremost authority on gun safety to having zero credibility on the subject and being opposed to further research--even reversing many of their earlier common sense recommendations. Even their own members (I quit them) no longer agree with some of their key positions.

More of the conspiracy theories...

While ignoring the democrat majority in the U.S. government- most of whom are as much the gun grabbers as you lot.

I guess they are all powerless against the NRA, eh? Must be they got photographs of them all in bed with Donnie Osmond.

[

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Oh Come on. You cannot be serious...
Trailer for Motor Vehicle is to Motor Vehicle as Firearm is to diabetes?

No; you didn't read my post. They are not equivalent. I was replying to your silly assertion that since the CDC has the word 'disease' in it it can only research viruses. That's as silly as saying the DMV can only regulate motorized vehicles since it has the word "motor" in it.

Originally Posted by billvon

This is total nonsense. You're basically claiming that the NRA dictates what goes on in a Democrat majority (currently) government in a mad cap conspiracy laden caper.

The NRA has dictated what happened in a republican controlled government, and we are still seeing that legacy today. Heck, we can't even pass an appropriations bill due to Republicans; you think we'd be able to change CDC funding over gun research?

Some material for you if you're interested:

"The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying branch of the National Rifle Association of America. Members of Congress have ranked the NRA as the most powerful lobbying organization in the country several years in a row." - Wikipedia

Number of Congressional members who have received NRA donations: 213
Total donations per year: $500,000 average
Money spent last election cycle on their candidates: $7.2 million

Washington Post:
=================================

Firearms Measure Surprises Some in GOP

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (Kan.) surprised many of his fellow Republicans last week when he offered a lengthy amendment, blessed by the National Rifle Association, to the 2004 funding bill for the Commerce, Justice and State departments. Tiahrt's eight-point amendment, which targets the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and was drafted with the NRA's help, would prohibit the use of federal funds for several bureau activities. It would prevent the bureau from requiring firearms dealers to conduct a physical inventory, from denying licenses to dealers whose sales fall below a certain level, and from demanding that certain dealers provide documentation for all used guns sold in a specific period. ==================

Hate to break it to ya- but the republicats and the democins are the same thing. They differ on a few key issues and each side will throw the voters a bone once in a blue moon.
The rest of the time they just bicker and blame the other group for all problems; each side is just as deceptive and prone to add flavorful spin to any report.

Biased editorial material does not interest me.

I mentioned that someone at that Scientific Magazine has an agenda... Do you think that conspiracy theories are exclusive to the "batshit crazy cranks?"
You think you're smarter. You think you know better. You are convinced of your Superior Correctness.
You're So Right.
And you think that anyone that supports the Right To Keep and Bear Arms which is the second amendment of OUR constitution is some backwoods hick that just wants to git drunk n' shoot up his ex wife.

You think you know better and you're going to tell other people how to live. What to do. How to do it. You're going to tell them they haven't got their constitutional rights.
You're going to tell them they are too stupid to Choose For Themselves. Too stupid to be allowed Freedom.

Yes, you pad your numbers.

Yes, it's deceptive.
We've gone around and around and around this many times.
I show where you pad the numbers, fudge the results and then you get quiet for a while. Later, Lynx, you claimed I made a bunch of "fallacies" in the thread but you did not spell out what they were nor did you attempt to address them did you?

Now you're trying to spin a web of an all powerful NRA that tells the government what to do
Evidence of Claims Required.
Circumstantial and editorial biased journalism is not Evidence of a Grand Conspiracy.
You may believe the Moon Landings hold no conspiracy because you support science, but you will think a grand conspiracy to keep guns in the hands of rednecks is running rampant in the democrat majority ruled government.

No, not the illuminati... It's Called the Constitution of the United States.
Read it.
Defend it.
Or Shut Up.

It ain't yours to Edit how you please. You've been Outvoted by the Majority of citizens of this nation and you can just Get Over it.

And if you don't live here- you can be opinionated and smug in your superior awareness of what you think is a dangerous threat... But scientifically there is no such thing as "Safe."

Neverfly, just by chance I came across a piece about one of Australia's newest senators (so new he won't take his seat until July next year).

You might be interested to read the opinion piece. More importantly, reading the comments could give you a bit of an insight into how Australians view gun laws in both Australia and in the USA. We really are very, very different.

Libertarian senator shoots his message in the foot - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I don't care how Australia views it. I'm not Australian.

"Here in Australia, we banned those nasty things."

Whoop de doo for you.

We are not Australia. You bunch stab and use blunt weapons and we shoot. What's the real difference?
So Australia bans things. That's an accomplishment...

I tell you what Australia hasn't done- Landed on the Moon.

In fact, I cannot think of ANY notable thing Australia has given the world. The United States built a reputation of having the finest hotels in the world, the finest quality products, the smartest industry, the strongest economy, the most industrious and with ingenuity and pride. We also landed on the Moon.
You see, we get in cars, too. We are not afraid to live taking some risks. Maybe Australians are and so they ban things. And they don't go to the Moon or get in the news or have a reputation for much... Kangaroos, maybe. Y'all have 'roos... but that's natural, not an accomplishment.
You beat down the aborigines... Guess if they had had guns...

But we're different, as you say.

Not too afraid to LIVE and take risks and in so doing, Live Free, under the United States of America Constitution, not the Australian one.
And we won't live under the Australian constitution, will we? You could never take us... We'd kick your ass. Our citizens are armed backing up a very powerful military.

You bunch stab and use blunt weapons and we shoot. What's the real difference?

The murder rate.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by adelady

You bunch stab and use blunt weapons and we shoot. What's the real difference?

The murder rate.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccurate- those numbers are the homicide rate. What does that include...?

You might note how many countries that have disallowed personal firearms have a higher homicide rate than the United States...

Ya we are the model society:

It says intentional homicide. Buuuut ... there are some differences in how different jurisdictions determine that.

I haven't checked all 130 links at the bottom of that page, but I did follow a few wiki links. They gave no definition but I'd presume that the definition would exclude manslaughter and accidental killings.

You might note how many countries that have disallowed personal firearms have a higher homicide rate than the United States...

The only countries that matter in this comparison are OECD countries. Somalia, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe are hardly the standards by which advanced industrial democratic countries should evaluate themselves. And I can't see any that the OECD countries with higher murder rates than the USA have any gun controls like those of the UK or Australia. (Mexico, Estonia are the two I could find in the "higher murder rate" category).

It is interesting that Neverfly did not address my question to him.

Ie. That he is American and a gun owner.
I think he has answered it in his own way. Neverfly is American, a gun owner, and a gun nutter as well. Gun nutters are characterised by the fact that they regard gun ownership as being an unmitigated benefit, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It is an essentially religious view, based on an uncritiqued faith in an irrational idea.

We in NZ and Australia enjoy a society in which murder rates are 20% to 25% that of the USA. The reason we experience so few killings is two fold.
1. No idiotic gun culture.
2. Access to guns is seriously limited.

The mark of a gun nutter is that he will justify his belief in the essential rightness of guns by calling it a human right to possess them, and quoting the second amendment to justify that irrational belief. He will ignore the fact that the second amendment was instigated as pure political expedience, at a time when the young American state had no professional soldiers and depended on volunteer militias for national defense. To encourage such volunteer militias, that politicians of the time wrote it down as a 'right' under the constitution. If you check the wording of that amendment, you will see what I mean.

Modern gun apologists will treat that 'right' as a deity derived dictate - meaning god given. It is not and never has been. It was purely a cynical and expedient measure by a bunch of desperate and largely amateur politicians. The need for that has long passed, but politicians tend not to correct the mistakes of the past, since that does not attract votes, especially when a powerful lobby group like the NRA is agin it.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Ya we are the model society:

That graph is misleading and very typical of gun grabber attitudes: It displays the information as if the USA ranks highest. No... It deliberately picked only the lowest, excluding many countries and then stuck the US on there ignoring all the other nations that are much higher... Go figure.
Misleading. Very misleading.
And you wonder why there is no trust in the gun grabbers?
Even the link Adelady posted just before you soundly refutes your nifty little graph.

Originally Posted by adelady

They gave no definition but I'd presume that the definition would exclude manslaughter and accidental killings.

Assuming... you know what that leads to.
No, they do not exclude them and going by the figures provided by the <Cough> CDC... we see that intentional suicide counts as intentional homicide.

Originally Posted by adelady

The only countries that matter in this comparison are OECD countries. Somalia, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe are hardly the standards by which advanced industrial democratic countries should evaluate themselves. And I can't see any that the OECD countries with higher murder rates than the USA have any gun controls like those of the UK or Australia. (Mexico, Estonia are the two I could find in the "higher murder rate" category).

Ok, so we're excluding data just to support your argument, now? In the meantime, the pro- rights/Pro-freedom crowd points out that "If you outlaw guns; only outlaws will have them" and you presenting strong evidence in support of it with the very nations you chose as examples of what should be excluded.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is interesting that Neverfly did not address my question to him.

No, it isn't. I did not see any questions from you.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Ie. That he is American and a gun owner.

I am a United States Citizen. I own zero firearms.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Neverfly is American,

True.

Originally Posted by skeptic

a gun owner,

Incorrect. You assume that just because I support my nations constitution and freedom that I must therefor own firearms? I am not opposed to owning any- I just have not bought any in recent times.

Originally Posted by skeptic

and a gun nutter as well.

Yes. I am a total NUTTER, now... You know- I support the constitution and freedom and that makes me crazy... Watch out! I might do something psychotic like support the right to abort or the right to free speech next!

Originally Posted by skeptic

Gun nutters are characterised by the fact that they regard gun ownership as being an unmitigated benefit, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Nonsense- as addressed above- the "evidence" is often misrepresentation, biased opinions and editorials, misleading graphs and the like... It is a Constitutional Right. So far, the voters have supported it. By majority.

Originally Posted by skeptic

It is an essentially religious view, based on an uncritiqued faith in an irrational idea.

The only 'religion' here is your more "superior" views that by doctoring data and telling other people what to do, you can save them from themselves. That's called Tyranny.
It's something this nation was founded on Opposing.

Originally Posted by skeptic

We in NZ and Australia enjoy a society in which murder rates are 20% to 25% that of the USA. The reason we experience so few killings is two fold.
1. No idiotic gun culture.
2. Access to guns is seriously limited.

Assumption. Provide evidence that demonstrates that it is not cultural or rural establishment such as better counseling for suicidal people and limited access to victims. My argument against Adelady above demonstrates that nations that enforce a gun ban can still have higher rates. Statistically, it's inevitable that somebody will have higher rates of something than somebody else. But of course- she sought to exclude all those other countries...

Originally Posted by skeptic

It was purely a cynical and expedient measure by a bunch of desperate and largely amateur politicians. The need for that has long passed, but politicians tend not to correct the mistakes of the past, since that does not attract votes, especially when a powerful lobby group like the NRA is agin it.

It's only passed when all who might invade, invoke tyranny or oppression are all gone. Given the nature of your smug and superior attitude, clearly tyrants are still present and rampant.
And if you want to get teary eyed because I called you a tyrant- remember that you called me a "nutter" and religiously justified it by making generalized assumptions and absurdities based on your invented "Truths™" that you seek to impose upon anyone that does not see things your way.

Being able to defend yourself is one of the Most Basic Survival Traits in the natural world.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by John Galt

No, Neverfly they are not used to pad the figures. The figures are for deaths as a consequence of the use of a gun. Not for any single cause. They address the fact that a certain number of people die each year through gun use. That is what is reported.

The circumstances in which these gun deaths occur can be subject to many kinds of scientific analysis, so contrary to your faith based belief this is a scientific issue as well as a political one. And I have little doubt that the NS does have an agenda: it's editors think the deaths of 30,000 US lives is a matter that deserves some attention. Of course, if you are quite happy to see that number of people killed, for the most part unecessarily, then I have a small sand bucket you can use.

Incorrect. They have been used (A LOT) to claim "Accidental Deaths due to firearms" while padding the numbes with suicides- What they don't tell you is that the suicides make up over 70% of the numbers.
Suicide is not an accident. It is done with intent.

You are now being either dishonest or incompetent. A list of causes of death was offered. You claimed, implicitly but clearly, that they were all used to pad the numbers. Retract now and you won't look such a dick.

I mentioned that someone at that Scientific Magazine has an agenda... Do you think that conspiracy theories are exclusive to the "batshit crazy cranks?"
You think you're smarter. You think you know better. You are convinced of your Superior Correctness.
You're So Right.
And you think that anyone that supports the Right To Keep and Bear Arms which is the second amendment of OUR constitution is some backwoods hick that just wants to git drunk n' shoot up his ex wife.

Don't be so arrogantly foolish. I think, with 30,000 deaths a year that the US and its citizens would benefit from a bit more scientific investigation of how exactly those deaths arise. You don't have to be anti-gun to want that. Indeed, in my view any responsible gun enthusiast should be crying out for exactly that sort of investigation.

If I were a US citizen, an option I gave serious thought to three decades ago, then I should be actively pursuing far more restrictions on gun ownership, based on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms in order to serve in a well organised Militia. Constrain and teach responsible gun ownership and use through such organisations, for all gun owners. Simples.

Originally Posted by John Galt

You are now being either dishonest or incompetent. A list of causes of death was offered. You claimed, implicitly but clearly, that they were all used to pad the numbers. Retract now and you won't look such a dick.

Why the hell would I retract and make a liar of myself?
I would only retract if you offered viable and valid evidence which has simply not happened. Claiming I'm incompetent or dishonest is absolute hogwash. You admitted that "The figures are for deaths as a consequence of the use of a gun. Not for any single cause. They address the fact that a certain number of people die each year through gun use. That is what is reported. "
Total hogwash- claiming I'm being dishonest when you admit that the numbers are frequently padded. And yes, I said "frequently" because of your absurd claim that I "clearly implied all."
Rolleyes- no, really- RollEyes.
If they are claiming (Implying) that a certain number of people die each year from accidents and it's padded with intentional suicides- That is Padding.
If they are claiming that Guns kill a certain number of people, (Implying they are all innocent little victims) while padding the numbers with suicides, shot rapists and burglars and felons and cons and the like- That is Padding.

And don't give me that Usual anti-gun garbage that it doesn't happen- it does happen.
It happens a lot. But it's OK to let them die as long as the gun grabbers are confident THEY won't be fearful that they will somehow get shot- right?
Arrogance or selfishness- you choose.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Don't be so arrogantly foolish.

To me, arrogance is telling other people they are disallowed from the most very basic act of Self Defense out of Cowardice.

Originally Posted by John Galt

If I were a US citizen, an option I gave serious thought to three decades ago, then I should be actively pursuing far more restrictions on gun ownership, based on the Second Amendment.

So, here- you admit to being anti- second ammendment after complaining about : "You don't have to be anti-gun to want that." Make up your mind!

You are anti-gun. You want little old ladies struggling to live off their pension to be denied the ability to defend themselves from burglars. Because that's "Scientific" and not arrogant foolishness.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It's Called the Constitution of the United States.
Read it.
Defend it.
Or Shut Up.

It ain't yours to Edit how you please.

Oh...are there not any amendments, then?
If there are no amendments, then your point stands.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It's Called the Constitution of the United States.
Read it.
Defend it.
Or Shut Up.

It ain't yours to Edit how you please.

Oh...are there not any amendments, then?
If there are no amendments, then your point stands.

A single person cannot edit it. Currently it stands as supported by the majority- NOT by a conspiracy 'theory' about puppet governments...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You want little old ladies struggling to live off their pension to be denied the ability to defend themselves from burglars.

And you want half-blind, half-deaf, senile old people to be allowed to have guns.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It's Called the Constitution of the United States.
Read it.
Defend it.
Or Shut Up.

It ain't yours to Edit how you please.

Oh...are there not any amendments, then?
If there are no amendments, then your point stands.

A single person cannot edit it. Currently it stands as supported by the majority- NOT by a conspiracy 'theory' about puppet governments...

So - your point doesn't stand.
Got it.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You want little old ladies struggling to live off their pension to be denied the ability to defend themselves from burglars.

And you want half-blind, half-deaf, senile old people to be allowed to have guns.

Absolutely, yes.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

So - your point doesn't stand.
Got it.

Of course my point stands. I cannot see anything of what was said that makes it magically not stand.

I'm all for but research into the matter, but currently there is no evidence that any kind of gun limitations would be effective in the United States. Sorry.

Can’t there not be some kind of happy medium in the US, like ban assault rifles? Maybe lift the ban when the North Koreans invade, I don’t see a need for them otherwise.

In Ireland, I’m happy we can’t carry guns (Or assault rifles, for that matter!) around in public. Even our police (Garda) that patrol our streets don’t carry guns. Same with the UK.

I despise statistics many times. Sure they can be helpful, but misleading. I love Mark Twain on the matter..There are three types of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics.

This is like when people compare life expectancy, yet once you account for cultural and genetic differences, things even out a lot more. (EG: life expectancy is lower in America than Japan, but the life expectancy for a Japanese American in America is incredibly close to the same, whereas other groups of society within America that don't exist in such large numbers in other countries drag down statistics, point being they are easily manipulated).

One interesting thing I find from the more polarized and popularized mass shootings and such is the presence of psychoactive drugs.

Point being such issues are dramatically complex and involve different cultural groups, medications, different societal context, and hundreds of factors to simplify it down to it's just this I think is disingenuous at best.

I know this is anecdotal, however I grew up in the country much of my life where guns per capita was insanely high. (many hunters and farmers and just country bumpkins) In my experience those areas are where gun violence occurs the least. People tended to know how to handle them and be raised with more of a respect for them, but then you cross into cultural differences, moral differences within a different societal context, psychological, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by Neverfly

You want little old ladies struggling to live off their pension to be denied the ability to defend themselves from burglars.

And you want half-blind, half-deaf, senile old people to be allowed to have guns.

Absolutely, yes.

'Nuff said.

And you wonder why people call you a "gun nut".

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Of course my point stands. I cannot see anything of what was said that makes it magically not stand.

Well - I've fixed your previous stance to actually reflect reality:

It's Called the Constitution of the United States.
Read it.
Defend it.
Change it.
Or Shut Up.

It ain't yours to Edit how you please - but it can be changed; it is not written in stone.

Ah, but that's the point- isn't it? The claim is that when they tried to change it- instead of being outvoted by the majority (The actuality); they are now claiming it's blocked by the omnipotent NRA.
Yes, it can be changed. But the thing I said numerous times was that a few dissenters misrepresenting statistics won't do it. They are outvoted and so they are doing things like showing graphs like the Horsepucky Graph Lynx_Fox posted earlier to mislead people into thinking as they do.

Don't get me wrong, the strong pro gun crowd is just as bad. You claim I'm a gun nut; I'm not. I'm a Freedom Nut.
Maybe the rest of you like the idea of sacrificing freedom- but the majority of This Nation says they don't. And guess what that means?
You can't change it.
You're outvoted.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Ya we are the model society:

Very entertaining Lynx.
Now I would like to see the actual study.
Does it have breakdowns or controls for demographics? police? gangs? drug related?

Or, was this just created by a group of anti-gun nuts over beers in a bar one night?

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Ya we are the model society:

That graph is misleading and very typical of gun grabber attitudes: It displays the information as if the USA ranks highest. No... It deliberately picked only the lowest, excluding many countries and then stuck the US on there ignoring all the other nations that are much higher... Go figure.

Really? You just keep digging deeper NV. It's a very common list of nations used to compare many statistics.

You are completely irrational when it comes to gun issues.

And you are somewhat dishonest and deliberately in inflammatory rhetoric such dismissive about the political power of the NRA by comparing them to the Illuminati,
calling those willing to look at the comparative statistics of any sort, "Gun Grabbers," a false dichotomy especially those you know its directed at gun owners, former NRA members, who defended the very Constitution who'd message you choose to distort using language that more resembles a shout out than intelligent conversation.
Nearly complete failure to provide you own supporting science.

So I'm sending you away for a week because you refuse to engage in this thread in a civil and at least somewhat scientifically minded manner so that others might well enjoy a calm rational discussion in the meantime.

Eye of the beholder dadio.
I think you over-reacted here.

I tend to cringe at many statistics myself whether they support or don't support my position. Without a further breakdown just the numbers don't show a whole lot. I think Life expectancy comparisons is an excellent one to look at as a case study. Very disingenuous generally. Then you can also look at areas in America which have the most guns per capita as I mentioned before, although as I said anecdotal in nature, these aren't the places where such things happen. Then look at the drug industry, and differences within countries as relying to other illegal trades that bring violence etc.

In no way am I trying to be close minded. I feel safer in areas where people have a lot of guns (in the rural country where I have spent most of my life), murders rarely happen, and accidents are even more seldom. Then urbanite areas where drug trafficking and a host of other issues come to play (generally with money at the center), where people do not grow up with guns as much but get them shoved in their hands when part of a gang or such, things play out differently.

I find it to be very close-minded on both sides, and guns to be a scapegoat of a much larger issue. Take the chart below for instance, does it really matter what the medium of violence is? The demographic differences, the lifestyle difference, societal construction differences, and all of such are looked at for naught. Still northern America factors in a bit higher, but what about statistical gathering methods, reporting? Qatar and some other countries that have had massive murder sprees, do they count terrorist activities, what is counted as a murder where is the metadata. It would be better to take one and investigate it further if you want to from a scientific standpoint. Are guns all of a sudden the only factor in homicide?

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I did not act as I should have in my original post, and I hope by removing the the lines in question, this is now respectful and concise as I intended, if it is not, I apologize and will gladly delete it.

For the benefit of dbhokie and anyone else who hasn't bothered to familiarise themselves with the guidelines linked on the top line.

6. CONTACTING MODERATORS

We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums.

Originally Posted by adelady

For the benefit of dbhokie and anyone else who hasn't bothered to familiarise themselves with the guidelines linked on the top line.

6. CONTACTING MODERATORS

We do not mind users messaging us about our decisions as Moderators, however we will not tolerate questioning on the forums.

I am entirely sorry, and meant no offense.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

A single person cannot edit it. Currently it stands as supported by the majority- NOT by a conspiracy 'theory' about puppet governments...

I agree with this, but the fact that the vast majority of Americans want reform in gun control yet are met with, "The liberals want to take your guns" in regards to stricter regulations is very frustrating.

Why we see the need to polarize everything in this country is beyond me. You cannot simply be FOR firearm regulation and restriction. If you suggest that we could lower crime rates by reducing the number of firearms available in the country, somehow you want to disarm law-abiding citizens and give their weapons to criminals.

When we put forth efforts to reduce the number of available firearms, it is met with massive gun sales in "protest". It's absurd to think that what works for every other first world nation wouldn't work in the United States. We balk at socialized healthcare, we balk at murder rates dropping from a reduction of firearms, we balk at environmental regulation. Why is my country so unbelievably bone-headed?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I agree with this, but the fact that the vast majority of Americans want reform in gun control yet are met with, "The liberals want to take your guns" in regards to stricter regulations is very frustrating.

Why we see the need to polarize everything in this country is beyond me. You cannot simply be FOR firearm regulation and restriction. If you suggest that we could lower crime rates by reducing the number of firearms available in the country, somehow you want to disarm law-abiding citizens and give their weapons to criminals.

Yes! I see this all the time. Personally I think every sane, law abiding adult in the US should be able to own personal weapons. This, apparently, makes me an extremist.

Since I think that mentally ill people should not be able to own guns, and I think that anti-aircraft weapons should not be considered personal weapons, I am a liberal bed-wetting gun grabber who hates freedom.

Since I think that people should have the right to arm themselves if they want to, I'm a clueless conservative gun nut in favor of killing kids and little old ladies and there's something wrong with my penis size.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I agree with this, but the fact that the vast majority of Americans want reform in gun control yet are met with, "The liberals want to take your guns" in regards to stricter regulations is very frustrating.

Why we see the need to polarize everything in this country is beyond me. You cannot simply be FOR firearm regulation and restriction. If you suggest that we could lower crime rates by reducing the number of firearms available in the country, somehow you want to disarm law-abiding citizens and give their weapons to criminals.

Yes! I see this all the time. Personally I think every sane, law abiding adult in the US should be able to own personal weapons. This, apparently, makes me an extremist.

Since I think that mentally ill people should not be able to own guns, and I think that anti-aircraft weapons should not be considered personal weapons, I am a liberal bed-wetting gun grabber who hates freedom.
Since I think that people should have the right to arm themselves if they want to, I'm a clueless conservative gun nut in favor of killing kids and little old ladies and there's something wrong with my penis size.

Your such a bed-wetter.

Bunch of thin-skinned people these days, all hiding behind a guise of political correctness and so-called "tolerance"

Usually those who scream tolerance the most are the most intolerant of all. It is very frustrating I agree, you can't have a simple logical conversation with someone without being an "extremist" (when all it really means is you don't agree with me, half the time)

Our country has taken to name-calling and blame-shifting while excusing behaviour.

Kids need to spend more time outside getting the little bumps and bruises they should have, and into the skirmishes with others so they can grow up to have a backbone. Instead they are babysat by a tv.

Originally Posted by dbhokie

Your such a bed-wetter.

Must.......resist........urge......to.....correct. .............spelling.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by dbhokie

Your such a bed-wetter.

Must.......resist........urge......to.....correct. ..spelling.

I'll fix fer ya

Yur such a bed-wettter


Alternatively, I suggest Isaac Watt's book on logic. I'll read a book on grammar.

To Neverfly

You are welcome to call me a tyrant if you wish. I take no offense, since I know that title is incorrect.

I accept that you do not own a gun. I deduced your membership of one demographic group, whereas you belong to a slightly different group. This is because you did not answer my question. Apparently because you did not bother to read my post carefully. You, like others in your demographic, have been brainwashed into a point of view that is simply wrong.

On evidence.
The USA has a ridiculously high level of murder, and it is not due to social effects such as gang membership. How do I know? Let me point out a couple of things.

1. Out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of all gun murders put together. This is hardly 'normal'. Out of all the OECD nations, the USA has the highest per capita murder rate. In fact, it averages four times as high as others. The second highest murder rate among those western nations is Finland, which has half the per capita murder rate of the USA, and this is due to the fact that Finland has an enormously high rate of alcoholism. Finland suffers from the "Russian disease", known as vodka. It is very true that many nations have a higher rate of murder than the USA, but none are culturally comparable. It is a fallacy to compare the USA to Russia or Somalia, and say :"see, we aint so bad."

2. The suggestion that the USA high murder rate is due to cultural effects such as gangs and immigrants is simply wrong. If that hypothesis were correct, then we would predict that other western nations with similar levels of gangs and gang violence, plus similar levels of immigration from third world nations would also have similar levels of murder. But that is not so. My country has as many gangs per capita, and more immigrants from third world natons as a percentage of the population, and a higher rate of general violence (due to those immigrants), and yet our murder rate is 20% of the USA on a per capita basis. So hypothesis falsified. Other nations show the same point.

It is interesting that FBI records show that a quarter of American gun murders are simply two people arguing, till the argument gets so hot that one person whips out a hand gun, and shoots the other one dead. Easy access to hand guns is why this happens. As I pointed out earlier, stabbings are 100 times less often lethal. So a lack of access to hand guns would drop such murders substantially.

Originally Posted by skeptic

To Neverfly

You are welcome to call me a tyrant if you wish. I take no offense, since I know that title is incorrect.

I accept that you do not own a gun. I deduced your membership of one demographic group, whereas you belong to a slightly different group. This is because you did not answer my question. Apparently because you did not bother to read my post carefully. You, like others in your demographic, have been brainwashed into a point of view that is simply wrong.

On evidence.
The USA has a ridiculously high level of murder, and it is not due to social effects such as gang membership. How do I know? Let me point out a couple of things.

1. Out of the 24 richest nations, the USA has 85% of all gun murders put together. This is hardly 'normal'. Out of all the OECD nations, the USA has the highest per capita murder rate. In fact, it averages four times as high as others. The second highest murder rate among those western nations is Finland, which has half the per capita murder rate of the USA, and this is due to the fact that Finland has an enormously high rate of alcoholism. Finland suffers from the "Russian disease", known as vodka. It is very true that many nations have a higher rate of murder than the USA, but none are culturally comparable. It is a fallacy to compare the USA to Russia or Somalia, and say :"see, we aint so bad."

2. The suggestion that the USA high murder rate is due to cultural effects such as gangs and immigrants is simply wrong. If that hypothesis were correct, then we would predict that other western nations with similar levels of gangs and gang violence, plus similar levels of immigration from third world nations would also have similar levels of murder. But that is not so. My country has as many gangs per capita, and more immigrants from third world natons as a percentage of the population, and a higher rate of general violence (due to those immigrants), and yet our murder rate is 20% of the USA on a per capita basis. So hypothesis falsified. Other nations show the same point.

It is interesting that FBI records show that a quarter of American gun murders are simply two people arguing, till the argument gets so hot that one person whips out a hand gun, and shoots the other one dead. Easy access to hand guns is why this happens. As I pointed out earlier, stabbings are 100 times less often lethal. So a lack of access to hand guns would drop such murders substantially.

Certainly it helps them in DC. This must be why in say, rural Virginia, TN, WV, and such with much higher gun per capita populations the murder rate is astronomically higher than areas with lower gun per capita..(/sarcasm)

Point being, the issue is much more complicated than just remove handguns or guns. You can't use a couple statistics that are falsifiable given other conditions, demographics or regions, discount that and say well I'm right anyways. That isn't science, that is emotion.

When you look at the Journal of Criminal law and criminology, defensive gun uses are twice as common as violent gun uses in the US.

Many of the studies on defensive gun usage only count the incidents in which the offender was killed, under-weighting it by a thousand percent. DC is a good example of wherein your assumptions do not lie true. THe black teenage male homicide rate in DC is 227 per 100,000, yet less than 7 for rural, middle-aged white men, which would be the US group for whom gun ownership is by far the biggest. This is an inverse relationship between homicide and gun density. Homicide rates in the US have been falling for decades in every demographic group, with the exception of inner-city teenage males, for which in the vast majority of cases gun ownership is already illegal.

75% of those who commit murders according to the FBI have prior arrests involving violent crime.

Point being, to reduce something that really is quite complex, along with using one type of comparison nation to nation, yet failing to see the same type of comparison being falsifiable in other regions and countries and in plenty of places is short-sighted.

More guns=more gun murders, right? Well, uh, no, not in the U.S. anyway. States with significantly fewer firearms do not experience lower gun homicide rates. It's quite the opposite in several cases, actually.

To dbhokie

Re defensive gun uses.

The simple fact is that no one actually knows how many defensive gun uses there are. And even more importantly, no one knows how many of those events actually required the use of a gun.

There are numerous published estimates of DGU's in the USA, and they vary by at least two orders of magnitude. When you make your argument, which estimate do you use? Pro-gun people cherry pick the higher estimates.

But what I consider more important is to figure out what percentage of DGU's were actually needed. My personal guesstimate is about 1%. Just because a person is threatened and drives the threat away by pulling out a gun, does not mean that threat would have resulted in something serious. As I pointed out in my last post, we in NZ suffer a higher overall rate of violent crime than the USA, but only 20% of murders. We do not have guns to avert threats, and we have more threats. Yet fewer murders by far.

All of which tells me that DGU's are mostly phoney. They happen, but are not at all needed. It is like the murders I wrote of before, when 2 people argue and one whips out a hand gun. Now imagine that the person with the hand gun simply threatens and does not fire, which must be by far the majority of such cases. No murder, but instead something that gets reported by the person wielding the gun as a DGU. This is why I say DGU's are phoney. They are based on people's perceptions of a needed defense. Not on a real need for defense.

Since the USA forbids proper state sponsored research into guns, we will probably never see the detailed research that would determine how many reported DGU's are genuine and how many are simply bullshit.

Originally Posted by skeptic

To dbhokie

Re defensive gun uses.

The simple fact is that no one actually knows how many defensive gun uses there are. And even more importantly, no one knows how many of those events actually required the use of a gun.

There are numerous published estimates of DGU's in the USA, and they vary by at least two orders of magnitude. When you make your argument, which estimate do you use? Pro-gun people cherry pick the higher estimates.

But what I consider more important is to figure out what percentage of DGU's were actually needed. My personal guesstimate is about 1%. Just because a person is threatened and drives the threat away by pulling out a gun, does not mean that threat would have resulted in something serious. As I pointed out in my last post, we in NZ suffer a higher overall rate of violent crime than the USA, but only 20% of murders. We do not have guns to avert threats, and we have more threats. Yet fewer murders by far.

All of which tells me that DGU's are mostly phoney. They happen, but are not at all needed. It is like the murders I wrote of before, when 2 people argue and one whips out a hand gun. Now imagine that the person with the hand gun simply threatens and does not fire, which must be by far the majority of such cases. No murder, but instead something that gets reported by the person wielding the gun as a DGU. This is why I say DGU's are phoney. They are based on people's perceptions of a needed defense. Not on a real need for defense.

Since the USA forbids proper state sponsored research into guns, we will probably never see the detailed research that would determine how many reported DGU's are genuine and how many are simply bullshit.

That is very fair . I was using the FBI's estimates, and yes I hate statistics many times anyways. As it was said earlier once again "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" Still the idea of guns being illegal or less in an area or per capita vs more is demonstrably false and the comparison becomes a strawman.

The murder you wrote of earlier is quite flawed as well, and you aren't really using logic for your positon on DGU, though I do wholeheartedly agree with you that the totality of it is unknown. In my personal anecdotal experience I know of more gun defenses happening than murders. Although I do have a family member that was murdered by a gun, I am not angry at the gun. The person, however, has taken a while for me to forgive.

Cherry picked statistics are pretty much the only ones that exist, they all pass an interpretive lens and generally a goal of one crowd or another.

Despite the times where anecdotal evidence is decried, I would rather take my experience and that of most who grow up in areas in the US with large amounts of gun ownership (which backwards to what you put forward tend to be the least violent areas of the country), than goal-oriented statistics.

One of the major problems that I have observed has been a gross failure to address already existent laws on the books. Along with psychoactive drugs, and a failure of the penal system to keep violent offenders away from society (as the FBI cites 75% of these murders are done by people with prior violent offenses (generally felons), whom have no legal recourse to own a gun in the first place.

Nonetheless I appreciate the way you present your opinion.

Originally Posted by mat5592

More guns=more gun murders, right? Well, uh, no, not in the U.S. anyway. States with significantly fewer firearms do not experience lower gun homicide rates. It's quite the opposite in several cases, actually.

Ok. Show and tell time.

Rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across US regions and states, 1988-1997.Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway


Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass 02115, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (impact factor: 3.93). 01/2003; 92(12):1988-93. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.92.12.1988Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups.
We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988-1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.
In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.
Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.


Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...JPH.92.12.1988

--
And a more recent study:
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%.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2013.301409

Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2013.301409

As I pointed out in my last post, we in NZ suffer a higher overall rate of violent crime than the USA, but only 20% of murders

I'd be a bit cautious with that claim until you can check that the statistics are comparable. I was reading some completely unrelated stuff yesterday about violence statistics for the US. Apparently it's quite common for Americans on-line to point the finger at Canadians or Brits with a neener-neener-nah you have more assaults than we do in the USA. Which turns out to be the result of the USA counting only a certain, more violent, portion of assaults in their stats.

So if you're comparing, say, any English speaking country with the USA for violence, you can't be sure if you just use the standard figures whether the comparison really stands up. And of course, at the time I thought it was interesting, but not gripping, so I haven't bookmarked or saved any of the stuff quoted in that discussion. When I went looking later, I couldn't get my search terms right to come up with anything useful.

What a considerably outdated study. Of course, there probably isn't much else to refer to because of reasons mentioned above. I'll state again: regions with fewer guns do not experience less gun homicide.

I used an arbitrary point to separate these, but:

Gun homicide rate in regions with less than 30% gun ownership: 3.99

Gun homicide rate in regions with 30%-40% gun ownership: 2.48

Gun homicide rate in regions with greater than 40% gun ownership: 2.35

Obviously DC is skewing the first number a bit, but I don't feel like doing it again. But, it seems that it's a lot more than how many guns are present (*gasp* who would have thought there are other factors involved, too?!).

And then, of course, there's the fact (that most conveniently ignore, for whatever reason) that gun homicide continues to decrease in the United States, despite a consistently high amount of guns being owned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...tates_by_state

Originally Posted by mat5592

What a considerably outdated study.

I find this to be a curious statement.
Why 'considerably outdated'?

Originally Posted by mat5592

... despite a consistently high amount of guns being owned.

Is gun ownership not falling?

"While some 46% of households and 29% of individuals said they owned a gun in 1990, two decades later this had fallen to 32% and 21%."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by mat5592

What a considerably outdated study.

I find this to be a curious statement.
Why 'considerably outdated'?

Because the study used data from the 80's and 90's, and many things are significantly different from then. For example, the violent crime rate has reduced by half.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by mat5592

... despite a consistently high amount of guns being owned.

Is gun ownership not falling?

"While some 46% of households and 29% of individuals said they owned a gun in 1990, two decades later this had fallen to 32% and 21%."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139

Here is where I got the idea:

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993

I do not know which is more accurate.

Hmmm...how is a study released the past few months with data up to 2010 an old study. It also happens to be the largest.

I did find a meta study, a study of studies that examined this subject put out by the department of justice, but unfortunately....well see for yourself: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/unavailable/

But if you really want to refute it than I strongly suggest you back up your claims with peer review science literature. You see that's how it works.

--
The real irony is I like guns, was raised around them, lived with one (often two) while in the military, was in the NRA for a few years, and still own them. If the NRA had actually taken up their original mantle and embraced science as they did their first half century, we probably wouldn't have such correlations between gun ownership and homicide because they would have worked with legislatures and gun makers to develop a safer environment associated with gun use. Things like: Weapons with safeties, gun training that spends as much time discussing the decision to purchase, load, and use as they do on the mechanics of firing the weapon; limitations on the high capacity semi-auto handguns doing most of the carnage; family training with special emphasis on gun safety around children; gun safety training options integration into school programs; mental health tips like a PC names version of "don't eat your gun" (sorry couldn't resist) campaign, or pass your "safety lock to a friend when feeling down" campaign (much like passing car keys when drunk), consistency laws between states so people don't ignore the tremendously confusing laws just to move a weapon across state lines (I've broken them to), and lastly some simple checks to slow down violent criminals and mentally unstable people trying to purchase guns. But none of that happened because we didn't have the science and agencies who's mission is it to reduce hazards have been effectively gagged. The result is current studies show the same relationships between homocide and gun ownership they did 30 years ago.

(on a personal note, Iraq's gun policies were in some ways more common sense than in the US...with rural folks allowed more of them because of poor law enforcement response time).

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Hmmm...how is a study released the past few months with data up to 2010 an old study. It also happens to be the largest.

I did find a meta study, a study of studies that examined this subject put out by the department of justice, but unfortunately....well see for yourself: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/unavailable/

I apologize, I only clicked on the first study you cited, assuming the rest was a synopsis of the link.

Here's another slice of similar data, this one focused on children's deaths by guns that looks at rural versus urban areas. Children's deaths by guns not only gets a lot of attention because they are children, but because more children die by guns in the US than all natural causes of diseases combined. This is why it's often referred to as an epidemic by the FBI, CDC and other agencies.

Anyhow, children's guns deaths turn out to be virtually identical between urban and rural areas but for different reasons. It's worth a look: Rural children take their own lives in suicides more often but there are fewer accidents than for urban children. (Though I do wonder if it's all that easy to tell the difference).

Variation in Pediatric and Adolescent Firearm Mortality Rates in Rural and Urban US Counties

--
NP Mat.

Lynx

I was unable to download your reference. Can you tell me how the researchers got their figures for gun ownership by state? Was it using a survey done by themselves? The thing is that I am aware that no official statistics of that sort are collected. I hope your data is valid, because that kind of statistic is needed.

On the falling crime rate.
Yes, it is happening. It appears to be a result of improved security technology. For example, car theft has fallen dramatically, due to improved car security systems, and especially computerised car engine immobilisers.. This has a flow on effect on robberies, since stolen cars are the preferred means of escape after a robbery. So such crimes as liquor store robberies are also down due to stolen cars being less available. Burglaries are down in wealthy areas due to the fact that middle class or wealthier people have much better home security systems. Everything from replacing latches with deadbolts, to security cameras and better. It is even possible to have the security system warn you by your smart phone, even to the extent of sending you the video from security cameras.

Murders are also down, though not by as much as such things as car theft. This drop in crimes is a world wide phenomenon, and has nothing to do with owning or not owning guns.

Originally Posted by mat5592

I do not know which is more accurate.

Well, since Gallup were fined $10 million dollars for making up their numbers, I'll go with the General Social Survey.
Also, the GSS poll twice as many people and mostly interviews people in-person (as opposed to Gallup who use phone calls).

Either way, "...despite a consistently high amount of guns being owned." is far from being certain.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by mat5592

I do not know which is more accurate.

Well, since Gallup were fined $10 million dollars for making up their numbers, I'll go with the General Social Survey. Also, the GSS poll twice as many people and mostly interviews people in-person (as opposed to Gallup who use phone calls).Either way, "...despite a consistently high amount of guns being owned." is far from being certain.

Ah, my polysci friends like to cite Gallup. I'll keep that in mind!

Originally Posted by RedPanda

"While some 46% of households and 29% of individuals said they owned a gun in 1990, two decades later this had fallen to 32% and 21%."

Likely because now more folks are inclined to lie when asked if they own a gun. They have "wised-up". Whether one owns a gun or not is NOT the business of any contrived poll-taking. jocular

Now here's the way I see things: you folks in the countries successfully "disarmed", now, no offense intended, not facetious in the least way, have achieved this condition, I presume, through LAWS which have imprisoned persons convicted of "firearms violations", and thus changed the mind-set of that part of the populace (which wishes to remain free amongst their compatriots) who were in opposition to legal restriction of firearms ownership. Would this be a realistic evaluation of the circumstances? jocular

Originally Posted by skeptic

Lynx

I was unable to download your reference. Can you tell me how the researchers got their figures for gun ownership by state? Was it using a survey done by themselves? The thing is that I am aware that no official statistics of that sort are collected. I hope your data is valid, because that kind of statistic is needed.

-

They still pull up ok for me (shrug). Perhaps try again? The full text for the first study is also available. The injury data comes from the CDC database--anyone can query their databases (when the government is working...argg). The gun data comes from the General Social Survey, which though I'm not familiar with, seems to be a long running set of standardized surveys done across the US (and more since they are international as well) used in many of the sciences (especially longitudinal ones over time) that study social issues. Here's the web site to them: General Social Survey

Now here's the way I see things: you folks in the countries successfully "disarmed", now, no offense intended, not facetious in the least way, have achieved this condition, I presume, through LAWS which have imprisoned persons convicted of "firearms violations", and thus changed the mind-set of that part of the populace (which wishes to remain free amongst their compatriots) who were in opposition to legal restriction of firearms ownership. Would this be a realistic evaluation of the circumstances?

No. You have to remember that the restrictions in Oz and the UK were significantly tightened up after horrific mass shootings in 1996. Dunblane school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The laws requiring certain guns to be surrendered and those still legally held to be much more securely stored were very popular. You have to remember that Australians and Brits haven't tied up their personal or national identities with guns. Farmers and gun club members are specific groups who need or use guns but they're not general, they're specific, groups.

Thanks, Lynx.

To jocular

The story is not, I think, that simple. The problem in the USA is the deep set gun culture. At least a third of Americans firmly believe gun ownership and use is a divinely gifted 'right'. There is also a culture that worships the gun slinging hero, and an awful lot of Americans get off on the fantasy of being that hero. The fantasy, of course, is wildly different from reality, no matter how many Clint Eastwood movies you view. Having guns does not remove villains. It just increases the murder and suicide rate, and adds to the level of human tragedy.

that part of the populace (which wishes to remain free amongst their compatriots)

This portion struck me quite forcibly when I re-read it.

We are free among our compatriots. We're not scared of each other. Australians are used to banding together in organisations like the Country Fire Services (with various names in different states) and the State Emergency Services (similar issues with names) as well as lifesavers/ surf clubs on beaches as organised volunteers. We're used to responding to emergencies without the need for compulsory evacuations enforced by anyone.

We're also a lot more individualistic and jealous of our privacy than Americans are. One Prime Minister had to retreat (scuttle in shame) from a proposal to have an Australian national identity card/ number similar to the US social security number. No chance here. We won't have it. Our tax file numbers, medicare numbers, social security/ pension numbers are ours and ours alone. We use them in dealing with the relevant authorities/ transactions and no one else - it is against the law for anyone, from banks to doctors and hospitals to charities, to use any such number as a sorting key or any other identifier in their record systems.

Australians and New Zealanders are also much less authoritarian than the UK or the USA. And our police forces are certainly much more consistent/ reliable and less violent than American police forces, we have much less reason to be afraid of them than Americans do. (And they have a lot less to fear from us, we're neither as violent nor as gun-happy as Americans are.)

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by RedPanda

"While some 46% of households and 29% of individuals said they owned a gun in 1990, two decades later this had fallen to 32% and 21%."

Likely because now more folks are inclined to lie when asked if they own a gun.

Why?

Originally Posted by jocular

They have "wised-up".

Wised up to what?

Originally Posted by jocular

Whether one owns a gun or not is NOT the business of any contrived poll-taking.

But what does that have to do with anything?

And what is wrong with contrived poll-taking? (What would a non-contrived poll even be?)


Your entire post is simply emotive words with no substance; a fallacious Appeal To Emotion.

Why do people who do not live in this country care about "gun"(pistol, rifle, weapon) ownership in this country?

("this is my rifle and this is my gun, this one's for shooting and this one's for fun"----------something we chanted in basic training for the army---in one hand, we held our M14s, in the other we held our penises --and, no, i do not have more than one----penis that is)

......................................
"Guns" don't kill people:
It's those pesky little bullets which leave all those holes out of which the blood flows.
.................
edit
here in the usa
92% of homicides are gang related
over 60% of "gun" deaths are suicides
.................
imho
people who call them "guns" have no respect for them, and probably shouldn't have, nor, use them

Why do people who do not live in this country care about "gun"(pistol, rifle, weapon) ownership in this country?

Because we have relatives and friends who visit there and who live and work there. My next door neighbour's grandchildren are growing up there. I'm fond of those kids as well as their father and I like their mother. I'd like to think they're all as safe as they would be if they stayed here.

"guns' ain't the problem
alienation is the problem
gun violence is just a symptom, not the disease

Originally Posted by sculptor

Why do people who do not live in this country care about "gun"(pistol, rifle, weapon) ownership in this country?

Because I am not a self-centred prick who is only concerned about immediate friends and family, but has a deep interest in the well being of all of humanity and of life in general. Because I acquired a great admiration for the people and character of the USA at an early age and hate to see so much good screwed up by so much bad. Because like adelady I have plenty of friends here. Because I have spent most of my working life employed by US companies. Because I am currently in Houston for the sixth time this year and would like to survive to make a seventh.

Alienation is a problem, but it's a universal problem, not an unusual problem for America alone.

The big issue is the opportunities for criminals, alienated people, suicidal people, angry people, careless people and damn fools to have ready access in their households to firearms when dealing with their transient or constant extreme feelings or intentions or when they take their eyes off the kids for a couple of minutes.

Look at the numbers for all the nations that are socially and economically in the same group as America - for total violent deaths and for death by gunshot in particular. All those nations contain criminals, psychopaths, careless people, people who are domestic violence perpetrators, suicidal people, nasty people. We just don't kill each other as much as you do. We certainly don't have little kids dying or killing by gunshot - when it does happen very rarely, it's big news not par for the course.

look at the statistics
for overall wellness within a society
damned near every country with lower violent crime rates than the us has better social welfare systems including socialized medicine.

over 50% of children in this country are in families which live under the official poverty level

the most alienated are the most likely to become violent

gun control is just a foil detracting decent caring people like yourselves from looking at the real problems in our society

which is why it is best to look at the specifics within any broad statistical analysis of violence
look at just who is being violent and committing violent crimes
Then, ask yourself
Why?

Originally Posted by adelady

No. You have to remember that the restrictions in Oz and the UK were significantly tightened up after horrific mass shootings in 1996. Dunblane school massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Port Arthur massacre (Australia) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If only we had some sort of pivotal moment like that. Say, a mass shooting at Fort Hood where 13 were killed, or on the campus of Virginia Tech where 32 were killed, or at Sandy Hook Elementary School where 27 were killed including many children.

What do we feel is the appropriate response? Arm the teachers.

How long until we get rid of Biology to teach Tactical Awareness to 5th-graders?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Why do people who do not live in this country care about "gun"(pistol, rifle, weapon) ownership in this country?

You're kidding right? You might as well ask why people in this country should care about starvation from food shortage in Nigeria or a lack of clean drinking water leading to disease in the Middle East or drugs lords slaughtering innocents in Mexico.

We're a global population and NOT caring about someone because of simple allopatry is absurd.

I care
I ain't violent
and
I have weapons
Weapons don't make people violent.

Poverty and perceived lack of opportunity to have what is perceived to be social comfort lead to feelings of alienation, and for some folks, that means violence. (for some, it means borrowing themselves into debt which they will carry for the rest of their lives)

Disarming the non violent ain't gonna do anything to ease the discomfort of the alienated.
...............................
If you wish to avoid violence in this country
don't hang around with drug dealers nor gang members
don't look too rich in poor neighborhoods

Originally Posted by sculptor

I care
I ain't violent
and
I have weapons
Weapons don't make people violent.

Straw man. No one here says guns make you violent.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Disarming the non violent ain't gonna do anything to ease the discomfort of the alienated.

Straw man again. The fall back of the pro-gun lobby.

Where do you get the idea that I want to send people to your house to confiscate your firearms?

Gun control advocates that we do a better job of managing the number of firearms available, tracking the sales and ownership of those firearms, and implementing a more successful standardized screening process.

There is a lot of ad absurdum, and strawmen all over the place here. Such an emotional subject.

The 2004 study cited earlier is riddled with flaws noted by statisticians and lawyers, it all just depends on what side you are on and what outcome you want as is generally true of statistical studies. Proving a causal relationship is virtually impossible even as the paper admits (if you read the whole thing) also, taking the most densely urban areas of each state for comparison and including illegal gun ownerships (when in fact the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by those illegally owning firearms) is not relational to legal firearm ownership.

Since Obama came into office gun ownership and sales have increased drastically, but gun crime has gone down. If you look at right to carry laws passed in each state, gun violence went down in every single case after the law was passed, but this is not a causal reationship either. As I have tried to point out such statistical grabs with a fragile statistical framework are disingenuous at best on either side, and one can find as much from the Criminology journals in support or against.

In urban population areas where gun ownership is higher violence is higher (however this also asserts gun ownership to all known murders that had illegal firearms in the home).

In rural populations where gun ownership is higher the murder rate is much lower. When only considering legal registered guns, the areas where those are higher the violence is lower.

All this to say proving causality on this issue is virtually impossible as pretty much all people on both sides (who are being intellectually honest) admit. Despite the fact that gun violence per capita is well down from the early 90's and 80's in the US, the media has sensationalized it to make it seem much much worse, like a problem coming to a head.

The simple facts are, there has never been any causal relationship of merit between legally owned guns and gun violence. Also, the US is not these other countries, and there are thousands of compounding factors that go into violent aggressive acts. Guns are so readily available on the black market in the US (the market that is largely to be accounted for in the murders), that were laws passed restricting gun ownership or demanding people hand them over, it would likely make very little difference in the illegal gun trade, which is most associated with murders anyways. Not to mention it is absolutely impossible to even implement in the US. The second amendment was put there for a reason that stretched back thousands of years through empires and struggles with populaces. It doesn't have as much bearing now, because the citizens and militias of the country are not a balance to the government forces like it was spoken of in the federalist papers where you were looking at 25-50K troops facing the same weapons of millions. This was important to the founding of the country then, although I consider it to be more irrelevant now. Though the philosophy of the right is the same.

If you want peer-reviewed statistics on either side they are easily gleaned, which shows how polarizing and fragile the statistical models comprising this argument are.

Yet you can come away with a few things:

Guns will never be able to be reclaimed in the US. It is now and will forever be without serious military intervention a state where citizens are armed (innumerably so and thankfully according to those like James Madison).
It is a very emotional subject with very little true research other than fragile meta-data statistics on both sides twisted to fit an emotional and/or political agenda.
The largest concentration of guns per capita is in rural areas in the southern United States, these areas are where gun violence is the least (rural, not urban centers of the rural states), for this very reason without military intervention these people will never surrender their guns and it is a lost cause to even envision it.
The largest problem is illicit firearm sales and trade in the US.
There are thousands of compounding factors when it comes to violence in the US (or any country)
Almost every tragic shooting involves someone going through illegal channels.
Many of the murders involve illicit drugs, or legally prescribed psychoactive drugs.
Most murders are in urbanized areas.

The simple facts are, there has never been any causal relationship of merit between legally owned guns and gun violence.

Well, there can't be in the US because research has been effectively blocked for a substantial period.

There is one definite piece of evidence from Australia. There has been one "mass" shooting - 2 people killed - since the 1996 ban. And gun deaths, not just murders, have declined substantially. Steeply at first and steadily ever since.

The average figure for gun-related deaths in the three years before the National Firearms Agreement was introduced was 513 deaths per year.
In the three years after the average was 373 deaths.

INFOGRAPHIC: Chart: Deaths resulting from firearms in Australia. (ABC Fact Check)
Bob Katter wrong on number of gun deaths after Port Arthur - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Just because the USA cannot do what's been done in Australia and Britain, you shouldn't throw your hand in. That's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - doing nothing at all because you can't do exactly what you want.

There are plenty of quite popular actions that could be undertaken in relation to people buying guns, mental health and criminal record checks, and about training and storage. If nothing else, policies should start by focusing on the extraordinary suicide by gunshot figures for the USA. List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just look at some of the old (pre 1977) NRA policies on the topic for other ideas.

Originally Posted by adelady

The simple facts are, there has never been any causal relationship of merit between legally owned guns and gun violence.

Well, there can't be in the US because research has been effectively blocked for a substantial period.

There is one definite piece of evidence from Australia. There has been one "mass" shooting - 2 people killed - since the 1996 ban. And gun deaths, not just murders, have declined substantially. Steeply at first and steadily ever since.

The average figure for gun-related deaths in the three years before the National Firearms Agreement was introduced was 513 deaths per year.
In the three years after the average was 373 deaths.

INFOGRAPHIC: Chart: Deaths resulting from firearms in Australia. (ABC Fact Check)
Bob Katter wrong on number of gun deaths after Port Arthur - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Just because the USA cannot do what's been done in Australia and Britain, you shouldn't throw your hand in. That's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - doing nothing at all because you can't do exactly what you want.

There are plenty of quite popular actions that could be undertaken in relation to people buying guns, mental health and criminal record checks, and about training and storage. If nothing else, policies should start by focusing on the extraordinary suicide by gunshot figures for the USA. List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just look at some of the old (pre 1977) NRA policies on the topic for other ideas.

My problem is that most of those laws are already there! It's not laws that we need to pass or more regulations we have thousands of them. It is laws already on the books that are not adequately enforced. It is the failure of the penal system to either adequately punish or rehabilitate previous violent offenders.

The suicide rate is a strawman to the argument itself. If you're going to commit suicide, if you are at that point, then you will do it with the easiest tool available (in your mind), if not a gun, then pills, if not pills then a bridge. However, then you don't have a causal link at all still, because there are emotional and psychiatric considerations, hundreds of them. But saying reducing guns in the US (a situation and context different from any available), will reduce suicides is certainly quite a stretch.

EDIT: As I said things can be thrown around wherever, and wherever they are there is bias http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun...-vs-gun-facts/