Gun Laws

[mmoan2]

Yes, and when you remove the inner-city gang stuff, gun-related crimes drops way down, on par with other countries.

And the article I cited above says that something like 50% of the gun crimes in the UK aren't reported as such because they only report them if they result in a conviction (or something like that). And that's true of other countries, too, so that shades their numbers down significantly.

You can't just look at a hugely multi-faceted issue and say "because of this and that, I think this." Well, "can" is not the right word, because clearly people are capable of doing it. Whether you should or not, well, that's a value judgment I guess.

People who want to kill themselves will find a way to do it. Yes, I imagine some would not do so if a gun was not convenient, but I don't imagine it's a large number, nor do I think that has much to do with a discussion of gun-related crimes. Other countries have guns and see a significantly lower suicide rate, and yet other countries have no guns and see higher suicide rates. I think the issue with suicides is preventing the suicide in the first place, not the mechanical means with which they commit suicide.

That article contains stuff about suicide, too. I don't want to edit my post, but it is related, so I just want to point that out here, too.

Basically, if I'm reading it correctly, they say that if you want to kill yourself with a gun, you're highly motivated and if a gun is not available you'll find another way to do it. It implies that if you can restrict guns with the goal of reducing suicides, you may reduce the number of suicides committed with guns, but you likely will not affect the actual number of suicides very much.

I'm going to bow out of this one after this post because it is a golf forum, but I must address what you've said above because I usually find your arguments very compelling but I really disagree strongly with much of what you've said.

Removing the inner-city stuff is impossible when discussing gun crimes because that's the BIGGEST problem with guns in the U.S. It's not Sandy Hook or Columbine, it's 25 kids a day shot dead in South Chicago. How do you "remove the inner-city stuff" from Honduras or Guatemala? You don't, because the countries themselves are violent. If you want to say that the U.S. is really many distinct cultures and that addressing gun violence is different in disenfranchised urban centers vs. other parts of the country, that's a valid point. However, we are still one nation with a single set of federal laws. If you want to argue that state and local governments should set more gun control policy, I could buy that, too. But it's not working. SOMETHING is not right. Something needs to be done. I'll defer to the university experts on that, but I studied public policy at the graduate level and worked in a state governor's office for three years. It's part of my job to analyze public policy, and Arizona was ground zero for gun law discussion when they had several controversial pieces of legislation about concealed carry, removal of gun-free zones, etc. for a while a few years back. I've got some experience looking at the issue.

I will need to read your article, but I know many people in the mental health industry who have told me that firearms make suicide much more prevalent because it is an easy way to do it. Without getting too gruesome, use your imagination. A single trigger is by far the easiest way to do it. I've been told that most people give up on suicide when a simple solution is not available because much of your body is repelling the urge to do it. Suicides by firearm are often committed by people who are not highly motivated. A fleeting moment of extreme depression is enough.

I like your statement that "you can't look at a multi-faceted issue..." You're correct. Everyone here is pretty much playing "my evidence is better than your evidence" at the amateur level. Including myself. But we are all concerned citizens, so that's what we can do. No one here is motivated enough to drop what they're doing and join a public policy think tank.

[iacas]

Removing the inner-city stuff is impossible when discussing gun crimes because that's the BIGGEST problem with guns in the U.S.

The point is that it's an economic problem more than much of anything else: other countries have a lot of guns but not the inner-city issues we have, so the vast majority of murders with a gun that occur in the U.S. are inner-city related.

Gun violence is not really a suburban problem.

Removing the inner-city stuff is impossible when discussing gun crimes because that's the BIGGEST problem with guns in the U.S. It's not Sandy Hook or Columbine, it's 25 kids a day shot dead in South Chicago.

And Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

SOMETHING is not right. Something needs to be done. I'll defer to the university experts on that, but I studied public policy at the graduate level and worked in a state governor's office for three years. It's part of my job to analyze public policy, and Arizona was ground zero for gun law discussion when they had several controversial pieces of legislation about concealed carry, removal of gun-free zones, etc. for a while a few years back. I've got some experience looking at the issue.

And all of the experts I've read on this topic talk about how CCW is not a problem, about how more armed citizens leads to safer citizens, how the vast majority of the problems are economic, and so on.

I read a lot of stuff about this, yes ten years ago or so, but again, basically:

• Most of the gun violence issues stems from economic issues (inner-city stuff)
• More guns = safer citizens in other areas.
• Guns prevent or stop or minimize a LOT more crime than they "cause."

I will need to read your article, but I know many people in the mental health industry who have told me that firearms make suicide much more prevalent because it is an easy way to do it. Without getting too gruesome, use your imagination. A single trigger is by far the easiest way to do it. I've been told that most people give up on suicide when a simple solution is not available because much of your body is repelling the urge to do it. Suicides by firearm are often committed by people who are not highly motivated. A fleeting moment of extreme depression is enough.

I have not really talked about suicide much.

I like your statement that "you can't look at a multi-faceted issue..." You're correct. Everyone here is pretty much playing "my evidence is better than your evidence" at the amateur level. Including myself. But we are all concerned citizens, so that's what we can do. No one here is motivated enough to drop what they're doing and join a public policy think tank.

I'm not citing a bunch of my evidence. I'm basing my opinion on a whole bunch of books and articles I read. Yes, ten years ago, but I'm not basing it on the results of a few Google searches and my own background.

That's not to say that my opinion's better than anyone else's here - they're just opinions, all of them - but I'm pretty comfortable with the foundation upon which mine is based.

I'm done talking about it too, though.

[JazzFatCat]

I find the whole "ya but the US has inner-city issues" argument to be a sign of gun advocates grasping at straws. As if cities all around the world don't have huge numbers of unemployed, frustrated, and disenfranchised people.

American gun attitudes are a belief system so it is like arguing with religious people. It doesn't change how they "feel".

[iacas]

I find the whole "ya but the US has inner-city issues" argument to be a sign of gun advocates grasping at straws. As if cities all around the world don't have huge numbers of unemployed, frustrated, and disenfranchised people.

No, it's not about that. Other countries don't have anything like the same kind of inner-city issues as in the U.S.

The point is not about grasping at straws: it's - as I've said a bunch of times now - that it's more about economics than it is about "gun laws."

American gun attitudes are a belief system so it is like arguing with religious people. It doesn't change how they "feel".

No, it's not a belief system here (for me), sorry.

[boogielicious]

No, it's not about that. Other countries don't have anything like the same kind of inner-city issues as in the U.S.

The point is not about grasping at straws: it's - as I've said a bunch of times now - that it's more about economics than it is about "gun laws."

No, it's not a belief system here (for me), sorry.

I agree that it is primarily driven by economics. However, every world city I've traveled to, apart from Singapore has had areas of poverty. Brazilian favelas, shanty towns, poor neighborhoods, etc, exist in all these places. A Brazilian favela is an extremely dangerous place with lots of gun violence. These slums and others in other cities make US slum areas look modern too. It still reinforces that economics drives violent crime. I just wanted to clarify  though that other world cities have similar issues albeit it doesn't get the press that the US cities do.

[iacas]

I agree that it is primarily driven by economics. However, every world city I've traveled to, apart from Singapore has had areas of poverty. Brazilian favelas, shanty towns, poor neighborhoods, etc, exist in all these places. A Brazilian favela is an extremely dangerous place with lots of gun violence. These slums and others in other cities make US slum areas look modern too. It still reinforces that economics drives violent crime. I just wanted to clarify  though that other world cities have similar issues albeit it doesn't get the press that the US cities do.

It's still not quite the same. Not IIRC. Sociologists wrote several of the books I read. I was left with the impression that it was pretty unique to us.

[boogielicious]

It's still not quite the same. Not IIRC. Sociologists wrote several of the books I read. I was left with the impression that it was pretty unique to us.

Maybe they classify it differently. shanty towns are extreme poverty. Favelas are more self contained separate fiefdoms. US inner cities are supposed to be part of the city, community. I could see why they would classify it differently. 

[saevel25]

Here was some findings done in a Harvard Law Study

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

On Gun Control and Violent Crimes,

"Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available international data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime."

Gun Control & Demographics,

"Contrary to what should be the case if more guns equal more death, there are no “consistent indications of a link between gun ownership and criminal or violent behavior by owners;” in fact, gun ownership is “higher among whites than among blacks, higher among middle‐aged people than among young people, higher among married than among unmarried people, higher among richer people than poor”—all “patterns that are the reverse of the way in which criminal behavior is distributed""

---

Basically from this study done there is no correlation that more guns equals more gun deaths in a way to support higher gun control the way the media and most liberals want. A

Though a recent Harvard Study as well says that relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide are linked. Yet their methods and conclusion are sketchy in my opinion. 

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

Here is the method they used and please don't laugh, 

"We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis (uh huh)...  We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations (uh huh), and controlled for potential state-level confounders (uh huh)"

Oh wait that means they did data manipulation. So they took the data. They manipulated it. They assumed stuff. They probably threw out results they didn't like and they came up with what?

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

Wait what!! They couldn't find causation. Sounds like a big pile of BS to me. It sounds like they decided they wanted to make their own statement and found a way to use fancy methods to support it. 

If you actually look at the states percent increase/decrease in gun ownership versus the national average and compare it to the homicide rate due to firearms you find that there is no correlation.

Y-Axis = Actual Murder Rates due to Fire Arms
X-Axis = Gun Ownership % increase/Decrease from national average. 

Unless you manipulate the data, there is no way that you can see a correlation and make that claim in their conclusion. 

Edited October 13, 2015 by saevel25

[rkim291968]

I don't need a study to know more guns mean more gun deaths.  More candy and soda ... more fat people.   More sun tan lotion applied to our skin on sunny day ... less sunburns.  

A news from China some months ago ... a crazy man started randomly stabbing people in a busy street.   This was not so different than a crazy man in US start shooting people in a busy street.   The main difference was that no one was killed in the said Chinese attack.  I think even the attacker was apprehended alive. 

[iacas]

I don't need a study to know more guns mean more gun deaths.

Did you read @saevel25's post? Or just skim the second half? This is from the first half:

Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.

[saevel25]

I don't need a study to know more guns mean more gun deaths.  More candy and soda ... more fat people.   More sun tan lotion applied to our skin on sunny day ... less sunburns.  

Here's the thing, they don't. Did you even see that graph I showed. There are states with more guns than others and have much lower gun deaths. Then there are states with high gun control and a lot of gun deaths. 

Also you can't stop guns from getting into the USA. When you have that issue then you have criminals who have them. Look at the first link I posted. 

[rkim291968]

Folks, I am talking about gun related death.  The study is on violent crime & gun control.   That's why I didn't quote the previous posts.

I come from a country where there is a strict gun control.  In fact, other than hunting rifle, gun ownership is banned.   The death by guns is non-existent compare to the population size.   No guns mean no death by guns.  It's simple as that.  

[iacas]

No guns mean no death by guns.  It's simple as that.  

It isn't that simple, because you cannot arrive at a situation where there are "no guns."

[rkim291968]

It isn't that simple, because you cannot arrive at a situation where there are "no guns."

Ok.   Near zero guns mean near zero death by guns .   Agree that gun death still occurs even when guns are completely banned b/c there are criminal elements illegally importing guns, etc..  But compare to US, as the OP and others alluded to, gun related death is relatively rare in nations that guns are banned or strictly controlled.    People can kill others with any means and methods.   Guns make it much easier than say knives. 

 

I thought about another, rather callous, way to look at this.  If people want to kill themselves with guns (suicide, robbery, gang wars, ...), why not?   It's another way of population control.  

[Pretzel]

Folks, I am talking about gun related death.  The study is on violent crime & gun control.   That's why I didn't quote the previous posts. 

It's still quite easy for someone to commit suicide using a hunting rifle (the only type of gun allowed in your country), or accidentally kill themselves or others with said hunting rifle. In fact, I would contest that it's easier to have an accidental death with a hunting rifle due to the fact that most modern handguns now have a "chambered round" indicator that tells you, at a glance, "THIS GUN IS LOADED". Many handguns also now have magazine safeties in addition to a slide safety and a grip safety, as well as potentially an additional frame safety, to prevent accidental discharges. I have not seen hunting rifles with similar features, most have a simple safety on the bolt and no way of telling if a round is chambered or not.

[iacas]

Ok.   Near zero guns mean near zero death by guns.

Still not gonna happen. Criminals have guns. Policemen have guns.

But compare to US, as the OP and others alluded to, gun related death is relatively rare in nations that guns are banned or strictly controlled.

That's not really as true as it sounds, and given your very short responses, you don't seem to be particularly interested in elaborating, nor does it feel as if you've done much to look into this and get to know the facts and figures behind all of this stuff.

[rkim291968]

It's still quite easy for someone to commit suicide using a hunting rifle (the only type of gun allowed in your country), or accidentally kill themselves or others with said hunting rifle. In fact, I would contest that it's easier to have an accidental death with a hunting rifle due to the fact that most modern handguns now have a "chambered round" indicator that tells you, at a glance, "THIS GUN IS LOADED". Many handguns also now have magazine safeties in addition to a slide safety and a grip safety, as well as potentially an additional frame safety, to prevent accidental discharges. I have not seen hunting rifles with similar features, most have a simple safety on the bolt and no way of telling if a round is chambered or not.

 True but then, we are talking about a small section (hunters) of overall population.   Gun ban isn't going to happen in US.   So, I am talking hypothetically.   If gun is completely banned but for hunters, gun death for all reasons (inc. accidents with hunting rifle) will be reduced significantly.   

[iacas]

Now, as I've said a few times, my interest in discussing this again has been exceeded, but if it hasn't for you, please endeavor to offer up more than "no guns means no gun deaths" or whatever.

 True but then, we are talking about a small section (hunters) of overall population.   Gun ban isn't going to happen in US.   So, I am talking hypothetically.   If gun is completely banned but for hunters, gun death for all reasons (inc. accidents with hunting rifle) will be reduced significantly.   

No, I don't think gun deaths would be reduced significantly.

Criminals, inner-city thugs, etc. would still have guns, and they'd still want to kill each other over corners, or money, or drugs, or whatever. Those gun death rates probably wouldn't drop at all, and they form the vast majority of the gun murders in the U.S.

People are not just randomly killed in the suburbs because of high gun ownership rates. In large parts of the country, more guns = safer and less likely to be a victim or be significantly injured or killed in a violent crime.

Edited October 13, 2015 by iacas