Do Less Guns Really Mean Less Crime?

reply to post by 200Plus


I look at this a different way -- we see "3 sigma" behavior when the population gets big enough. It only takes a population of a few thousand to have a few oddballs -- and a few more notable criminals too. We see the same too in very small towns but on occasion over a long span of time. In a sense the population must add up, over time, to a size large enough to support the occurrence of "3 sigma" behavior.

Large, major cities are really big enough to get truly bizzare crimes because they are big enough to make observing 4 and even 5 sigma behavior likely. It would be totally unexpected to fail to see some cases of really extreme behavior in major cities anywhere in the world. How that plays out, what type of extremeness is more common, probably has a lot to do with local culture -- but that it will exist is guaranteed.

Making laws for law abiding citizens does nothing to get guns out of the hands of criminals because news flash to gun control advocates criminals don't follow the law. All of the major shootings in the U.S. lately have taken place in gun free zones or places where gun control is mos strictly enforced look at Chicago the murder rate is threw the roof because law abiding citizens can't have guns and the gang bangers are running wild shooting everybody because they don't care about the laws. Chicagos mayor is thinking of having the national guard protect the city and that's what strict gun control brings to cities. The most violent cities across America are strict gun states California, Chicago, and New York.

reply to post by amfirst1


England has lower crime rates. Don´t be fooled by the statistics, as these leave out the fact that in England the definition of Violent crime is much wider. In US only murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery constitute as a violent crime, while in UK any action that harms other, even mentally can be considered violent crime. From vandalism to slaps and bar fights, if you are too loud at the night and police is called, you are registered as violent criminal... Just in comparison, in statistics less than 15% of sexual offenses registered in UK as violent crime would fall under US definition of violent crime...

If we take a look at the murder rates, more people are murdered in US even without using guns than in UK.

United States - 4.8 homicides per 100k persons out of which 3.6 are done with a firearm and 1.2 without.
UK - 1.2 homicides per 100k persons out which 0.25 are done with a firearm and 0.95 without.

Whichever murder rates you take a look at, still US leads the table... There are 3 times more people intentionally killed with firearms than the total murder rate in UK, while one more person is killed in 400000 (1.2-0.95= 0.25/100k) in every year with other weapons.

reply to post by Auricom


I disagree.

It takes a lot more rage to stab someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.

Plus you can't stab someone from 100 yards away.

How many kids watching Batman would have got away from the looney with the guns? How many people would have just knocked him out and overpowered him if he just had a hockey stick?

reply to post by Grimmley


it won't happen overnight, it starts with changing the law and then amnesties and arrests for people who have firearms and strict punishments on gun companies who sell to un-licensed citizens.

it can be done tho, you just don't want it done

reply to post by BayesLike


The gun laws that were changed in the UK in the 90's were done to make things even tighter on collectors and sporting shooters, because it turned out even the responsible citizens couldn't be trusted to not turn nuts one day and play real life GTA (See Hungerfood Massacre)

The increase in violent crime in the UK is not connected to this at all tho, the increase is due to the influx of drugs and gang culture and this statistic is pure coincidence.

reply to post by Beavers


I am going to go out on a limb and say you have no proof of that statement either. Killing is killing is killing. You have obviously never done it, so please don't say "how much rage each method requires".

This why the debate will never be settled. People simply don't care about emotional drivel anymore. You just keep coming out with "poor children, poor children".

I care about my family, my friends, and my neighbors. I have been to mass gravesites. Seventy year old ones and some where the bodies are still warm. I never want that to happen to MY people. So I decide to be armed. Perhaps it's paranoia and the government has only the best intentions for our citizens. Then all I have wasted is some extra money on a useless tool. If we disarm and our worst fears are ever realized I would have wasted lives to appease another persons emotions. I'll take my chances on having and never needing a gun rather then the alternatives.

You know, for the children...................

Beavers
reply to post by BayesLike

 

The increase in violent crime in the UK is not connected to this at all tho, the increase is due to the influx of drugs and gang culture and this statistic is pure coincidence.

Are you kidding me? The crimes rate spiking doesn't count because of drugs and gangs?

Who do you think is committing the overwhelming majority of gun crime in America?

Hell, you solved it. Let's not count any crimes where drugs or gangs are involved. I bet the US looks a lot better now.

reply to post by Beavers


Here are a few facts relating to gun ownership in Australia
www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by MikeNice81

I'm a little brain fogged right now, but I would bet that at no point in the last 13 years has homicide been larger than suicide.

I don't disagree with that but my original point was that from children to young adults unintentional death by guns is the second largest cause of death in the country.

reply to post by Beavers


No, the "gun crime" would go down if they stop these ridiculous, "feel good" gun control laws. See here is what the majority of non-U.S. people, and unfortunately more of the younger American population, do not understand about our "gun nut" culture.

First off our country was founded by the use of the firearm to revolt from the crown, to secure our free state, firearms are a quintessential and integrated part of American history.

Secondly, the inalienable right to bear arms (firearms), this is a right granted to us by our creator (God), and no man, government or other person can take that away from us. The Second Amendment is about the balance of between the People/Federal Government.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you read the Federalist Papers you will understand that it was introduced to ensure that there was not a monopoly of force for the Federal Government. We have an elective Representative Republic, not a mob rule democracy. We the People of the United States are the Government. The federal reps are supposed to (not always) represent us and our wishes, that's why we have elections.

Now before you go on about what the term the founding fathers meant by militia, it is us the United States Citizens. The Citizens form the States (are there own micro countries, think of the term as "nation states") and the States in turn united together with each other, forming the Federal Government to help aid in the common defense, trade with other nations, as well as diplomatic relations with other nations. So no, there should not be laws or taxes to "infringe" on the ownership of firearms of an American Citizen. On a side note for you can understand how the founding fathers regarded a Citizen of the United States of America, no one, no government or any other force on earth can revoke your status of an American Citizenship, unless that person solely renounces it, without coercion.

Now gun violence will drop dramatically if these few things were done:

1. Enforce the rule of law already in place/
2. Stop the programs of BATF and DOJ sending weapons to the drug cartels.
3. Allow the USCBP to secure the boarders and enforce immigration laws.
4. End the "Unarmed Victim Zones" errr I mean "Gun Free Zones"
5. End the "War On Drugs" - Legalize them all and tax the living *&^% out of them (the problem will correct itself). This will defund all the gangs and make it worthless to defend one's "turf", and the need for illegal firearms would cease to exist.
6. Stop arming countries that support drug cartels and terrorist cells.
7. Hold the Citizens who do violate the law and another's Rights, accountable for their actions instead of punishing everyone for the transgression of one.

Grim

PhoenixOD
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

I'm a little brain fogged right now, but I would bet that at no point in the last 13 years has homicide been larger than suicide.

I don't disagree with that but my original point was that from children to young adults unintentional death by guns is the second largest cause of death in the country.

edit on 24-9-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

No your original point was that it was the leading killer of kids. I showed that to be wrong. You then said it was second to automobile deaths. Which, it isn't. The CDC includes suicides. Suicides are intentional. Then you have the CDC listing every gun death as an unintentional injury death. Even when they separate "homicide" and "suicide" they still include police intervention, self defense, accidents, and unknown causes. When you break it down to what the CDC truly lists as "unintentional fatal injury" in the WISQARS database there were 606 deaths in 2010. That is across all ages. When you break it down to kids under 14 the number was 62. For all violence related deaths of children 14 and under it was 302. That comes out to 364 "unintentional injury" deaths for children under 14. If you search "all intents" it will spit back the number 380. 1,118 people died of unintentional suffocation in the same age range.

In other words suffocation beats out all fatal firearms deaths for children under 14 by a nearly 3:1 margin.

I could keep going and break it down further and further. However, I am on break at work. Look through the CDC's data and pay attention to how they define things. You'll see that a lot of the big scary numbers you hear are over inflated.

WISQARS

Another thing to look at is, if you break down the reason for deaths for kids >1 - 14 all forms of homicide are #4. Firearms make up 208 of those deaths. If you extend the range out to 16 homicide climbs to number 3 and firearms jump to 512. What happens in those two years to increase the number more than two fold? Those are the years that kids tend to start getting involved in gangs and organized crime. You can see the immediate effects that has on mortality rates. If you want to protect kids start working on things like education, after school care, mental health counseling, and so forth. It isn't the guns getting the kids, it is the gangs.

Some people have a mental block with guns and knives. Its really that simple. Maybe they watch too many action movies as well and feel as though bad guys are everywhere waiting to shoot you. These people dont live in reality land.

I know one thing. Someone who is stronger than me, when I am outclassed by gangsters, someone who has a weapon and it is clearly visible...I DONT MESS WITH THEM! Its common sense.

Of course some people are unstable and dont deserve them. Its good that we have checks and balances. That is what the screening process is for. I do believe in mild gun control but not as much as the government wants.

There are also criminals who will get them regardless of any law. These people have connections to organised crime and love unarmed citizens. It makes for easy pray. I know lots of businesses in new jersey that got robbed late at night when most people sleep, the parking lots are empty, the robbers rush from the backdoor and catch everyone by suprise. Its not pretty.

Buy a gun but you dont need a big collection either. Better to have one or two guns with plenty of ammo than lots of guns and low on ammo.

reply to post by MikeNice81


different places seem to give different stats

Of the 6,493 adolescent deaths in 2007 due to unintentional injuries, motor vehicle traffic was the leading cause death (70.7 percent), followed by poisoning (12.9 percent). However, of the 10,415 deaths due to both unintentional and intentional (or violence-related) injuries, motor vehicle traffic accounted for 44.1 percent of deaths, while homicide by firearm was the second leading cause of injury death, accounting for 18.2 percent of adolescent deaths of this nature. Firearms accounted for 85.3 percent of homicide deaths and 42.5 percent of suicide deaths among adolescents.

source

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Yep and another thing is that most gun crime is gang related. If it wasn't for the "hommies" and the inner city gang/drug related shootings the actual gun crime rate would be amazingly low. Even with that probably more people die from baseball bats, and definitely car crashes.

PhoenixOD
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

different places seem to give different stats

Of the 6,493 adolescent deaths in 2007 due to unintentional injuries, motor vehicle traffic was the leading cause death (70.7 percent), followed by poisoning (12.9 percent). However, of the 10,415 deaths due to both unintentional and intentional (or violence-related) injuries, motor vehicle traffic accounted for 44.1 percent of deaths, while homicide by firearm was the second leading cause of injury death, accounting for 18.2 percent of adolescent deaths of this nature. Firearms accounted for 85.3 percent of homicide deaths and 42.5 percent of suicide deaths among adolescents.

source

That is an old article. Data is available for 2010. I posted a link to the data base in my last post. That article also deals with the very specific range of 16 - 19 and not the broad range of "children" that you spoke of. It also doesn't speak to your original assertion that the deaths were accidental.

What you have found is an article that goes along with what I said previously about 15 and 16 year old kids. That is the age range when they become involved in gangs and organized crime. From 15 - 24 homicide is a very real danger for a subset of Americans. However, it is not accidental and in all honesty can be traced mainly to the poorest sections of the larger cities.

The article also includes suicide. Studies have shown that gun regulation does not affect suicide rates. Those 42.5% of suicide deaths would probably have still occurred by different means. So, including those numbers only muddles the picture.

Isnt accidental death by guns the number one cause of death for children in the US?

Ahh i see i was worng..its the SECOND leading cause of death in the US after car crashes..

I don't disagree with that but my original point was that from children to young adults unintentional death by guns is the second largest cause of death in the country.

You keep saying unintentional and accidental. I've shown that it isn't the second leading cause of accidental death. So now you bring in suicide and homicide. Pick an argument that you want to make and make it. I've already discussed the "accidental" claim. I have also addressed how the CDC labeling is misleading and they label intentional acts such as suicide, police intervention, and self defense as unintentional fatal injury. Thus, the numbers don't reflect an accurate accounting of unintentional fatal injuries. Your original argument is wrong.

I agree that a lot of kids between 15 and 19 die in firearm related incidents every year. However, the numbers when broken down show that it is mainly a problem that coincides with entry in to organized crime and gangs. We have a culture problem and not a gun problem. I understand that it is easy to blame guns. It takes a lot less work than actually fixing the economy so that parents can spend time with their kids. It is easier than fixing an education system designed to "civilize" farm workers and corrupted by unions and patronage.

reply to post by 200Plus


so because you've seen murder (during war?) in non democratic countries, you're willing to take a few thousand dead kids on the chin, just in case, the horrors you've seen happen at home too?

I see your logic, but I still think it's based on fear and ultimately selfish.

other countries with democracy that don't have guns haven't escalated into the horrors you speak of, why would the US?

reply to post by 200Plus


you've misunderstood me, I'm saying it IS due to gangs and drugs and so you're actually agreeing with me

see, I knew there was good in your Darth

reply to post by Grimmley


yeah, but you aren't.

The US is masturbating all over the middle east and chipping away at the rights of its voters and nobody with guns has ever done squat to stop it.

Meanwhile kids die from what's nothing but a bad excuse.

I'm sure you think you're doing a grand job, but your 45 is limp and impotent. If you aint gonna use it, get a better excuse to keep it, or lose it!

Beavers
reply to post by Grimmley

 

yeah, but you aren't.

The US is masturbating all over the middle east and chipping away at the rights of its voters and nobody with guns has ever done squat to stop it.

Meanwhile kids die from what's nothing but a bad excuse.

I'm sure you think you're doing a grand job, but your 45 is limp and impotent. If you aint gonna use it, get a better excuse to keep it, or lose it!

So just because people in america have plenty of guns&ammo they should rush to washington dc and start a potential civil war betwen left and right or just against the machine? What kind of twisted logic is that?

No one looks forward to tens or hundreds of thousands dying. Its a last resort solution, not a first resort solution. Sooner or later something may need to be done though.