Eye Opener - United States Ranks 31st In Gun Deaths. Not Great but Not The Worst.

a reply to: rickymouse

It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?

www.fraserinstitute.org...

This is what law abiding gun owners have known for YEARS. The problem is, "most" Liberals and the Liberal media has an anti-gun point of view and the American public have been brainwashed into thinking that all gun owners are all paranoid and not interested in public safety, which is a blatant lie. Stricter gun laws DO NOT prevent gun tragedies from occurring, just like tough DWI laws DO NOT prevent drunks from driving drunk. You want to make schools safe? Here's a perfect idea:

a reply to: neo96

The #31 ranking of the U.S. on the world stage should not instill "fear" in anyone. There's room for improvement, but we have much less gun violence than Central America and South Africa. Something be thankful for, IMO.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: aethertek
Wow we rank #1 out of the Banana republics, USA USA.

K~

Exactly! Where’s our trophy?

Guys, we’re just slightly better than Iraq!!!

Yaaay America, slightly less violent than an active warzone.. Go

Here's a medal?

And a beer?

freedom has a cost

(even though we have no freedom)

a reply to: carewemust

There is no such thing as gun violence.

People are just violent.



FBI Crime Statistics

Knives,blunt objects,personal weapons.

All more than rifles,shotguns,other guns.

a reply to: carewemust

Instead, as the chart at the link indicates, the United States is more like IRAQ and THAILAND, when it comes to the number of murders by gun.

If you take out all the murders committed by the Muslim separatist in the deep south of Thailand..... Thailand would rank considerable better..

originally posted by: carewemust
February 20, 2018

This was surprising to learn. At #31, the United States ranks quite a ways down the list of countries, when it comes to the number of GUN DEATHS per 100,000 citizens. We are not as violent of a country, as the News Media wants us to think we are.

Low levels of gun violence, seem to correlate with economic prosperity:

Take countries with the top indicators of socioeconomic success — income per person and average education level, for instance. The United States ranks ninth in the world among them, bested only by the likes of Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, Andorra, Canada and Finland.

Those countries all also enjoy low rates of gun violence, but the U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016. That was eight times higher than the rate in Canada, which had .48 deaths per 100,000 people — and 27 times higher than the one in Denmark, which had .14 deaths per 100,000.

SOURCE with Global Charts: www.npr.org...

If greater "prosperity" brings less gun-violence, you'd think that the United States would be more in line with Canada. I think our prosperity levels are about equal, aren't they?

Instead, as the chart at the link indicates, the United States is more like IRAQ and THAILAND, when it comes to the number of murders by gun.

-CareWeMust

And of those deaths, I wonder how many account for suicides and accidental discharges.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: aethertek
So what's the wildcard?

K~

Seems that the US has taken in a lot of folks from the 30 countries with higher per capita murder rates than the US (in reality, where total murders are considered, the US ranks 98th in total murders... but this is 2018 and we have to overclassify everything, so let's only care about murders committed with firearms, ya?) One has to wonder, non-PC question though it may be, if the US has fallen victim to some additional baggage all these immigrants have brought along with them. Did the US allow a few too many carriers of violence to enter the country, creating a contagion we are now witnessing?

I see so you think poor destitute immigrants are the cause of the problem?

Too many poor is that your argument?

K~

Eye Opener - United States Ranks 31st In Gun Deaths. Not Great but Not The Worst.

Eye Opener - Unites States Ranks 1st in Mass Shootings.

U.S. Leads World in Mass Shootings

Why the US has the most mass shootings

Why the U.S. is No. 1 -- in mass shootings

Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries: Nat'l Library of Medicine/Nat'l Institute of Health

Yeah.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

That's a good message from Tyrus. It echos what I posted after the shooting. Tyrus is saying TSA...and I suggested the equivalent of Air Marshals. One at every school with only one entry point to the building.

But that still wouldn't stop the maniac who runs through students and shooting, when school lets out. Tighter restrictions on firearms COULD reduce that potential somewhat.

I'd actually like to see the number of guns deaths in poor areas vs the overall. I have a feeling they stand out like sore, deadly thumbs.

a reply to: neo96

Yes..as a nation, America is violent...knives, fists, hammers, etc.. There's something about the human (?) that makes us scream when 20 people die at once, vs. a few a week. Fifty Seven U.S. children are murdered by guns in this country every single week. But no cries for action until a certain threshold (maybe 10?) is reached in a mass-shooting.

a reply to: rickymouse

This part should be eye opening to some anti-gun crowds:

This brief review of gun laws shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined here: not in Great Britain, not in Canada, and not in Australia. In all cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the means have involved setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime...

***SECTION EDITED FOR SPACE***

Please read the report that was linked to in the above posting by "rickymouse"

...Gun laws may not reduce violent crime but criminal violence causes gun laws—at least, well-publicized crimes do. The only winner in this drama is bureaucracy. The rest of us lose liberty as well as safety. It is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes.

There have always been criminals, and there have always been deranged people. Murder has been illegal for thousands of years: we need only remember the saga of Cain and Abel. The mass media find gun crimes more newsworthy but multiple civilian murders by arson have historically claimed more lives than incidents involving firearms. The truth is we live in a dangerous world and the government cannot protect us, if for no other reason than the police cannot be everywhere. We must ultimately rely upon ourselves and it is only right we have the necessary tools to do so

a reply to: carewemust

The real eye-opener here?

All charts exclude deaths in armed conflict and from accidents or self-harm.

Read the fineprint! I start to wonder if they even registered police violence, you wont like the raw data. What's the point in comparing countries if you don't compare ...err... what the "prospering" countries...

*sigh*

We need bigger wars. And more of them!

You remember when that guy shot and killed 8 of his neighbors coz they wouldn't stop singing Country Roads,

in thailand?

I suppose kidnapping 300 girls and turning them into suicide bombers is not counted as gun violence.

Or Killing 150 students at a school in Pakistan or 1100 people in Beslan don't count either.

Don't forget america is the most racist country in the world, Obama said so, to everyone.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: carewemust
February 20, 2018

This was surprising to learn. At #31, the United States ranks quite a ways down the list of countries, when it comes to the number of GUN DEATHS per 100,000 citizens. We are not as violent of a country, as the News Media wants us to think we are.

Low levels of gun violence, seem to correlate with economic prosperity:

Take countries with the top indicators of socioeconomic success — income per person and average education level, for instance. The United States ranks ninth in the world among them, bested only by the likes of Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, Andorra, Canada and Finland.

Those countries all also enjoy low rates of gun violence, but the U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016. That was eight times higher than the rate in Canada, which had .48 deaths per 100,000 people — and 27 times higher than the one in Denmark, which had .14 deaths per 100,000.

SOURCE with Global Charts: www.npr.org...

If greater "prosperity" brings less gun-violence, you'd think that the United States would be more in line with Canada. I think our prosperity levels are about equal, aren't they?

Instead, as the chart at the link indicates, the United States is more like IRAQ and THAILAND, when it comes to the number of murders by gun.

-CareWeMust

And of those deaths, I wonder how many account for suicides and accidental discharges.

Would those type of gun-deaths change the country-by-country comparison by a meaningful amount?

originally posted by: aethertek
I see so you think poor destitute immigrants are the cause of the problem?

Too many poor is that your argument?

K~

Money has nothing to do with what I posted. Culture, however, does. You can't mix barn cats and house cats together and expect things to go well. The US "melting pot" experiment is a roaring success only if you look at the good stuff, if you look at the whole picture, you see cultural dissonance rear it's head and start to realize that a lot of bad stuff has accompanied the experiment. I'm not saying that the bad has outweighed the good (not saying it hasn't, either) but it certainly seems like situations in which that cultural dissonance revolves around differing values and grossly different social development stages, bad things happen.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: aethertek
I see so you think poor destitute immigrants are the cause of the problem?

Too many poor is that your argument?

K~

Money has nothing to do with what I posted. Culture, however, does. You can't mix barn cats and house cats together and expect things to go well. The US "melting pot" experiment is a roaring success only if you look at the good stuff, if you look at the whole picture, you see cultural dissonance rear it's head and start to realize that a lot of bad stuff has accompanied the experiment. I'm not saying that the bad has outweighed the good (not saying it hasn't, either) but it certainly seems like situations in which that cultural dissonance revolves around differing values and grossly different social development stages, bad things happen.

This has been a multi cultural multi racial society since its inception so what would be different now.

K~

a reply to: carewemust

The article linked by the OP makes some interesting comparisons, but it seems incomplete to me. A lot of the argument WRT gun violence orbit the number of firearms available. I assume, to an extent, that this is a valid agument, but I'd like to throw in another variable for the sake of agument.

A more compete picture can be drawn by not only compring the number of statistical deaths due to gun violence by country side by side, but also by comparng those numbers to the number of firearms legally owned per capita in the population of each country. In the OP and the comments I'm seeing two countries we that we can use for comparison to the US, Canada and Iraq.

From the original article, the number of deaths per 100000 for the US, Canada, and Iraq are 3.85, 0.48, and 4.28, respectively.

NPR

The quick and dirty figures for number of firearms (small arms) per country comes from an estimat based on surveys dating back to 2007, close enough for illustrative purposes, i suppose.

Wiki Firearms per Capita

From wiki, the number of firearms per capita for the US, Canada, and Iraq are 101, 30.8, and 34.2 per 100 people.

Since the number of deaths form the OP article is per 100000 people, we multiply the number of guns by 100 to ger 101000, 30800, and 34200 firearms per 100000 people.

Now we can look at the ratio of firearm deaths to firearms owned by country. It breaks down like this (rounded):

US= 1:26439

Canada= 1:64166

Iraq= 1:7990

If you compare jsut the US and Canada, it would appear that there is a direct correlation between the number of guns available per capita, and the liklihood of death due to gunfire. The US has 3X more guns pre capita, and you are 2.5X more likely to die by gunfire.

The argument falls apart when you compare the US and Iraq, or Canada and Iraq. In the first case, the US has 3X more guns than Iraq, and a lower number of deaths per capita; and in the second, Iraq has nearly the same number of guns per capita, but you are 8X more likely to die by firearm.

The first conclusion is, the US does not rank close to Iraq whe you look at the number of firearms availabel to deaths per capita.

All things being equal, where the US and Canada are a much better comparison by way of regional stability, culture, etc., it appears that the number of firearms available does correlate to hight instances of death by firearem. But, is that the prevailing variable?

What stands out to me from the OP's article is the number of deaths per capita by comparison in the Island nations of Hispanola, Central America, and South america. I have to wonder if the differences between the US an Canada have more to due with cutlural influences and migration into the US deo to regioinal proximity, or if that's jsut a coincidence.

Just to clear the air, I am pro gun rights, but I do not own any firearms (not in the budget).

I'm curious to see if anyone else can explain the disparities, or correct my math. I'm not a numbers guy. Hopefully I liked everything correctly. Let me know if I screwed up.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Take a trip to Iraq and live there for a year. Come back and tell me again how we're slightly better than them. I'll wait.