Vivian on 14/6/2016 at 14:32
Also all from this John Lott character! Does anyone have links to the actual data he's using? I dunno if trust his objectivity. Ah yeah, like you said. Ok, well let's find that then.
OK, so the data on UK stuff is from this paper: (
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf) http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
Two things I've noticed so far - one, the only data I can see that are presented in that report as population-specific are regional offences (all reported offences involving a firearm, so not just homicides) from 2009-2011 (table 3). So to get his graph, Lott's obviously normalised the data in table 1 to population, but I can't see what number he's using for that...
two, this statement: "Due to the implementation of the National Crime Recording Standard in April 2002 data prior to this date are not directly comparable with
later figures. " Doesn't say exactly how, but does suggest there are some notable differences in how these things were measured pre/post 2002, which also makes interpreting Lott's graph a bit trickier.
heywood on 14/6/2016 at 14:32
The CPRC is a gun rights advocacy group. So they are editorially biased. The same is true of pretty much every organization that is doing research on gun violence. That does not mean that all gun research is falsified, but it is heavily cherry picked.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that gun violence in the US is under a worldwide microscope, while a lot of other countries want to pretend they don't have any problem. I'm not as worldly as some people, but I've spent enough time in various countries over the last decade or so to notice that their crime problems are rarely reported by the global media. Unless a shooting is on the scale of Anders Breivik or high profile like Charlie Hebdo, it doesn't get picked up by global media sources. Whereas any gun violence story that hits the US media also gets broadcast worldwide.
In a sense, the scrutiny is justified because the overall rate of gun violence is so high in the US. But it ends up giving people a very distorted view that makes mass shootings look like a major public health issue when they are not.
catbarf on 14/6/2016 at 14:34
Quote Posted by demagogue
Guns are one thing, but I'd want to get to the root of violence with mental health services, develop poor neighborhoods & bring economic opportunities to areas with gangs, do a better job of teaching tolerance in schools and get the religious communities on board, and legalize drugs already.
I'd echo this and add in that I feel we can fix issues with our gun laws and enforce laws already on the books at the same time as doing the things you mentioned. Addressing gun laws to reduce the severity of violence and addressing the root causes of violence are things that IMO should go hand in hand.
faetal on 14/6/2016 at 14:58
I think we may be making TTLG history here by having a serious conversation about this.
I'd be interested to see some baseline stats because there are potentially interesting ideas hidden in some of the numbers above, but as long as they are making pro-gun statements (or anti gun-control statements) from pro-gun interests, we need to check the source before deciding to make it a fully validated talking point.
As for the personal responsiblity on safety point, it's also an arms race issue - since you only really need a gun to defend your home if your assailants have guns. So it's a chicken-egg situation. The only reason you aren't having to factor in grenades to this idea is because it is illegal to carry grenades and they are not commercially available in the US (please tell me that's true). Hence, guns are just considered the baseline of threat as well as defence. In the UK, in France etc.. I don't think I need a gun for defence since the ownership rates are so low. I've never seen a gun since I lived here other than those held by police / military. The risk of terrorist incidents is still vanishingly small too - more chance of being killed by a car while crossing the street. I'd imagine the risk of guns in the US is a lot higher though, depending on where you live. Take bjack for example - he feels he needs a gun to defend himself and probably not because he's worried about something throwing a baseball at him from range.
bjack on 14/6/2016 at 17:11
Unless I am going to a range or hunting quail, both of which are very rare occurrences, I do not leave the house with a gun. I do not carry. For reasons stated by others, but the time I could pull out the concealed weapon (it is illegal to open carry in my state), I would have been likely shot. I am also much older now and cannot see well enough to shoot a criminal asshat without potentially taking someone else out. I’m no longer 25 years old with a great aim.
Up until quite recently, I considered the very few guns I have to be dangerous toys and potentially something that could help me an mine in the event of an emergency. Recent events, which seem to have calmed down thankfully (knock on wood), lead both my wife and myself to have protection at the ready while at home. We have no children, so safety in that area is not an issue. If others are coming over, the triggers get locked. When leaving the house, they are locked up.
The guns are more of a talisman to me. Protective icons that magically keep the nasty people away. A sharp machete or samurai sword would probably do nicely too, but I would prefer to be farther away from the bad guys when trying to deal with them. Cross bows take too long to reload. It was own own Vice-President Joe Biden that advised Americans that if they want to have a gun to home protection, then they should get a shotgun. Nothing says short range stopping power like one. An “assault rifle” would be silly to use for home defense in my case, so I agreed with his advice and bought a shotgun. It has not been fired yet. It’s 2 years old. I hope it to get to 20 years and still never been fired, at least in anger.
But as for the statistics, I’ve seen lots of stuff from the NRA, various anti-gun people, etc. and everyone fiddles with the data to make their points. When the anti-gun people don’t like stats that show a reduction in mass murders, they redefine the meaning of mass murder. They also do not report situations where a crime was being committed and private citizen stopped it with a gun. Many times, the gun is not shot. This is all anecdotal, of course. I do not have the facts in hand. There are many doing a lot to try to keep these facts from seeing the light of day.
As for bias, both side will be. Where would the money come to pay for a neutral study? The current US government and courts (re: recent 9th circuit ruling that there is not right to carry, only to use a gun at home) is hell bent on greatly restricting guns, nearly an all out ban.
Tell you what Americans that hate guns and want them banned, start a campaign to rescind the 2nd amendment. Get that done, and I’ll turn mine in. And those that state the 2nd is nearly a statement that we should and can set up state run militias, read the Federalist Papers, quotes from most of the founding fathers, articles from the time. You can’t just redefine what something says on the fly, for if you do, then there is no law. Your looking at doublethink at that point. Freedom becomes a negative thing. Freedom from, not freedom to. Oh well. Happy Tuesday.
faetal on 14/6/2016 at 18:39
So you all need guns because it's the lynchpin holding the constitution together?
bjack on 14/6/2016 at 20:45
How did you come to that conclusion? Our 2nd amendment does not give us a right to bare arms, it recognizes that congress shall pass no law restricting the ownership and baring of arms.
Wow, I feel that if I said I like to track cars, you may say that I advocate the running over of nuns in the street. :) One cannot simply ban guns in the USA. We have a rule of law (not for long I suspect) and the constitution has very specific rules contained within for amendment. If someone wants to ban all guns, they must pass another amendment to effectively purge the 2nd. For judges to make the entire work moot by fiat is not law - it is tyranny. If they castrate the 2nd through false interpretation, what is to stop them for all other amendments? Or, at least the ones the people in power at the time wish to remove. Oh that trial by jury thing? Does not apply if you used a gun, used a condom, had sex with the same sex, ate and apple, mixed meat and dairy, etc. How about the freedom to assemble. Maybe a stacked supreme court decides no more than 3 people may assemble at a time without a permit. Can't happen? Just wait.
Krush on 14/6/2016 at 20:55
A couple of things:
If you want to ban guns, then who will defend you? The police and government have no responsibility to defend you - there have been a few court cases that uphold this. In the recent Orlando shooting, police milled about outside the club for three hours waiting until they had overwhelming numbers, special weapons, body armor etc...this delay cost many lives as some of the people who had been shot bled out with no medical attention.
So if guns are banned, the government will essentially be telling you, "You can't defend yourself - oh and by the way we won't either." I can't imagine most Americans will be OK with this.
Secondly, our government is currently unable to secure our borders. They can't stop titanic quantities of illegal drugs from coming in. They can't stop a million illegal aliens from coming in every year. How are they going to stop illegal guns from coming in? I mean, it's illegal to make meth within the US, but here we are in the midst of a meth epidemic.
bjack on 14/6/2016 at 21:07
Right there with you Krush. I found it extremely cute about that ruling that the police have no duty to protect and serve, yet we must bow down to their commands - no matter if we are in the right or wrong.
