Gun Control 3

[Robin Of House Hill]

Um, no I'm not. I kinda assume anyone who owns a gun got it illegally since guns are illegal. But even if they did what difference does it make? You dont have to go to a firing range to practice with a gun.

I dont live in the UK. But yes, guns can be obtained by criminals in Australia. Biker gangs, various organised crime groups, drug cartels. None of these people are breaking into my house to steal my wallet, however. Professional criminals in countries that aren't the US dont use guns that much because it draws too much attention, and when they do use them, they use them on each other, or on the police (who are also armed). There have been occasional incidents of innocent bystanders being killed in public gun battles by accident, but those things are rare because, again, it draws too much attention down upon the criminals, and those innocent bystanders being armed wouldn't have helped them much unless they go through daily life with their gun in hand, loaded, just in case.

You dont seem to be getting this. I am not bringing a cricket bat to a gun fight. The armed assailant breaking into my house (already an incredibly small statistical probability in itself) is NOT CARRYING A GUN. This guy breaking into my house (I'm my imagination he's the Sasquatch. Because why not. The Sasquatch has about as much chance of breaking into my house when Im home to murder me as some random dude does) most likely has a knife, or some sort of club. Because those are the weapons the vast majority of armed robbers in this country use. Literally nobody I know has ever been a victim of a gun crime. It isn't impossible, but the chances of it happening, statistically, are so small I'd be better off worrying about an invasion from New Zealand

Against a sleepy person in their mid 60's who has just woken up? Honestly? I'm not even lying to make a point, Lorien. I'm sorry, but I'm backing the fully awake intruder in this situation every time. You are an older lady who is fast asleep. The intruder has a loaded gun, and is storming your house with the express intent of murdering you. Life is not an action movie.

Let's see if I understand what you are saying. I would be better off if guns were illegal because then only people who owned them illegally, and by extension, used them for illegal purposes, would have them. This would make me safer. Additionally, you appear to believe that having nothing to defend myself, with, against an armed intruder would make me safer.

Am I to assume that there is a heretofore unknown code adhered to by criminals that compels them to leave unarmed people, unharmed? I don't know what you've been drinking, but that stuff is dangerous.

[Fragile Bird]

1) Japan is an island

Japan has a murder rate by firearms of 0.01 per 100,000. Jamaica, also an island, has a murder rate of 39.4, Trinidad and Tobago, 27.31, Puerto Rico 18.3, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 32.44.

2) Japanese society is very different from US. The US puts a strong value on individualism and personal freedom. Japanese value structure and cooperation

And Japan banned the carrying of swords and guns in 1853.

.

3) Japanese have a very different history related to guns. It dates back to the introduction of guns in and their superiority over ritualized cultural fighting techniques.

The Japanese law also prohibits swords. It dates back to a time when sword fought gun. It was a weapons ban.

Or just maybe it related to Admiral Perry "opening up" Japan and demanding that swords and guns be banned from being carried on the street.

[Lady Olenna]

At least one amendment has already been repealed so I think maybe someone just forgot to grease the slope.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Horza because I'm too damn slow.

And where do the changes end?

I don't trust our society to make the right decisions. Especially concerning my rights.

I highly doubt that Obama is sitting in his Oval Office plotting a way to ban guns. I mentioned the outdoors store scenario as an example of how bizarre people are getting. A customer getting irrate because he can't get the guns he wants or the manager blaming Obama for manufacturers not making more guns (which was probably BS and they were just sold out). Both sound like they have a screw loose.

Just seems to me this country is skewing to either side of the bell curve and there are fewer people in the middle range.

And I don't want those people deciding which ammendments to ammend. And if you're asking which people? Just look at the political parties. Both sides are just awful. Seriously awful.

[Shryke]

Still going?

Ok.

http://arstechnica.c...e/2007/01/6601/

When the data was adjusted for all the control variables, an extremely strong correlation was found between states with the highest levels of homes with firearms and the number of firearm-related homicides. Indeed, states in the top 25 percent of household firearm ownership had firearm-related homicide rates that were 114 percent greater than states that had household firearm ownership in the bottom 25 percent. Overall homicide rates were a full 60 percent higher in the same states. These numbers, corrected for various factors, showed that there was no significant difference between, men, women, and people of all age stratifications. In states in the top and bottom quarters of gun ownership, the data indicates that there is no statistical difference in the rates of homicides that didn't involve guns.

http://ajph.aphapubl...AJPH.92.12.1988

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.

Conclusions. 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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1485564/

OBJECTIVE: To examine international correlations between reported rates of household gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide with a gun.

RESULTS: Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.

http://injuryprevent.../12/3/178.short

Results: Over the 22 year study period household firearm ownership rates declined across all four regions. In multivariate analyses, each 10% decline in household firearm ownership was associated with significant declines in rates of firearm suicide, 4.2% (95% CI 2.3% to 6.1%) and overall suicide, 2.5% (95% CI 1.4% to 3.6%). Changes in non-firearm suicide were not associated with changes in firearm ownership. The magnitude of the association between changes in household firearm ownership and changes in rates of firearm and overall suicide was greatest for children: for each 10% decline in the percentage of households with firearms and children, the rate of firearm suicide among children 0–19 years of age dropped 8.3% (95% CI 6.1% to 10.5%) and the rate of overall suicide dropped 4.1% (2.3% to 5.9%).

Conclusion: Changes in household firearm ownership over time are associated with significant changes in rates of suicide for men, women, and children. These findings suggest that reducing availability to firearms in the home may save lives, especially among youth.

I like this one for the "self-defense" argument:

http://www.nejm.org/...199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Here's is a nice study of studies, for a more general picture:

http://www.sciencedi...359178903000442

None of the studies prove causation, but the available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that increased gun prevalence increases the homicide rate.

For those who don't feel like reading, or have shit to do:

- Rates of gun ownership are strongly correlated with a high homicide and suicide rate.

- They are also not correlated with non-gun crime. (ie - there is no substitution effect. Given less access to guns, people just don't switch to different tools)

- The above, fyi, is especially true for suicide rates. Given a lack of firearms, many people will not kill themselves by another means (for various reasons)

- also, for self-defence, statistically it seems you are less safe. And more likely to be shot by someone you know and/or use the gun on yourself.

A few other facts, cause I've seen this mentioned:

1) Gun ownership in the states has not "gone up" in the sense people imply. Guns per capita has gone up. Percentage of households with guns has gone down. Or maybe stayed the same. It can be tough to tell. But there's no indications of any rise in the rate. Basically, some people have alot of guns.

2) Crime statistics in general have been dropping across the developed world. For decades now. Associating that with American gun purchases is rather spurious considering the same thing can be seen in countries with vastly different gun cultures and rates of gun ownership.

To get back to the topic at hand though, the studies above and most you see are quick to point out that they find correlation but can't prove causation. This is mostly from the fact that causation is difficult to show in general. They can't be sure either way.

There is some research on this however. Here's one paper:

http://www.nber.org/...eb01/w7967.html

The notable part:

His findings suggest that gun ownership causes crime, and does not simply reflect individuals purchasing guns in response to increases in criminal activity. In support of this, he finds that increases in gun ownership are positively related to future increases in the gun homicide rate, but bear no corresponding relationship to non-gun homicides. His findings reveal that the relationship with other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.

This is pretty important because it shows (or purports to show) a temporal component to the correlation. And that speaks strongly in favour of the idea that gun ownership rates are the cause or at least somewhere along the causal chain.

Why could that be?

the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase.

ie - the more guns there are, the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them.

This is, again, important because any research I've seen shows no substitution effect going on here. Without access to guns, gun crime goes down and non-gun crime does not take it's place.

But again, causation is much much less firm. Correlation is very strong.

And just for shits and giggles:

He then examines whether legislation that allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons had an important impact on the crime rate. He shows that this legislation did not lead to a substantial increase in gun ownership, nor did it reduce crime relatively more in counties with high rates of gun ownership. This latter finding suggests, Duggan writes, "either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not deterred by the greater likelihood that their victims would be armed." Taken together, his results suggest that Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation did not have an important effect on the rate of gun ownership or on the crime rate.

[Durckad]

And where do the changes end?

Resisting all change is just as bad as rolling over for every change. Culture, society and the world changes.

I don't trust our society to make the right decisions. Especially concerning my rights.

But you trust an armed society?

I think the 'problem' with the US is less the crazy people that do rash things like this than the way that nobody seems to have any trust in each other, whether it be their neighbors, the politicians, the local police officers or, well, anybody. Skepticism is healthy, paranoia is not.

And I don't want those people deciding which ammendments to ammend. And if you're asking which people? Just look at the political parties. Both sides are just awful. Seriously awful.

Well, they're amendments for a reason. The Founding Fathers had enough insight to know that they didn't have enough insight to craft the perfect legal framework that would withstand the test of time. If we want change and we want things to get 'better' then we have to stop looking at our neighbors and our senators as the 'enemy' and at the Constitution as some holy writ that is not meant to be touched by the pens of men.

[andrew_]

First its our guns, then its our freedom!! haha please some people are living in a backwards frame of mind. Ban them all.

[ShowOverBooks]

I work in a middle school. Anyone can wander in at any time. They would have to walk past the office and the two older ladies who sit in there. Give up the guns. It is really friggin' simple. If you're such an outlaw warrior that you think you can save the day with your awesome warrior gun skillz, then do what Rambo did in Rambo II, acquire your damned weapons on site and quit packing them around with you.

I just want to clarify that I was being sarcastic with the first comment, and playing Devil's Advocate with the second..

I thought it was clear.

[ShowOverBooks]

People who argue more guns protect people from people with guns must have some sort of mental disability, that logic doesn't make any sense to an educated person.

Well, I am in favour of pretty strict gun control, BUT - if a teacher at that schoold HAD had a gun, some (most) of those kids might still be alive.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Shryke, your study on suicide prevention does not hold merit in this topic. Those are people who WANT to die, CHOOSE the gun as method...so I discount that as gun violence as thats not something perpetrated on a non consenting other.

This study from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) shows that the Brady Act which instituted some forms of gun control (waiting period and background check) had no effect at all....except in reducing the suicide rate of people over age 55. " Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states were not significantly different, except for firearm suicides among persons aged 55 years or older (−0.92 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval"

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946

Your articles Shryke, also do not address that guns have saved many lives. CATOS white paper on this "Tough Targets: when criminals face armed resistance by citizens" has a lot of detail about this, and many specific instances of how guns have protected people.

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens

Your studies show guns can kill. That is not unknown.

[ShowOverBooks]

Lev,

I oppose blanket gun bans not reasonable regulations and reasonable restrictions.

I don't think anyone opposes regulations and restrictions which they see as 'reasonable'.

The sticking point is one's definition of 'reasonable'.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

And if actual case studies of guns protecting women, men, homeowners and storeowners are wanted, CATO has a lovely interactive map; clicking the balloon will give a blurb on the situation. It is not all inclusive, but it is very obvious that guns have saved lives and property.

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/

[ShowOverBooks]

Is that true? How ironic. And why, I wonder did the mom HAVE a carry permit? Did she have a gun BECAUSE she knew she had a psychotic child? And did she, because the school she worked at FORBID GUNS leave her gun at home for her disturbed son to find? Had the woman HAD HER GUN ON HER, perhaps those kids would be alive...and so would she.

Abolish "gun free zones". Those kill more than guns do, it seems.

Zones don't kill people, GUNS kill people. I find it remarkable that anyone could think children would be safer if schools ALLOWED guns.

While the kill totals of each shooting might well go down, I think the number of shootings would go up.

[ShowOverBooks]

Are you seriously suggesting that a crossfire between people with a minimum of training, an assailant, and a room full of children is somehow SAFER? Because I don't agree with that for a second.

As for the pepper spray example, no one is suggesting that it isn't sensible advice, but it's wrong to ultimately put the onus of preventing injury on the victim.

Which do you prefer - reducing the chances/consequences of an attack, or having the right person/law to blame after the attack happens? I prefer the former.

Carry the pepper spray, don't take foolish chances, AND demand better protection from the police.

[Shryke]

Shryke, your study on suicide prevention does not hold merit in this topic. Those are people who WANT to die, CHOOSE the gun as method...so I discount that as gun violence as thats not something perpetrated on a non consenting other.

Actually it holds alot of merit since suicide it a complex topic and many people, if they can't find a way to do it at some particular moment, change their minds. The empirical research on this topic is large and extremely comprehensive.

Here's the New England Journal of Medicine on the topic:

http://www.nejm.org/...56/NEJMp0805923

You are just flat out wrong here. No wiggle room.

This study from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) shows that the Brady Act which instituted some forms of gun control (waiting period and background check) had no effect at all....except in reducing the suicide rate of people over age 55. " Changes in rates of homicide and suicide for treatment and control states were not significantly different, except for firearm suicides among persons aged 55 years or older (−0.92 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval"

http://jama.jamanetw...rticleid=192946

That says nothing except that the Brady Act isn't super effective.

It in no way contradicts anything I posted.

Your articles Shryke, also do not address that guns have saved many lives. CATOS white paper on this "Tough Targets: when criminals face armed resistance by citizens" has a lot of detail about this, and many specific instances of how guns have protected people.

http://www.cato.org/...stance-citizens

Your studies show guns can kill. That is not unknown.

Again, this is not at all relevant to the fact that gun ownership and homicide rates are highly correlated. If guns are "saving lives", they apparently aren't doing it to any degree that changes the above correlation.

The studies I linked don't show that guns can kill, they show that the more guns a region has, the more people die from guns in that region and that no substitution effect appears to be in play.

A well armed populace does not correlate with a reduction in the homicide rate. It appears that your assertion that guns are used for self-defence is not at all supported by data. Or none I've seen.

[Howdyphillip]

The definitive answer is that guns do not make us safer as a society. Any argument in favor of gun ownership that uses this as an argument is absolutely doomed to failure.

The only argument that holds any water is the matter of personal liberty. It is hard to see those points in the wake of the events today, but in the grad scheme of things, thoughts and ideas are potentially far more damaging to our population than guns ever will be yet we assure them in speech. No one is advocating that should be taken away.

[ShowOverBooks]

Since the U.S. had double the population lets adjust the numbers :)

Gun related homicides 2008: US 9,484. Japan 22

Gun related homicides 2007: US 10,086. Japan 44.

Gun related homicides 2006: US 10,225. Japan 4

Hmm I wonder what this means ...

Good job balancing the numbers.

It's a bit irrelevant, though, as the method doesn't matter so much as the total number of homicides by any means.

PRETTY sure the total homicide numbers will be very similar to the gun totals, though.

[maize]

Good job balancing the numbers.

It's a bit irrelevant, though, as the method doesn't matter so much as the total number of homicides by any means.

PRETTY sure the total homicide numbers will be very similar to the gun totals, though.

Yeah I'd imagine its generally a no-brainer what weapon somebody would choose for murder in the U.S.

[ShowOverBooks]

I heard on the radio someone advocating for security officers in schools, seems like a commonsense approach, boost security over access to the school. THe problem being is that schools are places that have people going and coming all the time and it would be extremely difficult to control people without being intrusive. As has been pointed out, once the door was buzzed open, nothing could have stopped this tragedy, he started shooting as soon as he got in as far as I can tell. Metal detectors, even a security guard probably wouldnt have helped,

You have the detector BEFORE the security door.

[Howdyphillip]

Good job balancing the numbers.

It's a bit irrelevant, though, as the method doesn't matter so much as the total number of homicides by any means.

PRETTY sure the total homicide numbers will be very similar to the gun totals, though.

You would be absolutely and completely wrong. Japan has the lowest murder rate of any industrialized nation.

[ShowOverBooks]

Its said he stole the weapons from a women and killed her too. Making the total death toll 28

And if SHE hadn't owned guns...?

I consider her an accomplice.