Comparing something awful to something less awful means what exactly?

The US has a high murder rate, and obscene amount of gun violence and a bizarre obsession with guns.

None of that is made better by the fact that some of it used to be worse.

Guns just aren't the problem nor is gun control a policy solution backed by data. Controllers automatically assume that significant firearm restrictions would put our murder rate on par with Denmark or Australia, rather than say Brazil which has a higher homicide rate and significant gun ownership restrictions. Yet, *England has enjoyed a much lower homicide rate for over one hundred years...long before contemporary gun control would have been a factor.

Gun control is just a stupid concept.


*Englad also doesn't record a death as a murder unless a conviction occurs.

You make the assumption that if we could wave a magic wand and remove all the guns from America that the accidental death rate, murder rate and suicide rate will all be exactly the same.

Talk about stupid.

What we DO know is that countries with extreme and effective gun control for years have less gun violence. That's not even vaguely controversial. Less guns = less gun related deaths and injuries.

Claiming that there's nothing to do about gun deaths and injuries, or that we should ignore the thousands killed by guns even year in America - because it's not as bad as it used to be - is extremely stupid.

But the suicide rate is much higher than in the US.

I love this argument, because the corollary is that if we gave everyone in Japan a gun their suicide rate wouldn't increase, yes?

It's so obviously untrue.. lol.

Here's what the UBER COMMuNIST Stripes magazine says:

Experts: Restricting troops’ access to firearms is necessary to reduce rate of suicides

umerous prevention efforts were launched, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on studies and task forces, resilience programs and increasing access to mental health care.

Yet eight years and hundreds of deaths later, the suicide rate hasn’t improved. The number of suspected suicides in 2012 among active-duty soldiers was 166 at the end of October, surpassing the 165 total for all of 2011.

What’s gone wrong? Why hasn’t the Army or Defense Department been able to reduce the number of suicides?

Experts say it’s because efforts have ignored the most evidence-backed, proven prevention method: making suicide harder by restricting access to lethal means.

“There are two ways to reduce suicide: You can make it harder for them to die in an attempt, or you can heal underlying distress,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, the associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health.

“The idea is to restrict methods that are the most lethal, to provide a second chance,” Miller said.

“Means restriction,” as it’s called in public health, has been proven to reduce the suicide rate in a wide variety of places.

In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

Those attempting suicide for the most part act on impulse, often after surprisingly brief periods of deliberation. But the impulse also passes. A survey of people who deliberated about killing themselves but did not act found that for about half, the suicidal period lasted less than an hour, according to Miller.

http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216

Stupid commies, always tryin' to take my guns.

We've moved to a different country?

A) I never made that assumption, talk about a straw man. Homicides would probably go up as they did in England in the late 1990s.
B) There are dozens of countries with highly restrictive gun laws, and yet have much higher murder rates than the United States. That is a statement of fact.
C) Guns aren't the problem, gun control isn't the solution.

Mic drop.

worldwide, we are below the average and mean. If you subtract the twenty worst cities and gangs, our murder rate is about the same as Germany's. Chicago alone is ten percent of our murders.

Why, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

they were just made up BS...

Not a SINGLE US STATE has a murder rate as low as Germany.

Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

They remain facts, and you just look silly for trying...

Check the facts yourself.

I'm sure you're able.

Over half of US states have a higher murder rate than the national average AND not a single US state has a murder rate as low as Germany.

And yet you somehow think there's some math that says you can make the entire country have a murder rate equivalent to Germany.
It's nonsense. And if you checked instead of just assuming you'd see for yourself.

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that if you factor out the US cities with the highest murder rates, US murder rates are comparable to Germany's. Proving or disproving that claim would involve a lot of complex data-parsing. I suspect that it's not true, but your assertion above doesn't address it.

...they like to respond to things not stated -- I guess they think they're fooling someone.

I don't get it, myself, it's an obvious ploy, but some of 'em do just keep using it.

Personally, I was referring to the fact that the US is below the mean and average in violence, but the responder much preferred to jump all over something not stated at all. Go figure...

the US national murder rate is 3.8

in 2012 all of these states had a murder rate higher than 3.8

Louisiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Michigan
South Carolina
Missouri
Maryland
Delaware
Tennessee
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Arizona
Pennsylvania
Florida
California
North Carolina
Indiana
Nevada
Kentucky
Texas
New Jersey
Ohio
Alaska
Connecticut
North Dakota
West Virginia

And of course Washington DC

So that's more than half the states that have a HIGHER than national murder rate.

The German murder rate is 0.7

Not a SINGLE US state has a murder rate that low:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#United_States

Did you think that I just wouldn't have access to the information? Is lying about the US murder rate some fun gag for you?

And I love how your fellow gun nut jumps on board and gives you a virtual high five for posting "facts".

Lol.

Louisiana has a murder rate comparable to ANGOLA.

If you're gonna make up something make sure it's harder to check.

Germany was responsible for the murder of millions several decades ago, the brutality was at least partially enabled by gun control.

Fail.

n/t

Small arms, IEDs, and asymmetrical warfare can be quite a formidable challenge against exponentially larger and more technologically advanced fighting forces.

I'm responding to your historically inaccurate statement that, "A few guns against the government is suicide...what lives would have been saved?"

Have you ever taken a college level history course? Honest question.

The real history

I apologize for coming across as rude. Thanks for bringing up what looks to be an interesting read.

if you can play audio I will happily gift you Howard Zinn's History...but only if you promise to listen to it

A drop in the bucket, perhaps, but very significant to those who comprised that drop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defiance_%282008_film%29

"Don’t rush to fight and die. So few of us are left, we need to save lives. It is more important to save Jews than to kill Germans."

"We cannot simply hide ourselves. We must do something for our people. We cannot sit in the bushes and wait until the wolf comes for us. We must send people to the ghettos to save Jews."

&quot Tuvia said that he...)would rather save one old Jewish woman, than kill ten German soldiers."

"Our revenge is to live. We may be hunted like animals but we will not become animals. We have all chosen this - to live free, like human beings, for as long as we can. Each day of freedom is a victory. And if we die trying to live, at least we die like human beings." - Tuvia Bielski
http://www.azquotes.com/author/36235-Tuvia_Bielski

Tuvia's first objective was to see to it that the group survived. The primary purpose of their arms was for protection.

Not a gun problem

Mureder by knife requires up close and personal...how many babies who killed other babies were killed by knifes

a lot more babies kill themselves with Drano than guns.

In the Washington Post about people being stabbed to death in the area. Knives were used in about 1585 murders in 2012, guns in about 8850. Those 1585 people are just as dead.

"how many babies who killed other babies were killed by knifes"

Three times as many people are murdered each year with knives as are murdered using all rifles and all shotguns combined, including "assault weapons". Bicycles kill more people annually than are murdered by rifles and shotguns.

Most murders by gun are also close and personal...and most are committed by people with long criminal records, not the peaceable and nonviolent who are your primary targets.

How many of those states have a rate that is a function far more of low population than actual murders?

Excuse number three emerges.

Here's the thing though - add the population up and find the average murder rate and it'll still be 5x higher than Germany's.

How about answering the question:

How many of those states have a rate that is a function far more of low population than actual murders?

Since this is your new idea that isn't a thing, how are you defining it?

Are you saying that over half the US states including places like California don't really have high murder rates?

Sure you come back to me with your new made up "population below which murder statistics don't count" and I'll do the math.

I wasn't "saying" anything. I was ASKING. The astute among us will note that the sentence has a question mark after it. The even more astute picked up somewhere along the way, that this funny little squiggle known as interrogation point, query, or eroteme, denotes a question rather than a statement.

So really, the only mystery here, is whether you're an astute that never learned what a question mark means, or the more astute ignoring that one has been used.

You tell me.


How many of those states have a rate that is a function far more of low population than actual murders?

(Bolded it for you this time, so you can neither miss it nor plausibly ignore it)

99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and

You know what a rhetorical question is? Note that question mark <<<

So now you were just asking random questions?

Well the answer to your question is no.

The combined population of over half the United States and with a murder rate that averaged to more than the national average is not some trick or the light or slight of hand. America is a very dangerous place. Come live in Europe for a few years and your questions will be answered.

Put it a different way - all over Europe - a continent with more people than America - kids are safe enough to walk to and from school. Most kids literally have never even seen a shooting on the news. It's a nonexistent problem. The same goes for knives. There's basically no threat to anyone aside from things like robbery and mugging. And that threat is usually pretty low. Most people I know wouldn't be scared to leave their car unlocked on the street or their front door unlocked all day. My kids literally have never even heard of a school shooting. How far back in time would you have to go in America to achieve that? I went through metal detectors in High School in the early 90s. Kids in my high school were shot. That was just life. Not here. Kids walk home for lunch. Kids ride the bus into town by themselves. No one is scared of cops shooting them. If you think I'd rather my kids grow up in America surrounded by guns and heavily armed cops you're nuts.

The percentage of gun owners killing all those Americans is also beside the point. If you have to suffer to save thousands of kids a year - and by suffer I mean have your toy taken away - then so be it.

There's no justification got 300M guns being in the wild in a country of 300M. And even less when you simply look at all the innocent people that die so you can own a gun. I simply don't care about your desire to have one. It pales in comparison to all of the dead Americans. I don't think it should be a right and would indeed support the police knocking on your door and taking it away. Even if it only saved a few hundred children a year.

Your right to a toy doesn't supercede citizens rights to live in safety.

... so little time.

As they are where I live. But not everywhere in America. It's a big country, and a widely varied one.


And where is this? A friend of mine tried that in Tokyo, where the crime stats are even lower than Europe's. It was fine for several months, and then one day he came home to an empty apartment. He had been robbed. There's relaxed, and then there's foolish. In any case, what does the availability of guns have to do with common burglary? Answer: nothing.


Great. But school shootings are outliers in the overall problem of criminal violence.


And where was this? I live in a semi-rural area of upstate New York, and this doesn't happen. In cities, even small cities, where there is heavy drug and gang activity, it does happen. But it's not because there are more guns there; there are plenty of guns in the country.


Making guns illegal in America wouldn't save "thousands of kids a year." It would save very few, if any. The conditions that breed criminal violence would still exist, and an illegal trade in guns would flourish: just one more product to add to the smorgasbord of organized crime.


Innocent people die because someone kills them: guns aren't doing it by themselves. You will not eliminate that possibility by eliminating guns. At most, you will put a dent in it, and the gain won't be without other costs.


And I simply don't care about your desire to take it away. At most, you'd be putting a Band-Aid on a society that has cancer. Removing rights as a means of addressing social ills might be tempting, but it's not progressive, and in the long run it doesn't work.


Will these police have guns? Do highly militarized police forces bother you? Where do you think they will begin? Where are they most likely to find illegal guns? Do you see the irony?


And what about those who would die because they lack an adequate means of self-defense? Is that part of your calculus?


The Second Amendment doesn't exist to protect the right to own toys.

As a matter of fact I do, and I will let you know if I ask one. Not the other way around.



This question pertains to one of your claims. There is nothing random about it at all, as you well know:

How many of those states have a rate that is a function far more of low population than actual murders?



That would be an answer to a question I didn't ask. I asked this:

How many of those states have a rate that is a function far more of low population than actual murders?



Oh, but how it is expressed most certainly is, as everyone on both side of the gun debate knows full well.



Like hell it is. The 80 to 100 million gun owning Americans who aren't shooting anyone get a say in this too.



I'm pretty sure it isn't even "thousands" of kids a year, but reaffirm my faith and come back citing a report that counts 19 year olds as 'kids', wont you?

You have just self identified yourself as an anti-gun extremist, well outside the American mainstream.



Yes there is. Its a free country and people desire them. No other justification necessary.



Nobody dies "so I can own a gun" any more than anyone dies "so I can own a car". You are well off the rails now.



I'd say your repeated posts and nonsensical arguments indicate that you care very much about it. To the point of hatred.



Like I said, You have just self identified yourself as an anti-gun extremist, well outside the American mainstream.



My right is NOT in conflict with citizens rights to live in safety, the unlawful actions of others is.

but not quite scratching it. You didn't exactly refute anything I said.

I may have misspoke that it would be the same as Germany's, but it would be closer.

Yes, all of the twenty worst among those states. Some with more than one. For example, Michigan has Detroit and Flint. New Jersey has Trenton and Newark. It is the high gang cities that off set the rest of the state. Our murder rate is very localized. You used Louisiana as an example. Let's take a closer look at Louisiana.
New Orleans had a murder rate of 57.6 per 100K. In total, half of all murders in the state are in New Orleans. New Orleans is less than ten percent of the population. If NOLA were to become its own state or country, the state's murder rate would be about 4.8 per 100K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Louisiana

Of course, New Orleans is lower now than then. It is now less than 40 per 100K.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-50-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2015-1

Each of these states have at least one city that is a drug distribution hub and tend to have gang issues. BTW, why is North Dakota on the list?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state Given the drop over the past couple of decades, I doubt North Dakota had a spike, unless it has for the same reason Wyoming's spiked. The oil fields and fracking industries tend to send us other state's problems. Not so much the workers or the families themselves, it is the seedy "camp followers".

instead of learning WHY this occurred, we get more of the same ol' time religion abut controls & bans.

Aren't you the least bit curious? Or are you more interested in a transparent attempt at self-assertion by denigration and insult?

The statistics are the statistics. Don't be mad, be glad.

Last edited Sun May 8, 2016, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

?

Since the number of guns AND the population have both increased hugely over the last 50 years, that should move us to determine why, despite the "more guns = more crime" sloganeering, homicides have fallen. Liberals and progressives used to look at the problem of crime very broadly, addressing poverty, discrimination, bad schools, poor family life and lack of jobs; now, they are often obsessed with the rankest social policy "tool:" Prohibitionism. It is peculiar how some have taken a cue from more conservative outlooks.

It is unwise to look at an improvement in crime data, then slough it off without learning what at least happened.

Last year, my county of residence had a murder rate that placed it at the second lowest murder rate of all locations, except for...

The Moon.

Yet we are awash in firearms, with literally seven or more firearms for every living person.

is out of control gun sales also set new records and everyone thinks they have to carry a gun. Perhaps there is an economic incentive to make people think that violence is out of control.

and "gun violence epidemic" meme isn't being spread by the NSSF, or are you saying that Bloomberg owns a lot of Smith and Wesson stock?

promoter the NRA. They push the meme that violence is out of control and have pushed for concealed carry and open carry laws
that of course results in increased firearms sales. They have people so convinced violence is out of control many people think you have to be armed to hold off a small army.

they only say that people should have the right, and to roll back laws that were written by gangsters, New York, and the KKK, see Florida and Michigan, almost 100 years ago. Since the changes did not adversely affect crime rates, a true liberal would say that those laws served no legitimate purpose.
Can you provide a single example from the NRA claiming that? I only see it from Bloomberg and his employees, and the campus SJWs who claim our rape rates are worse than the Congo.

The real increase is growing interest in guns via video games, aka Gun Culture 2.0. Also, skeet shooting is one of the largest growing high school sports.

agenda, I used to get their crap in the mail for years until I finally got off their damn mailing list. I belonged to the NRA
until the arrival of Wayne LaPierre since then it has been nothing but a organization to promote gun sales and Republicans.
I won't be dragged into any bs strawman argument about guns. It always ends in bs about needing an AR15 or AK47 with
a 30 round magazine to hunt coyote or something. When I am out in a public place I am more concerned about some wacko
walking in opening fire with an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine than anyone wanting to steal my wallet. At home I don't need
an AR-15 to hold off a small army.

the only thing I got was the standard fund raising letters that follow the same formula, if not template, of everyone else. Give us money to fight off the evil extremists or your rights are lost forever. I will give you that LaPierre is a partisan and a bit of a dolt that needs to be replaced. His mental health registry idea and channeling Tipper Gore on the video games were repugnant and absurd respectively.

I contend that you are the one making it.
Actually, the argument is that they can be used for that, not that they need it. The argument is that they are the least misused of all guns, and it is the "modern musket". There is also the slippery slope argument.
Statistically, you should be more concerned about drunk road raging rednecks and being in the store at the wrong place in time. While rampage shooters make the news, your chances of running into one are less than winning the lottery twice.

Provide actual examples, then I can't say that. Until then, I'm like the non fundie still waiting for the second coming.

Just read the paper or watch the evening news. Those gun owners are constantly killing us.

The gun issue has such remarkable Poe-like ideologues that it is hard to tell.

A lot of people think child sex abuse by strangers is a massive and growing risk due to the same source.