from December 8, 2012 provides some perspective on falling absolute numbers (and thus a falling rate) of gunshot deaths.
"Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.
. . . .
"After a steady decline through the 1990s, the annual number of homicides zigzagged before resuming a decline in 2007, falling from 16,929 that year to an estimated 14,722 in 2010, according to FBI crime data.
"At the same time, medical data and other surveys in the U.S. show a rising number of serious injuries from assaults with guns and knives. The estimated number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from 20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program. The CDC estimates showed the number of people injured in serious stabbings rose to 23,550 from 22,047 over the same period."
Emergency medicine for gunshot victims has improved enormously in the last twenty years, and many people who are shot by criminals now survive for a lifetime of permanent disability rather dying on the street. A crime can only be classified as a "homicide" by the uniform statistical methods if someone dies, but a crime can still be very serious and harmful to the victim if it involves a gunshot by a criminal.
Your link is behind a pay wall for me and I don't have time to completely analyze how they're justifying their spin, but according to the Bureau of Justice, non-fatal firearm crimes have indeed been falling for the last 20 years, so, no, it's not just a product of improving treatment of gunshot wounds:
Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through
2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s.
As this is a well-known trend, I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to can find lots and lots of citations.
Moreover, this should be obvious to anyone who has participated in public society for the last 20 years. Decreasing crime statistics, including gun crime, aren't fool's gold. Crime is down. Society is getting gentler.
Twenty years ago I was 15. Gang violence dominated the news. Hard gangsta rap infused pop culture and music and it carried with it a true dangerous edge. Now culture is changing. Electronic music is popular. NBA basketball players dress up to look like Carleton Banks for press conferences. Internet culture, reddit culture is taking over. Kids spend all their time watching silly YouTube videos and playing iPhone games. There is far less free time for roving bands of aimless punks to get up to mischief. My teen-age son and his friends are incredibly nerdy and gentle and I've noticed this throughout the generation.
Are both true somehow? Those facts seem to be in conflict.
> Criminologists say they are cautious about using such medical statistics to draw conclusions because of year-to-year inconsistencies in the number of medical institutions reporting data. The FBI collects annual homicide and aggravated assault statistics but doesn't have reliable numbers for gun and knife attacks.
> Jens Ludwig, a law professor and the director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, said he was leery of any number beyond reported homicides.
> "Homicide is the one thing we're measuring well," he said. "Everything else is subject to much more uncertainty," including varying numbers of emergency departments contributing data, as well as differences in how injuries are classified.
So basically, take your pre-existing political biases and use that as a guide to choose which data you believe, just like everyone else does.
Basically, all crime is down from its 1993 peak, and it so happens that firearm-related crimes are a subset of that. I don't have the time to run numbers to see what the percentage change is, but it'd probably be enlightening.
Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote.
Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support.
That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.
For example, FBI homicide stats last year show 350 killed by rifles of any kind, assault or otherwise, while 750 killed by hammers. I keep waiting for the groundswell of public support for hammer control.
However, "firearms, type not stated" is 1587.
Most people aren't really bothered by rifles (which are mostly used for hunting), but handguns (which really have no purpose except killing humans)
The point is, nobody is making or importing full auto AK-47s and selling them to gang members. A semiautomatic-only AK-47 is just the functional equivalent of a hunting rifle.
> The AK-47 is a select fire fully automatic rifle. It has been illegal to import or manufacture fully automatic rifles for civilian use for decades.
Don't do this. You know I meant 'AK pattern weapon', we'll use the WASR you can get at any sporting goods store for an example. You can get/modify all the parts to convert over a civilian AK to full auto without problems, unless the ATF finds out.
(not an evidentiary challenge, just morbid curiosity)
So that's the first gross misrepresentation that you've made.
The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control". Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year (whether homicide, suicide, or accidental).
I'm a hunter (albeit here in Canada), but just as I despise misrepresentation of facts one way, it doesn't justify gross misrepresentation the other way.
Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime.
It was only after that was defeated that people started talking about universal background checks.
>Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year
60% of those are from suicide. If you look at suicide rate by country--there is no correlation with gun ownership. How is gun control going to help our suicide rate? The best information we have shows it's not going to help because there are too many easily available alternates.
What if I think people have a right to kill themselves?
- Arthur Schopenhauer
You can also legalize euthanasia in case of severe, chronic depression, like in some European countries.
Introduce background checks and you will reduce the number of suicides, more likely than not.
The big graph they display is meaningless.
Here is a quote from the article.
"...gun suicides, where the majority of victims don't have a documented serious mental illness."
In many states background checks don't require a waiting period. So a background check wouldn't have stopped them from buying a gun.
Their entire premise is based on suicide being quick and impulsive. Yet their only data is on background checks for private sales.
Are you telling me that someone who wants quick access to a gun is going to wait until Saturday rolls around, drive to a gunshow and buy a gun?
"As with many states, Illinois has a mandatory 72-hour wait period between the time a person purchases a handgun and the time he can take the gun home from a licensed dealer."
BTW, I'm not arguing with you just clarifying.
That's because they knew that the nuts in NRA and other pro-gun lobbies would never in a 1000 years accept a total "gun control" law. So they scaled down their proposal.
Plus you also have this BS amendment about the "right to bear arms" that you treat as some kind of holy scripture.
I wonder what would have happened if some part of the constitution called for the "right to own slaves".
I suspect it would have been amended when the states agreed to ratify such a proposal..
Which reinforces my point: no damn reason to keep the constitution, the founding fathers and 200 year old amendments as "holy scripture". You can fuck "the right to bear arms" and change the laws.
You could, via constitutional amendment. There are 2 methods to do this, a constitutional convention (hasn't happened yet). Or the amendment can pass both houses with a 2/3 vote, and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
This is the legal procedure for changing the constitution. However, the anti-gun control crowd doesn't have anywhere near the support for this.
Ignoring the constitution and confiscating all guns via dictatorial fiat would result in civil war/mass uprisings that would kill far more people than currently killed via firearm.
As a very middle of the road type of guy, I joined NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation for the first time a few months ago because of too many people like you who are too easily influenced by the media in the past 6 months.
I actually went through a compulsory one year long army training (and got to be a sergeant) but nice try anyway.
>As a very middle of the road type of guy, I joined NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation for the first time a few months ago because of too many people like you who are too easily influenced by the media in the past 6 months.
I'm from another country, I don't even read your media that much.
I just feel that selling guns to anybody in a society with so many wackos (with the highest gun crime rates in the western world, the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the highest number of nutjob serial killers) is wrong.
And I'm also against the "protecting my private property means I have the right to kill any trespasser" cowboy logic.
I prefer to be robbed and let the police handle it, than kill people.
Kill or maim criminal intruders (given that murderers are rare). I'm not sure where in Canada you are, but hunting is far from rare in Canada and most areas of the US.
I live in Wisconsin and last I heard 15% of residents hunt regularly. I'd estimate for every 5 people I know who have guns for hunting, one has a handgun. I don't personally know anyone who has a handgun and does not have guns for hunting.
5% of Canadians hunt. That qualifies as pretty rare to me. I don't know what the percentage is in the US, but just gut feeling is that there's a wide gap between gun ownership and hunting.
If I were to perform the same sort of blanket percentage on Americans that actually watch baseball games regularly, I bet I'd reach a similar percentage. That doesn't mean that baseball fans are rare.
A citation for your 5% figure would be nice, because it might contain some meaningful context to lay a better picture than it does by itself.
I live in the Toronto area, and around here the percentage is, unsurprisingly, incredibly low. Out of the thousands of people that I engage with, I know one other person who hunts.
When a hammer is raised above someone's head and lowered with force, chances of survival plummet.
Guns are a far more useful tool than baseball bats. Guns have a non recreational purposes as functional tools, baseball bats do not.
The number of deaths per baseball bat are far higher than the number of deaths per "assault weapon", making baseball bats deadlier by far.
Wait, are you really claiming that a baseball bat is deadlier than an assault weapon?
If you are looking at banning something because it causes deaths. You want to look at how many deaths are caused per item.
Reducing the number of items by X will result in Y fewer deaths.
Baseball bats kill more people per baseball bat than do "assault weapons".
What other reason could you have for banning something other than reducing harm. Looking strictly at the numbers banning baseball bats would prevent more killings than banning "assault weapons".
- The number of baseball bats available,
- The number of baseball bat homicides,
- The number of assault rifles available,
- The number of assault rifle homicides
What font of imaginary statistics are you pulling this ludicrous claim from? Do you know how many hundreds of millions of baseball bats there are in the United States? If we're discussing the confused, exaggerated stats that originally kicked this off, add in the billions of other "club-like" objects in circulation.
You are making absolutely ridiculous claims.
I have no statistics, and I have no clue how many baseball bat deaths occur annually. I just thought maybe this would be a useful reminder.
The point is, like you said, it's exceedingly rare.
Guncite only comes up with two cases, one of which may one of the same ones you just mentioned:
I would say that an AR-15 is most certainly an assault weapon. It is a high power weapon (ignore the rather ignorant people who fail to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223) designed and built for military purposes. Being automatic fire or not has remarkable little relevance to its deadliness.
Right, because "assault weapon" is a made up term, created by the people at the Brady Campaign and other radical anti-gun groups, to promote their fear-mongering approach to advocating for more gun control. An "assault rifle" OTOH, does have a technical definition, and it does involve a full-auto or select-fire capability. A civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Calling it an "assault weapon" makes as much sense as calling it a "gandering gillifrous".
It is a high power weapon (ignore the rather ignorant people who fail to understand the difference between a .22 and a .223)
Meh. A .223 is still a relatively low-powered round in the grand scheme of things. A typical .223 round has less kinetic energy than a standard 30-06 round which is used for hunting all over the United States. In fact, .223 is illegal for hunting deer and other large game in some states, because it isn't lethal enough.
It's purely coincidental that it is a weapon enamoured and used by so many spree killers. Purely coincidental. It's a high capacity, fast-action semi-automatic (not all semi-automatics are created equal, and the AR15 allows a practitioner to achieve automatic-rate fire) that is military built to empty clips effortlessly. Totally the same as a hunting rifle.
Meh. A .223 is still a relatively low-powered round in the grand scheme of things.
And then you point out a MASSIVE bullet used by almost no one but in bolt action rifles. A bullet that is essentially never used in the commission of murders.
Yes, and that bullet is relatively low-powered compared to a 120mm M1 KE round. Which is completely meaningless patter.
May be. Spree killings are actually fairly uncommon, so trying to draw any inferences from such a small data set is fraught with risk.
Totally the same as a hunting rifle.
Nobody said it was. But I, and many others, refute any assertion that an AR-15 is especially deadly compared to many (most) other commonly available civilian semiautomatic rifles.
The point is that .223 is not an especially lethal round. Bringing up something like a 120mm mortar round is silly... 30-06 is a commonly used, generic-as-can-be round, which sits in boxes and boxes in stores and houses all around the USA. And it is a more "lethal" round than .223, but the anti-gun fringe jump all over .223 and the AR-15 to evoke an emotional reaction. It's pure fear-mongering and appeal to emotion.
After all, it's not just a "gun" it's "a high power, fast-action, semi-automatic assault weapon"! Which one sounds scarier and is more likely to get people all riled up? FSM forbid that the thing might even have one of those evil pistol grips or a bayonet lug, or even gasp be black...
It's powerful (dramatically more powerful than a .22), relatively light, and can be loaded in high capacity magazines.
When the military chooses it as the round of choice for killing people, it's pretty nonsensical to try to hold it as some sort of weakling.
Just to be clear... I'm not saying that you can't kill somebody with a firearm chambered for .223. Of course it's potentially lethal. Pretty much all firearm rounds are potentially lethal, even something like .22 Short rounds.
What I'm saying, is that the .223 is not particularly more dangerous than other common rounds, to the point that there's any reason to single it out for special attention. And the fact that military forces choose it doesn't dispute that. There are a LOT of reasons why military forces make the choices they do, and they're as likely to be economic forces as purely strategic ones.
If sheer lethal effectiveness were the only criteria used to select a round, .223 would not be the first choice for killing a human being.
Of course you can make any point with relative comparisons. Compared to a bb and a slingshot, .223 is deadly-as-fuck. But compared to many other rounds that you can commonly find firearms chambered for, it's average at best.
The closest numbers I can find so far are:
Number of murders committed with blunt objects, 2010: 600 
Number of murders committed with 'rifles', 2011: 323 
Number of 'assault-style' rifles: 3.75 million 
Number of baseball bats produced per year: > 1.6 million 
All this together makes me believe that no one has any basis to make any claims about the deadliness of guns versus bats, because no one knows anything about the deadliness of guns versus bats.
I certainly can't come to any conclusions either, but I can at least sketch out the bounds. If we assume that every blunt object murder is a bat and every rifle murder is an assault rifle, then there are twice as many bat murders as assault rifle murders. But the question is murder per bat versus murder per assault rifle. So how many bats are there? There are probably somewhere between 2 and 5 million bats sold each year, depending on how much of the market Hillerich & Bradsby have. If the average lifespan of a bat is 5 years and 2 million are sold per year, then we have around 10 million bats in the country. If the average lifespan is 10 years and 5 million are sold per year, then we have around 50 million bats in the US. This puts the bats : assault-rifles ratio at between 2.5 and 13.
So the way I see it, as long as no more than twice as many murders are committed by baseball bat than assault rifle, I feel comfortable saying that assault rifles are more deadly than baseball bats, using the metric of people killed / weapon. For me to feel comfortable saying that bats are more deadly than assault rifles, at least ten times as many people would need to be killed by baseball bat as are killed by assault rifles.
The numbers I could find would still allow for either conclusion -- there's just too much uncertainty in them -- but IMO it leans heavily towards the conclusion that assault rifles are deadlier.
That assumption definitely does not hold for the technical definition of "assault rifle" which includes full-auto capability. Murders committed with fully automatic weapons are very rare, and with legally owned ones, almost completely unheard of.
Now if you use the Brady Campaign definition of "assault weapon" - which basically just translates to "scary looking gun that I don't like" then you may find different numbers.
There are estimated to be around 1 million Ruger Mini-14 rifles alone.
Adding all of those rifles to the number and the total number of "assault weapons" and baseball bats are likely to be fairly close--at the very least more than half of your estimate for baseball bats which would put baseball bats ahead.
Compare to the 200 kiddie pool deaths every summer, which have the unfortunate side effect of almost exclusively killing kids despite mostly non lethal purposes, and rifle owners start to seem extraordinarily more responsible than kiddie pool owners.
At some point, I think we might as well cut through the hyperventilation, acknowledge potentially dangerous things are potentially dangerous, and let people choose their own risk profiles.
You have a very loose handle on facts. There are about 20 "kiddie pool" deaths in the United States in an average year. There are many more swimming pool accidents, which is exactly why there are endless regulations and safety actions around swimming pools, and it remains a serious tragedy that absolutely needs action. It is completely and outrageously unacceptable that children continue to die tragic deaths in swimming pools, and whether it's increased safety measures, or more education starting at a younger age, it is untenable and at some point in the future people will look back and marvel at the stupid risk taking that occurred.
Of course it's a garbage analogy anyways. Swimming pools provide recreation and physical activity for tens of millions of people. Guns generally sit in closets until that day it's used to commit a suicide, a robbery, a murder, etc.
I don't come down on either side on gun control, they're mostly banned here in the UK and that's just how it is. However, I think you'll find most people actually consider protection is a legitimate reason to have a weapon, so you shouldn't so easily write it off.
Perhaps most UK people posting here don't expect Americans to have heard of this game.
You're doubtless right that most are probably purchased for hitting people in the face, perhaps without necessarily even waiting for them to break in to one's house first.
With that said, people do have guns in the UK, just not law abiding people. Gun crime is apparently up 89% the UK since the ban as well, so there are guns in the UK:
So the points being:
1) you may survive an attack with a firearm, according to the OP it appears a majority of gunshot victims do (30k shot vs 8k killed in the US)
2) there are guns in the UK, and more gun crime since the ban went into effect. Infer from that what you will.
Agreed, my initial claim was hyperbole. I don't think weaking my claim to "serious injury" weakens my point.
> 2) there are guns in the UK, and more gun crime since the ban went into effect. Infer from that what you will.
Twice a tiny amount is still a tiny amount.
The point is, if someone pulls a gun, and you run away, they have very likely achieved their goal, and are unlikely to discharge the gun.
Current numbers put self-defense gun uses at something like 2.25 million per year, with indeed way over 90% never involving a gun being discharged.
There's also a systematic difficulty in the other direction, I'm pretty sure most criminal uses of guns also don't involve it being discharged. And some fraction of those don't get reported to the police or then reported accurately, you'd need to start with the national crime survey data.
Where things get murky is those defending themselves aren't always resonable. There are countless other cases where the "victim" steps over bounds within the UK, and presumably elsewhere, and whilst I don't really support protecting criminals, I don't entirely the idea that you can murder someone for stepping on your lawn, stealing from you, or any other reason besides you feeling that you or others are going to come into direct harm.
Personally I think the US has some very strange rules with regards to guns, standing your ground and protecting your property, but we are obviously largely divided on what constitutes resonable force, which is why I don't exactly endorse guns ownership.
Unless you believe that defending yourself is not a legitimate use case.
For exactly the reason you point out. Grandma and grandpa have gotten too old to even think of holding their own in hand to hand combat, but a very large fraction can safely use handguns. And, anecdotally, in my CCW class it was mentioned they had only failed two people, one guy who couldn't observe Rule 2 (was pointing his handgun everywhere, can't remember if he was really old), and one old lady who wasn't strong enough to rack the slide of Glock (unfortunately she gave up at that point instead of finding a solution that was within her physical capabilities).
In these sorts of threads, anecdotes and hyperbole can quickly overrule data and thoughtfulness, so I'm just hoping that numbers like "30,000+" aren't being pulled out of thin air. I'm not saying that's what you did, I'd just like to see people actually source their claims in threads like this which tend to devolve quickly.
While the population and number of guns owned by them has increased ~50%, the absolute number of fatal accidents has dropped by 1/4th, from around 800 per year.
I suspect not all of this is due to medical advances, a lot are hunting accidents where getting to a trauma center in the "Golden Hour" (for what that's worth) isn't possible.
As others have mentioned, a hefty percentage of those deaths are suicides. Would those suicides have happened if the option of a firearm wasn't available? Perhaps.
We have to be better than harm reduction surely?
Thing is, often people who are depressed do get better. And I think a lot of people who end up killing themselves would have gotten better if only they hadn't. I think this is all the more the case for teenagers.
That's why I think it's worthwhile to take away opportunities to kill yourself. That means making gun possession illegal, installing safety nets, etcetera. (Within reason, of course.)
How does your (oddly specific) statistic address this question?
We're both "high trust" societies. Compare to the Chinese stereotype/archetype of not trusting someone outside the family to run part of the business, which helped to kill Wang in the US and abroad outside of the PRC tends to limit firms to simple types like trading companies.
I agree, we are in many ways very different, many of them fundamental, but many fundamental are similar enough.
Sure, but I explicitly excluded non-modern countries. (I have lived in China.)
> I agree, we are in many ways very different, many of them fundamental, but many fundamental are similar enough.
Okay, but you're not controlling for any variables. Like you say, there are many differences even if there are similarities too.
Having a highly-effective killing device in the home turns attempts into suicides - and a gun is an order of magnitude more effective than other common methods.
Americans would go bonkers if someone started selling a do-it-yourself euthanasia machine. But we're ok with lots of handgun sales, despite that being one of their most common uses - more common than self-defense.
People in their first week of gun ownership kill themselves 57 times more frequently than the general public. That suggests to me that people who are determined to die are buying guns for the express purpose of suicide, and would probably select some other method if it was too difficult to obtain a gun.
Or, you know... to shoot targets or clay pigeons.
The media and bureaucrats want you to be afraid of your own shadow, when in fact you should be afraid of McDonalds and not wearing your seatbelt.
More importantly, I don't think your interest in particular freedoms should arbitrate which ones others receive. I can understand that you don't wish to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. No one is force-handing you a gun.
Freedoms are about choices for people. "I don't want this freedom, so no one should have it," is misguided. Plenty of others are minimally interested in freedoms you enjoy. Support freedom.
I don't see how it's less deadly to a crowd than a belt-fed automatic rifle
Because of course people are interested in this. And it doesn't have to be a stereotypical, cowelled people meeting in caves conspiracy. Instead it's an "auto-conspiracy", simply a large group of like minded people doing things in the same direction. Not even a "conspiracy" in the usual "it's secret" sense, many if not most gun grabbers are open about what they're doing enough of the time and often about their intended end goals.
That's one of the things that's driving the "counter-revolution", the gun grabbers have let their masks slip so much, have expressed so much hatred towards gun owners, that they and many many people who were just thinking about buying a gun have been buying everything useful in sight.
E.g. Illinois FOID card applications have quadrupled; that's a absolutely solid metric of people who haven't legally owned a gun up to now.
Incredibly true, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd also add
advertising > rational analysis
indoctrination > rational analysis
political bias > rational analysis
gratification > rational analysis
I'd have to attribute this to the general attitude of ignorance that seems to infect and grow and devastate minds.
When I was in 3rd grade, I asked my teacher why the sun was an inexhaustible resource even when it would eventually collapse and implode, and she said, "Well, it's not going to collapse in our lifetime."
Again, cultivating an attitude of "Just take everything for granted and don't overthink and introspect at all," which, fortunately, I wasn't a victim of. This attitude leads to political ignorance, emotion > reason, consumerism, and also effective advertising.
If it weren't true, The "Learning" Channel, MTV, VH1, Fox News, and MSNBC would not exist today.
But they do.
I imagine the total's quite a bit lower than the stated figure since many of these background checks would be for transfers and sales of used weapons, not always just new guns entering the system. I also imagine some people go through the background check but then for one reason or another don't complete the sale. Still, the number of new guns in circulation is likely very large.
One additional data point - nearly 9 million guns were manufactured or imported into the US in 2010 alone: http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-th...
= 58,062,897 more people since 1993.
So 2.8x as many guns than population increase.
(I agree that there are lots of people that like to collect guns, I just don't think they could possibly be driving (that much) manufacturing, making a lot of something makes it less collectible.)
It makes a credible case for less than 5 million. So you only need 20 or 30 similarly collectible guns to get to 100 million.
We also should not bother to argue too much over what constitutes collecting (that is, we should find middle ground or agree to disagree and abandon the whole discussion). I certainly wouldn't include someone buying 1 or 2 reliable and cost effective guns.
Absolutely. Plenty of gun-owners are just flat-out "gearheads" in the same sense as guitar players (who often own dozens of guitars and amps) or whatever. If I had money to burn, I personally would own a few dozen guns, and most of my collection would fall into the "modern, mass produced, non-scarce" category. The exceptions would be a few older military rifles, like maybe an M1 .30 carbine, an M1 Garand rifle, or an old British Lee-Enfield 303 rifle.
I have a friend in Illinois who's soon going to be moving back to Maryland, he's a WWII buff and has a M1911 (Argentine) and a beautiful Garand in .308 and he doesn't have to worry about those or any other state's "assault weapons" bans, except again NY, where you're only allowed to load 7 rounds in your magazines....
Recharging it with its 8 rounds clips is quick, and in general it's one of the most ergonomic gun designs of the century, e.g. it has very little in the way of protrusions to catch.
Agreed on FN's 5.7mm stuff, though; fun, but with a round only about 10% more powerful than the hottest .22 rimfire magnum, not practical except in full auto, which thanks to the Hughes amendment means we can't own any. But, boy, would I like to own a PS90 ... just can't justify it.
At work at the moment and don't have time to pull up the details until tonight, but the examples given say of romania where none of the above is legally available still has a high crime rate. The general gist of things are that having to keep around kids a parent doesn't want tends to lead to bad outcomes for the children in life. Its much more complex than that and obviously we can't run randomized trials across multiple generations to validate things (not that it would even be ethical), but its interesting nonetheless.
Freakonomics says this.
If you're going to talk about gun inflation, it helps to also mention human inflation.
The white murder rate in America is about the same as it is in Europe/Canada, etc. The black murder rate is about the same as it is in parts of Africa. (Something like 10x the white rate.)
First look here to get a rough idea of the murder rate in different parts of the globe:
Take a look here for the murder rate in different American states:
Notice how this is a very similar list:
With some corrections for urbanization, the correlation is even more extreme.
Also see the discussion and figures here:
But criminal-on-criminal violence is a disproportionate share. Are we supposed to think that the presence of guns is what drives the violence, or is it possibly that you've got millions of young men with no jobs and nothing constructive to do, with parents who don't care to bring them up right (or who can't control them), running drugs and fighting turf wars, cooking up ways to make bank? There's an argument that for some people, access to guns creates an opportunity; but there's a lot more at work here than that.
There's a social rot underneath it all -- and I'd venture that gun violence in the US is a symptom of the rot rather than guns being a cause. It seems remarkably dangerous to me to demonize the mechanism by which someone murders another person in the name of progress; politicians feel like they're accomplishing something, even though we still have a bunch of people willing to kill someone, if only they had the means.
There's significant collective cognitive dissonance in American society on this topic, I think.
"The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower decrease in the gun suicide rate, means that gun suicides now account for six-in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981."
Edit: Referring to some of the comments in this thread, not the article.
I hope pg and moderators find that there is more value in building a community that talks more about technology and startups than the growing group of single minded group of prolific downvote button clickers who make others want to stop participating.
My inclination is that we will see yet another reenactment of a famous internet flame war.
Not that it will.
So, gun crime's falling significantly slower than crime in general, which may account for the public perception.
Public perception is being driven by a media with an anti-gun agenda.
Why are you comparing violent non-fatal crime, to gun homicides?
The second line doesn't follow from the first as it is implied.
You can't get "gun crime is falling more slowly than crime in general" from that statistic, because "general crime" includes homicides which were removed from that statistic. It is entirely possible that if you add in homicides that overall crime is decreasing faster.
I don't really know, but it would be interesting to see some numbers. Is there some kind of minimum murder rate that can't be lowered further just with laws (i.e. some more fundamental cultural change is required)?
If so, then we might be approaching that minimum (for the current US culture/society) and that could explain why they aren't decreasing much any more.
And, wow, look at US's suicide rate.
There is frequently a claim that it's the FPS and other violent games that trigger mass shootings. Although I believe that there is an negative effect, I also believe that that negative effect is essentially all but negated by other outcome positive effects of gaming. I feel like there might be net positive outcomes related to those who would in the past have been the types who felt the need to enforce their ego through violence, posturing, and domination. Additionally, because those types of people / kids would then also not have come in contact with "mentors" who would groom them, there could also be a cycle-interrupting process going on here.
A number of people disagree with that conclusion based on seemingly reasonable scientific arguments.
If you start with the understanding that a baby in the womb is a human, this arguments sounds like "it's good that we have legal murder because it prevents illegal murder".
I am interested in the change per capita of gun shot victims as a whole.
There are so many other factors that could play a role here. And none of them negate the need for common sense gun regulations and re-funding research on both gun and non-gun violence.
That's somewhere around the middle of the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now totalling 42 states and 2/3rds of the population. Such an astounding political development---there were 2-3 states when Florida opened the floodgates in 1987---wouldn't seem to correlate with lower ownership rates.
As for this so called research, would you be talking about the output of people like Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC in 1994 when he said objective was to make people see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.”
Any wonder the NRA and gun owners in general were able to get the Congress to ban such "research"? And aren't you a bit disturbed by the violations of the rule of law of Obama ignoring these laws?
Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago, only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than surveys suggest, but there is still a strong trend downward in gun ownership.
And for this "so called research", I'm talking about the NIH and CDC research into gun violence that was cut off under pressure by the NRA in 1996: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...
Research for example that showed that owning a gun increases the likelihood of harm done to or by a family member or acquaintance.
And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians killing criminals, when such killing cannot legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are many other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high a level we hardly need to go into the details.
The average household size is smaller today than it was in 1993, meaning that it's possible that more individuals actually own guns.
Numbers are in death/100,000 people, (+/-0.1 because they were read from the graph).
A t-test on the yearly rate of change, yields a p-value of 0.002. (in Excel =T.TEST(A1:A12, B1:B14,1,3)).
Did the Bush have a peculiar approach regarding crime fighting?
So people see gang activity in places like Albany, NY or Springfield, MA or some suburb in Tennessee and hear about 15 year old gang members carrying handguns. They associate that real social problem with the tools that they are carrying.
That combined with pandering politicians and advocacy group funded PR efforts that land gun related incidents on the TV everyday leads to the present situation.
Similarly, war deaths (as a portion of total death) have been decreasing incredibly. Yet, globally we keep increasing our spending on military. And, the public is frightened of war. Some would say that the spending on military has been the major deterrent to war. But, studies show the decrease is more related to rises in democracy and global trade.
And I don't know the name of the theory, but stats don't really relate well to certain events, such as taking a bullet. If took_a_bullet = false, then are you really thinking about the odds? If took_a_bullet = true, then you've got bigger problems than becoming a statistic.
But if you talk about gun violence, people will generally have an opinion regardless of the facts, and won't tend to ask questions. That's why everyone has a strong opinion but few know that it's actually a declining problem.
Both sides know this. But each side is convinced that it benefits more from a fearful populace than an unafraid populace, and that the reverse is true for its opposition. And so the fearmongering continues.
What do you think are common reactions from gun owners when a nosy stranger calls them on the phone and asks if they own a gun?
Might it have correlations with the Zeitgeist created by the gun grabbers, especially when they dance on the blood of victims like with Newtown?
I haven't run the numbers myself, but someone's claimed that if you mash these all together, the post-Newtown "admits to owning a firearm" + the number known to be outstanding (we have solid figures on legal production and imports) and the population, the average gun owner owns about $100K worth of firearms.
See also solid evidence like Illinois FOID application rates as I mentioned elsewhere in this topic. By definition those are from people who haven't previously legally owned guns, and they've quadrupled since Newtown.
Negative correlation would be my guess. Where do I get my NRA check for telling you that?
That said, most guns used in homicides aren't used by the/a registered owner.
>The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.
US 4.8 per 100,000 in 2012
I wonder why this paper doesn't use the statistics from 2012, which show an uptick to 4.8?
There are lots of variables here, including varying gun ownership, gun control, and states like Switzerland show you can have ownership without high rates of killing (though they restrict ammo), but widespread private ownership for self-defence in the US does seem to correlate with high rates of homicide (inc. suicide), and other countries with tighter restrictions and a different attitude to guns have far lower rates of death associated with firearms.
- The ban on lead in gasoline and other products, the contamination of which tended to create dumber and more impulsive people.
- The legalization of abortion, resulting in fewer unwanted, unsupervised children.
That has nothing to do with the fact that kids are still accidentally getting shot.
I propose a new law; if a child (under 18) is found in possession of a gun the gun owner is fined $50,000. If the gun's ownership cannot be established, the parents or legal guardians are fined $50,000 instead.
People might be a little more serious about locking up their guns and not letting their kids play with them.
Dumb parents never seemed to be scared of their kids accidentally shooting each other but and one of them dies, maybe they'd be scared of them accidentally shooting each other and owing $50,000.
Seriously, no one is going to pay heed to this law because how would you ever get caught? No one thinks their kid is going to get into their guns, if they did they would do something to prevent it. I can't believe you actually suggest that someone would care more about a $50,000 fine than if their kid shot themself or someone else.
I don't own any guns now, but some of my earliest and fondest memories are of shooting guns with my dad. I think it started when I was seven... I was never allowed to use guns on my own, only with strict supervision with safety gear etc.
If the government was really worried about children getting into guns, they wouldn't set up a bunch of pointless fines, they would start an educational campaign (maybe even get the NRA involved) reminding people that if they have guns they should secure them and teach their children the dangers of guns etc.
Honestly its not that hard, get a cheap gun safe, lock your guns up, keep the key on your key chain. Be an actual parent and educate your children. Problem solved.
Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2007)
Cause Number of Deaths Mortality Rate
Unintentional Injury 11,560 14.0
Motor Vehicle 6,683 8.1
Drowning 1,056 1.3
Fire/Burn 544 0.7
Poisoning 972 1.2
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,263 1.5
Firearm 138 0.2
Homicide 3,345 4.1
Firearm 2,186 2.7
Suicide 1,665 2.0
Firearm 683 0.8
Suffocation/Strangulation 739 0.9
Poisoning 133 0.2
Now this is 6 year old data. But accidental death by firearm isn't the danger that it would appear, compared to other threats.
Firearms are still responsible for 3,007 out of the 16570 non-natural deaths listed. Or 18%. That's not insignificant.
The solution is not to throw up your hands in the air and say "Oh well there's a bunch of reasons why kids die. Let's not bother doing anything."
If child/young adult safety is truly the goal, then there are far bigger fish to fry than controlling firearms.
People are serious about not letting their kids play with guns.
You make it seem like this happens a lot.
In 2007 there were 122 children killed accidentally by firearm.
Sugar breakfast cereal is a far greater danger to kids than guns.
But giving them up is a small price to pay for fewer dead kids.
In particular, you should examine the risk of other activities that you consider acceptable for children, like swimming or going on a car trip to visit relatives in another state.
And you should also consider how many lives would reasonably be saved by your law, which might not work out as perfectly as you think.
If you stilt their growth and don't allow them to touch a gun until they're 18, they won't have developed enough to handle it themselves without supervision.
I think you'll find most irresponsible drinkers started before 21 anyway.
Drinking illegally at 18 years old might lead to different outcomes than drinking legally at the same age.
You'd be surprised how much of a difference it makes when you remove the rebelliousness and allure of doing something illegally. You see this time and time again with parents sheltering their children from certain activities or harsh realities.
Age-based gun restrictions are usually about non-parents selling or giving guns to minors, or carrying in public without adult supervision.
Firearms accidents are not a common cause of death; according to the CDC they amount to about 1% of all accidental deaths of young people.