quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

If your assailant wouldn't normally have a gun, the overall figures are much much lower - as evidenced by the stats from various sources across the net.

True enough, but I think the conclusion that stands out clearly is that the determining factor is culture. With regard to guns, there is no single gun culture in the United States. There is what might be called America's traditional gun culture, which regards firearms as embodying the right to self-defense and stresses safety and responsibility, and then there is a pathological sub-culture that regards guns and their use as symbolic of power and status.

Our national homicide rate is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.5 to 4 per 100k, but the distribution is far from evenly spread. The homicide rate in Detroit, for example, is 45/100k, followed by New Orleans at 42.7/100k, then Newark at 40/100k, and St. Louis at 38/100k to name just the top four (2015 data). And within those cities there are similarly stark disparities, with the majority of the homicides occurring in concentrated areas.

I suppose that would be the case to some degree in many countries, but I am not content to sacrifice the right of our citizens to an effective means of self-defense in order to deprive a violent sub-culture of its toys, and we apparently have no intention of vigorously enforcing the laws that are already on the books against the illegal possession and trafficking of firearms. But we'll push for "feel good" measures such as banning guns that look like assault rifles (oh my!).

I mean, seriously! I don't agree that we're nuts in the way that some people think, but yeah we're nuts.

K.

quote:

It has stopped us having control of our borders.
The European Courts are overruling our own.
Their stupid laws are becoming intolerable.
So we had a vote - and we're leaving the EU.

quote:

All you had to do in te one case, you can drive over 50 in town in many places.
You will swallow anything that fits your view that this is a backward violent country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

As for your Lott's book to support your logical argument....
19 esteemed people/teams support the conclusions.
26 esteemed people/teams oppose those conclusions.

I'll go with the majority, TYVM.

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."

Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

Source: National Research Council

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Meanwhile, in the US, the people distrusted the government almost to the point of paranoia.
Thus, anything the government wanted to do with regards to gun control or anything else for that matter (healthcare being another) was fervently rejected by the people as 'infringement of personal liberties'.
Hence, your gun culture and general anti-government mindset flourished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
And you still have not read the book, no need to check for yourself if the majority says it, so does that mean that if you lived in Germany during WWII you would have gone along with the majority?

Why do I need to read the book???
Others more learned than I have done so and given their verdict.
19 for it, 26 and a report against it.
And the facts don't match his conclusions either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
And you still have not read the book, no need to check for yourself if the majority says it, so does that mean that if you lived in Germany during WWII you would have gone along with the majority?

Why do I need to read the book???
Others more learned than I have done so and given their verdict.
19 for it, 26 and a report against it.
And the facts don't match his conclusions either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

As for your Lott's book to support your logical argument....
19 esteemed people/teams support the conclusions.
26 esteemed people/teams oppose those conclusions.

I'll go with the majority, TYVM.

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."

Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

Source: National Research Council

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

As for your Lott's book to support your logical argument....
19 esteemed people/teams support the conclusions.
26 esteemed people/teams oppose those conclusions.

I'll go with the majority, TYVM.

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."

Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

Source: National Research Council

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You said that the SC cops you talked to said that and since all the cops you talked to agreed there was now reason to think that it was aminority view.
I think that in both cases sombody was pulling your leg.
All you had to do in te one case, you can drive over 50 in town in many places.
You will swallow anything that fits your view that this is a backward violent country.

It wasn't SC, it was FL - Jax and Tampa.
And yes, those cops I spoke to did say that they approved of other countries' gun laws.
And I never claimed it was a majority PoV - that's your twist to it.

As for driving.... I was constantly screaming up/down the road at over 90mph until I reached the local shopping mall in Tampa (well, New Port Richey to be exact).
My friend was shitting a brick because she'd never been over 35mph in her life.
I do more than 50mph around my local streets here - I don't find it a problem.

Oh, and I spent at least 4-5 hours chatting to the duty motorbike cop in the mall every other day while I was there - he hated having a gun because it put him more at risk of being shot than if he was in a country where the police aren't usually armed (his words, not mine).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

As for your Lott's book to support your logical argument....
19 esteemed people/teams support the conclusions.
26 esteemed people/teams oppose those conclusions.

I'll go with the majority, TYVM.

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of the extant studies...

Comparison of "homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995" to gun ownership levels showed "no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate." Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which "no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found."

Source: Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004).

Source: National Research Council

K.

Thanx for bringing some facts and figures to this gun fight.
;-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You said that the SC cops you talked to said that and since all the cops you talked to agreed there was now reason to think that it was aminority view.
I think that in both cases sombody was pulling your leg.
All you had to do in te one case, you can drive over 50 in town in many places.
You will swallow anything that fits your view that this is a backward violent country.

It wasn't SC, it was FL - Jax and Tampa.
And yes, those cops I spoke to did say that they approved of other countries' gun laws.
And I never claimed it was a majority PoV - that's your twist to it.

As for driving.... I was constantly screaming up/down the road at over 90mph until I reached the local shopping mall in Tampa (well, New Port Richey to be exact).
My friend was shitting a brick because she'd never been over 35mph in her life.
I do more than 50mph around my local streets here - I don't find it a problem.

Oh, and I spent at least 4-5 hours chatting to the duty motorbike cop in the mall every other day while I was there - he hated having a gun because it put him more at risk of being shot than if he was in a country where the police aren't usually armed (his words, not mine).

There are over a million law enforcement officers in the US and you talked to a couple that agreed with you and you think you have the solution to the “run-a-way problem” you think the US has.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Some good points, K.

However, all those studies in the US refer to gun users - either the criminals or the victims using guns for defense.

If your assailant wouldn't normally have a gun, the overall figures are much much lower - as evidenced by the stats from various sources across the net.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
ETA: if you can point me to creditable and reasonably unbiased source that shows that the US has a lower gun death total than other civilised countries, I'll take a look at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You said that the SC cops you talked to said that and since all the cops you talked to agreed there was now reason to think that it was aminority view.
I think that in both cases sombody was pulling your leg.
All you had to do in te one case, you can drive over 50 in town in many places.
You will swallow anything that fits your view that this is a backward violent country.

It wasn't SC, it was FL - Jax and Tampa.
And yes, those cops I spoke to did say that they approved of other countries' gun laws.
And I never claimed it was a majority PoV - that's your twist to it.

As for driving.... I was constantly screaming up/down the road at over 90mph until I reached the local shopping mall in Tampa (well, New Port Richey to be exact).
My friend was shitting a brick because she'd never been over 35mph in her life.
I do more than 50mph around my local streets here - I don't find it a problem.

Oh, and I spent at least 4-5 hours chatting to the duty motorbike cop in the mall every other day while I was there - he hated having a gun because it put him more at risk of being shot than if he was in a country where the police aren't usually armed (his words, not mine).

There are over a million law enforcement officers in the US and you talked to a couple that agreed with you and you think you have the solution to the “run-a-way problem” you think the US has.

My guess is that they were "agreeing" with him to get him to shut up and leave them alone so they could do their job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptR

In general response:
I see "facts" being mentioned in this thread. Has anyone looked up the FBI stats on crime in the US? Guns play a significant part in crime violent crime. Their ILLEGAL use is undeniable. What needs to be done is the cessation of coddling criminals by judges, lawyers and bleeding heart's with the enforcement of laws already on the books.
In the semi annual FBI report for 2015/16 guns were used in 71.5% of the nation's murders. Murder made up 1.3% of the violent crime rate in that time period. Guns were used in 40.8% of robberies which made up 27.3% of violent crime. Guns were used in 24.2% of aggravated assaults which made up 63.8% of violent crime.
When you stack the US up against our North/ Central/ South American neighbors we rank #13th in gun violence. When compared to Western European countries we top the list and come out #2 against Eastern Europe.
South Africa tops the list for most murders per followed by Honduras, Venezuela and Belize it or not, Belize.
The one fact I'm sure of is, unless you are a deer, turkey, elk, bear, or migratory fowl legally hunted in North America, or a four legged (or two legged) predator intent on doing mine, me or some innocent harm you have nothing to fear from my guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
...
Meanwhile, in the US, the people distrusted the government almost to the point of paranoia.
Thus, anything the government wanted to do with regards to gun control or anything else for that matter (healthcare being another) was fervently rejected by the people as 'infringement of personal liberties'.
Hence, your gun culture and general anti-government mindset flourished.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptR

In general response:
I see "facts" being mentioned in this thread. Has anyone looked up the FBI stats on crime in the US? Guns play a significant part in crime violent crime. Their ILLEGAL use is undeniable. What needs to be done is the cessation of coddling criminals by judges, lawyers and bleeding heart's with the enforcement of laws already on the books.
In the semi annual FBI report for 2015/16 guns were used in 71.5% of the nation's murders. Murder made up 1.3% of the violent crime rate in that time period. Guns were used in 40.8% of robberies which made up 27.3% of violent crime. Guns were used in 24.2% of aggravated assaults which made up 63.8% of violent crime.
When you stack the US up against our North/ Central/ South American neighbors we rank #13th in gun violence. When compared to Western European countries we top the list and come out #2 against Eastern Europe.
South Africa tops the list for most murders per followed by Honduras, Venezuela and Belize it or not, Belize.
The one fact I'm sure of is, unless you are a deer, turkey, elk, bear, or migratory fowl legally hunted in North America, or a four legged (or two legged) predator intent on doing mine, me or some innocent harm you have nothing to fear from my guns.