Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 11 votes

Ban weapons of mass destruction.....NOW


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#586 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,804 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:12 AM

the Austrailian study just mentioned is similar to the freakonomics findings about abortions linked to reduction of crime. i might add that violent crime is oddly down as well.

#587 Datawire

Datawire

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:21 AM

I am not sure where you got those numbers but they are false. The NRA claimed something similar to this a while back but he has been pretty much debunked.

I never provided "numbers" I provided percentages. Debunked according to who?
I am not familiar with the NRA claim however, I will look it up.

There are several pro gun studies on the buy back program that try to suggest that the 1996 laws had no effect on homicides, but those have been called into question.

Everything gets called into question in regards to a debate like this.

One such study even claimed that if Australia had zero deaths by firearms or even negative deaths (lol) from fire arms in 2004 or in later years that the laws had no effect. That is right, with their methodology would have included a zero death by firearm as a non-benefit from the strict gun laws.

I am not familar with this claim and it sounds asinine. In my opinion of course, this is theology, not methodology.

I am going to look over your pdf because I like to keep an open mind. Did you research the percentages I suggested, or just dismiss them and call them false? I have a strong suspicion we will not find common ground on this topic.

It's interesting, I don't force anyone to own a firearm. Yet, some people try to force me to give up my gun(s).
I don't force anyone to hunt but people try to force me from hunting.
I don't force anyone to protect themselves but some try to force me into leaving me helpless.

Why is that?

#588 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,482 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:53 AM

Priapism, please feel free to provide your sources so we can look at them.

http://www.aic.gov.a...view paper.html

Has some interesting information on this topic. Let's assume that carrying a concealed weapon makes an individual less likely to be the victim of a crime due to fear of the perpetrator that their target might be armed. This should mean that any increase in violent crime should occur exclusively in adults if the deterrent of a concealed weapon is removed. But that's not the case in Australia. For instance, the rate of increase in assault was highest amongst the 0-14 age group. This is an age group that I don't think would be carrying a concealed weapon and therefore be an agegroup that would likely receive a different kind of consideration from criminals.

The site also claims that homicides have decreased by 9%.

edit: Teeray's stuff below is more up to date, this study is a little older than the numbers he has I think.

#589 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 01:21 AM

I never provided "numbers" I provided percentages. Debunked according to who?
I am not familiar with the NRA claim however, I will look it up.


Everything gets called into question in regards to a debate like this.

I am not familar with this claim and it sounds asinine. In my opinion of course, this is theology, not methodology.

I am going to look over your pdf because I like to keep an open mind. Did you research the percentages I suggested, or just dismiss them and call them false? I have a strong suspicion we will not find common ground on this topic.

It's interesting, I don't force anyone to own a firearm. Yet, some people try to force me to give up my gun(s).
I don't force anyone to hunt but people try to force me from hunting.
I don't force anyone to protect themselves but some try to force me into leaving me helpless.

Why is that?

In order to get percentages you have to have numbers first. And it is debunked by the number of deaths by firearms in Australia. Gun homicides went down dramatically after 1996. In 1996 22% of homicides were committed by guns The previous 7 the lowest percentage was 19% the highest was 25%. In the latest data I could find which was 2008, guns were used in 12% of homicides. IN 2007 it was only 9%. Before 1996 it was only lower than 20% once. Since 1996, it has only been higher than 20% once. And as I stated earlier homicide by gun overall dropped by 59%

The homicide per capita (100,000) went from 1.7 to 1.2

This is according to data from the AIC (Australian Institute of Criminology). Here is their website. It has all the actual numbers you need

http://www.aic.gov.au/index.html

And as Mav said provide a link for your numbers (ahem percentages). Part of having these conversations, at least for me, is to better educate myself on both sides of the fence. So I am genuinely interested in whatever you have to say, just as a favor if you provide statistics do your best to link the source.

#590 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:33 AM

I realize the Huffington Post is activist journalism. However, their front page is pretty fugging profound right now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

http://www.huffingto..._n_2348466.html

Basically it has links to all the murders that have been reported by guns since last Friday.

The Huffington Post spent the week tracking gun-related homicides and accidents throughout the U.S., logging more than 100 from Google and Nexis searches. This is by no means a definitive tally. In 2010, there were more than twice that many homicides alone in an average week.





PS- I wish I knew how to do a screen shot.

#591 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,513 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 03:08 AM

It's a fact that fewer firearms = fewer homicides.

There hasn't been direct causation established, but it's an undisputed fact that fewer firearms = fewer homicides.

But please, tell us about your faith.



#592 NanceUSMC

NanceUSMC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:02 AM

It's a fact that fewer firearms = fewer homicides.

There hasn't been direct causation established, but it's an undisputed fact that fewer firearms = fewer homicides.

But please, tell us about your faith.


Harvard disagrees:

http://www.law.harva...auseronline.pdf

On the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun
ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions
in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the
same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and
dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response
was ever-more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning
and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.
Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by
2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the
developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.




If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death” were true, broad based crossnational comparisons
should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita
consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun
ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide
rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many
high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.
Consider, for example, the wide divergence in murder rates
among Continental European nations with widely divergent
gun ownership rates.

The noncorrelation between gun ownership and murder
is reinforced by examination of statistics from larger numbers
of nations across the developed world. 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.”



To reiterate, the determinants of murder and suicide are
basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence
of some form of deadly mechanism. In this connection,
recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest
violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent
gun controls.



Table 2: Murder Rates of European Nations that Ban
Handguns as Compared to Their Neighbors that Allow Handguns
(rates are per 100,000 persons)
Nation Handgun Policy Murder Rate Year
A. Belarus banned 10.40 late 1990s
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Poland allowed 1.98 2003
Russia banned 20.54 2002
B. Luxembourg banned 9.01 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Belgium allowed 1.70 late 1990s
France allowed 1.65 2003
Germany allowed 0.93 2003
C. Russia banned 20.54 2002
[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]
Finland allowed 1.98 2004
Norway allowed 0.81 2001
Notes: This table covers all the European nations for which the information
given is available. As in Table 1, the homicide rate data comes
from an annually published report, C

ANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE
STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA, JURISTAT.

(sorry the table formatting didn't copy)

Of course the point of this analysis is not that the law should
allow lunatics and criminals to own guns. The point is that violence
will be rare when the basic sociocultural and economic
determinants so dictate; and conversely, crime will rise in response
to changes in those determinants—without much regard
to the mere availability of some particular weaponry or
the severity of laws against it.



Table 4: Intentional Deaths: United States vs.
Continental Europe Rates
In order of highest combined rate; nations having higher rates than the
United States are indicated by asterisk (suicide rate) or + sign (murder rate).
Nation Suicide Murder Combined rates
Russia 41.2* 30.6+ 71.8
Estonia 40.1* 22.2+ 62.3
Latvia 40.7* 18.2+ 58.9
Lithuania 45.6* 11.7+ 57.3
Belarus 27.9* 10.4+ 38.3
Hungary 32.9* 3.5 36.4
Ukraine 22.5* 11.3+ 33.8
Slovenia 28.4* 2.4 30.4
Finland 27.2* 2.9 30.1
Denmark 22.3* 4.9 27.2
Croatia 22.8* 3.3 26.1
Austria 22.2* 1.0 23.2
Bulgaria 17.3* 5.1 22.4
France 20.8* 1.1 21.9
Switzerland 21.4* 1.1‡ 24.1
Belgium 18.7* 1.7 20.4
United States 11.6 7.8 19.4
Poland 14.2* 2.8 17.0
Germany 15.8* 1.1 16.9
Romania 12.3* 4.1 16.4
Sweden 15.3* 1.0 16.3
Norway 12.3* 0.8 13.1
Holland 9.8 1.2 11.0
Italy 8.2 1.7 9.9
Portugal 8.2 1.7 9.9
Spain 8.1 0.9 9.0
Greece 3.3 1.3 4.6



(again, sorry for the formatting)

CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.



#593 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,437 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:11 AM

Harvard = NRA

"march on Harvard!!"

wait a minute, didn't Bush go to Harvard? there you go, his fault after all

knew we would come up with the real problem

#594 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,597 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:17 AM

I'd like to see what Yale or Stansbury have to say

#595 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,513 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:31 AM

When you have to bring Belarus and Russia in as examples, you know you're tricking the data.



#596 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,513 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:33 AM

And the fact the paper uses subjective phrases like "responsible gun owners" hints that it might not be blindly scientific.

#597 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:33 AM

Amazing.

A close family friend's brother-in-law just shot and killed a 15-year old boy showing him one of his guns in Wendell.

I don't know the guy who did this personally, but he is the brother of the spouse of one of my good friends.

http://www.wral.com/...-home/11909255/

#598 Datawire

Datawire

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:17 PM

In order to get percentages you have to have numbers first.

Yeah, I was being a bit of dick sorry 'bout that.


And as Mav said provide a link for your numbers (ahem percentages). Part of having these conversations, at least for me, is to better educate myself on both sides of the fence. So I am genuinely interested in whatever you have to say, just as a favor if you provide statistics do your best to link the source.


Understood, however Nance just posted much better information than I did.

But please, tell us about your faith.

What does this have to do with anything? If you must know I haven't set foot in a church in almost twenty years and don't even own a bible. Take that as you wish.

#599 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,146 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 12:34 PM

http://www.hsph.harv...eath/index.html

Harvard disagrees with Harvard. This was a review of all literature on the topic.

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.



#600 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,351 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 23 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

Was reading an editorial in the Charlotte Observer that had some interesting stats.

It said that gun homicides were down about 50% in the US from 30 years ago.

Also said that the states with strong mental illness commitment laws had substantially fewer gun related suicides and homicides.

Provides evidence that the real issue is mental illness....not gun ownership.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.