Sorry Max Torque the response to the crime stats was of course directed at Riboflavin’s post, nothing else. A copy and paste error. My apologies.
The paragraph does not define what a “defensive use” is. Does is mean that the crime victim fired her gun at an assailant? In addition, it cites a survey of crime victims. If a crime is prevented, then there is no victim.
A gun can be used defensively without firing it. For example, there might be a prowler who is frightened away when a gun owner chambers a round in a shotgun. I’ve heard the rack-rack of a pump-action is an attention getter. Since the prowler may not have entered the residence and was frightened away before he could commit his intended crime (although he has still committed trespassing and attempted breakind-and-entering) there is no victim.
Since the survey only mentions victims, it must not take into account the number of times a gun is used to prevent a crime that was not reported or which was stopped before there could be a victim. Since it does not contain that data, and since it is a survey instead of a tabulation of actual numbers, it cannot be a valid citation as to the number of crimes prevented by use of a firearm.
TheSnack:
Not that it matters to the argument per se, but apparently he was enrolled in a target shooting club and had a completely valid permit to own pistols and long guns. (I’d link, but my source is in Danish.)
Spiny Norman:
You’re right, those news reached me this morning, too…
Hence my end statement in the OP was relevant. Strict gun control simply falls short in stopping this kind of thing, or would a complete prohibition against privately owned guns be a better solution? A prospect that I cannot say appeals to some of the principles of freedom I personally hold very dear. Guns do after all have other purposes than killing people, or do they?
Sparc
A little nitpick, but “gun related deaths” in the US are more than half suicides (And more than three times the firearm homicide rate). If you compare just firearm homicide, the US ranks 7th at 3.72, behind Columbia (50.60), South Africa (26.60), Brazil (10.58), Mexico (9.88), Estonia (8.07), and North Ireland (5.24). Also, the US’s firearm suicide rate is 11.9, accounting for most of the gun deaths (These are '95 figures, IIRC).
I already pointed out that the CNN cite doesn’t even claim to be a complete listing of such incidents. You may as well point to an article about cars that only mentions GM and Ford to prove that there are no European-made cars. Your pretending that it’s a complete listing doesn’t make it one.
That’s right, you keep asserting it but neglect to demonstrate it.
First, you need to demonstrate that they are more numerous in the US than in Western Europe. As I’ve pointed out, citing a page that is not a complete listing of such incidents is rather pointless.
That’s interesting. Can you point to somewhere where I’ve said ‘this German school shooting demonstrates that we need less gun control’? I have argued against gun control, but I have not, in fact, attempted to use this incident as a reason. Meanwhile, you’ve explicitly stated that school shootings are a reason to restrict gun ownership…
So, as long as someone is dying voluntarily, you don’t have a problem with it?
[QUOTE[I can’t *believe* you mentioned the Kleck Estimate and expect me to take your argument seriously. Kleck’s Estimate was based on **63** people out of about 5000 saying that they had defended themselves with a gun. Throw in one person who misunderstood the question, three who had done it before but not annually, five who lied to advocate their politics… suddenly, your number is much less impressive.[/QUOTE]
Kleck’s work is certainly more sound than any of the junk put out by the Brady bunch, I’d certainly want something more than the word of a guy who posts previously refuted nonsense. Further, I acknowledged that Kleck’s estimate is on the higher end of the scale - the figure of 1.5 million estimate from the Clinton DOJ, which you didn’t see fit to mention. Even with the goal of painting gun ownership in a bad light (as the paper itself mentions), the DOJ came up with a number in the same general range. And such surveys are a very common and accepted method of gathering information, which statisticians routinely use and which people routinely accept.
Oh yes, an obviously unbiased source. If you’re going to start quoting propaganda directly from the Brady Bunch that’s been debunked on this board before (like most of the numbers on that page), and a survey that deliberately excluded successful DGUs (the survey you mention only even asked about DGUs if the person had been the victim of a crime - thus tossing away any data about someone who had successfully avoided being a victim by using a gun) then you’re right, I’ll just cite the NRA and GOA back at you:
http://www.nra-ila.org/library.asp
Of course, what’s interesting is that while that nonsense from the Brady Bunch has been shown to bear no relation with reality in the past (I’ll wait for one of the shredders to show up rather than bother searching for it), none of the gun-control advocates have actually demonstrated any thing wrong with the figures from the NRA or GOA.
Well, guns have obvious uses as collector’s items and sporting equipment. ‘Violence’ is not, in and of itself wrong; guns are also quite effective at self-defense, hunting, and pest control (like dealing with crop-destroying animals on a farm).
Self-defense, sporting equipment, collector’s item, and hunting.
I don’t see the relevance of your question, and chemical weapons restrictions are less sweeping than you assert (various pesticides are only a small way away from being a nerve gas, mixing houshold cleaners can produce the favored gas from WWI, use of some chemical weapons like tear gas is explicitly allowed in some states).
Largely because you have no evidence that your method of ‘combatting’ gun-related deaths will do any good, and there is plenty of evidence that it will cause harm.
You’re the one asserting that we need to restrict the ability of private citizens to defend themselves, and in a free society the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to restrict freedom.
Tell you what – let’s remove all ‘gun-control’ laws aimed at anyone other than felons and the legally insane for, say, a decade. After that decade, we can compare our data.
Let’s see, England (very restricted guns) has much more violent crime than the US, in the Western World it’s second only to Australia (also restricted guns).
The ‘crime vicitm’ number MaxTorque referred to is, in fact, the number of violent crime victims. See the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey if you don’t believe me. You can also simply look directly at the statistics from the British Home Office and those from the US DOJ, which show the same trend.
clairobscur
The ICVS number Max quoted is, in fact, the number for violent crime victims and not just crime victims as he stated.
How is that in any way shape or form dishonest? Quixotic asserted that the very limited subset was a reason for gun control, so I pointed out that that little subset compares unfavorably with the total DGUs, which would also be affected by his proposal. For all of your complaints about red-headed women on teusday, Quixotic was the one who used the small number initially. It’s just like if someone argued that all homosexuals should be locked up because [small number] of them rape kids in schools, and I pointed out that there are [all the rest] who do good things for society.
Short story: The US is more dangerous.
Long story: Hey, the analysis took 15 minutes.
What I did:
First I googled the International Crime Survey and found this table.
Then, I brought it into Excel and retained countries that had surveys during all 3 of the years that the US had surveys. Then I broke the crimes down into “nonviolent property” and “violent”.
I was extremely disappointed that there was no homicide data. I don’t blame the survey designers for this, but I do maintain that anyone who asserts that the International Crime Survey is the final word on these matters is wrong.
Then, I standardized the data so that US=100, for easier comparison. Then I looked at the results and took care not to massage further.
Here it is:
all nonviolent violent
crimes property crimes
US=100 crimes
Canada
1988 97.2 88.6 76.3
1991 108.8 98.2 115.3
1995 104.1 100.3 83.2
England & Wales
1988 67.1 60.0 31.4
1991 115.7 109.6 82.4
1995 127.7 124.1 97.9
Finland
1988 55.0 41.9 34.7
1991 81.2 57.5 107.1
1995 78.1 59.8 74.7
Netherlands
1988 92.7 83.8 56.8
1991 119.9 113.0 84.7
1995 130.2 132.6 86.3
USA
1988 100.0 100.0 100.0
1991 100.0 100.0 100.0
1995 100.0 100.0 100.0
My Summary:
Note how reality bounces around. One year’s worth of data is misleading.
Canada has equal property but less violent crime.
England has more property crime but less violent crime.
Finland is safer all around.
The Netherlands has more property crime but less violent crime.
In general there appears to be less violent crime in the US. Many industrialized countries have more nonviolent property crime, however.
Nonviolent crime is car theft, theft from car, car damage, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft, burglary, attempt at burglary, theft from garages and theft of personal property. Violent crime is robbery, sexual offences and assault and theft. You don’t like my definitions? Want to add more countries? Make your own spreadsheet.
Great. After all that work, I screw up my conclusions.
US: More violence, less theft, excluding Finland.
Forgot to mention:
Sparculees:
This just cracked me up. Welcome (a bit belatedly, perhaps) to The Straight Dope.
Here’s an interesting link to an e-book, “Kids and Guns,” that argues that the media hysteria over school shootings is overblown and obscures the fact that (1) kids are more likely to be fatally shot by adults and (2) kids are more likely to shot at home or in their neighborhoods than at or near school.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmales/chap-3.htm
I have quoted a section of the page linked above that I think is pertinent to the current discussion.
>>
The Switzerland Example
An intermittently thoughtful piece in the February 1990 American Rifleman detailed how the Swiss experience calls the easy superficialities of both gun-control and gun-rights dogmatists into question. With virtually universal household firearms possession, fascination with gun shows and target shooting, and laws that allow private citizens to acquire the most sophisticated automatic pistols, assault weaponry, and even howitzers (rocket launchers!), Swiss “gun culture” makes the United States’
look modest. Yet Switzerland reports about five fatal gun accidents, 60 total homicides (gun murders are too rare to tabulate), and gun involvement only in one-fifth of suicides (compared to three-fifths in the U.S.), making it one of the safest countries in the world.
But there are crucial nuances. While gun-rights advocates claim the safe Swiss gun culture demolishes the arguments of gun-control advocates, it in fact demolishes both sides—or affirms both
sides, if you prefer. The Swiss are issued guns by the military as part of universal service for men, the guns are registered and subject to inspection, and extensive training and retraining is required. True, guns don’t kill people, people do; but even more true, Americans with guns kill far more people than people in nations which prohibit firearms ownership or which allow it only under strict controls.
Interestingly, researchers on Swiss gun culture conclude America still needs strict gun controls. The American Rifleman author cautions gun owners not to casually dismiss researchers’ argument that, “while the Swiss may be responsible enough to own even the deadliest guns, Americans are not.”
Massachusetts is the U.S. state with the strictest gun controls, requiring gun registration and licensing and a host of other restrictions, and it also has the nation’s lowest gun death rate. By
coincidence, Massachusetts has about the same population and per-capita income as Switzerland. In the mid–1990s, Massachusetts suffered about 150 gun suicides, 100 gun homicides, and four or five gun accidents per year. Thus, Massachusetts’ rate of gun accidents and suicides is somewhat lower, but its rate of gun homicide is five times higher, than Switzerland’s. Overall, Switzerland, awash in firearms, has the same gun death rate as America’s safest, most gun-controlled state; if one eliminates suicide and considers only violence inflicted on others, Massachusetts’ citizens are several times deadlier with guns than the Swiss. Other American states have even higher gun tolls than Massachusetts. This would indicate that even with strict gun controls, Americans would remain more prone to homicide than the Swiss.
The experience of the more disciplined Swiss society cannot be casually transferred to the U.S. Only a small fraction of American adults (most certainly not including me) are mature enough to shoulder the day-to-day responsibility of owning a firearm, storing it carefully, and being rigorously trained in its use.
Further, the tacit acceptance (how else can their silence be interpreted?) by American leaders, the media, gun sellers, society in general, and even gun-control lobbies of the endless series of adult-perpetrated gun carnages that kill many times more people (including children) than kids do delineates a society in which “legitimate adult gun ownership” is a contradiction in terms. This problem is further emphasized by the fanatic resistance to even modest gun storage and safety regulations.
Obsession with reforming or “protecting” youths has become the way not to talk about larger issues, the way America avoids the real need to change destructive behaviors. If Americans want the greater social cohesiveness of countries which safely manage dangerous items such as firearms, investment in Swiss and European style universal social insurance programs that prevent extreme poverty (and which prevent poverty among the U.S. elderly) is a major step. The prevalence of adult gun killings should be deplored by gun control groups with the same angry fervor applied to those by children and teenagers. Instead of indulging superficialities, America’s gun debate needs to initiate discussion of the tough measures of peer societies.
>>
Based on the above paragraphs, I would argue that above average rates of gun violence result from the combination of two factors: (1) wide-ranging diffusion of guns and (2) lack of social cohesion. Factor #1 by itself does not lead to high rates of gun deaths, as shown by low rates of gun homicides among the Swiss and the Israelis. (Note, I am talking about homicides not involving Palestinians.) The experience of Massachusetts suggests that removing Factor #1 won’t totally solve the problem without addressing Factor #2. Perhaps the recent school shooting in Germany is yet more proof that lack of social cohesion can undermine gun control efforts. In other words, efforts to promote a more unified and socially cohesive America might reduce gun deaths without any need for additional gun control measures, but I think it is completely naive to believe that gun homicides will decrease as long as the status quo persists.
Did he say that? You’re presenting it as a quote in GD here - I’m asking for a link or reference of him saying this with respect to this tragedy.
Just as much as HCI and others of their ilk will score cheap points on this tragedy.
Well that’s fair. I’m very offended at those willing to brush sports-related deaths under the rug. At least firearms ownership has a legitimate place in society - how is society bettered by continuing to sponsor high school football, when so many die as a result?
Why isn’t someone thinking of the children? Unlike the lack of success in trying to remove a civil right (as gun control advocates have found), it’s relatively easy to ban high school-sponsored football.
Every death is a tragedy. Every death however is not the end of the World. Human life has a price, society trades off human life for other benefits on a daily basis, and every right has terrible responsibilities. So long as there are guns, people will die, one way or another, from guns. There will be accidents, there will be suicides, there will be murders, there will be crimes committed with them. And I have no problem at all with balancing my rights and responsibilities. I recognize that people will die as a result of me having my civil right to protect my own life and the lives of my loved ones, to keep myself from being raped, and to protect my home and my property.
But I’ve posted about this for two years now, and I’m tired of the same old SDMB GD circle-jerk. The opponents continue to post lies, and then never suffer any consequences when their lies are exposed - and then they return to the next GD thread and do exactly the same thing. I could make an SDMB GD RKBA bot that could supply the standard retorts, complete with cites, and just jack my post count up every day.
I think there is a deeper debate that needs to be held:
-
Is this problem (gun control) solvable in any meaningful way, when both sides post lies, misused and abused statistics, and ignore the intangibles?
-
Should people who continue to post lies in GD threads (i.e., “Having a gun in your home is 43 times/123 times/1000 times more likely to kill you than someone else.”, or “Every day 1,000,000 children die from gun violence in the US.”, or one of my favorites, “Why should I pay attention to a minority opinion?” (referring to Justice Thomas, who was on the majority side in the case - I mean, did this liberal say this because of the color of Thomas’ skin? We all know what someone like that is called, boys and girls…a FUCKING RACIST, that’s what.) be BANNED outright from the Forum? What purpose does it serve having them in here? There is no “education and illumination” that occurs - it’s just the same old 4-digit-post-count trolls yanking people’s chains. Like kids that will throw rocks at a house for hours on end, breaking windows, because “they’re bored”.
Bah. Too early in the morning. Where’s my goddamn coffee?
here’s a question for you.
Why has there never been a school shooting in ireland (that I know of?)
Because our children dont have access to guns.
(please dont give me the terrorism argument, thats a different question altogether.)
So what are you saying? That if a “child” does have access to a gun because s/he or someone s/he knows is a terrorist, that doesn’t count?
Or are you saying that no “child” (and using HCI’s definition, this includes 17-year-olds) can get a gun, period?
Or are you saying that no child has legal access to a gun?
If it’s already illegal for a child to have a gun (and under federal law it is illegal here in the U.S. for a person under 18 to own a rifle or shotgun or for a person under 21 to own a handgun), how will making it “double-secret illegal” keep children from getting them?
The news coverage I saw/read said that the the German student returned to a high school from which he’d been expelled and started shooting. This is more similar to US cases where an adult who has been fired from a job returns to the workplace and starts shooting people then it is to most US school shootings. In most US school shootings, you have a kid who was reacting to the way he’d been treated by the other students in a school he was not free to leave. I think not being free to leave school is an important aspect of these crimes.
I’d say that a big factor in the rate at which school shootings occur in a given country is how much freedom kids have to leave school, and at what age they are free to leave. I suspect that at least some of the US shootings would not have happened had the shooter been free to leave school at 14.
I know that some US school shooters were past the legal dropping out age. And one of the Columbine shooters was past the (older) legal leaving-home age. But I’d still say that having been compelled to attend school was an important factor. A shooter who has reached an age where leaving is do-able can be presumed to be motivated by a desire for revenge for years of torment.
TwistofFate, aren’t illegal guns obtainable everywhere? Also, someone who is determined to kill is not limited to guns. A would-be school killer can make a pipe bomb, for example, and a would-be “shoot people from a tower” type killer can use a crossbow.
In most US states, the legal dropping out age is 16. But parental permission is required, and often would not be forthcoming. In reality, most kids are not free to leave school until they either graduate from high school or reach the legal adulthood age of 18 (a birthday that is usually reached duing one’s last year of high school). My question is, what’s the deal in the other developed nations? Can kids leave school earlier then in the US?
Thanks for that Anthracite, and especially your following post. It appears that drive-by’s are the current norm, as I pointed this out quite early in this thread. The hoplophopes have yet to contribute anything else after making their little “point”.