The sad thing is that Assad can, and does, apparently use a larger and more lethal weapons. It has been the same though all of human history. Humans have not yet solved their problems by killing others, each generation looks for a larger weapon that can kill as many people as possible. If it continues mankind could be wiped off the earth. To me it just shows that we humans are not yet civilized. Until we respect others and they respect us in return things will continue as they are. I hope beyond hope I am wrong. People have prayed for peace for centuries but it takes action, I know I don’t have the answer, I wish some one did.
I would also add they are dying anyway. All through History it has been that way.
People killed in the name of God, to get land, the crusades killed many, the inquisition killed many, and all wars kill many and a good percentage were innocent women, men, and children. We put land and things above humans, and so many who approve of this call themselves, Pro-lIfe!
I know this is anecdotal, but if your point about keeping guns from children is true, then why are rural areas like West Virginia where I grew up, where it was common if not universal for 13 and 14 year olds to have their own gun for hunting and target shooting, not simply awash in gun violence more so than D.C. or Chicago where such a gun culture is uncommon? In other words, why didn’t we take our guns and kill each other in our teenage years?
The firearms death rate is 50 percent higher in West Virginia than Illinois.
The firearms ownership rate, admitted in polling, is 274 percent higher in West Virginia than Illinois.
The above percents are calclulated from raw numbers here:
url=http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
It you look at the numbers, you’ll see there is a strong relationship between urbanization and gun death. You are right about that. But there’s also a strong relationship between the legal gun ownership rate and gun death.
I agree with you on the age thing. Although counter-intuitive, it’s a myth that guns are more dangerous for kids than adults. However, I don’t agree with you on the implication, which is, for me, to advise voluntary disarmament for all ages. I’d still support a minimum age for gun ownership, not because thirteen year olds kill people more than thirty year olds do, but because if kids don’t get started with guns young, they may never gain interest. This Washington Post graphic provides evidence that age-related gun restrictions save lives:
P.S. Illinois does have a 35 percent higher homicide rate than West Virginia. This is because of a cultural difference as to whether people takes out their violent propensities on themselves on others. I look at total firearms deaths because, except for the statistically insignificant number of people shooting themselves because of a painful terminal illness, suicide and homicide are, in my value system, equally tragic.
I missed one of the main points in my last post, and now it is too late to edit.
The gun death rate in the city of Chicago is 13.9 per 100,000.
The gun death rate in West Virginia is 14,7 per 100,000.
You are right about Washington DC being more dangerous; their gun death rate is 20.9 per 100,000.
See:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
And, lastly, New York City has a gun death rate of 4.9 per 100,000 – just one third of that in West Virginia. Most likely explanation: Strong handgun control in New York City, and no neighboring state where it is easy to buy a handgun (or, not that it is as big a factor, a rifle with a large capacity magazine).
It should be noted that in 2011, New York City had a homicide rate (regardless of method) of 6.27 per 100,00, while West Virginia’s was 4.3 per 100,000.
Most likely explanation: people in New York can’t effectively defend themselves, and anti-gunners like to cherry-pick statistics.
http://www.policymap.com/city-crime-rates/new-york-city-crime-statistics/index.html
After reading the NYT piece today about the problem of feral hogs, I think we could control each with a simple rule that requires each AW owner to bag 1 (non hunting preserve) hog each year.
No hog, no weapon. 
I didin’t include suicide to cherry-pick, but because of my values. As a parent, I don’t see much to prefer, one over the other, so I look at the total of both suicide and homicide. To me, you are cherry-picking the homicide gun deaths over the suicides.
But even if you don’t care about suicide, the statistical comparison you give between West Virgina and New York wasn’t the best choice to defend your POV. It’s normal for a city, with its anomie, to have a homicide rate several times higher than a state. And, in fact, New York State, which has a third the gun ownership rate of West Virgnia, and more than double the homicide-suicide ratio of West Virginia, still has a lower homicide rate than West Virgnia. This isn’t cherry-picking – it’s giving an example of the overall trend where higher gun death states are the ones with more guns. Homicide/suicide ratio derived from here:
I agree that New Yorkers can’t effectively defend themselves. Neither can West Virginians. This is because the person who draws first – usually, the criminal – generally wins. A concealed legal-in-West Virginia gun won’t save you then.
Suicide? What the heck are you talking about? I posted the HOMICIDE rates. You include only homicide by gun, because it suits your agenda. And YOU are the one that chose New York City vs. West Virginia. Not me.
[QUOTE=PhillyGuy;16240851A concealed legal-in-West Virginia gun won’t save you then.[/QUOTE]
Why? Are West Virginians slower than normal people, or worse shots? Are you completely oblivious to the many documented cases of concealed carriers defending themselves?
And why are anti-gunners always going on about the “gun death rate” and ignoring the overall homicide rate? I can think of only three answers:
- They’re intentionally dishonest, and try to skew the data to suit their agendas.
- They somehow think being murdered by a gun is worse that being murdered by other means.
- They honestly believe that if they somehow eliminate all guns, the gun death rate would drop to zero, while murder by all other means would remain the same.
Typical anti-gunner:
-
Post irrevelant fact about the “gun death rate” being higher in one local than another. Attribute fact to lack of gun control.
-
When informed the total homicide rate is higher in the local with stricter gun control, babble on about the suicide rate or some other meaningless statistic in an attempt to confuse the issue. Then state the SAME two locals aren’t good examples.
No wonder you people nauseate me.
Here’s something for you to work on if you like statistics:
Take the Brady Campaign’s ranking of each state. (The stricter the gun control laws, the higher they rank them.)
Then take each state’s homicide rate and violent crime rate and compare it to the Brady rating. See a pattern? Normal people do.
All three of your options are unlikely.
Here’s the answer:
Guns are the most effective means of suicide and homicide. If people switch over to other means, there will be fewer deaths.
Also, this thread is about guns. If someone has a thread on reducing poisoning, I may also contribute to that. Guns are very bad. Poison is very bad. But if not having a gun in the house leads to more poisoning, well, actually, that will save lives.
Also, because effective means of death other than gunshot tend to be even more terrifying and difficult, people seized by a temporary impulse to homicide or self-harm may not even attempt to kill when there’s no gun in house.
Also, method substitution obviously does occur, but it’s hard to study statistically.
It you want to add up the total homicide and total suicide rates, state by state, and graph that against gun ownership rates, please do. You can do it with a combination of links previously in this thread, and these:
http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=262&name=DLFE-636.pdf
I don’t have time to do the complete study, but even a few minutes shows that the relationship is still strong. For example, Alaska, the highest state for total gun homicide and gun suicide deaths (and highest gun ownership rate state) looks to me like it is number two for total homicide and suicide by all means, being edged out by New Mexico. Massachusetts and New Jersey are still very low for both gun ownership and death. One possibly out of line state, from my POV, is Hawaii, which has the lowest gun ownership rate and a relative preference for non-gun means of suicide. But that doesn’t change the fact that guns do the grusome work more effectively. That’s why the total gun death correlations are more important for public policy consideations – and for citizens in deciding whether having a gun in the house promotes safety, or harms it.
Most gun deaths are of course suicide, and states vary tremendously by homicide-suicide ratio. So by removing most of the deaths you obscure the pattern.
Despite your attempts to confuse the issue, the facts are simple: In the two areas you original posted; New York City and West Virginia, you are more likely to be murdered in the area with less strict gun control laws. Every post of your since the one that mention irrelevant “gun deaths” has been an attempt by you to muddle the issue and admit that you are flat out wrong.
I’m done trying to have a rational discussion with people who are either lack logic skills and common sense, or are intentionally dishonest.
I seriously doubt an assault weapons ban will have any impact on suicides at all.
You have but to look at countries that have high restrictions on guns and see what their suicide rate is. One of the highest rates in the world is Japan, which is, IIRC, double the US’s suicide rate per 100,000 (the US actually rates only in the top 20 world wide, and closer to the bottom end…IIRC, around 19th in the world). Banning guns isn’t going to change that, merely change how folks decide to off themselves.
Nope.
I’m not saying there isn’t more work to do - you’ll note from that artcile that the UK is still above the European average for non-homicide violent crime - but it’s pretty good.