And most of those 101 countries with higher homocide rates are in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. I’d consider “safer than Germany” to be a better goal than “safer than Somalia.”
why are you bringing this up? Seriously, you need to explain your reasoning here because it’s so far off the reservation I’m giving you a second chance. before answering.
The idea that mental illness is a factor is a canard. People say it out of sheer ignorance and as part of an agenda to distract from actual change.
The only way that mental illness plays a real and systematic role in all of this is in the bone rattling anxiety that drives about 30% of Americans to feel a need to own a gun, and the comorbid, multifaceted psychopathology that drives a small proportion of those people to amass an arsenal.
I’m sorry, I thought you had some purpose to posting this:
If you didn’t mean to attribute the subject at hand to changing economic structures, why the hell would YOU bring this up?
Let me try to elaborate on the reasons why shouting “mental illness” after a shooting is just a dodge.
First, there’s no evidence that this guy in OR had any mental illness. If you believe he did, tell me which one and why it is relevant to the debate on access to guns.
Mental illness is not simply a dichotomous category. It also is something that flictuates over the life span.
By adulthood, as a matter of epidemiology, approximately 50% of the population will have at one time met criteria for a mental health disorder. Do we want to prevent 50% of the population from owning guns?
Which disorders are relevant to the question of gun ownership or gun rights?
Which disorders are common to all or most of these mass shooters?
All mental illnesses are identified as a pattern of symptoms. Most are distinguished from normal functioning by their persistence and or severity. Some are also distinguished by context.
Essentially, they consist of behaviors, cognitions, or emotions that are common human experiences, but some people experience enduring patterns of such experiences in a distinct way.
Thus, the problem isn’t guns or mental illness. The problem is that all people fluctuate, in multiple domains of functioning, that make it so that everyone is liable to be unsafe at some point in time, if that point in time intrsects with being armed.
Worse aim.
Are you happy to remove the equivalent of “black on black” violence from other countries as well? Or are high levels of violence within deprived communities purely a USA phenomenon?
Is that your official diagnosis, Dr. Hentor? “bone rattling anxiety” causing gun ownership? Must be an interesting world when people who hold different opinions than you suffer from mental illness.
But isn’t that what you just did?
It’s also a dodge because at least in the more shooting incidents, we have no evidence that there was a failure of mental health services.
We don’t expect physicians to protect everyone from having a heart attack, especially when people aren’t compliant with prescribed lifestyle changes and medication. And yet, if a person flips out and takes others down with him, that must mean the System is Broken[sup]TM[/sup]. It’s an unfair standard we apply to mental health care, it seems to me.
I blame the internet, the poor societal safety net, and the absence of cohesive communities–where children play outdoors freely and independently and everyone watches each other’s backs–gun worship, and a hypercompetitive, status-driven culture unwilling/unable to provide sustainable niches for people with low analytical and emotional intelligence. It’s not just one thing, but everything. And in some shape or form, we all contribute to this toxic culture.
But saying we have a toxic culture doesn’t point us to a solution. So I don’t know what the solution is. All I can do is wring my hands.
Hearing Americans trying to say the state of the gun laws have nothing to do with the epidemic of mass shootings is like listening to a morbidly obese person who says their weight has nothing to do with their diet.
Sure some people who get all their meals from KFC don’t get fat and sure other people who eat comparatively healthy still get fat, but outlying situations that probably don’t apply in this situation aren’t good comparisons. I accept there are other factors, but that bucket of chicken you eat everyday surely doesn’t help.
Just wanted to call this out as another example of a trend I’ve noticed from conservatives lately. Twist the issue so as to cast it as “you won’t let other people hold opposing views.” It’s a variation on the old favorite “you’re intolerant of tolerance”!
Only if you didn’t understand what I wrote.
Yes it is.
Both Asian countries – especially South Korea – have experienced big recent spikes in their suicide rates. Suicide is properly being treated as a national crisis in both countries, and rates are slowly declining. You might say that they didn’t approach the problem by giving suicidal people long prison terms, or confiscating ropes. That’s right. They are taking public health measures, including education, and technical improvements to mean of suicide, such as putting up subway suicide barriers. That’s analogous to what I favor for guns. The rather successful anti-tobacco campaign should be a model.
As for cause and effect, in absence of controlled experimentation, it is properly a matter of debate. That’s what we are doing here. I think that looking at correlations is more probative than focusing on individual cases, but I do both.
Re correlations:
http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf
http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gun_ownership_deaths_500px.jpg
Re individual cases, I have gathered the followed from links in this and previous posts:
Japan does have a lot of suicide due to cultural factors:
Japan suicides per 100,000 (all means) 18.5
Japan homicides per 100,000 (all means) 0.3
Japan total violent death per 100,000 (all means) 18.8
South Korea is a more extreme outlier because of a tremendous recent increase in suicide:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702781.html
South Korea suicides per 100,000 (all means) 28.8
South Korea homicide per 100,000 (all means) 0.9
South Korea total violent death per 100,000 (all means) 29.7
Bad? Yes. Worse than the US, overall? Yes. But, comparing outlier to outlier, the highest gun ownership rate US state is worse off than either Asian outlier:
Wyoming suicides per 100,000 (all means) 29.6
Wyoming homicides per 100,000 (all means) 2.8
Wyoming total violent death per 100,000 (all means) 32.4
It, of course, depends on where exactly you live in the US and Japan. But, on average, it is safer, in 2015, to raise teenagers in the US than Japan. Is this because Japan is typical of low-gun-ownership states? No. Japan is atypical for the unusual cultural reasons given in my earlier link.
Japan has a big violent death problem, centered on non-gun suicides, and is working hard to fix it. That’s no reason to be complacent concerning the gun-fueled US violent death.
Yes, and you’ll notice that the knife attack on the Chinese school that happened the same day as Sandy Hook wounded 22 people but failed to kill a single person.
Had he been as heavily armed as Adam Lanza, he’d have killed vastly more.
If I’m reading your chart correctly it would seem the difference between gun related homicide rates between the US and Canada is roughly the same as the difference between Washington DC and his beloved Wyoming.
That is quite telling.
Why would we do that? Are black people subject to different gun laws?
No…just no.
The US has 4.7 homicides per 100,000 people while Japan and South Korea have just 0.3 and 0.9 respectably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Obviously, they have much higher suicide rates but I think anyone reasonably familiar with those countries would agree that has more to do with cultural attitudes towards suicide.
I’d much rather live in a country where people are killing themselves rather than trying to kill me.
This.
It’s hard to get accurate stats since France refuses to take and or release stats on religion, but there are a number of estimates which suggest that around 70-80 percent of all people in jail in France are either Muslim or from Muslim backgrounds.
Similarly, an article in The Nation pointed out years ago that nearly 60% of all women forced to live in battered women’s shelters in the Netherlands were immigrants.
I’m not sure what is so shocking about the idea that people from deprived communities committee higher levels of crime for a whole variety of reasons.
I’m sure it is a complicated cultural issue but, I’m struggling to construct a scenario where injecting lots of guns into a society makes for a safer society.
Humans are nervy idiots at the best of times, more so when they are under stress. Everyone is at risk of dark thoughts, troubled times, perceived injustice, extreme emotional stress, drink and drug issues, paranoia and depression.
Those issues are just the SOP of human existence. Surely the last thing anyone needs under such circumstances is to have unrestricted access to equipment that kills easily, quickly, repeatedly and without the messiness of needing to get up-close and personal with the victim.
Assume that for any given country the people with issues as described above is roughly the same.
Country A has strict gun control
Country B has unrestricted access to firearms.
Which do we think will see the higher number of gun homicides?
So if you are willing to have unrestricted gun access in the USA then you need to grow a pair of balls and state quite clearly that you are willing to pay the price for this which is, and will continue to be, mass slaughters. It is a horrific and contemptible point of view but at least it is honest.
So, the point I was addressing is that you can, in fact, perpetrate mass killing with just a knife…contrary to the statement made that you can’t.
However, before we start waxing poetic about how great it is in the PRC, let’s keep in mind that while they don’t allow their citizens guns (which means some interesting things towards how the government can push around basically everyone, since only the communist party is armed) that they are willing to take shocking stances on other things that kill many, many times more people even with their billion+ population. Air quality, for instance…or water quality. Or, hell, general safety and actually enforcing code on the books. These are all, again, choices societies make that have real world consequences wrt non-zero numbers of deaths that they accept as part and parcel of doing business. True, the majority of the people in the PRC have little say in this since it’s the CCP that decides, but they decide with the tacit agreement of the population, in theory at least (ok…so it’s a weak theory, but then you were the one waxing poetic about how great it is FOR YOU in the workers paradise of the PRC).
Again, gun ownership is one of the quirks in the US that certainly has a non-zero death toll associated with it. But it’s hardly the biggest killer even in the US, and other countries make decisions on what they will accept that seem more than quirky to other nations. In the US we’d be shocked by the level of environmental pollution and just general public safety available to the average citizen of the PRC (not to mention public sanitation :eek:). In Europe several countries there make choices concerning alcohol that adds to a much larger death toll per capital than in the US, and again these would be choices that in the US would be pretty shocking…while in the US we had prohibition and then got rid of it, knowing full well that this would mean a larger death toll than when we got rid of the stuff…decade after decade. And so on.
We all know that these ‘mass killings’ are a very small part of the deaths due to guns even in the US, but they are the ones that get the most (global) publicity. This isn’t going to change, and even if we had no guns (i.e. no legal guns for private ownership by citizens) we’d still have these random fucked up acts of violence periodically in the US. Suicides wouldn’t substantially change either, at least not wrt numbers…what would change is how people committed suicide. Such as in Japan which has VERY strict gun control yet has the highest per capital suicide rate in the world. What would change is that gun crime by hardened criminals who make up the majority of deaths due to fire arms would certainly go down some non-zero amount, and being one of the largest figures on gun deaths would certainly shift things. But…thus far Americans are willing to accept the certainty of additional deaths due to guns in exchange for the personal protected right to keep and bear arms by citizens in the US. We make choices just like other countries do, and thus far we have chosen this as we chose others that have equal or greater non-zero certain deaths by making those choices.