Just like driving and motor accidents.
As I understand it, the US is a very large country and the police may often be an hour away. Do you really want to leave people at the mercy of the criminals?
Just wanted to call this out as another example of a trend I’ve noticed from gun control folks lately. Sweeping generalizations, then having to backpedal when they accidentally say something that reveals how they really feel. You stated that for the 30% of Americans that feel a need to own a gun, that mental illness plays a real and systematic role. If you’re not saying that gun owners suffer from mental illness, what is the point of your 2nd paragraph in post #43?
This has nothing to do with tolerance or twisting, though I’m sure you’d like to deflect it that direction. The ironic part is in your very next post you chastise the same behavior you just engaged in. Right after you accused gun owners as suffering from mental illness, you refer to specific diagnosis and the lack thereof as a criticism that the topic of mental illness is a dodge.
I don’t think anyone is aiming for a total gun ban.
Well, yes, of course. Obviously you can only conclude that Japanese and South Koreans (not to mention Hungarians, Poles, and maybe Finns) “take human life” more often than Americans do by including suicide in the totals along with homicide.
The thing is, including suicide seems to have become quite fashionable in these debates lately, at least when talking about “American gun violence”. As in, it’s an argument being made in this thread. The trouble is, the United States as a whole has a substantially higher homicide rate than many other countries, yes, but parts of the U.S. have strikingly different homicide rates from others. So, Idaho (which has a damned high rate of gun ownership even by American standards) had homicide rates in the last five years between 1.4 and 2.2 per 100,000 residents, which puts it as somewhat better than Canada in its best year, and not as bad as Luxembourg in its worst. Iowa, with moderately high gun ownership rates by American standards, reported homicide rates between 1.2 to 1.9 (as good as the United Kingdom at the low end, to somewhat worse than Belgium but better than Finland at the high end). Meanwhile, New Jersey, which has (by American standards) very low gun ownership rates and (by American standards) strict gun laws, had a murder rate in the last five years of between 3.9 to 4.5, which is fairly average for the U.S., but quite bad by European standards (and off the scale by Japanese standards). Maryland, which has a gun ownership rate less than two-thirds that of Iowa and a little over a third of that of Idaho (and also strict-for-America gun laws), had homicide rates between 6.3 and 7.4, which is pretty bad even by American standards. Of course there are also high gun-ownership states with high homicide rates, too. But the “obvious” correlation between gun ownership and violent death doesn’t seem so obvious anymore. There are clearly other factors clearly at work here.
“Aha!” says the pro-gun-control side. “You’re leaving out suicide. You have to include suicide in the total ‘gun violence’ tally!” Then I guess a lot of those gun-happy but not very murder-y states look a lot worse. But this is also where we get this (admittedly absurd sounding) notion that Japan and South Korea are “more violent” than the U.S., measured by adding up their (quite low) homicide rates to their (quite high) suicide rates. In fact, if you add homicide and suicide, the U.S. barely looks exceptional among OECD nations in the new “violence” rate: in the top quartile to be sure, but not as bad as Hungary or Poland, about the same as Finland or Belgium, and while the U.S. is worse looking at “total violence” than Australia or Germany, it’s nothing like the four or five times worse you get looking at homicide alone; it’s more like one-and-a-half times more “violent” than Australia or Germany (and, again, less “violent” than South Korea, Hungary, Japan, or Poland).
Well, yeah. Not to say suicide isn’t a problem, but it’s a different kind of problem from homicide. But over and over again you see statistics being reported about “gun violence in the United States” which turn out to be “homicide+suicide”. I think we probably shouldn’t be doing that.
If you can’t remove them completely, at least you should be allowed to count each one as 3/5 of a white death, right?
That’s exactly the point. Black people are subject to the same gun laws, therefore the increased homicide rate is not attributable to the availability of guns.
I don’t know about we. Isn’t it mostly me?
Some places people tend to shoot the gun outwards, and in others, inwards. This is mostly cultural.
If you don’t consider both, it’s easy to obscure the relationship between death and guns. And that’s exactly what I find multiple gun-friendly posters obscuring.
You can – and did – point to Idaho, where there are relatively few murders, but the suicide rate is higher than Japan. You can then say – look at Idaho – guns don’t cause homicide. Then you can point to outward-shooting Louisiana, with high gun ownership and a slightly below-US-average suicide rate while the homicide rate exceeds that of Iraq – and say that guns don’t cause suicide. And of course that is true – a gun without impulse to shoot is harmless. But the gun defenders are obscuring the overall relationship between ownership rates for the tool you are trying to defend here, whether owned in Idaho or Louisiana, and violent death:
And why would we do that, Magiver? Is black on black violence somehow happening outside of the US, or are you saying that we just shouldn’t count it?
I’m not sure where the line is.
Do we know where public opinion is? I wonder how the various opinions about violence and gun regulation add up. And how closely perceived risk matches actual risk. As it stands, my risk of getting shot by a stranger is tiny.
It doesn’t matter what we’re talking about. Crime. Gun deaths. Health care costs. Education. Obesity. Whenever the US ranks the worse in a particular metric, it’s because of the blacks. It’s always the blacks–even though they only comprise 13% of the population.
Black folk. Allowing white Americans to feel good about themselves since 1619.
I agree that suicides shouldn’t be included in the gun deaths tally. It’s a dishonest tinkering with the numbers, and a completely different problem than people shooting other people.
I suspect there is absolutely nothing that can realistically be done about this problem in the US. Gun culture is too ingrained. The people don’t want gun control. Gun enthusiasts are way too attached to their toys to hand them over, and there are too many already floating around to bring it back. It’s shitty, but not as shitty as some countries have it. We’re just going to have to live with it, and be glad the current fad isn’t homemade suicide bombs.
In both cases, the tool – a gun – is much more likely to kill than alternatives. A lot of suicides are impulsive, and a lot of homicides are impulsive. And impulsive use of the tool easiest at hand will be much more likely to lead to death if the tool is a gun.
Your profile says that you live in Missouri. Maybe there is nothing that can realistically be done there. I don’t know that for a fact, but will defer to you as a resident.
Where I live, in a politically liberal suburb just outside Philadelphia, there are no gun stores, there aren’t so many guns, and the gun control concept is fairly popular. It’s also perfectly acceptable, even popular, for pediatricians to advise parents of the danger of having a gun in the house.
In Honolulu, and Boston, and New York City, and large areas around them, I suspect there are even fewer guns, and public health measures against gun ownership are, I believe, even more popular.
This sure looks like hope to me:
No, it’s not just you.
To be fair, you and this particular article are at least being upfront and reasonably clear about what it is y’all are claiming–not always true, as we will see:
The Biggest Threat to Americans? Other Americans With Guns
At one point, that author seems to be implying “gun violence” claimed 33,636 American lives and that “apart from gun violence” another 20,000 Americans used guns to commit suicide. Then he goes on and you see that he’s actually saying over 10,000 murders committed with guns + 20,000 suicides carried out with guns (“apart from gun violence”–now gun suicides aren’t “gun violence”?) +560 accidental guns deaths = 32,000+ gun deaths.
More Young Americans Now Die From Guns Than Cars
Only on page two do we get any mention of homicides versus suicides.
More US Cities Are Pledging to End Traffic Deaths. When Will They Do The Same For Guns?
Suicide isn’t mentioned until you get to the comments section. You know you’ve written a crappy article when you’re getting schooled by an Internet comments section.
In considering the problem of gun violence in the US, it is perfectly appropriate to include suicides. For some restricted discussions, it may make sense to separate types of gun violence.
Unless one is truly callous, people typically want there to be fewer suicides.
What I find frustrsting is that we almost invariably focus on gun deaths. There were, IIRC, 20 victims physically wounded in the incident in OR; it’s a matter of chance how many of those ended up dying.
There are about 100,000 people shot in the US every year (yes, including suicides). Focusing on deaths reduces the apparent scope of the problem. We could reduce it even further if we only talk about white people deaths, because hey, do black lives even matter?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
In considering the problem of gun violence in the US, it is perfectly appropriate to include suicides. For some restricted discussions, it may make sense to separate types of gun violence.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s dishonest, since many nations with very restrictive gun control or outright bans have higher suicide rates per 100k than the US does (which is actually in the middle of the pack). Basically, the suicide rate isn’t going to substantially change in the US even if the gun banning side got it’s wettest dream and all guns were magically removed from the US landscape…people will simply find other ways to kill themselves as they do in those other countries.
Poisoning the well does not help your argument, as does your obvious attempt to exclude the middle position that basically the US suicide rate is unlikely to change substantially even if guns were removed completely from the equation…something that is vanishingly small in probability since a large percentage of Americans would be opposed to those levels of control/banning.
What I find frustrating in these discussions is the disingenuous use of stats that are spun in such obvious ways. In addition, basically how the focus on gun deaths in the US clouds other things our society chooses to allow that have even greater impact wrt deaths or injuries because they don’t get the same levels of press. Alcohol, as I’ve said repeatedly, kills and injures more Americans (not to mention the slaughter world wide) daily than guns ever could, and our reasons for allowing it are basically the same…we allow it because people want to, despite knowing full well that such a decision will lead invariably to presumably preventable deaths. In the US our freaking DIET causes more deaths and injuries yearly than guns do, and, again, it’s simply because as a society we sanction it and allow folks to make a choice on what they consume, again, despite knowing full well that a lot of people will die from this decision.
Just had to work in some hyperbolic horseshit about black lives not mattering, right? 
I know…you simply couldn’t resist. I guess, to you, hispanic lives don’t matter, right (since we are doing non-sequitur hyperbole spinning hour tonight it seems)… right?? :rolleyes:
Rant. And a poor one at that.
-5,496 murders
-2,654 committed by black people.
13% of the population committing 48.3% of the murders. Most of it black on black.
it’s not a secret. these numbers have been posted in one form or another over the years. We have a serious problem with black-on-black murder and if you remove those numbers the overall rate is much more in line with other countries.
Is this an accusation of lying?
You’re just throwing assertions without basis in fact. How many nations do? How many natons don’t. Or do you have the faintest idea? I strongly doubt you have no clue.
Bullshit. A vast majority of studies find that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide.
You shouldn’t use terms when you don’t know what they mean, and you’re still wrong on the evidence.
I could do like you and just throw fact free assertions. Why don’t you be clear and say how the stats are being spun. I know reason would get in the way of your spittle-flecked little rant, but it would make your offering a bit more useful to others.
The alcohol-swimming pools-hammers-buckets argument is played out and stupid. Adding diet in is something new, but it doesn’t help the argument.
I’m not the one who suggested we should discount black-on-black shootings. Did you somehow miss that. Perhaps in your little rage, your eyes glazed over it. Calm down and go back and read more slowly and you’ll see.
I suspect this correlates even more closely to socio-economic class than it does to race.
I think so, and while it may take years, I don’t think it will take decades. This could be wishful thinking (although I don’t think so), but I think the tide is starting to turn. I watched drunk-driving and gay marriage undergo sea changes, and I think people are getting fed up with this gun thing finally.
The gun nuts yelling about “gubmint intervention” strongly remind me of the yahoos in the late 19th century who took a stand against compulsory education for children. Those dinosaurs have passed from living memory, and so too shall the gun nuts.
why are you doing that? Seriously. This has been pointed out to you by me and others since.
Let me state it clearly, *other countries have equivalent groups that commit high levels of murder and violence and crime.
*
There is absolutely no justification for you discounting the murders from one socio-economic group in the USA without doing exactly the same for the figures in other countries.
Only then are you permitted to make a comparison, till then it is shoddy manipulation of the data and suggests an unwillingness to debate and engage in a honest fashion.