Gary, FWIW, to some extent I agree with you about the ability of the same statistics to be used in different ways to differing ends. In the Lott study I’ve referenced, one of his findings apparently was that violent crime was significantly higher in areas with a high population of elderly female blacks. His critics attempted to deride him, saying, “Lott appears to think that getting rid of all the old black women will solve the crime problem,” missing by a mile the point that crime is higher in those areas because elderly black women are easy targets for violent crime, not perpetrators.
Bullshit, Gary. This, “America has 4 times the population of Britain. It has over 1000 times the level of gun related crime,” is most certainly a bald assertion. You’ve asked a question, but it’s based on that unsubstantiated statement and, as I stated previously, I’m not going to seriously consider formulating a reply until you show me some evidence supporting that claim. I think, however, this issue would be better discussed as a brand new topic in our Great Debates forum. Maybe you’d like to repost it over there.
As for using, or not using, statistics to answer questions, perhaps statistics can’t answer a query; maybe they can only be used to support a position. Since you think they are unsuited to making difinitive answers, what would you suggest as a better method? Totally uninformed opinions?
Gary, you’ve also posted this:
I believe I said something just a week or so ago along these very same lines. I said that I find the level of gun violence in the U.S. to be acceptable.
And I’m a bit disappointed in your methods of debate also, Gary. Rather than address the issues I’ve presented, you choose to bitch about a couple niggling side issues.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 09-25-2000 at 02:01 PM]
Ow. Jeez, Unc, is there such a thing? “Only X% of the population is killed by guns violently. The other X% do it by their own hands. If you add that up, it’s only X per-capita.” (Sorry, don’t have the figures at hand.) That’s acceptable?
As for me, until there ain’t no more, it ain’t acceptable–and that’s violence, period, not just by guns.
Is there an acceptable level of violence? Absolutely. Hell, even the British Prime Minister in 1992 said the level of violence in Northen Ireland was “acceptable.” I really don’t give a good goddamn if people choose to abuse their gun ownership rights by murdering each other. Right up to the point that’s used as an excuse to remove my rights. Then I’m gonna fight. If you choose to live in a dream world where there’s no violence, bully for you; I wish you luck achieving your laudable goal. However, if history teaches us anything, that ain’t ever gonna happen. Guns are not the source of violence, humans are. Guns are merely a tool, often misused. Quit confusing the issue, it’s not that difficult to understand.
Maybe this is another GD topic, though.
Unc, I thought you of all people were beyond this knee-jerk garbage. I merely said that I don’t think there’s any acceptable level of violence. I didn’t say that there’s not any, nor did I say that guns should be taken away. And I don’t care if fucking Ghandi rose from the grave and called violence in Northern Ireland “acceptable,” I’d have to disagree.
Funny how gun owners react, huh? I’ll avoid asking how you’ll fight if your right to life is taken away during some “acceptable level of violence.” That would be out of line.
I live in the UK (actually, I work in law enforcement), and I’m curious about how effective carrying a gun in self-defence is in the US. Maybe they make people feel safer, but how effective actually are they in defending members of the public from crime?
Are there any figures for the number of muggers, rapists etc. who have been successfully defended against (or killed, or injured) by would-be victims who have guns? Do any Dopers know anyone who has successfully used a gun to protect themselves in this way?
Cheers
Wombat
NB: For the record, nobody in the county where I work has ever been fired on by an armed police officer and no police officer has ever been killed by gunfire.
There are many; they just arent’ widely reported the major media outlets. You’ll find some interesting figures here. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
And this is part of my reason for claiming the U.S. has an acceptable level of gun violence. The great number of successful defensive uses far outweigh the number of murders.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 09-25-2000 at 06:01 PM]
UncleBeer,
thanks for the cite to Gary Kleck. Part of his conclusion is
‘Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.).’
-
so if gun availability doesn’t affect total rates of violence, how does using guns in self-defence help?
-
I’d like to see the full quote in which the Prime Minister said the level of violence was ‘acceptable’. There’s been terrorist activity in Northern Ireland for decades, but I still find it hard to believe the PM could get away with saying that.
-
is there proportionally more homicide in the USA? (I tried looking for murder rates in the UK, but the Government figures are rather hard to interpret. I THINK there were around 700 such deaths each year from 1995-97)
If you’d bother reading to the end of my thread you’d see I asked if this was the place to talk about your points or whether I should start a thread somewhere other than the pit. So answer away - new thread, or continue this one.
And if you’d read to the end of my first paragraph, you’d have seen this:
Or maybe you did see it and just can’t understand the words when they’re all strung together sentence fashion.
Sheesh.
Someone had just started a 2nd amendment debate thread at:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39887
I’m not sure that a 2nd amendment debate is going to address your question of the relative disparities in the presumed violence levels between England and the U.S., but what the hell. It’s been a while since one of these was started from scratch. See ya there, Gary. And I assure you, I’m much less abusive in GD. I liken a BBQ Pit debate to a barroom shouting match; GD is more like a collegiate level forensics class or club.
If it was a barroom shouting match, I’d have reached for my gun.
I did a bit of checking at work today, and found that in 1998/99 there were 691 homicides in England and Wales, 47 of which were firearm related (6.8%).
Assuming the population of England and Wales in 1998/99 to be approx 60 million, that makes the chance of the average individual being a victim of murder about 1 in 87,000. The chance of being a victim of a firearm related murder are about 1 in 1.3 million. Obviously some socio/demographic groups have higher firearm homicide mortality rates than others.
Does anyone have the comparable US figures?
wildest bill:
assuming you meant ‘ruger’, you can get 25 to 50 round clips for the 10/22 on ebay. since ebay doesn’t allow the sale of pre-ban clips, most are advertised as ‘three times the fun of the factory clip’ or something like that. also, the quality of these after-market high-cap clips is questionable. the one i got jams much more frequently than the 10 round clip. you’re better off just getting extra factory clips.
(sorry for the thread-jack and if this was answered already - long thread)
Well, nobody came up with the US figures, so I did a bit of research and found 'em myself. In 1998 there were 16,910 murders in the US, 10,975 of which were firearm related (65%, near as dammit).
Assuming the population of the US in 1998 to be 274,028,000, the change of the average individual being a victim of murder is about 1 in 16,200. The chance of being a victim of a firearm related murder is about 1 in 25,000.
By my reckoning, that mades the average US citizen 52 times more likely to die by gunfire in 1998 than the average UK citizen.
I assume you mean some 12-year-old “soldier.” Only morons and retards use AK-47 automatics for hunting, even where they are legal.
You see a picture of a child holding a gun and your reaction is JEALOUSY?!?!?!?! You are NOT appalled that some poor kid is having to kill someone else just to stay alive, that this kid is going to grow up (assuming he DOES grow up) totally fucked, a brutal, cold-blooded killer who would be more likely to kill YOU as ask you to see your cool gun?
I bet if your best friend was in the hospital, dying of cancer, you wouldn’t ask him if you could have his gun. Then again, maybe you would.
Insensitive jack-off morons like you REALLY piss me off.
(I haven’t read the rest of this thread. This shit-head had me so fucking pissed, I couldn’t go any further. Please tell me I’m not the only one who noticed how fucking inhuman origato is.)
All the more reason to believe that Jesse suffered brain damage as a wrestler. Or as a SEAL.
Yeah, I remember. In our school, every single member was a kid who was also considered a bully. Coincidence?
Yeah, and who cares if they kill some innocent by-stander while doing this manly, heroic job? The “heroes” can cause more damage than the perpetrator.
The heroes can cause more damage than the perpetrator? Let’s see, how many people died in the Columbine tragedy? And how many guns and bombs dis they have? And you dare suggest that an armed person intending only to stop the carnage is going to kill as many, or more people that the perpetrators? Outlandish.