This supports my contention of cultural differences. Indeed, the differences between the subculture of drug gangs and the subculture of the ‘middle class’ is enough to note marked differences in behaviour. So much more fully cultural differences between groups that have developed independently for two hundred years. The differences in how you are raised and what you are taught to value count for more than what tools are available to do your job.
I would suggest not. The murder rate is at least twice that of most comparable indutrialised democracies and in some cases four or more times the rate.
That is thousands of bodies more, to scale.
Do we agree that the murder rate is >100% higher in the US because people are assaulting each other with firearms rather than fists, knives, hammers etc.?
If we agree this, we can go on to speculate how, or indeed whether, decreasing easy access (legal or not) to firearms might lower the murder rate.
It is if that constitutes four times the RATE elsewhere, surely??
I think it’s also a reasonable certainty that, not expecting any armed resistance, burglars in these places are less likely themselves to be armed, which I think will mean you’re less likely to be shot and killed by a burglar. On a purely personal level (and if I was forced to make a choice), I’d rather be deprived of my material possessions than get into a firefight where I might be injured or killed.
What? You made the generalization that “those countries that have had firearms confiscation seem to have a higher burgulary rate than the U.S”. I pointed out that this generalization only holds true when you cherry-pick the data.
The US has fewer robberies per capita than some countries with stricter gun laws, like Australia and the UK. However, if private gun ownership deterrs burglars, why does Switzerland have more burglaries per capita than the US? And why do other gun-strict countries like Ireland and Japan come in below both Switzerland and the US when it comes to per capita burglaries?
You’re the one who wants to make an argument based on generalizations, and your generalizations just don’t hold up when one looks at the industrialized first-world as a whole.
“100% higher” than where? IF it was 100% higher than any nation with strict gun control laws- well, maybe. You can’t just go “Hmm, what nations do show a lower murder rate… hey- the commonwealth nations, so lets say that is our comparison point”. That’s “picking the data to prove the point”. Bad form, eh, what? After all- “UK, NZ, Aus” have a tiny bit more in common that just the fact they have strict gun control laws. Not too long ago, they were all the same Empire.
No, in order to no “cherry pick data” we have to more or less look at all the nations. Several nations with strict gun control laws have higher rates- some nations with many, many guns available have lower rates. I don’t think there is any connection at all. As Snakespirit pointed out- there could just as well be a correlation between more guns= less burgalries. But really- again, I don’t think there is a connection.
If we could show that every counrty with strct gun control had less murders and every contry with easy gun access had more- that’d be good evidence. But the figures are all over the map. Since we can show both lower AND higher rates in countries with either easy gun access or strict laws- there is no correlation. I don’t think guns have any significant effect on any crime rate- well except “crimes commited with guns”. :rolleyes: :dubious:
Very well, Dr Deth, I’ll rephrase my question.
If several countries have a similar assault rate but some of them have a much higher murder rate, can we agree that something is making those assaults more lethal?
If so, we can ask what?
A more violent or permissive “culture” would raise both rates, surely?
I contend that the US has a higher murder rate, but no higher an assault rate, than comparable industrialised democracies.
NationMaster is, at least partly, a project based on voluntaries. They use, as far as I can tell, free data (and sometimes old data) - instead of the new quality stuff you have to pay for (OECD statistics for instance costs you). Sometimes that yields odd rsults. Check out their data for drug offenses for example.
As for the John Hopkins fact sheet, that one a) summarized overall numbers which are agreed upon by everyone (including USG), and b) quoted some findings from various research projects elsewhere, projects which of course could questioned on method.
Three strike law comes to mind. The point was, sentencing guidelines in the US are much harsher than in the rest of the West.
Yes, I can. 
When you draw the wrong conclusions because you only looked at those above the US (and not the ones below) in the statistics I can point that out. I can also point out that cross country crime data is extremely dfficult to put together (for instance, some countries don’t have a category for burglary, they file it as theft along with pickpocketing etc). But my main point is that if we’re going to make arguments based on a trend we see in statistics, we would have to make sure that there’s no other reason for the trend (it’s easier to break into a house than an apartment on the third floor, and in Australia 80% are living in detached houses. That could may skew the data) .
Point taken. Still, I will go with the syntax generally accepted in the research community, which is the number of homocides per 100 000. Trust me, that’s the way it is. In particular, the problem with using murder instead of homicide is that different legal codes define crimes in different ways. What’s a first degree murder and what’s manslaugter in Germany? Is it the same in the US? I think you get the picture.
Comparable industrialised democracies? Yes, it is at least 100% greater than the next in line, Finland. It is more than four times the rate of eg. Japan.
You sure? The only nations with higher murder rates appear to be either ex-Soviet states struggling to become true democracies or poorer, less industrialised countries. I would suggest that gun access is not all that difficult in any of them.
Actually, there’s a possible statistical correlation between number of guns and homocides. Based on the percentage number of households with handguns and per capita death from handguns, you see data normalizing across some nations at roughly 2,5 - 3,5 per 100 000. This destroys the Swiss connection, where per capita deaths from handguns ends up not that far from the US number. This seems to be true for some other countries also.
However, the only data I have so far is from the early/mid 1990s. It’s difficult to find statistical data of households with handguns and deaths from handguns across nations. And then there’s a question how the non-gun murder figures (blunt weapon, strangulation, etc) looks like across nations.
Well, I’m not sure we can say whether there’s a correlation or not unless we can control for other variables a little more precisely. “Easy gun access” and “strict laws” are also pretty broad categories that could each encompass a large spectrum of actual laws. But you’re certainly correct in that there’s no obvious correlation either way between guns per capita and crime per capita. Levels of private gun ownership may play a role in crime rates, but there are obviously other factors involved.
That is one cheap trick SnakeS. I explained clearly why i chose the total , not the per capita figure. I also explained to whose question i was responding. I then asked you where i had said the the US was the most violent country.
It your hi-tech response was, “well you show me where i said that you had said the US is the most violent country” ( the answer of course is your quote:“The United States is NOT the most violent country. But you seemed to be trying to prove that.”)
Then i come to this thread and read THIS:
“Sinical brit posted these stats in another thread to try and show the US was the most violent country…
Check 'em out first hand. Don’t rely on my take, and don’t rely on sinical britt’s!”.
STOP MISREPRESENTING ME YOU SHMUCK. You couldnt come up with a cite then, and you cant now.
sin
Good points.
Alien- yes, but again, we are “picking & choosing”- why just handguns? After all the anti-gunners are puching anti-assualt weapon bills very strongly. They seem to think they are very bad.
sinical brit:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Namecalling belongs in the BBQ Pit, not here.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
No. Only that* with* fireams, the rate is 100% higher. Not because of firearms.
Check out NationMaster for data,** alien**. Alhough some postes are trashing it, it’s year 2000 data! maybe they just don’t like what it says???
Given that US assaults with anything but firearms are no more lethal than anywhere else, can we say that US assaults are on average at least twice as lethal as comparable democracies because they use firemarms instead of other means?
What exactly do you mean by ‘twice as lethal’?
Sorry, Mange, I admit that that is garbled syntax. I’ll try again.
Given that US assaults with anything but firearms are no more lethal than anywhere else, can we say that US assaults produce a murder rate at least twice that of comparable indutrialised democracies because they use firemarms instead of other means?
(And yes, the assault rates are similar)
Of course the ready available of guns, illegal and legal, makes a violent intent more likely to result in death compared to a situation where only less lethal weaponry was available. Isn’t this a “no duh” question? Technology amplifies. If the goal is to cause bodily harm, then an attack with a gun is going accomplish that goal with significantly greater efficiency than one made without the aid of such well designed technology.
Individual state and country stats comparisons are difficult because there are so many other significant factors that also vary: “The Drug War”; drug traffic; economic opportunity; income disparity; population density; and on and on. There is no clean controlled study here folks. The people best able to tease out the factors and control for multiple variable are the professional epidemiologists (this is what they do) and their findings are all dismissed by the pro-gun side since they all conclude the same thing: guns in a society are associated with a relatively increased risk of death by murder and suicide, especially of the young. (The authors are therefore biased sources.)
The impact on other crime is less a no duh and it depends on who you choose to believe and who you choose to dismiss. And which stats you want to look at. Does high crime cause more gun ownership? Does fear of a victim being armed deter crime? Probably both a little of both (although it must be noted that most crime is in areas where there are many ,albeit illegal, guns floating around) but I doubt that guns cause other crime.
The problem is what to do about it. Do you respond in an authoritarian manner and propose tight controls, declaring that individual gun rights are worth little compared the benefit to society? Or do you respond in a liberterian manner, declaring that individual rights are so great that societal benefit must be overwhelming before any additional is warranted?
My position in the middle is clear from other threads. There is point to be found that maximizes the societal benefit while minimizing the additional imposition on legal gun owners. The prime focus must be on preventing diversion of guns from legal owners to the illegal market.