Out of the ~13750 murders in 2001, ~8700 were committed using some firearm or other. Now, from the spreadsheet that classifies victims by relationship, a substantial 6000 was in the “unknown” category. About 2000 were classified as strangers while another sizeable 6000 was some known individual, either a friend or a relative.
These 8700 murders by firearms are distributed within the above three categories. By looking at the numbers alone, there isn’t enough evidence to claim that a culture of fear explains the high murder rate. What does this “culture of fear” cause individuals to do anyway? I take it that a culture of fear increases murders committed on strangers. Break-ins, a violent stay-off-my-property mindset, deliberate and accidental shootings in public, paranoid shooting sprees by nutjobs etc. For individuals to kill folks they know and live with would probably indicate a “culture of anger and selfishness” more than fear. If the above two premises are true, a substantial chunk of 8700 murders ought to overlap with the 6000-8000 murders committed on strangers and those in the “unknown” category for us to successfully link the “culture of fear” to the increased murder rate. There isn’t enough data to make that link.
That said, I am inclined to believe that a high percentage of the 8700 deaths overlap with the 6000 murders that were classified in the “unknown” category. These could be mostly gang or drugs related violence, the reasons for which are linked to the war on drugs and poverty. In addition, intuition tells me that a lot of the murders committed on friends, relatives etc could have as easily involved poison, knives and the like. In the absence of clear evidence, all this is IMHO.
While I’m not Michael Moore, I don’t think the message was that the Culture of Fear causes murders, as much as it causes a larger number of people, people who are highly unlikely to actually be victims to violence, to posess handguns.
I think that he’s arguing that that, in turn, causes a higher murder rate.
The culture of fear drives guns sales… guns make it easier to kill… if you just compare criminal killings with killing of known people you arent saying anything about that total volume of murders being normal or not.
From the figures you show roughly half the murders are known individuals… only a quarter of firearm deaths are confirmed as being done by strangers. Why do people arm themselves against strangers and end up shooting known people more ? I call that strange.
Remember statistics only deal with reality... not perceived reality. If people think Saddam was involved with Nukes... it doesnt mean he had nukes. Iraq still got invaded just the same.
“Guns don’t kill people, hands kill people.” I like it!
Susanann,
You are putting up a classic straw man.
No one has claimed that the only factor for homicide rates is gun availability. Young. Male. Poor. Unmarried. And a host of other demographics are associated with violence. The overall state of the economy. The Drug War is associated with more homicides. (And it is notable that Canada does not pursue the drug trade as militaristically as the US does.)
Sometimes correlation means causation and sometime it doesn’t. An epidemiologist tries to analyze for lurking variables and looks for points where public health measures can intervene to reduce the effects of a public health risk.
Homicide is a major cause of death among certain population groups in the United States. Especially poor young Black urban males. The best professional epidemiologists gravitate to the CDC in this country (despite the pasting they recieve in these threads) and they are restricted from advocating for their conclusions by governmental edict. Or so I’ve been led to believe by posters on this board.
So let us ignore the professionals for a bit. They are just whoring it anyway I’ve heard. Put on the hat of an epidemiologist yourself. Your target disease is the loss of years of life due to handgun violence. You’ve identified that this disease hits this young poor Black male population excessively. Presume the data exists (I don’t have figures in front of me, but I’d bet my bippy … if I knew what my bippy was, anyway … that this is true) that Black males raised in middle class and wealthy environments are not subject to this disease, so you can rule out a genetic predisposition to the disease state. Let us also presume that White males in urban poverty have similar rates so you have identified that a significant risk factor is being young male urban and poor. The murders are mainly committed with guns and many seem to be unplanned murders … committed in the heat of an argument over who knows what, maybe something criminal, maybe drug related, maybe other crime related, maybe girlfreind related, who knows. Or unplanned during the course of anaother crime like a robbery. The guns are often obtained illegally, maybe stolen or bought from someone who stole them, or resold illegally by someone who obtained them legally.
What public health interventions makes sense to you?
Leave out the fears for now. The fear that some unknown baddie will follow you or break in to your house and the fear that a gun in a middle class house will be used in anger or be left unsecured and loaded to be found by a playful but now killer 5 year old. Both happen but from the cold hearted statistical POV happen fairly infrequently. We are looking at total years of life saved and doing so as cold hearted professionals.
Exactly. How does the increased possession of handguns lead to an increased murder rate? I doubt more people are killing their friends and relatives given the availabilty of more guns. I can only imagine more murders committed on strangers either accidentally or deliberately.
Therein lies a difference of assumptions between those who advocate for gun control and those who argue against it. Gun control supporters would argue that an argument between people who have handy access to loaded weapons is more likely to result in a death or two than an argument between two people who have handy access to frying pans. Gun control advocates also argue that more legal weapons trickles to more illegal weapons by way of theft and illegal sale. Gun rights advocates argue that the first isn’t true and that they have no responsibilty if their weapon gets stolen and is used in a subsequent crime. They argue that if illegal weapons were not available as stolen goods or procured illegally from those who obtained them legally, that then other means would become availble to supply the illegal market (illegal manufacture or smuggling, for example).
Whichever makes more sense to you generally declares where you stand in this debate.
I agree with your assessment. But, I was especially talking within the context of the “culture of fear” argument that Moore makes in the film. My point was that an increased paranoia re: individual safety is not related to arguments between friends or relatives that may lead to gun-shots. Hence, the (supposed) increased murder rate as a result of increased firearms purchase must lead to an increase in the murder rates on strangers and those in the “unknown” category. And, we don’t have the data to prove that.
And, I do believe that a heated argument can more likely lead to a gun shot given the availability of a gun. (Isn’t that a tad bit obvious?) But, one does wonder why, in the absence of a gun, the same heated argument may not lead to a knife wound?
I think that someone who hasn’t killed before would be more likely to threaten with a gun than with a knife. More disproprtionate power. That’s the whole attraction of guns for self defense, isn’t it? Don’t hear the story of the old man scaring off the guy from rummaging his truck by brandishing a steak knife, do you?
I think that someone who hasn’t killed before will less inclined to kill with a knife than with a gun. It is so much more up close and savage. Psychologically a gun is a distance away, pulling the trigger is less of an act of personal savagery than stabbing someone enough to kill them. And less of a personal risk too.
Try to stab me with a typical kitchen knife with the average American’s strength and I will likely survive. I might even be able to stop you. Less likely if the average American tries to shoot me at fairly close range.
I’m not really sure that Moore was making that connection though. If he did then he did not articulate it well enough that it was clear to me anyway. Maybe I missed it.
What DSeid said. A gun is a convenience weapon – you grab it and pull the trigger, that’s all you need to do. A knife, on the other hand, requires grabbing it, approaching your target, finding a vulnerable spot, finding an opening, and sticking it in.
A knife also requires more “work” than a gun does; with guns (especially the larger caliber ones), one shot is enough to incapacitate or kill the target. A knife, on the other hand, may not stop your target even if you make a successful strike, depending on what part you were aiming for, if the attack was turned, etc.
Well, there were 3 main points in the film:
(1) Violent US past in both the domestic and international spheres
(2) Gun ownership
(3) Media-propelled culture of fear
Moore himself states that (1) and (2) alone cannot explain the high murder rate. That leavs us with (3) which is why I was looking at the stats on murder committed by firearms on strangers.
