In the sense that there are, on a per capita basis, three more murder victims in the US for every murder victim in the UK.
No. ‘Random search’ should more accurately have been replaced by ‘warranted search on reasonable and evidentially supported suspicion of a non-firearm-related crime’.
Well, they aren’t “extra” in any sense unless you can establish that, if it weren’t for the identified factors, the murder rate in the US would be exactly the same as in the UK. You need to show causation, in other words.
People in hospitals die at a higher rate than people in the general populace, but obviously these are not “extra” deaths that can be addressed by simply discharging them from the hospital. Being in the hospital correlates with a higher death rate, but it doesn’t cause it.
But you probably already knew that.
Regards,
Shodan
All I can do is show strong correlation in that the UK did not, for some reason, have those 8259 firearm murders comprising 66% of the total which inflated the US murder rate so.
I proposed a reason. What’s yours?
You propsed a reason and you don’t back it up, but you want everybody else to provide more than their own opinion as a refutation?
I don’t think that’s going to happen.
You also haven’t answered as to why you think it is an fair comparison to put the UK side by side with the US in terms of statistics.
I’ve never been to the UK, so I don’t know if it’s as heterogeneous as the US is, with demographics that vary widely from location to location. I also don’t know which areas of the UK are the locale for large percentages of the UK’s murders.
They’re certainly banned weapons, but this thread is not strictly about assault weapons. It’s more about the balance between the rights of Americans given to them by the 2nd Amendment and safety. The question is, where does one draw the line?
Banning weapons merely because they have scary features such as bayonet lugs is, as many have pointed out, not a great idea. So presumably the line should not be drawn there, in your opinion or in mine. Most gun advocates would suggest that laws banning ‘assault weapons’ (as currently defined) impinges on their rights.
So where do you draw the line? Should you be allowed to have guns with attached grenade launchers? How about stand-alone grenade launchers? How about RPGs?
I’m not trying to imply that the gun advocates in this thread are crazy people who want to legalise all weapons and want to runs around with RPGs. Quite the opposite - I take it that most or all of you do NOT want RPGs to be legal, for safety reasons. Such a stance makes sense - RPGs can cause a great deal of damage, especially in the hands of criminals. Similarly, I assume that most of you probably don’t want rifles with attached grenade launchers to be legal (Please correct me if I’m wrong) for safety reasons.
Therefore, even gun advocates are drawing a line between freedoms and safety, accepting conditions upon the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms for the good of the public. We agree that the ownership of arms is a conditional right for safety reasons. We merely disagree about where the line between rights and safety should fall.
Well, OK, let’s start with opinions and examine them in lieu of anything better. In your opinion, why is the US murder rate so much higher given similar total crime and assault rates? What is a reasonable mechanism whereby the US can be similarly violent and similarly criminal but vastly more lethal?
Again I ask: “What distinguishing feature is it reasonable to believe might lead to so many more murders, given a similar crime/violence rate?” We can examine demographics all you like, looking for some significant difference between the two countries. But we must ask ourselves whether it is reasonable to contend that such a difference leads to thousands more murders but leaves the crime/violence rate unaffected. Every possibility you have raised so far, from drugs to city size to incarceration rate and prison violence, leads to a higher murder rate…how, exactly? Can you propose a reasonable mechanism for them to increase America’s statistical lethality?
I haven’t a comprehensive citation to hand but I believe it is, again, similar to the US in almost every significant aspect: high murder rate per capita in cities compared to rural areas, higher in poorer neighbourhoods and vastly higher amongst gangs and drug dealers.
Because the US is not the UK and there’s no logical reason whatsoever to expect the US to have the same murder rate that the UK does.
When I get an answer as to how peaceful, law abiding citizens owning firearms they never use to injure anyone somehow cause gang members and drug dealers to shoot each other to death, I might think about taking your questions more seriously.
I’d also like to know why it is you think the UK’s murder rate is ‘just right’ and the US’s murder rate is ‘too high because of firearms’.
And do you have anywhere near as many of these urban blight areas that are filled with gang members and drug dealers as there are in the US? It’s not as if there is only one or two gang wars going on in the US. There’s a gang war in just about every major city here.
Why do you assume that what works in the UK will automatically work in the US?
It is surely legitimate to ask “why is there such a large difference”?
I ventured that widespread legal ownership still makes illegal access easier, simply by virtue of there being more guns around. Why do you think the US is such a comparatively lethal place?
Where did I say it was ‘just right’? I advocated trying to reduce all crime, violence and murder rates.
I believe they scale accordingly, yes. Do you have a source to the contrary?
Us too (and, incidentally, in addition we have terrorist gangs in Northern Ireland.)
I don’t. But you haven’t tried it yet.
Except that you are attempting to answer it with your unsubstantiated opinion and then suggest that we implement your opinion by banning firearms.
I don’t think it is such a ‘comparatively lethal place’. You have not yet established as fact that the murder rate in the US is ‘too high’ and needs to be ‘lowered’ by removing the right to legally own firearms. You have also not demonstrated that my legal ownership of firearms, nor that of the 80 million+ like me, makes it ‘easier’ for criminals to get them.
Drugs are completely illegal in the US, and just look at how readily available cocaine is. What makes you think firearms would be any different?
How many impoverished urban centers are there in the UK?
You have not shown us why we should try your solution. You’ve merely given your opinion that ‘guns cause murder’ and that’s supposed to be it. Are you honestly suggesting that the US ban all firearms just as a trial-and-error measure?
I am attempting to explore the reasons for US lethality. I offered one. I could not understand how the ones you offered could lead to greater lethality. I beg assistance.
The total crime rate and assault rates are similar, yet the murder rate is far greater. Agreed? If so, why?
You don’t think it is?
I cannot tell whether that would work, no. I merely point to the strong correlation. It’s just a suggestion. Ignore it if you wish.
Well, I come from Liverpool which has the most impoverished urban centre in Europe. Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bradford, Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Southampton…all of these cities have problems, and we haven’t even broached London or Northern Ireland.
Yes.
This seems to be little more than lip service since you admit that you’ve already decided the US should ban firearms.
Maybe that should be ascertained before rash actions are taken?
Honestly? No, I really don’t think so.
Why should a suggestion be implemented that nobody, least of all the one who suggested it, can say with any certainty will work?
And by comparison we have, of course the top urban areas in the US which may have multiple impoverished areas, and cities in other states that are not among the largest yet still have the impoverished and gang ridden areas.
Apparently very recently the gangs in Pittsburgh have ended their ‘truce’ and begun to wear colors again. With three major gangs, they will probably be warring again.
That’s a pretty reactionary statement considering the lack of proof that there is a significant problem or that the ‘solution’ will have any effect at all.
Well, if you don’t think the murder rate is too high, obviously you will ignore any suggestions for how it might be lowered. Agreed?
If I were given proof that the murder rate is too high and that a certain course of action would definitely lower it, I would consider the suggestion.
But right now, all I have is your opinion that it’s too high and a wild shot in the dark trial-and-error that idea that cuts completely one of the elements of the Bill of Rights.
You’re asking for a very major action with no proof that it will do any good whatsoever.
How much higher would murder rates need to be for you to feel they were too high? Is there anywhere in the US that you accept does have a higher than desirable murder rate?
I disagree. The OP reads: What weapons are banned under the Assault Weapons ban? You need to start another thread.
Promise to get off this horse if I answer?
And I’m only answering for me.
I cannot be a part of the class “gun owner,” for obvious reasons.
I also don’t represent “gun advocates;” if anything, I’m a “Freedom Advocate.”
I draw the line here:
American citizens who have been trained in the use of weapons that would be reasonable to use in an offensive/defensive situation where a terrorist group was attempting the destruction or overthrow of our country/government should have those weapons so long as their safe storage and avoidance of misuse were assured.
No, we don’t. We disagree about the definition of “arms.”
You’re baiting us, right?
You mean you really don’t know?
And by the way, what does all this have to do with the OP?
How does this relate to: What weapons are banned under the Assault Weapons ban?
So,you really don’t know why statistics show more murders per capita in the US than in the UK???
It’s the culture.
The culture of the Brits and the culture of Americans, while sharing some mostly cosmetic similarities, is vastly different. I don’t really have the time and space here to do a complete analysis and demonstration of this fact, and I understand that most of you are neither Cultural Anthropologists or Ethnologists, bit I can and will lay out some of the more obvious traits that the average doper should be able to grasp.
For examples:
Brits are raised with a beacon of “proper behaviour.”
Americans are raised with an icon of “rugged individualism.”
These (and related cultural traits) underlie all of the manifestations of behaviour that have separated our two cultures since the 1600’s.
Even during the revolution, redcoats lined up like fish in a market, straight lines out in the open, side by side, to inflict a volly upon the colonists. The colonists, however, scattered like leaves, hid behind trees, and found their expression of their culture in making their own way.
Fast Forward 200 years or so.
What does America now have that is an obvious lens into their culture that the Brits lack?
In short: Hollywood. The uniquely American Film Industry
Our film industry not only mirrors our cultural values, but enhances and expands them. In American movies our criminals kill emotionlessly, our police relish in the extermination of human vermin. Our soldiers never hesitate, and inflict the maximum damage for the slightest of reasons.
We have created a liberal society in which all of these excesses are not only approved and accepted, but they are held up as examples of positive and successful behaviour. Generation after generation our youth drink in this excessive permissiveness and lack of moral framework foisted upon them by a liberal entertainment industry.
Brits are afraid to use excess in defending themselves. In reality, a Brit hurting a dangerous criminal can draw a jail sentance, even acting in self defense. In America, it’s almost expected of the great soup of the spawn of the theatre to use maximum force, just in case.
I can hardly launch into a full anthropological/ethnological analysis of the phenomenon here on a, what do you call this thing, I forget the term… Which consists of basically a running argument. But I think I’ve given you enough to get you started.
Oh, and by the way, yes, I know you get American films in the UK, and that films are made in Britian and other UK and UK-associated countries, but there is no film industry that compares to Hollywood, either in lack of morality or cutting-edge shock-value indoctrination.
So, I think the US should, as an experiment, ban Hollywood filmmaking, and see what happens to the murder rate. (Where’s that tongue-in-cheek smiley?)
One cannot make a reasonable comparison between the US and the UK based on similarity of cultures; our cultures are quite different! And while the roots of the Brit culture are derived primerily of Anglo-Saxon (Anglo including all of the Island people that influence the present-day culture) stock with a smattering of colonial infusions, the American culture started there and added and added and added culture after culture after culture until we ended up with no clear ethnic majority (caucasian is not an ethnic term) and a mish mash of cultural practices that blend and overlap like an impressionist painting.
We have Anglo-Saxons, yes. We also have significant enclaves (not as is separated from, but as in blended with) French, Spanish, Hispanic, African, Arab, Indian, American Indian, German, Italian, Irish (Celtic), Czech, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Mongol, Japanese, Korean, ‘other Oriental,’ Hungarian, Gypsy, Turkish, ‘other Occidental.’ In fact it is unlikely that there isn’t a culture we have mixed in with our own, and each has had it’s effect, to one degree of another.
One cannot assume a similarity of cultures just because we just barely share a language. Well, we share a written language, I suppose, but our spoken language is more difficult to mutually understand.
And even consider the fact that we drive on opposite sides of the road, and the right-brain vs. left-brain stimulation that ensues therefrom (now there is a great idea for a paper!).
Why does the US have more murders per capita than UK? Well, the first thing you have to do before slinging rabbits out of top hats is you have to define the terms and the cultural application of the terms. You must determine who is collecting the data and how it is collected. Is a murder in the UK the same as a murder in the US? How does murder differ from homocide? Who makes the decision?
Statistics are nice, and sometimes they are all we have to go on, but they are woefully inadequate unless the cross-cultural statistics are collected in a meaningful way. Generally when statistics are gathered they are obtained from a culturally biased source which has already determined how an event is to be coded. It doesn’t work the other way around. So, unless you can get the parameters of collection and compare them from one culture to another and subsequently sort out the differences, you might as well take those statistics with a grain of salt. Numbers are just numbers. Without the cultural interpretation to determine what the numbers mean, they don’t mean anything.
Sorry to shoot down your proposition, Meat, but I’m sure you don’t want to make major decisions based on flawed material.
Snake Spirit, last Sunday night I asked for a link or citation to the proposed bill that would make the sale, manufacture, possession of a semi-automatic, a.k.a. auto-load, shotgun unlawful. The link you gave was not to the text of the bill but to an NRA news letter which sounds more than a little hysterical and has suspicious authority. The text of the bill, if you please?
Right. So we should delete all this stuff about “cop-killer” bullets and comparative murder rates.
But that’s not a strict line. B-52s and cruise missiles were used to in an offensive / defensive situation to fight terrorists by attacking their camps in Afghanistan, but surely you agree it’s not a good thing to allow private ownership of these.
Then give your definition of arms. Here’s a few:
As you can see, these are fairly broad definitions, inclusive of anything from rifles to nuclear weapons. If the word in question was “small-arms”, “side-arms”, or “fire-arms”, or just plain old “rifles” or “muskets” you might have more of a case.
The reason that most people in the US don’t want rifles with attached grenade launchers to be allowed is that of safety, not because of some quibble over the definition of “arms”. There must be a line drawn somewhere WITHIN this definition of “arms”.
It’s a bit harder to get the exact text of a bill, and of course hard to understand the convoluted references, which is why I link to sites where an analysis has been done.
Link to the Brady site and they’ll tell you how a bill eliminates weapons meant to be “spray-fired from the hip in a sweeping motion to mow down police.” Talk about being “a little hysterical and has suspicious authority.” I find the NRA site to be a bit more objective and truthful, though not unbiased. I can’t find any unbiased site that does anaylsis of bills, BTW.
You’ll have to do some work to get the exact text of a bill. First go to the Thomas Legislative Information on the Internet which is free access. Enter “HR 2038” in the box labeled “Bill Number” and Press “Search.” Go down the page to Section 2, and subsections H and L refer to shotguns. You’ll figure out if it bans yours, I hope. Some of the language is vague and convoluted, so it’s in your best interest to read the whole thing and even refer back to the NRA site and see if their analysis holds water.
At the same site enter S 1431 for the Senate version, which at first glance seems the same. 2L is particularly scary! If the military or federal law enforcement ever procured a firearm for its use, even if it is regularly used for sporting purposes, it can be banned: to wit: “presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes,” etc., etc.
Hope that helps. 
No surprise. I answered, you didn’t get off your horse and you only want to keep me engaged in a never-ending argument over details that have nothing to do with the OP.
Good bye, Chops. Take your B-52 with you, too.