|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 13:58 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:45 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate ![[image loading]](http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/6107_10100113177793196_1664301245_n.jpg) Murders using guns ![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65311000/gif/_65311537_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif) These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here. Sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21033709http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateSince when was it a crime to have an agenda? Does anybody not have an agenda? I'm not ignoring murders without guns. Clearly murder rate is a complex issue, but what you have here are all developed countries. You have one hugely significant piece of statistical evidence, combined with what seems common sense that guns are incredibly dangerous because they are designed to kill people. Those people who think guns are a necessary evil, which I hope would any sane person arguing they need guns, should be wondering is, Is it really possible to live in a utopia where these terrible things which cause death and misery are not widely available, and where people go their whole lives without even seeing a gun. The answer is yes, in many countries, and you could live in that place too, if you really wanted to.
What I'm saying is, your conclusion is not evident. The two tables/graphs you chose to show show that the USA has higher gun murder rates and higher murder rates than several other 'developed' countries, but it does not necessarily imply that the higher gun murder rate causes the higher murder rate. It proves that the USA has more murders. It is certainly possible that guns are the cause of this, but you have not provided evidence towards this conclusion.
edit: I should clarify that seeming like you 'have an agenda' makes you less credible. It's okay to have a goal to spread the knowledge of <your stance here> so long as you do so in good faith meaning you are willing to listen to the other side and actually be honest/truthful and not misleading as you present your case. For example, you are being misleading if you provide statistics that do not support a conclusion significantly and then claim that people should have been steered towards that conclusion.
|
On February 01 2013 14:03 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:58 deathly rat wrote:On February 01 2013 13:45 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here. Sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21033709http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateSince when was it a crime to have an agenda? Does anybody not have an agenda? I'm not ignoring murders without guns. Clearly murder rate is a complex issue, but what you have here are all developed countries. You have one hugely significant piece of statistical evidence, combined with what seems common sense that guns are incredibly dangerous because they are designed to kill people. Those people who think guns are a necessary evil, which I hope would any sane person arguing they need guns, should be wondering is, Is it really possible to live in a utopia where these terrible things which cause death and misery are not widely available, and where people go their whole lives without even seeing a gun. The answer is yes, in many countries, and you could live in that place too, if you really wanted to. What I'm saying is, your conclusion is not evident. The two tables/graphs you chose to show show that the USA has higher gun murder rates and higher murder rates than several other 'developed' countries, but it does not necessarily imply that the higher gun murder rate causes the higher murder rate. It proves that the USA has more murders. It is certainly possible that guns are the cause of this, but you have not provided evidence towards this conclusion.
So if it's not easy access to guns, then the cause for the higher murder rates in the US must be because THE PEOPLE there are more corrupt and devious. Yah that sounds about right, thanks for clearing that up!
|
Usually when people say "you have an agenda" in a pejorative sense, it means that the person is personally involved or will gain from the outcome of the discussion. Otherwise having an agenda, being one that you wouldn't benefit from (ie, trying to convince others that guns are bad) is perfectly reasonable.
|
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:07 striderxxx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 14:03 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:58 deathly rat wrote:On February 01 2013 13:45 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here. Sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21033709http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateSince when was it a crime to have an agenda? Does anybody not have an agenda? I'm not ignoring murders without guns. Clearly murder rate is a complex issue, but what you have here are all developed countries. You have one hugely significant piece of statistical evidence, combined with what seems common sense that guns are incredibly dangerous because they are designed to kill people. Those people who think guns are a necessary evil, which I hope would any sane person arguing they need guns, should be wondering is, Is it really possible to live in a utopia where these terrible things which cause death and misery are not widely available, and where people go their whole lives without even seeing a gun. The answer is yes, in many countries, and you could live in that place too, if you really wanted to. What I'm saying is, your conclusion is not evident. The two tables/graphs you chose to show show that the USA has higher gun murder rates and higher murder rates than several other 'developed' countries, but it does not necessarily imply that the higher gun murder rate causes the higher murder rate. It proves that the USA has more murders. It is certainly possible that guns are the cause of this, but you have not provided evidence towards this conclusion. So if it's not easy access to guns, then the cause for the higher murder rates in the US must be because the people there are more corrupt and devious. Yah that sounds about right, thanks for clearing that up!
Are you seriously saying that the degree of access to guns is the only significant factor that explains why murder rates are different for different countries? I just want to be clear here.
On February 01 2013 14:09 deathly rat wrote:
Usually when people say "you have an agenda" in a pejorative sense, it means that the person is personally involved or will gain from the outcome of the discussion. Otherwise having an agenda, being one that you wouldn't benefit from (ie, trying to convince others that guns are bad) is perfectly reasonable.
I don't know what your reasoning is for what you say in this thread, but I do know it was beginning to look like you cared more about changing people's minds than seeking the truth. If I was wrong then that's good.
|
Actually, I would point you to the population differences between the US and other countries. That statistic alone helps speak for why violence is so high in the US. You also have to consider the various sub-subcultures within cities in addition. Guns certainly do cause violent crimes, but the numbers would indicate crimes occurring regardless.
Your corrupt and devious descriptor unfortunately doesn't quite fit most of the US. However, there are a great number of concepts similar that contribute to the reason behind most of the murders. Unfortunately, I don't have the space nor the energy to discuss such things.
The biggest thing to take away from this is this: The US is a vastly diverse and high populated country. Those two things will shed some light on the violence that occurs.
|
Everybody has an agenda. My sane mind tells me that the only point of posting on a forum is for fun. Never found too many "truths"
|
Hate to butt in and all. Just want to ask a few questions.
People who are against the guns like to point out the school shootings as their main argument. No guns = no school shootings. But those 14.500 murder per year in the USA, are there any statistics that they are guns bought legally, by regular non criminals? Just saying that I have the feeling that a vast majority of those murders happen by gangbangers shooting other gangbanger over poverty, drugs, hood control etc.
And I take it, that they don stroll in and buy a couple of guns, they buy them on the black market?
Arent it then a bit misleading if a vast majority of the murders, are commited by criminals, and with black market guns? (and with criminals I mean, they wont be able to buy the guns in the first place, if they got a record)
|
On February 01 2013 14:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 14:07 striderxxx wrote:On February 01 2013 14:03 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:58 deathly rat wrote:On February 01 2013 13:45 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here. Sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21033709http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateSince when was it a crime to have an agenda? Does anybody not have an agenda? I'm not ignoring murders without guns. Clearly murder rate is a complex issue, but what you have here are all developed countries. You have one hugely significant piece of statistical evidence, combined with what seems common sense that guns are incredibly dangerous because they are designed to kill people. Those people who think guns are a necessary evil, which I hope would any sane person arguing they need guns, should be wondering is, Is it really possible to live in a utopia where these terrible things which cause death and misery are not widely available, and where people go their whole lives without even seeing a gun. The answer is yes, in many countries, and you could live in that place too, if you really wanted to. What I'm saying is, your conclusion is not evident. The two tables/graphs you chose to show show that the USA has higher gun murder rates and higher murder rates than several other 'developed' countries, but it does not necessarily imply that the higher gun murder rate causes the higher murder rate. It proves that the USA has more murders. It is certainly possible that guns are the cause of this, but you have not provided evidence towards this conclusion. So if it's not easy access to guns, then the cause for the higher murder rates in the US must be because the people there are more corrupt and devious. Yah that sounds about right, thanks for clearing that up! Are you seriously saying that the degree of access to guns is the only significant factor that explains why murder rates are different for different countries? I just want to be clear here.
Of course I didn't say that. There are a billion other factor besides easy gun access, However, those other billion factors are way to complicated to control and change. Gun control happens to be the easier route, bang for the buck step to begin the progress of reducing the murder rate. Some of the other factors you mention are indeed a contributing factor, but it cannot be easily altered as introducing gun control to LIMIT(not ban) who can get their hands on the guns.
|
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:13 deathly rat wrote:
Everybody has an agenda. My sane mind tells me that the only point of posting on a forum is for fun. Never found too many "truths"
I'll use an example.
Person #1 and person #2 are both participating in a discussion on abortion. These two posts are independent:
Person #1: How can you kill babies? They are so cute. You are a monster!!!
Person #2: It is illegal to kill people. It can be shown that babies, before they are born, exhibit most of the same life-signs as babies after they are born. Thus, we should seriously consider extending rights such as the right not to be killed to pre-birth babies.
One of these people is posting like they have an agenda; the other is simply trying to discuss a topic reasonably. Basically, if your post is contributing and not misleading then you are not, in my opinion, posting like you have an agenda. There needs to be intellectual honesty for this type of a discussion to have any chance of accomplishing something. Of course, the post I was concerned about before was nowhere like the sample person #1 above.
|
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:16 striderxxx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 14:10 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 14:07 striderxxx wrote:On February 01 2013 14:03 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:58 deathly rat wrote:On February 01 2013 13:45 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Why are you completely ignoring the point about how you need to look at murder rates without guns as well? You just seem like you have an agenda here. Sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21033709http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateSince when was it a crime to have an agenda? Does anybody not have an agenda? I'm not ignoring murders without guns. Clearly murder rate is a complex issue, but what you have here are all developed countries. You have one hugely significant piece of statistical evidence, combined with what seems common sense that guns are incredibly dangerous because they are designed to kill people. Those people who think guns are a necessary evil, which I hope would any sane person arguing they need guns, should be wondering is, Is it really possible to live in a utopia where these terrible things which cause death and misery are not widely available, and where people go their whole lives without even seeing a gun. The answer is yes, in many countries, and you could live in that place too, if you really wanted to. What I'm saying is, your conclusion is not evident. The two tables/graphs you chose to show show that the USA has higher gun murder rates and higher murder rates than several other 'developed' countries, but it does not necessarily imply that the higher gun murder rate causes the higher murder rate. It proves that the USA has more murders. It is certainly possible that guns are the cause of this, but you have not provided evidence towards this conclusion. So if it's not easy access to guns, then the cause for the higher murder rates in the US must be because the people there are more corrupt and devious. Yah that sounds about right, thanks for clearing that up! Are you seriously saying that the degree of access to guns is the only significant factor that explains why murder rates are different for different countries? I just want to be clear here. Of course I didn't say that. There are a billion other factor besides easy gun access, However, those other billion factors are way to complicated to control and change. Gun control happens to be the easier route, bang for the buck step to begin the progress of reducing the murder rate. Some of the other factors you mention are indeed a contributing factor, but it cannot be easily altered as introducing gun control to LIMIT(not ban) who can get their hands on the guns.
You just completely changed your tune here. This post is much less ridiculous than your previous one, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.
|
On February 01 2013 14:14 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Hate to butt in and all. Just want to ask a few questions.
People who are against the guns like to point out the school shootings as their main argument. No guns = no school shootings. But those 14.500 murder per year in the USA, are there any statistics that they are guns bought legally, by regular non criminals? Just saying that I have the feeling that a vast majority of those murders happen by gangbangers shooting other gangbanger over poverty, drugs, hood control etc.
And I take it, that they don stroll in and buy a couple of guns, they buy them on the black market? I just have a really hard time picturing a "normal people"
Arent it then a bit misleading if a vast majority of the murders, are commited by criminals, and with black market guns? (and with criminals I mean, they wont be able to buy the guns in the first place, if they got a record)
Yeah, but i'd just as well the "gangbangers" didn't kill each other as well, because they are sons and fathers to their families all the same, and in another life I feel sure it could have been so different. Basically I'm saying they are humans too.
As for size being the determining factor, clearly you're not familiar with the concept of murder "rates"
|
On February 01 2013 14:17 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 14:13 deathly rat wrote:
Everybody has an agenda. My sane mind tells me that the only point of posting on a forum is for fun. Never found too many "truths" I'll use an example. Person #1 and person #2 are both participating in a discussion on abortion. These two posts are independent: Person #1: How can you kill babies? They are so cute. You are a monster!!! Person #2: It is illegal to kill people. It can be shown that babies, before they are born, exhibit most of the same life-signs as babies after they are born. Thus, we should seriously consider extending rights such as the right not to be killed to pre-birth babies. One of these people is posting like they have an agenda; the other is simply trying to discuss a topic reasonably. Basically, if your post is contributing and not misleading then you are not, in my opinion, posting like you have an agenda. There needs to be intellectual honesty for this type of a discussion to have any chance of accomplishing something. Of course, the post I was concerned about before was nowhere like the sample person #1 above.
I think I've been pretty logical working from first principles, making reasonable statements using evidence. Nobody has actually addressed my points rationally other than "correlation doesn't imply causation", which I've dealt with (see comment re: imply / prove). You sir are the one with the agenda here, undermining rational arguments from evidence with "you have an agenda" type personal comments, or "correleation doesn't imply causation" type stuff, which is both false and irrelevant. Anyway, enough with this agenda nonsense, I feel it's getting away from the main topic at hand.
|
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:26 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 14:17 micronesia wrote:On February 01 2013 14:13 deathly rat wrote:
Everybody has an agenda. My sane mind tells me that the only point of posting on a forum is for fun. Never found too many "truths" I'll use an example. Person #1 and person #2 are both participating in a discussion on abortion. These two posts are independent: Person #1: How can you kill babies? They are so cute. You are a monster!!! Person #2: It is illegal to kill people. It can be shown that babies, before they are born, exhibit most of the same life-signs as babies after they are born. Thus, we should seriously consider extending rights such as the right not to be killed to pre-birth babies. One of these people is posting like they have an agenda; the other is simply trying to discuss a topic reasonably. Basically, if your post is contributing and not misleading then you are not, in my opinion, posting like you have an agenda. There needs to be intellectual honesty for this type of a discussion to have any chance of accomplishing something. Of course, the post I was concerned about before was nowhere like the sample person #1 above. I think I've been pretty logical working from first principles, making reasonable statements using evidence. Nobody has actually addressed my points rationally other than "correlation doesn't imply causation", which I've dealt with (see comment re: imply / prove). You sir are the one with the agenda here, undermining rational arguments from evidence with "you have an agenda" type personal comments, or "correleation doesn't imply causation" type stuff, which is both false and irrelevant. Anyway, enough with this agenda nonsense, I feel it's getting away from the main topic at hand.
No. Your data does not support your conclusion. It's not completely unrelated, and I shouldn't criticize you simply for this, but you have failed to follow it up, which was the next logical step.
|
"Greater gun availability increases the rates of
murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to
affect general violence levels."
"In robberies and assaults, victims are far more
likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a
gun than when he or she has another weapon or is
unarmed."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt
There's the missing peice!
|
The USA in general is more violent than other Western developed countries. We also go to war way more than other Western developed countries. We have more nukes, more tanks, more airplanes, more bombs, more guns, more murders, more money, more of everything. America is the land of exceptionalism. We have more of everything. Guns and murders just happen to be one of those things. I see no correlation between guns and murders. I do see a correlation between AMERICA and murders.
|
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:33 TheFrankOne wrote:"Greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does not appear to affect general violence levels." "In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed." https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txtThere's the missing peice!
The first quote, if properly supported which will require me to study the thing you linked, seems like it maybe actually be prepared to support a claim that greater gun availability increases the rate of murder, which is an improvement. It doesn't quantify how much though. The second one I don't really see as relevant to this specific subtopic, even though it is more generally relevant to the topic of the thread.
Assuming legitimacy which I won't try to verify tonight, this is an improvement over the data this small discussion has been going off of so far, towards drawing the more guns = more murders conclusion.
|
Micronesia, I appreciate your thorough academic approach! What would you say to those arguing that tyranny etc. is something important and at stake here? I probably missed your comments directed at them since I have not gone over the entire thread. You are replying in the same rigorous fashion to them right? Just curious!
|
United States24779 Posts
On February 01 2013 14:45 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Micronesia, I appreciate your thorough academic approach! What would you say to those arguing that tyranny etc. is something important and at stake here? I probably missed your comments directed at them since I have not gone over the entire thread. You are replying in the same rigorous fashion to them right? Just curious!
I don't think I've replied to anyone making an evidence-supported case regarding tyranny or rebellion from a government. The only thing I recall discussing on the topic is how we shouldn't be quick to dismiss people who worry about what situations might arise, even if they seem kind of ridiculous. Obviously "aliens might attack us" won't sway me for why we need a gun in every house, but "invasion from foreigners", while crazy to imagine today, might be possible in the future.
|
On February 01 2013 14:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 14:45 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Micronesia, I appreciate your thorough academic approach! What would you say to those arguing that tyranny etc. is something important and at stake here? I probably missed your comments directed at them since I have not gone over the entire thread. You are replying in the same rigorous fashion to them right? Just curious! I don't think I've replied to anyone making an evidence-supported case regarding tyranny or rebellion from a government. The only thing I recall discussing on the topic is how we shouldn't be quick to dismiss people who worry about what situations might arise, even if they seem kind of ridiculous. Obviously "aliens might attack us" won't sway me for why we need a gun in every house, but "invasion from foreigners", while crazy to imagine today, might be possible in the future.
Or oppression from a non-representative government. HINT HINT.
|
More fun facts!
+ Show Spoiler +"we find (among other results) that the likelihood of gun carrying increases markedly with the prevalence of gun ownership in the given community. We also analyze the propensity to carry other types of weapons, finding that it is unrelated to the local prevalence of gun ownership. The prevalence of youths carrying both guns and other weapons is positively related to the local rate of youth violence (as measured by the robbery rate), confirmatory evidence that weapons carrying by youths is motivated in part by self-protection." http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/CookLudwig-TeenGunCarry-2004.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +"theoretical considerationsdo not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence." http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926.pdf
+ Show Spoiler +"This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993." http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt 469/guns.pdf
Why the robberies with guns bit was relevant: "Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Next sentence in the article:
Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.
Our overall crime is really not much different, it's just the murder rate that's much higher. The more I read the stronger I lean towards more gun control. A murder rate as high as ours is a tragedy that is real, some sort of tyrannical boogeyman isn't. The 14,000 people actually dying matter far more than this fear of "oppression from a non-representative government HINT HINT"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause... It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
