Guns, Guns Guns

Actually Peter, describing all those deaths that don't have anything to do with population density (ie: most of them) as dross was the idiotic, heartless thing.

Case in point, Punta Gorda.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Read my post, Annachie. I stated that the most consistent correlation is with population density, not that population density caused gun violence.

Solving the inner city problems is way more important than gun control and will be way more effective at saving lives.

Annachie wrote:Actually Peter, describing all those deaths that don't have anything to do with population density (ie: most of them) as dross was the idiotic, heartless thing.

Case in point, Punta Gorda.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:Read my post, Annachie. I stated that the most consistent correlation is with population density, not that population density caused gun violence.

Solving the inner city problems is way more important than gun control and will be way more effective at saving lives.

Violence happens more with denser population, but GUN violence happens when there is ALSO easy access to guns.

You can reduce the first, but if the latter is not reduced, then gun violence will decrease less than the total of violence, because the ones willing and able to use guns are the ones least likely to be affected by an overall decrease in violence.

This has already been shown to be the norm.

But of course, it doesn´t agree with you, so you pretend it doesn´t exist.

Tenshinai wrote:
Violence happens more with denser population, but GUN violence happens when there is ALSO easy access to guns.
Solving the inner city problems is way more important than

You can reduce the first, but if the latter is not reduced, then gun violence will decrease less than the total of violence, because the ones willing and able to use guns are the ones least likely to be affected by an overall decrease in violence.

This has already been shown to be the norm.

But of course, it doesn´t agree with you, so you pretend it doesn´t exist.

We see that gun availability does not necessarily lead to gun related homicides. That means the mere availability of guns do not cause homicides or even gun homicides. Your post accurate addresses those who have a propensity for violence as the cause of violence.

Then let's deal with those individuals who commit violence and the environment where such violence is being committed.

Good trend to nearly halve from 7 per 100k to 3.6 per 100k in 23 years.
How many years though until you get to our 0.1 per 100 k?

Depends on how effective the solutions for the inner cities are, Daryl.

Whatever was working since 1993 should be accelerated. What is being employed right now's gotta stop. In either case, guns aren't the principal driver of the increase or decrease.

Daryl wrote:Good trend to nearly halve from 7 per 100k to 3.6 per 100k in 23 years.
How many years though until you get to our 0.1 per 100 k?

PeterZ wrote:




We see that gun availability does not necessarily lead to gun related homicides. That means the mere availability of guns do not cause homicides or even gun homicides. Your post accurate addresses those who have a propensity for violence as the cause of violence.

Then let's deal with those individuals who commit violence and the environment where such violence is being committed.

*sigh*

Because ADDITIONAL guns/year has so much to do with how much guns are actually available?

And ooh yay, gun violence is down, how amazing...
Maybe you should compare to violent crime statistics in the same period before you run off cheering?
I wonder if violent crime total has gone down more or less...

You might also be interested in knowing that the percentage of US households that has firearms:
1982, 45.3%
1993, 42%
2014, 31%
(while total number of guns have gone up slightly, while safety measures have been improved a little)

You may ALSO want to realise that the statistic you posted was for homicide ONLY.
Fatality or injury by accident or suicide are much higher.

Nonfatal gun injuries:
2001, 63k
2013, 84k

Rate of nonfatal gun injuries per 100k people:
USA, 26.65 ( 2013 )
Colombia, 17.29 (2001)
England&Wales, 3.4 (2010)
Switzerland, 0.14 (2012)
Honduras, 20.09 (1999)
Burundi, 13.13 ( 2008 )
Out of nations with numbers available, only Guatemala and El Salvador are worse than USA.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states



http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUT ... NSTAT.html

A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.

Non-fatal firearms injuries account for a significant number of hospital visits. There were 478,400 fatal and nonfatal firearms incidents in the U.S. of which 97.4% were nonfatal. Of those injured, 75% required medical attention and 80% of those were hospitalized. The rate of nonfatal firearms injuries has declined over the past 2 decades in the U.S.

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides

Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and- ... tatistics/

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

Whatever was working since 1993 should be accelerated.

Actually, that´s a big load of nothing what so ever. NY at one point claimed its zero tolerance policy to be behind the reduction in violent crime in the last few decades, but research quickly trashed that claim, as it wasn´t hard to find other large cities with a greater reduction, without said policy.

In the end, studies reported that there was no directly discernable reason that could be found for the reduction in violent crime in the last few decades in USA ( it should be added that it was also to a large extent a worldwide trend ).

They did a lot of guessing, and the best idea anyone could come up with after more research was the increased presence of easy entertainment was keeping a lot of people away from the public scene, so they didn´t get drunk and into arguments and fights.

I've said it before.
Try searching for toddler involved shootings in Australia. (Then tell google no you really meant toddlers not toilets)
Then in the USA.

That is your gun problems in a nutshell. (More than just the pure number of guns which is also something I've said beore)



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Tenshinai wrote:

PeterZ wrote:




We see that gun availability does not necessarily lead to gun related homicides. That means the mere availability of guns do not cause homicides or even gun homicides. Your post accurate addresses those who have a propensity for violence as the cause of violence.

Then let's deal with those individuals who commit violence and the environment where such violence is being committed.

*sigh*

Because ADDITIONAL guns/year has so much to do with how much guns are actually available?

And ooh yay, gun violence is down, how amazing...
Maybe you should compare to violent crime statistics in the same period before you run off cheering?
I wonder if violent crime total has gone down more or less...

You might also be interested in knowing that the percentage of US households that has firearms:
1982, 45.3%
1993, 42%
2014, 31%
(while total number of guns have gone up slightly, while safety measures have been improved a little)

snip

*sigh*
Using statistics to tell a partial story, old tactic.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

Let's unpack that, shall we?
In 1973 there was 46% of households owning guns. That number fluctuated from a high of 51% in 1977 and a low of 40% in 1988. In 1989 the rate was....46%. The trend over that entire period was flat even though if one just reported 1977 and 1988 one would suggest an incorrect declining trend.

Let's visit the period under discussion. From 1990 to 1996 the ownership rate fluctuated between 40% and 43% with a slight downward trend. In 1998 the rate fell to 35% and then to 32% in 2000. The trend rises from that point to 42% in 2007 and back down to 40% in 2009.

Comparing that to the homicide rate we see that the largest portion of the per capita drop in homicides occurred when the percentage of gun ownership was flat. As the rate of gun homicides dropped, the rate of gun ownership followed. From 2000 to 2003 the per capita homicide rate stayed at 4 per 100,000 as the percentage of ownership increased from 32% to 43%. One suspects that 911 had something to do with the increased demand for guns. From 2003 to 2010 the percentage ownership fluctuated from a low of 38% in 2004 to a high of 43% in 2003 and in the remaining years the rate stayed at about 40%. During that period gun homicide rates spiked in about 2006 but continued to decrease until 2010 to finish at 3.6 per 100,000.

Then surprise! the percentage of gun ownership dropped to 31% in 2016. The rates fells to 36% in 2011, then to 34% in 2014.

So the stats tell a story that as gun homicides fall, ownership of firearms follow. The stats do not support the idea that the presence of guns cause gun homicides. They show the opposite; the prevalence of gun homicides increased the perceived need to own a gun.

Again, my point is that to address this issues address first the causes of the violence. Gun ownership does NOT lend itself to gun violence. Gun availability does not increase gun violence and violent crime in general. Target the principal causes of violence and crime and the issues with guns disappear. Heck, fewer people will see the need to own them.

Accidents happen regardless of the tool being used. Education and practice are the best ways to address that. Suicide will happen regardless of the gun control laws. Japan has very strict gun control laws yet is 50% more suicides per capita than the US. Enlightened Sweden has just 1 suicide per 100,000 fewer than the US. France, Iceland, Belgium and Finland each have higher rates of suicide than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

All the fancy graphs and cherry picked stats don't alter one simple statistic.
Of all the developed countries one has much looser gun laws and many more guns; and this same country has amazingly higher gun homicide rates.
In a simple comparison with a similar culture (Australia- English speaking, similar other laws, a pioneering past, similar individual average wealth, and free press) the US has about 30 times more, not 30% but 3000% more. Other countries have similar comparative rates.