You can't say the two correlate though because there isn't a nation with similar enough circumstances to the US to compare it to. If there were and gun violence were a problem in that hypothetical nation as well, then you might be able to say gun ownership is the problem.
That's why I lean more towards comparing violent crime rates in general rather than limiting it only to gun violence. It's a more fair comparison and it also goes a long way to show what impact gun ownership has on violent crime compared to nations without gun ownership. Looking at violent crimes statistics, there are several of Lexicus's vaunted European paradises that have higher violent crimes rates than the US. The UK being one of them with a violent crime rate of 898 per 100,000 compared to the US's 387 per 100,000. So it would appear that gun ownership doesn't really encourage more commissions of violent crimes.
That's a misleading statement and you know it. Those countries you are comparing the US to also don't have the level of private gun ownership the US has so any comparison on gun violence statistics us going to be skewed in favor of the nation without guns. It's like comparing deaths by motor vehicle between one nation that has cars and another that doesn't. Of course the nation without a certain thing is going to have far less issues with that thing than a nation that does have that thing.
That's a misleading statement and you know it. Those countries you are comparing the US to also don't have the level of private gun ownership the US has so any comparison on gun violence statistics us going to be skewed in favor of the nation without guns.
Yes and the whole point of gun control is to reduce gun ownership in order to reduce gun violence. That's just... hum... blatantly obvious from start.
Anyway, the argument versus counter-argument game is getting kind of boring to me. I won't enter the game. I'm only reading this thread because I'm getting kind of fascinated about irrational social beliefs, and the pro-gun lobby in the US is among the most absurd things which exist in the Western world. I'm not judging here, we have tons of irrational social beliefs in France too.
To get back on point, what is fascinating is that there could be obviously good citizens who could favour detaining a tool which serves no other use than to kill even if they have no will to break the law. This looks so pointless to me. Buying destructive things to not use them, is that consumerism pushed to the absurd?
So @Commodore, what are the real reasons why you like guns. What makes them cool, even if unused? Tell me the real reasons why you're dedicating so much of your time talking about that issue.
A landmark 1997 study actually tried to answer this question. Its findings — which scholars say still hold up — are that America doesn't really have a significantly higher rate of crime compared to similar countries. But that crime is much likelier to be lethal: American criminals just kill more people than do their counterparts in other developed countries. And guns appear to be a big part of what makes this difference.
Well, you can correlate. But you might mean it in a less mathematical sense. You're thinking of comparing case studies, of which there aren't peer groups.
Your position is more that high levels of gun concentration in the hands of the few doesn't cause the crime itself. No one thinks that. It's the mechanism by which you easily get a gun that's the causal factor.
Causally, cheap and easy access to guns will allow gun crimes. It's not really a difficult model to say is plausible.
Family violence and suicides being the exemption. With those, dispersion of guns in society will cause guns to be factored into family violence and accidents
That's 0.01875% of the population getting shot. Perspective is everything. 60,000 seems like a lot when you post it by itself like you did here, but when compared to the total population of the US, it's a drop in the bucket
For the sake of accuracy, the US population is a stock, whereas the number of people getting shot every year is a flow. So one can't really be compared to another.
To make better sense, we could try find who, among those 320 million people have killed in their lifetime. Considering 20,000 people are killed every year, and assuming that people live something like 40 years on average after having killed, that would make 20,000 * 40 = 800,000 people in the US, currently alive, who have killed. That would mean that in a crowd of 400 people, there is on average 1 person who has killed someone else with a gun in his life time. Told this way, 400 people isn't so much.
For the sake of accuracy, the US population is a stock, whereas the number of people getting shot every year is a flow. So one can't really be compared to another.
To get back on point, what is fascinating is that there could be obviously good citizens who could favour detaining a tool which is entirely dedicated to kill even if they have no will to break the law. This looks so pointless to me. Buying destructive things to not use them, is that consumerism pushes to the absurd
It's not that I find them "cool" (although I'll admit there are too many gun owners who do, and treat them like a toy or some kind of fashion statement), I just want to be able to protect myself and my family. Don't take that the wrong way though. I don't solely rely on guns for that. The guns are more of a last resort when all other measures have failed.
It's an important issue for me for a number of reasons. I think the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is a part, is fundamental to our identity as a nation. Having the choice of gun ownership in particular, not because of gun ownership specifically, but rather because of what it represents. It represents the idea of self-reliance and personal responsibility, of taking one's own life in their own hands instead of being at the mercy of others.
I also spend a lot of time talking about it to educate. There's a lot of misinformation floating around out there about guns and gun ownership.
Which is the principle of a stock. People born in one year is a flow adding people to the total population stock. People dying in one year is a flow removing people from the total population stock. People dying because they've been shot are part of that flow.
If you think at the scale of the total population, you can't think on a year basis because people don't live only one year.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, there's an easier way to do so. It is simply to compare the number of people dying because they've been shot in a year to the overall number of people dying the same year. The US death rate was of 8.8 per 1,000 people in 2018. That means that one people among 147 which died in the US in 2018 has been shot. Woaw that's more than I imagined.
A landmark 1997 study actually tried to answer this question. Its findings — which scholars say still hold up — are that America doesn't really have a significantly higher rate of crime compared to similar countries. But that crime is much likelier to be lethal: American criminals just kill more people than do their counterparts in other developed countries. And guns appear to be a big part of what makes this difference.
The point of course being that the US is unique in its situation, so there isn't any other legitimate comparison to it one can make and draw accurate conclusions.
Those countries you are comparing the US to also don't have the level of private gun ownership the US has so any comparison on gun violence statistics us going to be skewed in favor of the nation without guns. It's like comparing deaths by motor vehicle between one nation that has cars and another that doesn't. Of course the nation without a certain thing is going to have far less issues with that thing than a nation that does have that thing.
this statement smacks hard of subconscious... well... I'll just ask... Why do you think diversity in population leads to gun violence? Are you saying that if we could just get rid of diversity in the US the gun violence would be reduced? If yes... why? Why does "diversity" cause increased gun violence?
I agree with Lex's gist. But there are many people who regret not succeeding in their first suicide attempt. "Many" because we live in a world of billions, so rare people are plentiful (just not common).
I don't know... I'd expect that people who "regret" not succeeding at their first suicide attempt are 1) in 5-point restraints at a mental institution; or 2) dead. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd expect that people who "regret" not succeeding at their first suicide attempt are 1) in 5-point restraints at a mental institution; or 2) dead. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Those are two potential destinations for those people, for sure. I'm just saying it's not zero. There are people who regret their failure, and I don't want them dismissed
Those are two potential destinations for those people, for sure. I'm just saying it's not zero. There are people who regret their failure, and I don't want them dismissed
The number of survivors of a suicide attempt who make a second attempt is about one-quarter. The number of survivors of a suicide attempt who subsequently die by suicide is less than 1 in 10.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
