Guns make it easy and convenient to kill, quickly and efficiently, in anger, before one has the time for sober consideration. — Pattern-chaser

Didn't notice this point before. More or less what I said.



An increasingly dumbed-down population + dangerous weapons to play with = :fire: :death:

Fuck anyone who wants to take away guns or limit their access — mnoone

the total amount of deaths from guns since 9/11 passed half a million in May 2017. This was from September 2016, at which time guns had killed a thousand Americans for every single American citizen killed by a terrorist. So you might thing what you say is funny, but its not funny to about a thousand times more people than you, actually.

Don't waste your time on him. Future stupidities will meet an appropriate mod response.

It wasn’t “deceitful” ... there was a mistake though.

The difference is actually Germany at 1.18 and UK at 1.20; so there is a slight difference, but it trends to say guns owned doesn’t effect homicide rates. The US has about 5.00 homicide rate like Argentina (Argentina slightly higher), yet the guns owned per 100 people differs by over 100!

My point was that there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between homicides and gun ownership. Having more guns around doesn’t make people more murderous.

I also (in a non-deceitful manner) stated that the US is such an extreme outlier that we cannot tell how much gun ownership on such a level plays into murderous intentions - the most dominant and reasonably well known feature of homicide rates, and violent crime in general, is that they increase where there is a stark difference in wealth equality.

True enough, but I think this animal is equally representative of our blighted species:

Jackass

"When will America stop?" Or "Will America stop?" Oh... probably not.

The vast majority of Americans are remarkably non-violent. But, as noted, "the hood" accounts for a lot of the gun violence, and "the hood" is, in many cases, a behavioural sink. So, there you find -again- a small numbers of anti-social agents who account for a larger than proportional share of shooting and knife deaths (guns being more effective when used as directed).

As it happens, multiple death shootings are far, far more news worthy than thug shooting thug in the slums so are given lavish coverage. A thug's wild shot killing a baby in its crib inside a house is exquisitely appalling too, so that gets fairly good coverage. Otherwise, who cares? 12 bodies in one batch in Virginia Beach or 12 bodies over the weekend in Chicago's slums? No comparison in news value.

The urge to kill is, possibly perhaps maybe, universal but 99.9% of us are able to suppress that itchy urge. .1% (1/10 of 1%) are prone to pulling the trigger.

I'm not quite sure what ails killers. Around a third of Americans own guns, and very very few murders -- individual or group packages -- are carried out by these 100 million people (and I say that as a devoted foe of the NRA).

Having more guns around doesn’t make people more murderous. — I like sushi

I've shown multiple times that research on gun ownership routinely shows that more guns correlates to more gun violence. This analysis is true across countries, states, and even towns, and that legislation that restricts firearms corresponds to a decrease in firearm deaths. If you wanna say that people will find ways to murder one another, then sure people in countries without access to firearms have resorted to knives, but there's no other tool like a gun which can be carried, concealed, and used to attack multiple targets from a distance.

I’ve also stated the same thing too. It is such an obvious statement though that it is barely worth mentioning - hence my use of sarcasm when I stated it.

My point is it is deceitful - for whomever - to equate violence with gun ownership. To repeat, there is a very strong correlation between wealth disparity and violent crime. Where very rich people live next to very poor people crime rockets.

If we’re looking for REASONS behind social outliers in the spat of incidents in the US then I think people are looking in the wrong direction for several reasons if they put the blame almost completely on guns. One pretty obvious point would be that it is an unrealistic proposition to get rid of all those guns. Other would be that anyone can make a bomb instead - the IRA were quite successful in that regard. Boys like guns because they’re “cool” - you’re not going to change that either. The point is more about managing ways for people to express themselves and understand their violent capacities and to keep the extreme ends of wealth away from each other and to, in general, balance out general wealth inequality. There are bigger factors at play here than gun ownership.

Ok I'm not denying that the causes of homicides are multivarient. I'm arguing that more gun ownership corresponds to more gun violence and that less gun ownership corresponds to a decrease in gun violence, coupled with the uniqueness of guns as a weapon, we should greatly limit gun ownership or better yet, just ban them outright.

I found the following article, about the video in which 11-year old Kaylee gives a lesson on surviving an 'active shooter', mesmerising:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-01/two-australians-made-a-viral-gun-control-video/11118340

But even that won't change a single mind in the 'guns=freedom' crowd.

It’s not really that apparent. I would argue that the ridiculous number of guns in the US - severe outlier - does increase homicide rates by gun. If you look at other figures (such as for Norway compared to Canada) this pattern doesn’t play out where gun ownership is still relatively high compared to the other countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

I don’t think banning guns outright is a sensible option either. For sports and hunting I don’t see an issue - plus some places in the world require guns for hunting and protection (from wild life).

In the US I would certainly put some law in place to either reduce the availability of guns and/or police ownership more carefully (that is a longterm solution though). Banning completely is overkill - having much more strict rules in place for ownership works in other countries well enough.

Still, this isn’t really addressing the OP as far as I can tell. The problem is deeper than mere gun ownership - like I said bombs work just as well and can be made by anyone wishing to systematically murder (which are the kinds of incidents referred to in the OP rather than spur of the moment psychosis).

we should greatly limit gun ownership or better yet, just ban them outright. — Maw

Your proposal is a good idea. I'm in favour. However...

There are something like ... 200 million guns in the US. 100 million people own guns. Despite the absurdly large number of guns, the location and circumstances of killings is fairly circumscribed. There is a concentration of killings in zip codes that have high rates of poverty and marginality. Are the white guys doing the group killings mentally ill, terminally alienated, totally outraged, or what? I don't know, but it seems axiomatic that they aren't 'normal'. After all, we live in a society that is a regular factory of insanity, alienation, and rage. We can be thankful, I suppose, that most white guys who are at the end of their rope kill themselves rather than somebody else.

I really don't know if there is any way to address the individual problems of MI, alienation, and rage. As for dealing with these problems collectively, doing so would be revolutionary. I don't see any revolutions on the horizon.

I don't see much likelihood of retrieving at least 200,000,000 guns. Do you?

And yet the statistics clearly show that countries where guns are controlled or forbidden have less gun crime (obvious? :wink: ). — Pattern-chaser

So, that's why Brazil with all of its gun crime wants to fix the issue by loosening gun laws, right?
And Iceland, with all of its firearms, is peaceful - but that's an anomaly, right?

Stop beating the poor dead horse, please.

There are not appreciably more stabbings when there are no guns around. — Pattern-chaser

There are, when the culture of warmongering has not dissipated.
Please, I implore you to remove guns and see the outcome for yourself; I've seen it.

Guns make it easy and convenient to kill, quickly and efficiently, in anger, before one has the time for sober consideration. — Pattern-chaser

Picking up a rock from the ground and smacking a passerby in the back of the head with it is an easy and convenient way to kill, quick and efficient, in anger, before one has the time for sober consideration.
Also, stabbing someone in the throat.

But you don't see it, so out of sight out of mind, right? :roll:

No, they won't. The simple fact borne out by empirical evidence is that the more powerful the weapon the more enhanced the affects of aggression applied to it. — Baden

So, you're going to ignore all history up to the point when men started firing rocks with gunpowder instead of slings?

And it appears to me anyway, that the really powerful weapons - like nuclear ones, actually subdued human aggression, out of fear for the ramifications.
The simple fact, if there is one, is that the more powerful the weapon - the more enhanced the effects of aggression might be when applied to it.

I don't see how guns are dangerous without a finger to pull the trigger.
Tie a bunch of guns to a tree and tell me the death toll.

the majority of homicides in the USA are not from strangers involved in home invasion. Family and 'friends,' living in the same domicile kill each other far more frequently, by a factor of 2:1, and most frequently husbands shoot their wives. — ernestm

And here we go back to square one, when I asked - why do you think this is a US problem, because husbands kill their wives without guns anyway. It happens here, everyday.

When Cain killed Abel, that was due to this weapon of choice, right? Not due to his seething hatred for his brother, right?
And this story, mind you, is present all around the globe.

I already shared the graph on that. I've been through this with people like you before. You wont be able to fault the graph, so you will say my data is wrong. So let me say it for you. Whatever I say must be wrong because you wont agree with it. There. I hope you feel better.

Your graph shows nothing, but numbers.
Numbers don't matter without a motive.

thats what I told you. Would you like to tell me my graphs on motives are wrong too?

Please go ahead then. There's no point looking at them first either.

But wait! the graph I shared DOES show motive. Well. You better not look at it anyway.

I looked over all three posts, and saw nothing indicative of motive.
Point it out for me, if you will.

Obviously what the FBI classifies as cause does not satisfy you. You really should tell the FBI how wrong they are.

It’s not really that apparent. — I like sushi

If you actually bothered to read the New York Times article I provided, you'll find studies/material showing that a comprehensive comparison across 10 countries, US states, and even US towns, correlating that more guns is associated with more to gun violence. It's not apparent because you are being fucking lazy.

You need to ask for your money back. Your surveillance is off.

Your proposal is a good idea. I'm in favour. However... — Bitter Crank

The Australian government issued a mandatory buyback program and subsequently destroyed 20% of privately owned guns, which reduced the number of suicides and homicides, so that's certainly a start, which is undeniably better than throwing our hands in the air complaining how difficult the task might be.

That said, 20% reduction of privately owned guns in the US would still be about 96 privately owned guns per 100 civilians, which is still extremely high. I'm sure there are others who have put forward viable solutions that are not necessarily "revolutionary" to greatly reduce the number of guns in America, but I for one am a full proponent of abolishing the 2nd Amendment

I agree with you in principle, but social attitudes by those owning guns in the USA appear to make it unlikely. Jim Jeffries says it well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

I mean I don't care much what a comedian says, and "social attitudes" haven't been much of a concern for the GOP who passed massive tax cuts, pushed for a border wall, withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, and are introducing policies to reduce legal immigration and reproductive rights for women, despite lack of public approval for these, and much more. Stricter gun control, however, has wide support, even among GOP voters, so that's a start.

It's just that in America, which is already awash with guns, people don't feel safe enough to give theirs up and don't fully appreciate the advantages in security of an environment where everyone has.

Finally! A comment on topic. Nice job :)

Sadly no one cared for it :(

If you are hand-wringing over the procedural elimination of gun rights whilst the GOP is moving forward to overturning Roe v. Wade then I don't know what to tell you other than maybe sit out this conversation.

I’m not? Why would you think that?

Just because I point out your facile interpretation of selected stats it doesn’t mean I think everyone should own a gun. If people want to own a gun I simply wonder why they want to ow a gun. Hence my opening gambit of asking if it is a matter of paranoia given what I’ve heard from US citizens and how they tend to say they ‘feel safer’ when they live in other countries.

This says to me there is something underlying US culture that effects people’s behavior.

The dumb NYT article you presented showed complete ignorance of statistical analysis. Take away the US and there is NO PATTERN. We can look at the massive outlier of the US and suggest that more guns means more homicides (not just gun related) ... but that simply does play out if we look at the countries I‘ve mentioned. The second chart doesn’t seem to take into account the obvious differences between Yemen and the US ... ? The rest shows more or less that any pattern below that doesn’t show any particular trend - I can account for the Philippines well enough because I know something of the MASSIVE inequality in the country and the conflicts in Mindanao PLUS the drug problems. Other factors to account for are population densities which play into the need to have the poor living on the doorstep if the rich; this creates obvious tensions.

Gun use is a symptom not a direct cause. People don’t turn into murderous idiots just because they own a gun and to argue that ‘guns are dangerous’ is the dumbest possible argument there is to explain the civil discontent being expressed - without guns they’d likely be more bombs (eg. IRA methods of terrorizing).

Attack my argument not me. You haven’t actually managed to offer up an explanation as to why people don’t shoot each other in Norway. The reason is if you did you’d be suggesting an alternative reason for the violence outside of gun ownership. By all means be pissed at the gun culture in the US (I can only agree), but it is stubborn to suggest there is no other factor involved when it comes to mass shootings when we can see - although it takes some effort to cross reference the data - that there isn’t 1 to 1 correlation between gun ownership and homicides, or homicides by guns (other than the blatantly obvious fact that a gun is involved in gun deaths; it’s scary that it has gotten to the point where I feel I have to make this explicit for fear of being misrepresented!?)

You may as well be arguing that guns are the cause of all war ... it’s just plain nonsense. Conflict begins for a number of reasons and the reason that countries owning guns don’t always go around shooting each other is due to a number of reasons. It is not like I’m arguing that 1000 years ago guns didn’t exist so there was no war/conflict, or that I’m suggesting having guns prevents war/conflict.

Also, as I’ve already mentioned, the correlation between violent crime and inequality is much more solid - those living in severe poverty next to those living in a wealthy environment means greater crimes rates and violence (Brazil is one obvious example of this ... oh, but then you look EVERYWHERE else and the same pattern plays out be it on a scale of neighbourhood, town, city or country).

If your only concern is gun law then maybe you should sit out the discussion? That or perhaps explore other possible factors given that the relation between homicidal tendencies and gun ownership are exactly a hard correlation? It is not like anyone is arguing that spoons cause gun deaths; meaning no one is stupid enough to suggest that NO GUNS means no gun crime. I’m simply saying guns are not needed to kill people - stupid gun laws in the US certainly play into the hands of gun crime rates BUT the motives of these people needs to be addressed rather than focusing primarily on gun laws.

As a hypothetical maybe you could look at this scenario:

The year is 2050 and after a revision in gun laws in the US gun ownership is equivalent to that of Germany ... yet the number of mass shootings has not fallen. Why?

It is always easier to pile the blame on one thing. In reality it is rarely - if ever? - the case.

I for one am a full proponent of abolishing the 2nd Amendment — Maw

Another good idea. The 2nd Amendment outlived its utility, if it ever had any, a long time ago. Second Amendment Fetishism is a relatively recent disease -- decidedly post WWII.

BTW, how do you get "about 96 privately owned guns per 100 civilians"? I've read that there are around 200,000,000 guns in the US and that about a third of Americans own them. It would seem more like 2 guns per citizen. (And 2/3s don't own a gun. What's the cause of that 'sickly inability to use force'? Low testosterone, I suppose.

Just a little wisdom of the ancients

Do you not know," he continued, "that it is a sign of fear in a man for him to carry arms? And no man who is afraid would ever have a chance to become king any more than a slave would." — Dio Chrysostom: The 4th Discourse

Just a little wisdom of the ancients

Do you not know," he continued, "that it is a sign of fear in a man for him to carry arms? And no man who is afraid would ever have a chance to become king any more than a slave would."
— Dio Chrysostom: The 4th Discourse — Merkwurdichliebe

"Religion, you see, is not in its roots adoration of a god or a goddess. Religion is fear. Religion is the spark that issues forth when the thought of death or danger strikes the individual. It's personal. It grows out of darkness and uncertainty.""
A E Van Vogt, Book of Ptath