Summations Only

Oh my God. Now you seem to be suggesting that the right to guns is equivalent to the right for people to have the choice of possessing the "big red nuke button". Fuck!!

I would argue that scientific evidence trumps subjective personal testimony. "I know some people....." isn't really an argument at all is it? They did:

quote:

---

Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

---

quote:

---

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

---

It's got nothing to do with "controlling the human mind and everything to do with making it all too easy for people to act upon their worst impulses and most dangerous predilictions. It was a meta study of the academic literature on the subject. If you want to. I am sure that there are plenty here who will explain to you any methodological flaws that these research papers might have. But being a scientist yourself (apparently) you could presumably highlight any such flaws yourself.....?

In response to recent massacres I suggest that, rather than limit gun use any further, all teachers and school children should be required to attend school in full body armour.

Given your position on these matters - What did you make of Obamas comments regarding the fact that these sorts of events keep on happening in the U.S. In a way, and with a frequency, that they don't in other developed nations? Is he wrong in what he suggests in your view?

Is the frequency of these incidents just something the U.S. Needs to accept in a way that other developed nations refuse to then - In your view?

I know from previous experience that talking to people such as yourself on this issue is almost like two people speaking different languages to each other. So different are the mindsets involved.It is utterly and blindingly obvious to me that where there is widespread and readily available access to devices of mass killing there will inevitably be mass killings. The individual specifics will be different in each individual case but it basically boils down to the fact that there will always be cases of people losing the plot. And then utilising the means at their disposal to act out that plot loss.How anyone could think that an even greater proliferation of such weapons is the answer to that I find simply unfathomable.

I don’t know how to convey to you just how ‘American’ your stance sounds to foreign ears.The entire premise of your position is that there are hordes or armed governments, criminals, and U.S. enemies which law abiding citizens must obviously and inarguably take measures to protect themselves against.But the rest of the developed world just doesn’t think in this way. And you guys just sound bizarrely and bewilderingly paranoid to us when you start talking like that.The fact that governments and enemies are armed seems like a very remote consideration, and not one that is likely to be much impacted by citizens such as myself walking round with pistols. Frankly I don’t think most British or French or Japanese or Australian etc. etc. etc. citizens even really contemplate personal weapon ownership in that context. This is where you guys come across as most alien in your thinking.The notion of protecting oneself against criminality makes more sense to foreign ears. It’s clearly not such an alien concept. But where you split people into the black and white categories of criminals and law abiding citizens with a never-the-twain-shall-meet approach I think other places see it more as a case of armed citizens being simply an unnecessary danger to themselves and other citizens. Whether the danger is the result of criminal intent, accidental use, inebriation, delusion or plot loss of the sort often associated with the sorts of massacres under discussion — Is a very secondary concern. That is why the prevalence, proliferation and easy access to guns that you guys seem so rabidly intent on preserving no matter how many toddlers accidentally shoot their siblings or deranged young men go on killing sprees seems so unfathomably bonkers to so many outside the US.Anyway — I am not expecting to change anyone’s mind here. We are never going to agree on this issue. I am just trying to convey the mystifying alien-ness of your stance to many observers from other places where guns are not tolerated as some sort of perverse symbol of liberty.

All societies have their nutters and any of us could potentially lose the plot and do something terrible. In Sweden today a guy walked into a school with a sword. 2 dead and 2 others critically injured.Now imagine the havoc this guy could have caused if armed with a gun instead.It's not about "good guys" and "bad guys". It's about the fact there will always be deranged people, accidents and flare ups between people. The question is whether or not throwing guns into that mix will make things better or worse.Worse seems to be the obvious answer.

Your picture is totally skewed. Most of the gun deaths are Americans shooting other Americans in America.America - Where the prevalence and ease of access to guns is notorious.I wonder what the connection could possibly be here........

I am all for reducing the total number of guns in the world.But if anyone at all is going to have guns surely it should be those professionally trained to use them properly and whose job it is to to keep the civilian population safe.I would not, as you suggest, start with the military. I'd start with the dangerous civilian idiots who think that a prevalence of guns in society somehow makes them safer.

In this global de-gunning process you are putting forward I personally wouldn't advocate starting with the U.K. military. As already stated I'd start with the dangerous idiots who think a prevalence of guns in society somehow makes them safer.Why would you start your de-gunning process with the military rather than less professionally qualified gun users?

I don't know of any evidence linking the number of guns owned by the UK military as having any effect on the number of gun deaths in Missouri (or anywhere else in the US)I am aware of evidence linking the prevalence of guns at a national level, state level and community level to the number of gun deaths at those same levels.It's not my fault the evidence is against you here.

Message 1159Evidence tells us that gun prevelance at the national level is entirely relevant here.Why you think acceptance of that evidence will lead one to the conclusion that disarming the UK military will lead to less gun deaths in Missouri, and other such strange inferences on your part, is a complete mystery.Of course it could just be that you don't like the evidence and are thus seeking to draw attention away from it with your increasingly bizarre and hysterical leaps of logic.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The point is that everywhere has people that want to kill themselves and others at times. We can all lose the plot or suffer some kind of suicidal impulse. These mental failings are not unique to Americans. But you guys in the US seem particularly intent on enabling people to act out these impulses with your baffling support for widespread gun availability.

The rest of the developed world gets on fine without the sort of crazy fixation that you guys for guns. We also get on fine with tall buildings, bridges and medicines in the form of pills.We can see that tall buildings, pills and bridges have enough practical uses doing the things they were designed to do to make the risk worthwhile. Someone absolutely decided and intent on killing themselves will probably find a way to do so. Someone who in a fit of pique impulsively thinks 'fuck this I'm just going to end it' is far more likely to actually kill themselves if the effective means to do so is readily available.As for killing others - Not so much.Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

Link