Summations Only

I don't even know how to begin trying to tell you how alien and insane that sounds to British ears. Most of us here recoil at the idea of armed police!!!! The notion that teachers should go round carrying guns......You yanks are fucking crazy man!!! Schools should have gun carrying security guards so that the general populace can all also carry guns. This is "common sense"....?(**Straggler shakes head in uncomprehending bewilderment at the lunacy of it all**)

In 2006 a survey was conducted in which 82% of British police officers stated that they do not want all officers to be routinely armed on duty.

quote:

---

I don’t think there’s any desire from the police service, top to bottom, quite frankly for a routinely armed police service,

​

Sir Hugh Orde, president of the U.K.’s Association of Chief Police Officers,

---

Now I would imagine that you consider NOT arming the police as bonkers as I consider the idea of arming teachers. Yet the figures seem to speak for themselves.

quote:

---

Despite police being unarmed, shooting fatalities of members of the police are extremely rare; there were three in England and Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000/01 to 2010/11.

---

So I find your assumption that having everyone carry guns makes everyone safer on the simple basis that our unarmed police seem to be a lot safer than your police who are invariably armed. I have no idea where (or when) you got that video from but the idea that the UK populace are clamouring for guns or think that some sort of divine freedom has been diminished by their absence is complete nonsense.

quote:

---

In the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law, and while there is opposition to existing legislation from shooting organisations, there is little wider political debate, and public opinion favours stronger control. The British Shooting Sports Council now believes that the law needs to be consolidated but it does not call for a review. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).

---

WikiSeriously - The American attitude to guns has much of the rest of the civilised world looking on in complete bewilderment.

How do you qualify who works for the state and who doesn't? Most teachers in the UK are publicly funded. Are all publicly funded employees "run by the state" such that you don't want them armed?Do you only want teachers in private schools armed now? I did. My point is that in the UK even the police don't want to be armed. So the idea that there is some sort of mass citizens movement demanding that civilians carry guns is deeply deeply unrepresentative of the actual situation.The reason I asked where you got that video is that I suspect it will be from a source that is actively seeking to misrepresent the situation as it actually is. I have never met anyone who expresses the attitudes in your video and all the stats suggest that any who do are flying in the face of overwhelming public opinion in the UK.I know this may come as a shock to you Faith but we don't want guns. Our police don't want guns. We don't want our police to have guns. Our police don't want us to have guns. Etc. etc.We think arming everyone to the teeth is a pretty bad idea........Call us crazy if you will. Because most of us think the American attitude to guns is downright bizzarre.

Just to be clear - Is it your contention in this thread that the high US homicide rate and the prevalence of guns in the US are entirely unrelated?

Then I am a bit bemused as to the purpose of this quibbling over statistical analysis.If you agree that high gun prevalence is related to high homicide rate what exactly are you disagreeing about here?

So you agree that high gun prevalence is related to high homicide rate but you don't think reducing the prevalence of guns would reduce the homicide rate?Forget statistical "proof" - I just want to know if you think that reducing the number of guns would reduce the homicide rate because you seem to be saying contradictory things here. I haven't seen anyone say that. What I saw people saying was that individuals would be better served considering these statistics than relying on their own subjective feelings about how safe they feel by arming themselves. You seem (to me) to be contradicting yourself with regard to the relation between homicide rate and gun prevalence. You seem (to me) to be arguing a straw man when discussing "proof that individuals should not ever choose to own a gun".

In what way are the two related in your view if there is no causal relationship of any sort? Then in what sense are the two things related? What effect would reducing the number of guns have on homicide rate in your view? Why is there this correlation? Is it just random? Or is there a causal relationship between the two of some sort? But if it never rained again people would stop carrying umbrellas. So there is a causal relationship between the two things (even if it isn't the one you cited) Call it what you will. Is the correlation/relatedness just a random fluke in your opinion? Or is there some sort of causal link between the two?

So your position is that US citizens are just more homicidal than those in other comparable nations and that looser gun laws in the US just provide a convenient means for those heightened homicidal urges to be acted upon. Is this correct?Because that still doesn't seem to explain the correlation between high gun prevalence and high homicide rate. You now seem to be saying Americans would be equally homicidal whatever weapon ends up being used. Is this correct? As I now understand your argument Americans are just more homicidal and would, if they didn't have guns, just find other ways of maintaining their high homicide rate. But if that is the case then there is no real link between gun prevalence and homicide rate.....In order to aid understanding can you explain how you would expect the relation between gun prevalence and homicides to manifest itself if gun prevalence went down significantly? What would happen to US homicide rates in your view? If a decrease in one doesn't equate to a decrease in the other in what way are you suggesting they are correlated? What is confusing (some might say contradictory) is your position that high gun prevalence and high homicide rate are related but that a reduction in one won't correspond (note I didn't say cause) to a reduction in the other.This doesn't make any sense at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So it is your contention that America has a high prevalence of guns because you are a particularly homicidal nation. Is that correct?You are effectively reversing the causal relationship being suggested by many others here. Is this correct?

You could have made things a lot lot clearer and saved a lot of time wrangling about statistics if you had simply and explicitly stated that your position in this thread is that high gun prevalence in the US is the result of high homicidal tendencies in the US population and that (in your view) the causal relationship is the exact reverse of that more commonly put forward. Could you link to the data that led you to this conclusion? What is the rate of knife crime in the US? (compared to the UK - for example)?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The US has a homicide rate more in line with a second world, or even developing, country than what you would expect from the worlds wealthiest nation.This seems to demand some explanation. And to most of us in the Western world but outside the US the US fixation with guns seems a very obvious factor.The OECD countries in Dr A's graph are the ones that would be used for most social comparisons. Is there any reason to treat guns differently and instead compare the US with places in the Middle East and suchlike? Well why didn't you tell Crashfrog that when he was talking about correlation?

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.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings? How is using data from OECD countries rather than comparing the US with Bahrain and Kuwait etc. "cherry picking"....? These are the countries used for all sorts of meaningful social comparisons. Well I guess being the mysterious, isolated, unique, unstudied, unknown and wholly inaccessible place that the US is no "outsider" could possibly draw a valid conclusion about anything that goes on there....Oh wait.... Trust me dude - When a few days after a horrific gun massacre we see on our TV screens a report from the US of the NRA proclaiming that everything except guns is the problem and that more guns in schools is the solution most of us look on in bemusement and think "Only in America.....". At a national psyche level you guys do have a thing about guns that many outside just find weird.BBC North America correspondent: "Only hours before, I had been explaining to British friends that most people in the UK just did not get the American attitude towards guns, with many regarding it as a sort of crazy aberration."

Can you link to your source or data for this conclusion? If you repeatedly recite the mantra "correlation is not causation" whilst you yourself are simultaneously inferring a causal relationship (albeit one that is the reverse of those you are arguing with) between the two factors you should expect to cause confusion. Because it's kinda contradictory....

Do you accept that the research linked to has indeed found a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates? Are you suggesting that the US is just more homicidal than other nations (and this is the cause of higher gun prevalence in the US as compared to other comparable nations)? If so Percy's graph would seem to put paid to that notion: I looked at the countries included. Unsurprisingly the list of countries with high HDI and those in the OECD is much the same. The point that you keep missing is that the choice of countries to make comparisons with needs to be on an relatively equal in terms of some measure of wealth. That is what the Harvard study did. That is what an OECD comparison would seek to achieve and that is what taking high HDI countries seeks to do as well. Using nations of comparable wealth isn't "cherry picking". Comparing murder rates with Sierra Leone or Congo or other poverty stricken nations might be quite comforting but it is going to be largely irrelevant in this context isn't it? Given the change in approach above - Have you now moved on from denying that there is a causal relationship between the two factors to insisting that high homicide rate is the cause of high gun ownership?

I really think you need you link to your source or data for this conclusion. Others are suggesting that you are inventing "facts" to support your argument so it would probably be best to quash such accusations.... Can you also supply your source of data for this conclusion? Because the stats for non-firearm homicides seem to leave this claim of yours in absolute tatters.If you look at the wiki article on gun violence from which this table was extracted and sort it by the relevant column you will see that the US is 9th (out of 38) countries in terms of firearm homicide rate: and 22nd (out of 38) in terms of the non-firearm homicide rate. Conversely the US is 22nd (out of 38) in terms of the non-firearm homicide rate: Will you concede that this just isn't true? Nobody here has suggested otherwise but that has no bearing on whether or not gun prevalence is a significant contributing factor. Different measures of wealthiness will lead to slightly different lists of comparison countries. Quibbling over exactly which countries is just a method of distracting from a losing argument.

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.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings? First we have correlation isn't causation. Then we have you asserting that the correlation is the result of homicidal people seeking out guns. Now we have you disputing that there is any correlation at all.You need to get your story straight. Because at the moment it looks like you are just saying anything in order stop yourself from drawing a conclusion about guns that you won't like.