Not at all. Ralph Nader wasn't making a bogeyman out of automobiles when he wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, and we're not making a bogeyman out of guns when we point out their dangers and call for measures to reduce gun deaths and injury. The irony is that automobiles are not designed to injure and kill, it's just an associated risk. Guns are actually designed to injure and kill, yet they have far fewer safety requirements.
In the Rwandan massacre, thousands of people in the course of a few hours were hacked to death by machetes in the absence of availability to guns....etc...
We all know murder can be committed in a variety of ways. The problem we're addressing is guns here in the US, not Rwanda or Brazil or Mexico. The only reason comparisons with other countries come up in this discussion is to convince pro-gun people that there actually is a problem, and you do that by comparing with other similar countries, like Canada, Australia and countries in western Europe. Comparing with countries that are broadly different like Brazil or Rwanda or Mexico makes no sense unless you correct for the differences.
That being said, I do understand your point. You're arguing (for example) that if strict gun control doesn't work in Mexico but does work in the United Kingdom then gun control must be irrelevant to the problem of gun injury and death. But we know the official count of guns in Mexico is off by at least a factor of two, and that Mexico has a severe problem with drug cartels to the point where a couple hundred students can be murdered at once and mayors who oppose the cartels are murdered on a regular basis. Comparisons between Mexico and the UK have no validity unless you correct for differences, some of which cannot be estimated with any precision, such as the number of illegal guns in Mexico.
But as I've said before, I'm not here to argue about gun control. Before any progress can be made on gun control we have to develop a consensus that guns are inherently dangerous, and that the more guns the more gun injury and death. You've said you understand this in Message 4716, but that denying people access to guns doesn't mean they won't get them anyway. But if we communicate the right message, that without a great deal of planning and effort one is at greater risk of injury and death with a gun than without, then people won't want guns for self-defense, and the motivation to acquire a gun illegally will evaporate.
Adding a gun to any situation that doesn't include training, practice, refresher courses, proper storage, regular maintenance, etc., only puts people at greater risk of injury and death.
Agreed. So lets focus on those measures.
Do you mean we should focus on those measures in this discussion? Or that the focus of gun control should be on those measures? If the latter then I fully agree. People who own guns should be required to register them, get regular training, engage in regular practice, pass a proficiency test, have a home inspection of their gun storage, and get the gun regularly inspected and tested. The training portion should drum into them that shortchanging these requirements places they and those around them in greater danger. Once people start wrestling with the problem of how a gun in safe storage is going to be available for self-defense the illogic of gun ownership for self-defense without placing all in the vicinity in greater danger will become abundantly apparent.
Please tell me how I'm not comparing apples to apples.
How's this for comparing apples to apples: New Hampshire is a pretty pro-gun state, and they don't have the same kind of levels as their neighboring Massachussets which is very anti-gun, yet has much higher incidents of criminality overall. Comparing that apple with the other apple, explain why Mass has more problems than NH.
The percentage of people owning guns is higher in Massachusetts than New Hampshire, and the firearm murder rate is also higher in Massachusetts.
But you're also failing once again to make an apples to apples comparison. Despite that these two states are close neighbors, Massachusetts includes the Boston metropolitan area. New Hampshire has no urban area anything like Boston. Drive five minutes out of Manchester, the state's largest city with a population of maybe 110,000, and you'll be in cow country. If you want to draw fair comparisons between the two states this significant difference must be taken into account. For example, you could remove the Boston metropolitan area (and possibly also Worcester and Springfield, the 2nd and 3rd largest cities) from the comparison. What's left would be largely rural and would look a lot like New Hampshire, which is also largely rural.
The argument is that more guns equals more gun violence. Whether they are required to keep them, allowed to keep them, not allowed to keep them but have them anyway bears no relevance to the point that... they have them... and that their incidents of gun violence is still much lower.
The only logical deduction is that there are other factors contributing to why some countries are plagued by violence and why some are not.
Of course there are other factors. Other factors have been provided to you, and so far your eyes slide right by them and you repeat, "There must be other factors."
One more time (with a bit more detail), you were comparing Switzerland to Mexico. In Switzerland most males enter the military where they are issued a firearm and are provided training. When they leave the military they enter the military reserve. They have the option of retaining their weapon, but they have to pay for it and apply for a permit. Whether they keep their weapons at home or at an arsenal, they think of their weapons as serving the defense of Switzerland, not home defense. Purchase and guns and transfer of ownership of guns is regulated, as is the sale of ammunition. Enforcement of gun laws is effective. Switzerland is a relatively wealthy country with a poverty rate of 7.6%.
In Mexico it is estimated that illegal guns outnumber legal guns by at least 2 to 1. The exact figure figure cannot be known. Police forces are corrupt and largely ineffective at enforcing gun laws. Mexico has a severe problem with drug gangs and cartels. Presumably the people who obtain guns receive no training and want them for personal defense, or in the case of gang and cartel members, offense. Mexico City includes one of the largest ghettos in the world. Mexico is a relatively poor country with a poverty rate of 46.2%.
As can be seen, there are a number of difference factors.
But you're shifting the goal posts here. You keep making excuses for why Switzerland should be exempt and adding provisos for why their rates of homicide by gun is low, even though the argument continues to be that access to guns will increase the rate that they are used.
I am not shifting the goalposts but explaining something that shouldn't have to be explained, that comparing Switzerland to Mexico is not an apples to apples comparison, and that if you don't adjust for the differences you do not obtain a valid comparison. When you compared Switzerland to Mexico without making any adjustments you made an invalid comparison. Same when you compared Canada to Brazil.
Switzerland doesn't get a pass because it's wealthy or a functioning society.
I don't know how you received the impression that there was an argument that Switzerland should "get a pass." You can compare Switzerland to Mexico if you like, but you have to adjust for the large differences between the two countries. It shouldn't need to be said that adding guns to countries with significant drug gang and cartel problems and large ghettos will increase gun violence more than adding guns to countries with no significant drug problems or ghettos.
If the argument is that availability to guns increase gun deaths, then that should be the only metric.
I hope what you're saying is that what researchers always do, whether it's weather or marriage or guns, is correct for various other factors in order to ferret out the relationship of interest. In the real world there's almost never a single independent metric for anything.
These distractors about how they're issued guns or wealthy isn't relevant. If they are relevant, then you obviously have to concede on some level that guns aren't the problem and that the cause of violence is entirely a sociological issue.
You're in effect saying that if there are other factors besides gun prevalence that can impact levels of gun injury and death, then the problem must be an "entirely sociological issue." This is self-evidently false. It would be as if you had said about cars, "These distractors about driver competence and DWI aren't relevent. If they are relevant, then you obviously have to concede on some level that cars aren't the problem and that the cause of vehicular injury and death is entirely a sociological problem." See how this analogous claim makes no sense?
The only thing that could be said is that in instances where that is the case, adding guns in to the equation exacerbates the problem since it increases the ease of lethality. I won't argue that point because it is self-evident.
Well, yes, of course, this has been the point all along. And just as adding gasoline to a fire is far more dangerous than adding gasoline to a gas can, adding guns to ghettos and drug gangs is far more dangerous than adding guns to Switzerland.
About bringing a gun on a mission to Mexico, the answer is no. I've misinterpreted too many situations to trust my judgement with a deadly weapon, and the odds of me coming out on top seem very low against gun-wielding gang members while I'm paying attention to my job and they're planning how and when best to attack. I probably wouldn't go unless the company convinced me they were providing sufficient professional 24-hour security provided by an American company to avoid any chance of corruption.
And this is the ever-present crux of the situation. We all understand that adding guns to the problem in the long-term has deleterious effects. However, in terms of pure survivability, I find it cruel to impose measures that stacks the deck against ordinary citizens just trying to survive. In the simplest terms possible, that is the thrust of my argument. Because short of uninventing the gun, the reality is that they are here now.
Europe did not have to uninvent guns after WWI and WWII to achieve low levels of gun ownership.
Perpetuating the myth that guns make one safer places people in greater danger. After an incident or an Obama speech the gun advocates say, "Better to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it," but that's a false message because it ignores that the gun is a constant danger every second of every day. The right message is, "Better to not have it, because the odds of needing it and successfully using it are lower than it hurting or killing you or those near you."
How does one defend the indefensible? Just follow the example of St. Joseph's hospital in Houston. After Alan Penn sought emergency room medical treatment for a psychiatric condition and was shot by hospital security guards, St. Joseph chief executive Mark Bernard called the guard's actions "justified." Mr. Penn was charged with felony assault. Read the details in this New York Times article: When the Hospital Fires the Bullet
We often hear it said that when you only have a hammer every problem becomes a nail. When the only tools available to security guards and police officers are Tasers and guns then every problem becomes a serious threat. The tool needed in this case was training in deescalation and dealing with mentally ill patients.
Early reports are that two 15-year old girls are dead, one shooting the other and then herself. They were found with a suicide note and a gun nearby. Where did they get the gun?
In the Kalamzoo shootings I was again struck by how many victims died, especially with a handgun fired from a car. Presumably he pulled to a stop near his victims, opened the window, extended his arm out the window (shell casings matching his handgun were found at each scene), and opened fire.
The San Bernardino mass shooters killed 14 out of 36, and their weapons with .223 assault rifles and and 9mm (.354) handguns. But the Kalamazoo shooter, Jason Dalton, killed six out of eight victims. The police haven't released the caliber of Dalton's gun, but my guess is a larger caliber, say .35 or higher.
Looking at the mass shooting lists at Mass Shootings, the lethality varies considerably between incidents, and I wonder if bullet caliber is a factor. How big a caliber of weapon is needed for home defense?
What do you think would happen if a medium sized town made it so every home owner had a gun?
Do you think deaths from guns would go up?
Yes.
Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?
If you mean gun injuries and deaths committed during a crime, yes, they would increase.
If gun deaths did not go up, and violent crime rates did go down, would you consider that as making everyone "safer"?
It seems axiomatic that a reduction in gun injury and death would be equivalent to increased safety. I think government at all levels should embrace policies that reduce gun injury and death, thereby increasing safety.
Your questions reflect your attitude, that increased gun prevalence correlates with increased safety. It doesn't. It makes it easier for criminals to acquire guns, and it makes incidents like this more common: 6-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills father in Bartholomew County. According to this news report, "He put his gun down for just a minute, and that's all it took."
Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?
If you mean gun injuries and deaths committed during a crime, yes, they would increase.
No, I mean generic violent crimes like Aggravated Assault, Murder & Manslaughter, Forcible Rape and Robbery.
So you're hypothetical question is this: If a town made it so that every homeowner had a gun, would it have an impact on crimes like aggravated assault, murder & manslaughter, forcible rape and robbery?
There's no need for this question or the ones that follow. I already understand your argument that an increase in gun injury and deaths would be balanced by a general decrease in crime. You haven't presented any evidence to support this.
There are places where having a gun is more of a liability than it is a defense, and others where it offers more of a defense than it does a liability.
Back in Message 1113 Cat Sci said, "Don't bring a gun to a facility where you know that alcohol is going to be consumed." With a fair proportion of shootings involving alcohol it seemed odd to me that he would say that, though I didn't comment at the time. Whether or not you agree with Cat Sci's statement, are there really any places where gun violence hasn't occurred? Daycare facilities, schools, homes, cars, stores, workplaces, churches, parties, meetings, sports events, hiking trails, bicycle paths, courtrooms, etc. If the gun is needed for self-defense because one might be confronted by someone with a gun, and if one might be confronted by someone with a gun literally anywhere, then why would there be any place where the gun shouldn't be carried?
Proponents of widespread gun ownership for self-defense are encouraging people who do not possess the necessary qualities to arm themselves with a deadly object that is more a danger to themselves and those around them than to any potential threat. Almost everyone drives, but how many don't belong on the road? A lot, right? If you gave everyone guns, most would not be able to attain and maintain the competency and life style changes necessary to safely own one, let alone carry it.
So it's bullet caliber and velocity together that makes ammunition dangerous. The larger the caliber and the higher the velocity, the more dangerous a bullet is. I believe bullet shape makes a difference, too. And there are bullets that are designed to fragment inside the body to cause more widespread damage, as in this video:
If this bullet hits you anywhere, you'll either lose a limb or die.
When it comes to ammunition, gun control efforts have focused on magazine size. Shouldn't gun caliber and ammunition type also be regulated? How about limiting guns and bullets for self-defense to standard .22?
Here's a chart of violent crime for the town of Westford, MA, roughly as far from Boston as Kennesaw is from Atlanta and only a little smaller in population (from Westford Crime Rate Report (Massachusetts)):
Violent crime is low just like in Kennesaw, and I imagine that since this is Massachusetts that gun ownership would be pretty low, too. Comparisons with national data doesn't support your position. You need data from before and after 1982 when the Kennesaw gun ordinance was passed to see if had any effect on gun prevalence and violent crime.
There are plenty of towns across the US with low violent crime rates, but looking at individual towns is not statistically significant. Go find as many outliers as you like, it won't prove anything. Violent crime should increase with increased gun prevalence because it will become easier for criminals to acquire guns, and gun injuries and death should just increase in general, but gun prevalence is only one of many factors, such as social and economic factors. Statistical analysis across a broad dataset is required to reach meaningful conclusions about individual factors.
So then, we can be sure that adding guns doesn't necessarily cause an increase in violent crime nor gun injuries or deaths, as evidenced by Kennesaw.
No. First, you don't have evidence for Kennesaw for the period before and after 1982. Second, a sample of one is statistically meaningless. Just as the responses of individuals in a drug trial vary, so will the effect of adding guns to a community. Statistically in the aggregate, adding guns to a community causes more gun injury and death and an increase in gun crimes, but individual communities will likely vary around the mean in a bell shaped curve.
I'm having trouble finding anything reliable, but there's stuff like this:
quote:Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available — for the year 2005 — show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
source
You need data from the period before and after 1982 when the law was enacted, and you need to know if gun prevalence actually increased. The data provided for 2005 is 33 years after the fact. The rapid 5X population increase is also a significant factor that probably cannot be corrected for. Did the demographics of the people moving in match the demographics of Kennesaw in 1982. Not likely. The rapid population increase probably represents relatively affluent white flight that, looking in Wikipedia, seems to have really taken off in the 1990's.
Also, this Snopes webpage calls your the facts from your WND source ("The Largest Christian Website In The World") into question: What Kenne-Saw. Some excerpts:
quote:While Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law making gun ownership compulsory in 1982, the law was never enforced and didn't cause crime rates to plummet. ... In other words, Kennesaw residents were required to own guns ... save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn't afford guns, couldn't use guns, couldn't legally own guns, or simply didn't want to have guns. ... An important point of distinction was that Kennesaw's law was largely symbolic and was never intended to be enforced. ... Added Lt. Graydon, "It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens' second amendment rights to own firearms." ... Mayor Stephenson conceded he had no idea how many residents newly became gun owners because of the law.
One other thing to note in the Snopes piece is where it calls attention to how the passage of time had Kennesaw town officials exaggerating their claims of how much the law had reduced crime (which was never its intention anyway). According to Mayor Stephenson speaking in 1987 there had been 55 household burglaries in 1981 the year before the law. But this is much larger than the figures claimed just five years before in 1982, and they don't even make sense. Kennesaw had a population of only 5000 in 1980, which is around 1700 households. That means more than 3% of households experienced burglaries in 1981, kind of hard to believe for what was then a very sleepy suburb. The Kennesaw story is likely just another urban myth.
But more importantly, the experience of a single town has no broad implications. Let's say you corrected the inaccuracies and discovered reliable data from the 1980's showing the crime in Kennesaw dropped dramatically after the gun law was enacted. That would be extremely interesting and something worth understanding (if possible after the passage of so much time), but it would statistically meaningless.
Cat Sci writes:
Yeah, I know when the data doesn't make guns look bad then we have to deny it, but when the data does make guns look bad, then it is unquestionably the whole truth.
When the data is statistically meaningful then it is worth understanding and acting on.
Not all violent crimes are committed with a gun. And with an increase in gun prevalence, it is more dangerous for the criminals to be committing violent crimes.
This is another myth. There is no evidence that an armed populace reduces crime, and much evidence that it increases gun injury and death.
Unless the claim is that only one thing can happen, then you only need to find one instance of something else happening to prove the claim wrong.
You need much more than "one instance" of anything in order to make statistically valid arguments. The simplest statistic, an average, isn't invalidated by finding "one instance" of data that doesn't match the average, and the same is true of statistics in general.
The suspect is known to local law enforcement and was recently charged with assault. Maybe there could be a point system for keeping your guns, just as there is for keeping your driver's license.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
