Summations Only

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.

I was speaking to an American colleague the other day who was trying to give an insight into the mind of some Americans on this. He said something like the following: Imagine if after a huge motorway pile-up in which lots of people died the UK government decided to impose stringent restrictions on car use. The right to own a car was removed for many. Cars with engines over a certain CC were outright banned. The number of journeys and total amount of miles per week for those lucky enough to have a car was legally limited. Any infringement of road laws (e.g. parking violations) would result in the immediate confiscation of one's car and license.

​

People wouldn't put up with this would they? They would see it as a massive act of government intrusion and outrageous removal of liberty that is out of all proportion to the incident that nominally sparked the "need" for such measures. It would cause rioting and there would be a complete refusal to accept the new lawsNow neither he nor I are genuinely comparing gun restrictions to the above hypothetical regarding cars. And the guy in question isn't a particular gun advocate.He was just trying to give some insight into how some Americans view the right to guns. So I thought I would share it.

Well indeed. So this is the point at which I would say: yeah, but "imagine if" we were discussing the subject that we're actually discussing.Also when we're talking to creationists maybe we could discuss reproduction with variation subject to natural selection rather than the construction of a 747 by a whirlwind sweeping through a junkyard. That would be nice.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You don't think this comparison accurately reflects the view of many Americans towards guns? If everyone were as enlightened and informed as you no doubt are there would be little need to confront any misapprehensions about anything.

Yes, I can almost see that. But.The car ban would get the entire population mad because it would affect literally everyone and be totally disproportionate.The gun control thing splits the population seemingly on party political lines. It's the dog whistle - 'out of my cold, dead hands,' right wing stuff. Why is it such a Republical thing?

The analogy didn't work that well for me, largely because cars are an essential part of a modern economy and guns are not, but my limited experience with gun owners is that when they discover you're in favor of gun control it's often a "you can't be my friend anymore" moment for them. It's that important. They appear to have a huge emotional attachment to their guns.--Percy

Is that because they associate them with liberty in some way? I think that was what the car comparison was trying to convey. Albeit it far from perfectly.

Because they see it as all about self-reliance over reliance on the state for personal safety? Gun regulation is seen as the state taking power away from people to be self-reliant and making them more reliant on the state for protection. It's strengthening the role of the state and weakening the individuals ability to oppose the state at the same time.I dunno... I'm speculating.

But there was a lack of car safety in the past: cars were far more dangerous - and so were the drivers.
And as the number of cars increased, the number of fatalities/injuries increased.
So legislation was introduced to mitigate this.The following requirements became compulsory:
(No chronological order is intended.)

• Car licences were introduced
• Driving tests were introduced.
• MOTs were introduced.
• Selt belts became compulsory.
• Speed limits were introduced.
• DUI became illegal.

The list goes on and on...Add to that all the non-compulsory elements added to car designs:

• Roll bars
• Air bags
• Crumple zones
• ABS
• Side impact bars

Etc... .Now - imagine we instead mirrored the gun lobbiest's suggestions to reduce car deaths/injuries:

• Increase the number of car owners.
• Make cars easier to acquire.
• Do not increase car legislature - preferably reduce it where possible.
• State that there is not a problem - cars are fine.
• Criminals can easily get cars, so there is no little point having car laws.
• People have a right to drive cars however they want - because 200 years ago some politicians said that people have the right to drive horse-less carriages at top speed (i.e. 10 mph).

To me, the 'NRA-type' stance becomes blatant nonsense if a car analogy is used.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I never doubted that it reflects the views of many Americans; I suggested that their views are in that case idiotic. Also I would have more groupies.

That was the point really. I'm not arguing..... More?

I think when they try to rationalize their attachment to guns that they latch onto issues related to liberty and rights, but it's really an emotional reaction to fear of being defenseless or not having control.Fears can be rational or irrational. If someone tried to make you jump out of an airplane without a parachute the fear you'd feel would be very rational. Is the fear a gun owner would feel if deprived of his gun rational? Well, given that he's probably safer without the gun, obviously not.I think there's a mental conditioning creating this fear among gun owners due to the constant debate, the mystique, the video games, and the NRA propaganda. It's perhaps somewhat analogous to the conditioning of the nightly news, the focus on wars, crimes and accidents from all over leading people to believe they live in far greater danger than they actually do. Many of my generation are fond of describing how when we were kids that we ran free and played where we like, but modern fears cause kids to be raised in shuttered environments.--Percy

I'm sure by now everyone has heard that there was another mass shooting in Aurora, CO, this time 3 people not including the gunman, who they believe was killed by police. For those who haven't heard here's a link to an article chosen at random: Gunman and Three Others Killed After Standoff in Aurora, Colo.This latest incident is another illustration of how guns are inherently dangerous. Scenarios illustrating the dangerous possibilities are easy to envision. For example, sometimes life just becomes too much for someone to want to go on living, everything seems hopeless, a gun's available, a gun is so effective that it's over quickly before any intervention or second thoughts can occur (suicides are the most common variety of gun death). A recent example of a gun making a particular style of suicide possible was when Jovan Belcher, a player in the National Football League, traveled to the practice facility, thanked the general manager and coach for everything they'd done for him, then pulled out a gun and killed himself in front of them. The "witnessed suicide" approach that some evidently crave is simply not possible without a gun. (He had murdered his girlfriend earlier.)Or sometimes an argument erupts, tempers burst, a gun's available, the next thing you know someone's dead (an incident like this happened just yesterday, see Police: Man kills grandmother over what to watch on TV).Other times, like the new incident in Aurora, someone reaches the end of their mental endurance, they snap, a gun's available, and the next thing you know 4 more people are dead in Aurora. It could have been more, since he evidently fired on police before being killed. The aforementioned Jovan Belcher is an example of this, too, taking out both his girlfriend and himself.And yet other times someone without a gun decides he wants to take out his problems on someone else or maybe a number of someone else's or maybe everyone else, and he has very little problem legally obtaining a gun.Those on the gun rights side keep arguing that there are some environments where one is safer with a gun than without, and this is undoubtedly true. No one's arguing that it isn't true. The only problem with the argument is that it isn't true very often.Buying a gun does not suddenly remove the possibility of losing one's temper, or becoming despondent and depressed, or of losing one's sanity. It doesn't give one superhuman powers of secretiveness for hiding guns and amunition. In other words, people with guns are just the same as everyone else, just more dangerous.As long as guns remain prevalent incidents like Aurora and Sandy Hook and Aurora again will continue to happen, and of course all the one-at-a-time gun deaths that we usually hear less about will also continue to happen, all to satisfy a group's mistaken notion that their guns make them safer.--Percy

... no matter how you cut the mustard.Enjoy

Complete BS. Being an 'open question' doesn't mean that the tools are NOT expected to work in the Us. It means that the writer thinks that there could be a debate on whether the tools would work or not.Unless you believe that Americans are somehow a special breed of humanity with cultural values that are not shared with many others. That is just your opinion and is not backed up by research. I agree that we need to change the mindset. I would start with the mindset that says having a gun buyback program and strict regulation of guns will not work with 'Americans.'