Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 2806 of 5179 (733552)
07-18-2014 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2805 by petrophysics1
07-18-2014 5:09 AM


Re: It doesn't add up
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
Do you dispute these findings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2805 by petrophysics1, posted 07-18-2014 5:09 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2815 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 12:47 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 2823 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:30 PM Straggler has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2807 of 5179 (733559)
07-18-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2805 by petrophysics1
07-18-2014 5:09 AM


Re: It doesn't add up
Well according to the opinions presented here, in most part, I should live in the state with the highest homicide rate.
Why do the gun nuts always use strawman arguments?
The highest homicide rate in Canada is in Nunavut, 15/100,000. Is it the guns? No I think it's because the place is filled with Nunavut Indians and they think different than White Europeans.
Oh yeah of course the obligatory racism.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2805 by petrophysics1, posted 07-18-2014 5:09 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2822 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:25 PM Theodoric has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2808 of 5179 (733561)
07-18-2014 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2796 by mram10
07-17-2014 9:32 PM


mram10 writes:
I will keep my guns to protect my family...
The most likely use of a gun kept in a family setting is against a family member or friend. Owning a gun puts a family at greater, not lesser, risk.
How would you reduce gun deaths in this country?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2796 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 9:32 PM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2824 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:35 PM Percy has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2809 of 5179 (733563)
07-18-2014 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2802 by Heathen
07-18-2014 2:16 AM


So a gun isn't necessary for self defence?
Of course not. As I've said, you could use your fist.
So, you don't think a court should decide if a crime has been commited?
You don't need a court to tell you that someone who has broken into your house has committed a crime.
You equate due process and the principal of innocent until proven guilty with taking away peoples right to defend themselves?
Its the logical extension of your argument.
When confronted with a burglar who didn't get killed when shot at, your response was: "what about the next guy? and the next?"
So first off, you treat burglary as an acceptable inevitability. You're already condoning the crime at the expense of the victim.
Then, when I ask you why you defend the criminals, you respond that they are only suspected of a crime. But since it is illegal to break into peoples' houses, if someone has broken into a house then we know, beyond suspicion, that they have committed a crime.
So again you give the criminal the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the victim.
Finally, you say that the criminal has a right to due process before the victim acts. Well, what about the victim's right to not have his house broken into? Where's their due process? Oh that's right, the criminal took that away from them when they broke into the house.
The criminal waves his right to due process when he eliminates the same right from his victim. The victim has the right to defend themself before the criminal has the right to due process.
If you want to allow that criminal the right to due process (after breaking into someone's house), then you have to remove the right of the victim to defend themself. How else could you do it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2802 by Heathen, posted 07-18-2014 2:16 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2810 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2014 11:43 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 2843 by Heathen, posted 07-21-2014 2:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 2844 by Heathen, posted 07-21-2014 2:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 2810 of 5179 (733568)
07-18-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2809 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2014 10:19 AM


If someone does enter your home you'd probably be better off in a place where guns are rare and burglars don't commonly carry them....
Why gun advocates think a prevalence of guns in such situations makes such situation anything but likely to be more deadly is mystifying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2809 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2811 of 5179 (733570)
07-18-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2799 by mram10
07-17-2014 10:07 PM


Re: So, you like people having weapons of mass destruction?
mram10 writes:
IT IS NOT THE GUNS. IT IS THE PEOPLE.
It's the people who have guns. Some of them shouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2799 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 10:07 PM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2825 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:39 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2812 of 5179 (733571)
07-18-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2801 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:20 PM


Re: So, you like people having weapons of mass destruction?
mram10 writes:
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, they will start to question their illegal and wicked ways.
If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, the criminals who don't get killed will get bigger and better weapons and they will be more inclined to use them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2801 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:20 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2813 of 5179 (733572)
07-18-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2805 by petrophysics1
07-18-2014 5:09 AM


Re: It doesn't add up
petrophysics1 writes:
Don't pass laws for everyone based on your ethnocentric viewpoint of how the world should be and how everyone should think.
How the world "should be" is pretty much what laws are for. And nobody's telling you not to think about guns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2805 by petrophysics1, posted 07-18-2014 5:09 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2814 of 5179 (733575)
07-18-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2792 by vimesey
07-17-2014 5:30 PM


C'mon CS - you know full well that people who oppose widespread gun ownership, don't do so out of any tolerance of criminal action.
But that's the logical extension of some of the arguments.
Ringo's response to a guy shooting up a store was to worry about the defending clerk's bullets hitting an unintended target, but there's no consideration of the criminal's bullets hitting an unintended target nor the fact that the criminal is actually intending to kill people.
And Heathens response to someone breaking into a house is to wait for a judge and a jury because the guy who has just broken into the house is just a suspect and has the right to due process, despite the fact that home owner's rights have already been removed by the criminal.
Too they gloss over the criminal action as inevitable but don't give the same tolerance to the inevitability of people trying to defend themselves.
In general, in a society, widespread gun ownership will lead to more violent deaths than are prevented in the circumstances I've just referred to.
That's because of who is using the guns more. Most homicides from guns are in urban areas with high poverty and low education. Those factors impact the number of homicides more that just the presence of guns does.
defenders of widespread gun ownership
For the record, I don't want there to be a wide spread of gun ownership. Way too many bad guys have guns. The problem is that people want to impose blanket laws that apply to everybody. Since only the law abiders are going to comply, that leaves the guns solely in the hands of criminals.
I don't want my ability to have a gun limited so that only the criminals are going to have guns.
the concept of an absolute right to self defence. Nothing is more important.
There really isn't anything that I care more about than my own life (I don't have a family).
But I feel that we should, in the pursuit of the sanctity of life, in the pursuit of a civilised society, and in the pursuit of a safe environment, seek to limit our right to self defence to the most reasonable extent we can.
I think we should focus on the criminals and leave the victims alone.
If you want to pursue the sanctity of life, a civilised society, and a safe environment, then you should fight crime, not go after the people who are defending themselves against it.
And advocating a society in which we allow every person to arm themselves to the teeth with lethal weapons, strikes me as advocating a very unreasonable restraint on self-defence.
Spoken like a true subject
But its funny that you see legal allowance as being actual arming. Arming yourself to the teeth is very expensive and allowing people to do it does not provide them the means to do so.
And I see focusing on restraining self-defense instead of focusing on preventing the crimes as being way more unreasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2792 by vimesey, posted 07-17-2014 5:30 PM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2816 by ringo, posted 07-18-2014 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 2817 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2014 1:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2815 of 5179 (733576)
07-18-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2806 by Straggler
07-18-2014 7:45 AM


Re: It doesn't add up
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.
Since we know that correlation doesn't imply causation, I wonder how you'd feel about the article if they phrased it the other way:
quote:
1. Where there are more homicide there is more guns (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that homicide is a risk factor for gun availability, 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 both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide, there are more guns.
2. Across high-income nations, more homicide = more guns.
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 there are more homicides, guns are more available. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
3. Across states, more homicide = more guns
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 elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide, have many guns.
4. Across states, more homicide = more guns(2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between homicide and gun availability across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide had higher levels of household gun ownership. 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 non-firearm homicide and gun prevalence.
Would you still have used it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2806 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2014 7:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2820 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2014 11:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2816 of 5179 (733577)
07-18-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2814 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2014 12:36 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Ringo's response to a guy shooting up a store was to worry about the defending clerk's bullets hitting an unintended target, but there's no consideration of the criminal's bullets hitting an unintended target nor the fact that the criminal is actually intending to kill people.
You can control your own bullets; you are responsible for your own bullets. You can't control the criminal's bullets.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Since only the law abiders are going to comply, that leaves the guns solely in the hands of criminals.
But it isn't black-and-white. There's a whole spectrum of gray in between "law-abiding' and "criminal".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2814 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2817 of 5179 (733578)
07-18-2014 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2814 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2014 12:36 PM


But that's the logical extension of some of the arguments.
No. That is a strawman.
Not at all a logical extension. It is in fact an illogical extension.
Edited by Theodoric, : Punctuation

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2814 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2818 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 1:38 PM Theodoric has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 2818 of 5179 (733580)
07-18-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2817 by Theodoric
07-18-2014 1:33 PM


You got any evidence for that assertion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2817 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2014 1:33 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2819 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2014 10:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 2819 of 5179 (733594)
07-18-2014 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2818 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2014 1:38 PM


Do you have an argument or is this the best you got?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2818 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 2820 of 5179 (733596)
07-18-2014 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2815 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2014 12:47 PM


Re: It doesn't add up
Does this mean you have stopped denying that there is correlation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2815 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2014 12:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024