Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
35 online now:
Diomedes, Heathen, jar, JonF, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (6 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,369 Year: 18,405/19,786 Month: 825/1,705 Week: 77/518 Day: 3/74 Hour: 2/1


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: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 591 of 5179 (685031)
12-20-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by Faith
12-19-2012 1:54 PM


These Yanks are Crazy.....
Faith writes:

I still think a teacher or two from each school should have a gun.

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!!!

Faith writes:

BUT schools could at least hire security guards. That's not too outlandish an idea, no need to deprive the millions of law-abiding citizens of their guns, just a little common sense here.

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**)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Faith, posted 12-19-2012 1:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Faith, posted 12-20-2012 8:40 AM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 614 of 5179 (685090)
12-20-2012 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by Faith
12-20-2012 8:40 AM


Re: These Yanks are Crazy.....
Faith writes:

THAT is the problem. You wiill NOT solve THAT problem by removing MORE guns from the people who SHOULD have them. You'll just add to the problem that allows a Lanza to commit horrific murders. That seems so obvious to me that I can hardly make sense of all this screaming about taking away people's guns.

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.

Faith writes:

Did you watch the video where UK citizens who had been deprived of their guns talked about how they feel they've been victimized by their government?

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).

Wiki

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Faith, posted 12-20-2012 8:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Faith, posted 12-20-2012 1:58 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 617 by Panda, posted 12-20-2012 2:08 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 684 of 5179 (685254)
12-21-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 615 by Faith
12-20-2012 1:58 PM


Re: These Yanks are Crazy.....
Faith writes:

Teachers are citizens, police are run by the state, I'm for arming citizens, not so much agents of the state although that too does seem necessary these days.

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?

Faith writes:

Did you WATCH the video?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Faith, posted 12-20-2012 1:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1044 of 5179 (686511)
01-02-2013 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 11:21 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 11:21 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 11:46 AM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1048 of 5179 (686520)
01-02-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 11:46 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Straggler writes:

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

Crash writes:

Not at all 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 11:46 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 11:57 AM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1053 of 5179 (686537)
01-02-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 11:57 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Straggler writes:

If you agree that high gun prevalence is related to high homicide rate what exactly are you disagreeing about here?

Crash writes:

As I keep saying, I disagree that the statistical data proves that reducing gun ownership would reduce homicides....

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.

Crash writes:

...or that the statistical correlation between gun ownership and gun injury is proof that individuals should not ever choose to own a gun.

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.

Crash writes:

I've made this point surely half a dozen times in the past 10 posts of mine; is there some reason you didn't understand it then?

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 11:57 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:34 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1056 of 5179 (686549)
01-02-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1055 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 12:34 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Crash writes:

Yes I think the homicide rate is related to gun ownership.

In what way are the two related in your view if there is no causal relationship of any sort?

Crash writes:

No I don't think reducing the number of guns owned would reduce the homicide rate.

Then in what sense are the two things related? What effect would reducing the number of guns have on homicide rate in your view?

Crash writes:

There's nothing contradictory here unless you make the elementary statistical error of assuming that correlation ("relatedness", if you prefer) is the same thing as causality.

Why is there this correlation? Is it just random? Or is there a causal relationship between the two of some sort?

Crash writes:

Rainy weather is related to people carrying umbrellas, but it doesn't follow from that that if we outlawed umbrellas it would never again rain.

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)

Crash writes:

("relatedness", if you prefer)

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:34 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:58 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1094 of 5179 (686621)
01-02-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 12:58 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Crash writes:

There's a correlation because Americans are more homicidal and also they own more guns. When you asked me for a potential mechanism of causality, I told you that it made sense to me that a people who want to commit homicides would own the guns they need to do it. What was unclear about that?

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?

Straggler writes:

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

Crash writes:

Not at all unrelated.

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?

Crash writes:

Yes I think the homicide rate is related to gun ownership. No I don't think reducing the number of guns owned would reduce the homicide rate.

If a decrease in one doesn't equate to a decrease in the other in what way are you suggesting they are correlated?

Crash writes:

What was confusing the first time?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1097 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:42 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 1103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 4:53 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1098 of 5179 (686627)
01-02-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1097 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 4:42 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1097 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1100 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:49 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1106 of 5179 (686638)
01-02-2013 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1100 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 4:49 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
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.

Crash writes:

I think it's more consistent with the data, yes.

Could you link to the data that led you to this conclusion?

Crash writes:

High ownership of firearms doesn't explain why more people get stabbed here, for instance.

What is the rate of knife crime in the US? (compared to the UK - for example)?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1100 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 4:49 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1118 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-03-2013 9:45 AM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 1119 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:46 AM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1108 of 5179 (686640)
01-02-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1103 by New Cat's Eye
01-02-2013 4:53 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
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?

Crash writes:

The data in Message 693 shows that there really isn't much of a correlation to speak of

Well why didn't you tell Crashfrog that when he was talking about correlation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 5:43 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 1159 of 5179 (686775)
01-03-2013 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1110 by New Cat's Eye
01-02-2013 5:43 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
CS writes:

I don't see any correlation at all in that one.

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?

CS writes:

I don't see how cherry-picking the data points helps establish a causal relationship between gun ownership and gun murder.

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.

Straggler writes:

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.

CS writes:

Well what do you know?

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....

CS writes:

I don't think it has anything to do with a fixation with guns.

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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 5:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2013 10:28 AM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 1160 of 5179 (686776)
01-03-2013 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1119 by crashfrog
01-03-2013 9:46 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Straggler writes:

What is the rate of knife crime in the US? (compared to the UK - for example)?

Crash writes:

Higher than in any other OECD country.

Can you link to your source or data for this conclusion?

Crash writes:

I don't know how I could have been any clearer about it.

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....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1119 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:46 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1173 of 5179 (686818)
01-04-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1168 by New Cat's Eye
01-04-2013 10:28 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Do you accept that the research linked to has indeed found a correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates?

CS writes:

Is it the gun ownership that is causing the homicide rates or is it the homicide rates that are causing the gun ownership?

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:

CountryNon-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Switzerland0.40
Slovakia0.48
Germany0.70
Ireland0.78
Denmark0.83
New Zealand0.99
Spain1.00
Canada1.04
Slovenia1.21
Australia1.26
England & Wales1.33
Chile1.37
United States1.58
Hungary1.61
Portugal1.63
Finland1.76
Poland5.18

CS writes:

Not only did I point out that it wasn't OECD countries, the question I asked implies my reasoning.

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.

CS writes:

I don't see how cherry-picking the data points helps establish a causal relationship between gun ownership and gun murder.

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?

CS writes:

I don't see how cherry-picking the data points helps establish a causal relationship between gun ownership and gun murder.

CS writes:

Is it the gun ownership that is causing the homicide rates or is it the homicide rates that are causing the gun ownership?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-04-2013 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1184 by crashfrog, posted 01-04-2013 8:24 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 1231 of 5179 (686957)
01-06-2013 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1119 by crashfrog
01-03-2013 9:46 AM


Non Firearm Homicides
Straggler writes:

What is the rate of knife crime in the US? (compared to the UK - for example)?

Crash writes:

Higher than in any other OECD country.

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....

Crash writes:

Our rate of knifings, stranglings, poisonings, etc are all higher than other countries, and higher by roughly the same proportion as our rate of gun homicides.

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.

CountryFirearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Columbia51.77
Guatemala18.5
Paraguay7.35
Zimbabwe4.75
Mexico3.66
Costa Rica3.38
Belarus3.31
Barbados3.0
United States2.97

Conversely the US is 22nd (out of 38) in terms of the non-firearm homicide rate:

CountryNo-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
Columbia10.97
Mexico10.45
Estonia8.92
Latvia8.77
Ukraine8.58
Lithuania7.76
Moldova7.66
Guatemala6.97
Belarus6.82
Poland5.61
Paraguay4.7
Barbados4.49
Bulgaria3.3
Costa Rica3.19
India2.79
Azerbaijan2.59
Zimbabwe2.49
Uruguay2.09
Finland1.76
Portugal1.63
Hungary1.61
United States1.58

Crash writes:

Our rate of knifings, stranglings, poisonings, etc are all higher than other countries, and higher by roughly the same proportion as our rate of gun homicides.

Will you concede that this just isn't true?

Crash writes:

That it's the vast inequality of income in the US and other countries that has a more profound effect on violence?

Nobody here has suggested otherwise but that has no bearing on whether or not gun prevalence is a significant contributing factor.

Crash writes:

How could Argentina and Barbados be of "comparable wealth" to G8 nations? That's absurd. Argentina has the 59th largest per-capita GDP; Barbados, 44th. But why the exclusion of Kazakhstan (58th), Uruguay (49th), or Saudi Arabia (37th)?

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.


Link

Do you dispute these findings?

Crash writes:

They're related in that there's a correlation between high rates of gun ownership and a high incidence of homicide.

Crash writes:

There's a correlation because Americans are more homicidal and also they own more guns.

Crash writes:

That basically you're hand-picking a sample based entirely on members of the sample correlate positively between gun ownership and violence?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1119 by crashfrog, posted 01-03-2013 9:46 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019