Summations Only

OK. So you can't think of a single nation or city that has successfully reduced or limited the prevalence of guns anywhere in the world ever?I think we are back to you being in denial again.....

The lower the prevalence of guns the less killers there will be. Are you suggesting that the present interpretation of the constitution facilitates high prevalence of guns and the high homicide rate associated with that?

Oh. Another evidence denier. Why am I not suprised?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.

---

LinkFortunately gun prevalence isn't the only contributory factor. Fortunately development of Western societies over the centuries (developments like not letting people starve, things like the welfare safety net) have greatly alleviated many of the things that make societies most violent. Yet as you have yourself pointed out before such programmes there were many many more murderers......Why was that?

Of course nothing other than the prevalence of guns has changed since 1200AD.....The time of Ghengis Khan. The time of the crusades. Nothing has changed since then that might make societies more civilised and less violent. Nothing at all? So it is your contention that the more guns there are the less homicides there will be based on the trend set since 1200AD?I'll put to you the wise words of Catholic Scientist: I'm not sure what your obsession with abortions has to do with the link between gun prevalence and homicide rates?

That the murder rate has gone down since the time of Genghis Khan and medieval witch burning should hardly surprise anyone. That someone feels that this has any relevance to the evidenced link between gun prevalence and homicide rates in modern developed nations is the more surprising aspect here. You don't have to go back to 1200AD to realise that there are other factors which determine homicide rates. You can simply look around the world as it is now. Poverty, inequality, drugs etc. etc. etc. These are all factors.But the prevalence of guns in society is a significant contributory factor. And this fact remains no matter how inconveninet that fact may be to your ideological preferences.So I suggest you forget 1200AD and stop denying evidence.

"Practically banned"...?Or theoreticially banned?

Legislation is of little practical worth if it isn't enfoced.That's what I meant by 'theoretically banned'.

Why is Chicago specifically such a lots cause where NY and other places have succeeded? Implementation specifics rather than innately "unenforable" would seem to be the issue. There is prohibited in theory and prohibited in practise.

You seem to be suggesting that it's the practical implementation of prohibiting outside the home but not inside the home that makes Chicago's particular attempt at prohibiting guns unworkable.Perhaps an approach that is more along the lines of NY would be more feasible....? How do they do it there? It's the difference betwen Percy saying "CS, as Admin I prohibit you from posting at EvC" whilst turning a blind eye to your continued posting as a variety of different user names and Percy saying "CS, as Admin I prohibit you from posting at EvC" whilst actively stopping any new user accounts you create from posting.

Why base any law on this inside-the-home/outside-the-home distinction if that is "unenforcable"...?Why take that failed approach rather than copy a more successful approach (e.g. the New York approach) Well if one is going to prohibit things like guns it is worth looking at how others have successfully done so elsewhere.

It seems that there is no reason to think that prohibiting guns in Chicago is "unenforcable". It's simply the way they tried to implement that.That's what I'm getting from the situation as you decsribe it.

No - I'm saying that they should implement prohibition in a manner that has successfully worked in practise elsewhere.If that entails abandoning the inside/outside aspect (which you seem to be highlighting as "unenforcable") then so be it.

I'm not sure that the "in schools" part is that important per se. It's just where kids tend to be found in large numbers and thus where massacres tend to occur.Surely the "ultimate goal" is saving lives, especially those of innocent kids...?

A guise for what? Why would anyone's "ultimate goal" be gun control in and of itself.....?Does that even make any sense?If people wanted to control things simply for the sake of controlling things then why choose guns? Why not advocate slipper controls, or the banning of T-shirts or whatever?You honestly think those who advocate gun controls just randomly chose guns and that any reference to loss of life is some sort of disingenuous tactical ploy.......? But why would anyone have that as an "ultimate goal"...?

"Dislike"....?Lots of people dislike anchovies.Why would people treat a "dislike of guns differently to a dislike of anchovies if "dislike" is all it boils down to?Maybe people "dislike" guns because they consdier them dangerous instruments of death rather than on some sort of whim as you seem to be implying.....