Slog
News & ArtsMonday, July 23, 2012
Crime Bloody Red States and "The Geography of Gun Violence"
Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:48 AM
This is the map (notice the reddest states), and this is the finding on American gun violence...
We did find several factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level. On the economic front, gun violence was higher in states with lower average incomes. Similarly, gun violence was less likely in states with more college graduates and stronger knowledge-based economies. Gun violence was also higher in states that tend to vote Republican.The national average for gun deaths per 100,000 people is 10. Deep red Alaska is at the top of this national average (20.9 per 100,000), and deep blue Hawaii is at the bottom (3.1 per 100,000).
1
You buried the lede.
"Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48)."
"Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48)."
2
um....you can transport guns from state to state so state stats aren't that relevant.
the global pattern is clear: advanced industrialized nations with broad, deep and effective gun controls, registration and limits or bans, are far more safe than the usa. they have far fewer murers and suicides, greater street level safety and they lack the pervasive culture of violence so prevalent in many american neighborhoods.
oh wait, guns don't kill people, ricih people are job creators, I am using birth control, we need less regulation not more, and if we allow lots of arms all over in the usa THIS WILL STOP gummint tyranny for example, we'd never invade a nation illegally, engage in torture or see widespread spying on the public e communications or heaven forbid, indefiniate detention or public assassinations. because the people with guns will go stop tyranny. thank god we allow internet purchase of ammo too this will strengthen the bulwards for individual freedom from tyrranical oppressive government!
the global pattern is clear: advanced industrialized nations with broad, deep and effective gun controls, registration and limits or bans, are far more safe than the usa. they have far fewer murers and suicides, greater street level safety and they lack the pervasive culture of violence so prevalent in many american neighborhoods.
oh wait, guns don't kill people, ricih people are job creators, I am using birth control, we need less regulation not more, and if we allow lots of arms all over in the usa THIS WILL STOP gummint tyranny for example, we'd never invade a nation illegally, engage in torture or see widespread spying on the public e communications or heaven forbid, indefiniate detention or public assassinations. because the people with guns will go stop tyranny. thank god we allow internet purchase of ammo too this will strengthen the bulwards for individual freedom from tyrranical oppressive government!
3
You can hardly call this gun "violence" since it includes "accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes".
4
@3, why don't you buy a gun and play with it, Supreme? Kent Jewelry and Loan is open 'til six. See if you can get the barrel all the way in.
5
yes a suicide is not violent, and a gun death that's accidental is not a violent death. also, guns don't kill people, gay marraige will dilute traditional marriage which is between a man and a woman, and the intel said wmd were there in iraq.
6
the cross tabs would show that hippies (CA OR WA) mormons (UT) lutherans (upper midwest) and intellectuals (NY, MA) and guidos who engage in faux honor fights (NJ) are culturally unlike the duel/honor/affront/I am an asshole who you lookin' at, yankee? culture of the south and western states that usually vote gop.
7
Came to say what @3 already did. And Fnarf is hilarious with his insane rants.
@1 - The national "Assault Weapon Ban" had no real affect on crime at the national level, it essentially only regulated rifles, which are extremely rarely used in crimes. I'm sure there are some other factors at play in those statistics.
@1 - The national "Assault Weapon Ban" had no real affect on crime at the national level, it essentially only regulated rifles, which are extremely rarely used in crimes. I'm sure there are some other factors at play in those statistics.
8
And Colorado is a blue state this year. Sorry to put a blemish your statistical dalliance Charles.
9
@7 I'd imagine that those sorts of laws only pass in states where there aren't many gun owners to oppose them.
10
I was also coming in for @3.
Not that I don't support assault weapon restrictions a little. But, in the deep red states, hunting is more common as well as hunting accidents. Also, population density plays a large part in this grid. City folk hunt less than country folk. City folk are more populous than country folk. Thus, your ratios are going to be heavily skewed toward the country having more gun-related deaths if you're including accidents.
Not that I don't support assault weapon restrictions a little. But, in the deep red states, hunting is more common as well as hunting accidents. Also, population density plays a large part in this grid. City folk hunt less than country folk. City folk are more populous than country folk. Thus, your ratios are going to be heavily skewed toward the country having more gun-related deaths if you're including accidents.
11
@ 1, I'd bet that correlates with the education and political affiliations of voters in those states.
@ 8, Colorado is a "swing state." We went for Obama last time, and I think Clinton once, but generally Republican POTUS candidates carry our state. OTOH, we prefer Democrats in the governor's mansion. We currently have two Democratic US senators but usually have one from each party. And our Congressional delegation is usually split (currently 3 Dems and 4 'pubs.)
Color us purple. The Obama and Romney campaigns sure do - until James Holmes, TV and radio were nothing but POTUS ads.
@ 8, Colorado is a "swing state." We went for Obama last time, and I think Clinton once, but generally Republican POTUS candidates carry our state. OTOH, we prefer Democrats in the governor's mansion. We currently have two Democratic US senators but usually have one from each party. And our Congressional delegation is usually split (currently 3 Dems and 4 'pubs.)
Color us purple. The Obama and Romney campaigns sure do - until James Holmes, TV and radio were nothing but POTUS ads.
12
@7 and @8 good work pushing the nra lies that gun control doesn't work, and ignoring the vast array of global stats showing every nation that is safer has strong gun controls and limits. keep it up. next tactic: personal attacks on anyone disagreeing, "but DC had strong gun control!" / "don't politicize this tragedy."
tell me. why is it that belgium france germany england australia japan and oh what about 30 other nations that like us are advanced industrialized nations that HAVE all kinds of gun limits and controls, are safer, whereas the usa is less safe? and why is suicide not a violent death again? it's intentional isn't it? or are you saying this is part of our liberty, we should have guns all over in case you want to off yourself, that's part of the freedom of the second amendment?
tell me. why is it that belgium france germany england australia japan and oh what about 30 other nations that like us are advanced industrialized nations that HAVE all kinds of gun limits and controls, are safer, whereas the usa is less safe? and why is suicide not a violent death again? it's intentional isn't it? or are you saying this is part of our liberty, we should have guns all over in case you want to off yourself, that's part of the freedom of the second amendment?
14
@7 is right, the safest nations, those with lowest rates, like begium, germany and japan all feely allow assault weapons, this is part of why those places are so safe.
also america, we're well known for our low rates of murder and massacre, due to our founder's foresight to have the second amendment. in contrast the nations with strict gun control are all hellholes of personal violence. some of them like denmark have entire neighborhoods where kids are told to not go outside, there's so many guns!
also america, we're well known for our low rates of murder and massacre, due to our founder's foresight to have the second amendment. in contrast the nations with strict gun control are all hellholes of personal violence. some of them like denmark have entire neighborhoods where kids are told to not go outside, there's so many guns!
16
Charles,
I question the conclusion drawn. One might be led to believe that Wyoming is more dangerous than Chicago (rural more dangerous than urban?). Foolish.
Also, why is "gun violence" vs. "murder by firearm/hand gun" used? Suicide must be included in the Alaska number. My understanding is it has the highest suicide rate by state in the USA.
Look, I understand where Florida is coming from. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not and he is taking a stab at red, Republican and rural. I'm just not buying the conclusion. Data like that needs to be far more qualified.
I question the conclusion drawn. One might be led to believe that Wyoming is more dangerous than Chicago (rural more dangerous than urban?). Foolish.
Also, why is "gun violence" vs. "murder by firearm/hand gun" used? Suicide must be included in the Alaska number. My understanding is it has the highest suicide rate by state in the USA.
Look, I understand where Florida is coming from. Owning a gun is more dangerous than not and he is taking a stab at red, Republican and rural. I'm just not buying the conclusion. Data like that needs to be far more qualified.
17
My point in in excerpting what I did @1 is that while comparisons of policy among countries can be arbitrary and/or misleading (too many confounding factors, too easy to cherry-pick data that supports your argument), that is a much more difficult case to make when you compare among jurisdictions within the same country with a strong federal system, a relatively homogeneous culture (certainly more so than, say, among members of the EU), and state constitutions and legal systems that are substantially more the same than they are different.
The data bear out the hypothesis that stricter gun laws are associated with less gun violence. The burden is on those that oppose stricter gun laws to demonstrate why their costs outweigh the positive returns to public safety, because the latter are not hypothetical.
The data bear out the hypothesis that stricter gun laws are associated with less gun violence. The burden is on those that oppose stricter gun laws to demonstrate why their costs outweigh the positive returns to public safety, because the latter are not hypothetical.
18
@17 actually when you have broad international comparisons it makes the point even more strongly as it shows whatever the variations in culture gun controls that limit guns, yield greater safety. less violence. fewer massacres.
seriously they have more massacres in colorado than in say, denmark. it's not inexplicable. it's easily explained. in denmark, crazy people can't get the weapons they can get here. for one.
jurisdictions in the same country don't have effective gun controls because um, people in nyc bring in guns from virginia. the lack of homogeneity in the EU is a strong factor showing the thing "causing" less murder and massacre there is the various gun limits and controls.
gun control works, like public education, having an electric system, and having roads work. nations with good levels of safety low levels of mayhem murder suicide and massacre PRETTY MUCH ALL HAVE GUN CONTROLS AND LIMITS. there is no factual proof that can be better than this in the social sciences. it's on a par with "as income rises, famillies have fewer children."
seriously they have more massacres in colorado than in say, denmark. it's not inexplicable. it's easily explained. in denmark, crazy people can't get the weapons they can get here. for one.
jurisdictions in the same country don't have effective gun controls because um, people in nyc bring in guns from virginia. the lack of homogeneity in the EU is a strong factor showing the thing "causing" less murder and massacre there is the various gun limits and controls.
gun control works, like public education, having an electric system, and having roads work. nations with good levels of safety low levels of mayhem murder suicide and massacre PRETTY MUCH ALL HAVE GUN CONTROLS AND LIMITS. there is no factual proof that can be better than this in the social sciences. it's on a par with "as income rises, famillies have fewer children."
19
@17 Need I remind you that correlation is not casualty? Is it possible that stricter gun laws are associated w/ fewer shooting deaths because those sorts of laws only pass in states where not many people own guns to begin with?
20
@12: I believe, as does Bill Kristol and both President Bush 41 and 43, that the second amendment, as integral to a free society as it is, can indeed accommodate reasonable restrictions in gun sales such as used in Aurora. Like Nateman said in a recent thread, have mandatory checks and training. I would go further and advocate an application process of no less than six months for high capacity automatic weapons and a mandatory check-in meeting with an ATF agent every year as long as such weapons are possessed.
21
@ 19, do you know what the firearm ownership rate is for these states, per capita? That would confirm or refute your point right there.
22
Lark @16, thank you for posting that. This data has, indeed, been "cherry-picked." Otherwise, New York and Chicago, the two cities in this country with the most-restrictive gun laws, wouldn't have some of the highest murder rates of anywhere.
23
@22 NYC actually does have a really low murder rate, Chicago not so much. You can read more about that here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…
24
@13,
I think it's because it distorts the case.
Yeah, it's violence, but are suicides a problem with guns or a problem with mental illness?
If 12,000 people were killing themselves with sleeping pills, would an effective response be to ban sleeping pills? Would that solve the problem?
No, of course it wouldn't. That isn't even addressing the problem.
So yeah, suicides by guns are definitely violent, but they're in a totally different category than crimes committed with guns (e.g., mental illness vs. availability of guns). Adding them in to all the other gun stats is deliberately misleading.
I think it's because it distorts the case.
Yeah, it's violence, but are suicides a problem with guns or a problem with mental illness?
If 12,000 people were killing themselves with sleeping pills, would an effective response be to ban sleeping pills? Would that solve the problem?
No, of course it wouldn't. That isn't even addressing the problem.
So yeah, suicides by guns are definitely violent, but they're in a totally different category than crimes committed with guns (e.g., mental illness vs. availability of guns). Adding them in to all the other gun stats is deliberately misleading.
25
@ 16/22, I think you're forgetting that the author is looking at a state by state case. It bears reminding that it was all deaths by gun - he specifically lists accidental shootings, suicides, and those killed by people defending themselves. Going back to big cities and focusing on murders doesn't address the article's findings.
Now, it could be that @ 16 is right - that the author followed this route because it tends to confirm urban biases against rural regions. But I don't think that's fair to conclude just from this article. (It IS fair to conclude that that's why Charles posted it, however, but only because his bias is well known to regular sloggers.)
@ 24, you also stand a better chance of successfully committing suicide if it's by gun than by deliberate overdose.
The author is trying to demonstrate that greater access to guns equals greater chance of dying by gun, which is why he makes a point of showing that the death rate is lower in states with stricter gun control laws. Saying "oh, someone will choose another method" (whether it's to commit murder, suicide, hunt, or defend oneself) is a red herring because most other methods are more likely to be survived.
Now, it could be that @ 16 is right - that the author followed this route because it tends to confirm urban biases against rural regions. But I don't think that's fair to conclude just from this article. (It IS fair to conclude that that's why Charles posted it, however, but only because his bias is well known to regular sloggers.)
@ 24, you also stand a better chance of successfully committing suicide if it's by gun than by deliberate overdose.
The author is trying to demonstrate that greater access to guns equals greater chance of dying by gun, which is why he makes a point of showing that the death rate is lower in states with stricter gun control laws. Saying "oh, someone will choose another method" (whether it's to commit murder, suicide, hunt, or defend oneself) is a red herring because most other methods are more likely to be survived.
26
@13
"i keep asking this question. WHY aren't suicides gun violence?"
It depends upon how you want to portray the situation using the information you pick.
Gun control proponents include suicides because it increases the statistics.
Gun control opponents do the opposite because it decreases the statistics.
A more balanced approach would be to break down the various scenarios and show those.
Murdering someone else is different from suicide.
A hunting accident is different from murder.
A child accidentally shooting another child is entirely different.
And any proposed restrictions would have different effects on each of those situations.
Banning 30 round magazines won't affect suicides yet the suicide number is included by the people trying to ban those magazines.
"i keep asking this question. WHY aren't suicides gun violence?"
It depends upon how you want to portray the situation using the information you pick.
Gun control proponents include suicides because it increases the statistics.
Gun control opponents do the opposite because it decreases the statistics.
A more balanced approach would be to break down the various scenarios and show those.
Murdering someone else is different from suicide.
A hunting accident is different from murder.
A child accidentally shooting another child is entirely different.
And any proposed restrictions would have different effects on each of those situations.
Banning 30 round magazines won't affect suicides yet the suicide number is included by the people trying to ban those magazines.
27
My heart aches for the recent victims of gun violence but at least now people are starting to wake up to the very real need to disarm the lower classes of this great nation. Unless you have been deputized to guard us from these criminals you have no business possessing such dangerous weapons.
28
@19--read what I wrote. I didn't say anything about causality. I said the data bear out the hypothesis, which is to say, they fail to disprove it.
I do this shit for a living.
I do this shit for a living.
29
@22 and other gun worshippers:
japan has lower murder rates due to its higher gun controls.
belgium has lower massacre rates due to stronger gun laws.
canada, australia, finland, denmark, spain, germany, england, ireland, scotland, wales, austria, switzerland, you know, you're just ignoring reality there are about 35 adnaced nations with stronger gun controls laws that are far, far safer with lower murder rates than the usa and you're talking about nyc and chicago as if people there can't buy guns in virginia or missouri. there is a strong correlation, and causality, between strong gun limits, registrations and gun controls, and lower rates of murder and massacre. no, they don't have the same murder rates in about 35 nations showing it's not "various cultural factors" at play -- gun control works.
japan has lower murder rates due to its higher gun controls.
belgium has lower massacre rates due to stronger gun laws.
canada, australia, finland, denmark, spain, germany, england, ireland, scotland, wales, austria, switzerland, you know, you're just ignoring reality there are about 35 adnaced nations with stronger gun controls laws that are far, far safer with lower murder rates than the usa and you're talking about nyc and chicago as if people there can't buy guns in virginia or missouri. there is a strong correlation, and causality, between strong gun limits, registrations and gun controls, and lower rates of murder and massacre. no, they don't have the same murder rates in about 35 nations showing it's not "various cultural factors" at play -- gun control works.
30
@24, 26: i think it is fair to say that suicides by firearm involve both mental illness and availability of guns - considering that suicidal impulses are facilitated by access to them. aurora seems to be that same combination, too.
yes, all gun deaths are not the same, but they are all gun deaths. i see no reason that the total number can't be used, as well as the subtotals. i would like to see each for every year, but amoklauf shootings (cafe racer, aurora) are not broken out to my knowledge.
yes, all gun deaths are not the same, but they are all gun deaths. i see no reason that the total number can't be used, as well as the subtotals. i would like to see each for every year, but amoklauf shootings (cafe racer, aurora) are not broken out to my knowledge.
31
@23, you should be aware that for 5280, "seeing a Negro or Mexican" counts as being the victim of a violent crime.
-- http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Rele…
The primary purpose of personal gun ownership is to provide theft targets for criminals seeking guns in, shall we say, "unrecorded transactions". I.e., taking them off of idiots who think they're protecting something rather than bringing violence and death into their communities.
PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
-- http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Rele…
The primary purpose of personal gun ownership is to provide theft targets for criminals seeking guns in, shall we say, "unrecorded transactions". I.e., taking them off of idiots who think they're protecting something rather than bringing violence and death into their communities.
32
@30
"yes, all gun deaths are not the same, but they are all gun deaths."
And that kind of reasoning is why the NRA keeps winning in these debates.
To YOU they are the same.
To the NRA members they are completely different.
"i see no reason that the total number can't be used, as well as the subtotals."
Of course they can be used.
They just invalidate your position.
Banning 30 round magazines will have zero impact on the number of children who accidentally kill themselves or their friends.
"yes, all gun deaths are not the same, but they are all gun deaths."
And that kind of reasoning is why the NRA keeps winning in these debates.
To YOU they are the same.
To the NRA members they are completely different.
"i see no reason that the total number can't be used, as well as the subtotals."
Of course they can be used.
They just invalidate your position.
Banning 30 round magazines will have zero impact on the number of children who accidentally kill themselves or their friends.
33
@16, speaking of foolish, how about the assumption that urban is automatically more dangerous than rural. You're ignoring facts in favor of your prejudice about urban areas. Now, the numbers on that map are distributed over an entire state so of course there are more dangerous and less dangerous areas in every state but you can't deny the strong correlation between the gun laws and gun deaths.
Even though you may be less likely to be mugged in MT than in Chicago a woman is far more likely to be shot in a domestic dispute. Even if you have fewer gangs in MT than Chicago you have more kids accidentally shooting their parents. (those are just 2 examples off the top of my head and not meant to be representative of either area)
Now, to make for a truly educated and "adult" conversation on the matter that map should be divided in a way to show "acts of self-defense" separately. Gun advocates say you're safer with a gun because you can defend yourself. I want to see the real numbers. If 31K people are killed with guns every year in the USA, how many of those people were the aggressors being killed by their victims?
According to that CDC report:
"In 2008, 31,593 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.4 percent of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2008 were suicide at 57.7 percent and homicide at
38.5 percent."
It does not make it clear if they count self defense under homicide (that would be strange to me) or if self defense was counted as a part of the 24.9% remaining. In the breakdown they say
accident 592
suicide 18,223
homicide 12,179
undetermined firearm death 273
It does not list a line item for self defense.
More...
Even though you may be less likely to be mugged in MT than in Chicago a woman is far more likely to be shot in a domestic dispute. Even if you have fewer gangs in MT than Chicago you have more kids accidentally shooting their parents. (those are just 2 examples off the top of my head and not meant to be representative of either area)
Now, to make for a truly educated and "adult" conversation on the matter that map should be divided in a way to show "acts of self-defense" separately. Gun advocates say you're safer with a gun because you can defend yourself. I want to see the real numbers. If 31K people are killed with guns every year in the USA, how many of those people were the aggressors being killed by their victims?
According to that CDC report:
"In 2008, 31,593 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.4 percent of all injury deaths that year. The two major component causes of all firearm injury deaths in 2008 were suicide at 57.7 percent and homicide at
38.5 percent."
It does not make it clear if they count self defense under homicide (that would be strange to me) or if self defense was counted as a part of the 24.9% remaining. In the breakdown they say
accident 592
suicide 18,223
homicide 12,179
undetermined firearm death 273
It does not list a line item for self defense.
34
Legally, "homicide" is simply one person killing another person. It does not take into account the reason, whether it was justifiable or not, or even who did it (e.g., a cop).
35
For the record, I am pro-gun ownership and pro-controls. I would like to address some of the defensive arguments put forth here though. Sleeping pills are highly regulated. You have to be screened by a qualifed health-care practioner, and will not get a large amount of them if you have a history of mental illness. You must prove who you are at the pharmacy to purchase them and it is illeagal to possess them without a personal prescription.For those of you who want to discount accidental death, does that include children who have gained access to guns that should have been locked up? Further, a case can be made that suicide is an extremely violent act. Ask anyone who loved someone who has commited the act.
37
There is good evidence that if a suicidal person is stymied from committing suicide, they are unlikely to try again. The reasons are complex, but the upshot is that preventing successful first attempts is effective. I'm on a phone and can't post the source, but can do so later if you can't find the papers on your own.
40
@39
"It's interesting that so many commenters don't think suicides by gun are a problem."
It's interesting that so many people think that suicides by gun can be limited by anything less than restricting gun ownership beyond what is politically feasible.
No one should own guns because someone might want to kill himself and he might use a gun to do it.
Yeah, good luck getting gun control legislation passed with that.
"It's interesting that so many commenters don't think suicides by gun are a problem."
It's interesting that so many people think that suicides by gun can be limited by anything less than restricting gun ownership beyond what is politically feasible.
No one should own guns because someone might want to kill himself and he might use a gun to do it.
Yeah, good luck getting gun control legislation passed with that.
41
@39: I did not get the sense that no one thought suicides by gun were a problem, only that it is knowingly misleading to include them in the same category as accidental discharges and violent crimes. It is like tabulating a man who purposefully drives his car off a cliff as a traffic fatality, and claiming that the suicide means the highway needs more traffic lights.
Also, the simple fact that suicide by gun is a problem you can not control with automatic weapons bans, magazine capacity restrictions, gun free zones, etc. It is a mental health issue, and short of taking away all the guns or mandating psych reviews on gun owners (not a bad idea but politically impossible at this stage) can really do anything about that.
So in a debate that is strictly about pragmatic gun control and stopping these massacres, it just really does not have much of a place.
Also, the simple fact that suicide by gun is a problem you can not control with automatic weapons bans, magazine capacity restrictions, gun free zones, etc. It is a mental health issue, and short of taking away all the guns or mandating psych reviews on gun owners (not a bad idea but politically impossible at this stage) can really do anything about that.
So in a debate that is strictly about pragmatic gun control and stopping these massacres, it just really does not have much of a place.
42
@38
You mean like in Britain where knife crime is a major problem? Where the crime rate is higher than South Africa, and much higher than the US? Like WA DC that had total gun control and the highest murder rate in the country? Like Chicago where on an average weekend more people get shot there than Baghdad. Gun control only works to arm criminals and politicians, which are one in the same.
@27
Because governments can totally be trusted with a monopoly on force, not like they have killed a few hundred million unarmed civilians in the last century or anything.
Charles Mudede only likes guns when they're used by communist rebels to kill whites, aint that right Chucko.
You mean like in Britain where knife crime is a major problem? Where the crime rate is higher than South Africa, and much higher than the US? Like WA DC that had total gun control and the highest murder rate in the country? Like Chicago where on an average weekend more people get shot there than Baghdad. Gun control only works to arm criminals and politicians, which are one in the same.
@27
Because governments can totally be trusted with a monopoly on force, not like they have killed a few hundred million unarmed civilians in the last century or anything.
Charles Mudede only likes guns when they're used by communist rebels to kill whites, aint that right Chucko.
43
@42, you should stop getting your statistics out of the Daily Mail.
So-called violent crime rates between countries are not directly comparable. For instance, the vast majority of assaults are not counted as violent crimes in the US; only Aggravated Assault is. This isn't true in Britain or Canada. Since most assaults are not aggravated, and simple assault is by a wide margin the most common violent crime, the rates show as much higher in Britain and Canada and much lower in the US -- but that's a grossly inaccurate picture. In the case of the Daily Fail, a deliberately inaccurate one.
South Africa has 20,000 murders a year, Britain under a thousand, with considerably more people. The US has under 15,000 most recently (a huge dropoff), with a little over four times the population of Britain. Our murder rate is about three and a half times Britain's. Since you are obviously confused on this subject, lower murder rates are BETTER, not worse.
Note also that both murder and other violent crimes are heavily concentrated in particular geographic areas. The correlation isn't so much with Republican vs. Democratic as it is with poverty vs. wealth. The same is true in Britain (and South Africa, for that matter).
Your assertion about knife crime in Britain is yet another bugaboo taken from kook websites that has no basis in fact. Knife crime is a minuscule percentage of all crime in the UK and always has been, despite hysterical media reports when they do occur (there's your Daily Fail again).
And of course it is impossible to murder 12 and injure 68 with a knife; for wholesale slaughter you really have to have a gun, or a stack of guns, high-capacity magazines, and all the rest.
@41, you're issuing another impassioned plea to do nothing and to stop thinking about it. Psych reviews? Yeah, right. The NRA will be all over that, I'm sure. The only psych review that will ever take place is after the fact: "has this person committed a mass murder? Well, all right then, take away his guns."
More...
So-called violent crime rates between countries are not directly comparable. For instance, the vast majority of assaults are not counted as violent crimes in the US; only Aggravated Assault is. This isn't true in Britain or Canada. Since most assaults are not aggravated, and simple assault is by a wide margin the most common violent crime, the rates show as much higher in Britain and Canada and much lower in the US -- but that's a grossly inaccurate picture. In the case of the Daily Fail, a deliberately inaccurate one.
South Africa has 20,000 murders a year, Britain under a thousand, with considerably more people. The US has under 15,000 most recently (a huge dropoff), with a little over four times the population of Britain. Our murder rate is about three and a half times Britain's. Since you are obviously confused on this subject, lower murder rates are BETTER, not worse.
Note also that both murder and other violent crimes are heavily concentrated in particular geographic areas. The correlation isn't so much with Republican vs. Democratic as it is with poverty vs. wealth. The same is true in Britain (and South Africa, for that matter).
Your assertion about knife crime in Britain is yet another bugaboo taken from kook websites that has no basis in fact. Knife crime is a minuscule percentage of all crime in the UK and always has been, despite hysterical media reports when they do occur (there's your Daily Fail again).
And of course it is impossible to murder 12 and injure 68 with a knife; for wholesale slaughter you really have to have a gun, or a stack of guns, high-capacity magazines, and all the rest.
@41, you're issuing another impassioned plea to do nothing and to stop thinking about it. Psych reviews? Yeah, right. The NRA will be all over that, I'm sure. The only psych review that will ever take place is after the fact: "has this person committed a mass murder? Well, all right then, take away his guns."
44
At the very least, there should be uniform support for keeping assault rifles out of the hands of regular citizens. Not seeing why anyone needs such weapons (i.e., for hunting or self defense).
45
For the thousandth time, that was not an "assault rifle." It was a black semi-automatic rifle. And yes, it's perfectly useful for both hunting and self-defense, though there are a lot of things that do the job better.
46
@43: I am not issuing any impassioned pleas to do nothing. I was saying that the only way to stop suicide by gun would be to take away all the guns or force gun owners to take regular psych exams, which I thought was a good idea, but politically impossible to do.
For the guy whose only response to this issue is "fuck everyone who disagrees with me" you sure are asking me to include a lot of answers no one even has in a comment solely about gun suicides.
For the guy whose only response to this issue is "fuck everyone who disagrees with me" you sure are asking me to include a lot of answers no one even has in a comment solely about gun suicides.
47
Why the F are people allowed to buy assault rifles? Yes the AR-15 meets that definition. It is beyond me, (a Canadian- who owns guns). There is no, as in absolutely no, legitimate sporting use for a self-loading rifle with a sustained rate of fire of more than 10 rounds per minute. What, the deer are shooting back?
I have been a pistol shooter, a .357 S&W, was just plenty, but no its GUN CONTROL if you can't buy a pistol with a 30 shot magazine. Insanity is defined as expecting a different outcome from the same behaviour. As long as semi-auto rifles, and pistols are available to the public massacres will continue. Wake-up America.
I have been a pistol shooter, a .357 S&W, was just plenty, but no its GUN CONTROL if you can't buy a pistol with a 30 shot magazine. Insanity is defined as expecting a different outcome from the same behaviour. As long as semi-auto rifles, and pistols are available to the public massacres will continue. Wake-up America.
48
study doesn't sound very scientific..maybe a new word to describe studies like these ... "scientificy"
49
you want to know a statistic; try comparing the gun violence by states with republican or religious core values as opposed to states that are democratically controlled and have lost their core values.
states like Colorado which is more gun liberal in terms of rights but democratically controlled and lack of family values has this crime while Texas/Florida does not...I take pride that my state of Florida will have given out a millionth conceal carry license within a week; the only state to reach this feat...and Jeb Bush's stand your ground law is amazing....
states like Colorado which is more gun liberal in terms of rights but democratically controlled and lack of family values has this crime while Texas/Florida does not...I take pride that my state of Florida will have given out a millionth conceal carry license within a week; the only state to reach this feat...and Jeb Bush's stand your ground law is amazing....
50
The nice thing about statistics is you can select the items you wish to use and then arrange them to support your claim ... determine the result you wish then find the statistics you need and arrange them to support your desired result. If one goes back to the raw data, the numbers themselves which are buried in Mr. Florida's analysis, one would find 8732 gun murders in 2010. The figure includes 49 states + DC (the state of Florida statistics are not included in the FBI results the author, Mr. Florida, used to prepare his analysis). Ten states accounted for 5171 or 59% of that total. Those ten states, ranked, are California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri and Ohio. Six of those states are historically "blue", four are "red". The six blue states accounted for 3318 or 38% of the total gun murders in the US in 2010. At least three of those states have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Seems to me the gun control advocates should perhaps start in their own back yard and see what is apparently not working. Analyzing by the per 100,000 population thing is merely denying or hiding where the problem really exists.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Today in the Surveillance State: The "War on Reality" by Brendan Kiley
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
The Full Text of David Guterson's Controversial Commencement Speech by Dominic Holden
-
The Monday Morning News by Goldy
-
Egyptian Theatre to Close at the End of This Month by Paul Constant
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS