Jump to content



Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Gun Homicide rates


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#1 needler420

needler420

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:36 AM

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

 

We need to me more like the UK when it comes to gun laws. Or Japan. Japan had a whole year where not a single person was murdered by a gun.


needler420.png


#2 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:20 AM

We should probably ban knives too. 



#3 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:25 PM

And drugs. Let's make drugs illegal. That'll stop people from doing drugs.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#4 Kirin Lemon

Kirin Lemon

    世界を革命する者

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:32 PM

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

 

We need to me more like the UK when it comes to gun laws. Or Japan. Japan had a whole year where not a single person was murdered by a gun.

The crime rate here in Japan is so ridiculously low. It's kind of awesome.


Posted Image

#5 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 February 2014 - 04:59 PM

The crime rate here in Japan is so ridiculously low. It's kind of awesome.

 

What's the poverty rate? The unemployment rate? How many illegal aliens does Japan have? What's the ethnic group density? Oh it's 98.5% Japanese? Moving on......



#6 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 February 2014 - 06:44 PM

Japan Total Crime: 4th Place

http://www.nationmas...ed-States/Crime



#7 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 23 February 2014 - 10:57 PM

I wonder how individual states within the US would rank if you pulled them all out and compared their stats to these other countries.

Also, why does the title thread mention "Gun Homicides" while everyone keeps posting general crime stats?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#8 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:51 AM

What's the poverty rate? The unemployment rate? How many illegal aliens does Japan have? What's the ethnic group density? Oh it's 98.5% Japanese? Moving on......

 

I love this argument.  It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something.  "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates!  We need our guns here!  USA!! USA!! USA!!"


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#9 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 12:56 AM

I love this argument.  It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something.  "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates!  We need our guns here!  USA!! USA!! USA!!"

 

 

Please tell me why it's a faulty argument. Genocide couldn't occur if everyone was the same. Right?

I was merely trying to point out that Japan is 98.5% Japanese. I would guess their unemployment rate is lower. When people are happy they don't tend to shoot each other.

 

I could be wrong though. 



#10 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:10 AM

I love this argument.  It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something.  "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates!  We need our guns here!  USA!! USA!! USA!!"

Did violence increase in Sweden after Eastern European immigrants poured in? 



#11 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 01:59 AM

Did violence increase in Sweden after Eastern European immigrants poured in? 

 

Did it?  How did it compare to violence in the US?  What's the per capita homicide rate there vs the US?  How about you actually formulate an argument rather than just leaving hanging questions?

 

More importantly, does the increase (if any) in violence in Sweden make any sort of adoption of gun regulations from other nations in the US unworkable?  Probably not but that seems to be easy answer folks are going for here.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#12 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 02:19 AM

Did it?  How did it compare to violence in the US?  What's the per capita homicide rate there vs the US?  How about you actually formulate an argument rather than just leaving hanging questions?

 

More importantly, does the increase (if any) in violence in Sweden make any sort of adoption of gun regulations from other nations in the US unworkable?  Probably not but that seems to be easy answer folks are going for here.

Formulate an argument like this?

I love this argument.  It's like the anti-exceptionalism argument or something.  "America has too many poor people and too many immigrants and too many minorities to learn anything from other nations with radically lower homicide rates!  We need our guns here!  USA!! USA!! USA!!"

 

Yes, the crime has increased in Sweden due to immigration. Most crime is still committed by the natives. US and Sweden stats:

http://www.nationmas...ed-States/Crime

Gun Homicides is in double digits compared to USA. Yet the overall crime rating is quite high for a western nation, especially the one located in Scandinavia. Crime victims actually exceed that of US.

 

Would you prefer to completely outlaw guns for citizens or just "assault" weapons? 



#13 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 03:06 PM

Formulate an argument like this?

 

I never claimed that was an argument.  That was me laughing about the "But.. America's TOO DIFFERENT!" argument.

 

The homicide rate in Sweden is 1:100,000.  The homicide rate in the US is 4.8 per 100,000.  Given the title of this thread, that's the relevant stat.  Technically gun homicides should be but that just opens the "But you can kill someone with a PENCIL!" whining.  Bottom line is that the homicide rate in Sweden is far lower than that of the US, even with those bloodthirsty immigrants.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#14 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 24 February 2014 - 10:17 PM

I never claimed that was an argument.  That was me laughing about the "But.. America's TOO DIFFERENT!" argument.

 

The homicide rate in Sweden is 1:100,000.  The homicide rate in the US is 4.8 per 100,000.  Given the title of this thread, that's the relevant stat.  Technically gun homicides should be but that just opens the "But you can kill someone with a PENCIL!" whining.  Bottom line is that the homicide rate in Sweden is far lower than that of the US, even with those bloodthirsty immigrants.

And I only asked questions, no arguments at that time. 

 

Homicides in Sweden are far lower, that is true. Yet there are plenty of violent crimes, rape actually exceeds that of US by 175%. Would you agree that the number could come down if people had more guns?



#15 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 February 2014 - 04:01 PM

"Could"?  Maybe.  Maybe it could come down if everyone carried knives.  Or Mace.  Or Tasers.  Or rape whistles.  Or a sock full of pennies.  Or took a dog with them. 

 

That said, my understanding is that Sweden has broader laws on what constitutes "rape" than most nations which explains part of the discrepancy.  Conversely, what constitutes a homicide is remarkably consistent from nation to nation.  But even if we're to set aside any difference in the laws, I don't see much of a case for jumping to a dramatic increase in firearms to solve the issue.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#16 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 February 2014 - 06:10 PM

Please tell me why it's a faulty argument. Genocide couldn't occur if everyone was the same. Right?

I was merely trying to point out that Japan is 98.5% Japanese. I would guess their unemployment rate is lower. When people are happy they don't tend to shoot each other.

 

I could be wrong though. 

Capitalism as a practice in Japan is shaped by longstanding social norms.

 

Keiretsu Capitalism would be decried as "loony left socialism" by the plutocracy's useful idiot brigade over on FOX.

 

Maybe if we practiced it and brought the impoverished into the lower middle class and the middle class into the upper middle class, crime rates would decline because people are "happy," to use your intellectually shallow logic.

 

Winner-takes-all capitalism (what we have) overtly regards laborers as tools who should be PROUD to submit to the lowest bidder, so long as the bid exists. We (well, you, not me) engage with capitalism by embracing the ends as the justification; that is, the outcomes of economic exploitation are sacrosanct and above scrutiny - they are real and just because the market willed it to be (and if the market did not will it so, they would not exist). Yet, despite that, you surely embrace the strong-arm tactics of Bob Corker and the Governor of Tennessee, who LIED aboue Volkswagen's intentions in order to pressure and persuade an anti-union outcome - to keep hours longer, reduce job security, slow wage growth among employees, and to pit working man against working man.

 

That's your free market, sweet thing. Doesn't sound like "happy" to me. Sounds petty, sounds vindictive, sounds deliberately divisive by the power elite in order to retain their power.

 

That blind dude who killed his friend, was acquitted, and got his gun back...clearly he's an...erm...patriot of whatever you call it.


Posted Image

#17 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 February 2014 - 11:10 PM

"Could"?  Maybe.  Maybe it could come down if everyone carried knives.  Or Mace.  Or Tasers.  Or rape whistles.  Or a sock full of pennies.  Or took a dog with them. 

 

That said, my understanding is that Sweden has broader laws on what constitutes "rape" than most nations which explains part of the discrepancy.  Conversely, what constitutes a homicide is remarkably consistent from nation to nation.  But even if we're to set aside any difference in the laws, I don't see much of a case for jumping to a dramatic increase in firearms to solve the issue.

Well by that logic, homicides would be non-existent if we ban knives, or mace or tasers and dogs. 

 

Discrepancy could go both ways. I bet people all over the country do it all the time to make the stats look "good". 

 

Remember state of Illinois is pretty anti-gun and how are they doing when it comes to violent crime? 



#18 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:03 PM

http://capitalismisf...t-warning-shot/

 

Can we all agree that this is OK? How are you supposed to defend life and property from home invaders in an efficient manner without a gun?



#19 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 02:49 PM

I think you seem to fundamentally misunderstand advocates of gun control, such as myself, if you are seriously asking whether or not I agree with clear-cut cases of self defense.

 

Are you really that dumb? Please say no. Please say no. Lie if you have to.


Posted Image

#20 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:05 PM

Well by that logic, homicides would be non-existent if we ban knives, or mace or tasers and dogs.

 

Well, no,  That's terrible logic because I never stated that those things were used in homicides.  I said they would be deterrents to rape.  Several of them are expressly non-lethal deterrents so why you'd say "We'd have no homicides if we banned Mace" is beyond me.  The whole "But you can kill someone with a stick!" canard is moronic anyway since, if you're going to equivocate a gun with a pointy stick, you're essentially saying "We don't need guns because sticks are just as effective".  Or you admit that guns are much more effective at making people dead which trivializes the "But they'll just kill with pointy sticks" argument.  It's just a bad argument no matter how you slice it.

 

Chicago's gun laws were crippled by the ready supply of firearms from suburban Cook County and Indiana.  Banning the purchase of an item is unfortunately ineffective when you can travel literally five miles south and purchase it legally.  It would be interesting to see how it would have worked out had the entire multi-state region carried the same restrictions but it's a moot point anyway since the relevant laws were struck down.  Incidentally, I'm aware of the unlikelihood of the region having the same laws (barring a federal ban) but just making the point that you can't compare gun laws in Chicago and their effectiveness to those in places where you don't have the ability to take ten steps and legally buy a gun anyway.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#21 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:15 PM

I think you seem to fundamentally misunderstand advocates of gun control, such as myself, if you are seriously asking whether or not I agree with clear-cut cases of self defense.

 

Are you really that dumb? Please say no. Please say no. Lie if you have to.

Please read the thread a little more closely. The word "ban" has been used quite a few times. I was just making sure that there was no one who truly supported banning all firearms. I am a proponent of gun licensing, but I am also a proponent of child licensing. Driver's licensing is required under the law, what is more important, driving a car or raising a child? I say this in a tongue in cheek manner, but become more and more serious with the notion as I see such piss poor parenting resulting in crappy citizens. An unfettered and unaccountable welfare state is more destructive to our country than the paltry amount of mass shootings we have..



#22 Sarang01

Sarang01

    My Use Name Is Saber

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 05:07 PM

Please tell me why it's a faulty argument. Genocide couldn't occur if everyone was the same. Right?

I was merely trying to point out that Japan is 98.5% Japanese. I would guess their unemployment rate is lower. When people are happy they don't tend to shoot each other.

 

I could be wrong though. 

 

Look at the Burakumin in Japan and tell me they're all happy.

 

On another note, read about the Ainu and the Zainichi Koreans.


Posted Image

"Friends let friends eat each other out.".

#23 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 06:47 PM

Please read the thread a little more closely. The word "ban" has been used quite a few times. I was just making sure that there was no one who truly supported banning all firearms. I am a proponent of gun licensing, but I am also a proponent of child licensing. Driver's licensing is required under the law, what is more important, driving a car or raising a child? I say this in a tongue in cheek manner, but become more and more serious with the notion as I see such piss poor parenting resulting in crappy citizens. An unfettered and unaccountable welfare state is more destructive to our country than the paltry amount of mass shootings we have..

A page search for "ban" turns up 7 results: 2 in this post of yours I'm quoting, and the other 5 from Syntax Error in his post just above yours (but after mine). Seems I did read closely. Maybe silk or Bob mentioned "bans," but (a) I have them dudes on ignore and (b) they're not arguing for gun control.

 

It's a shame that you're willing to make up lies in order to avoid admitting that your post was (a) dumb, (b) a straw man, and © wrong.

 

Keep plugging away at it. Why admit you made an error when you can double down on dumb-fuckery?

 

Sad. Sad, sad, sad.


Posted Image

#24 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:41 PM

Well, no,  That's terrible logic because I never stated that those things were used in homicides.  I said they would be deterrents to rape.  Several of them are expressly non-lethal deterrents so why you'd say "We'd have no homicides if we banned Mace" is beyond me.  The whole "But you can kill someone with a stick!" canard is moronic anyway since, if you're going to equivocate a gun with a pointy stick, you're essentially saying "We don't need guns because sticks are just as effective".  Or you admit that guns are much more effective at making people dead which trivializes the "But they'll just kill with pointy sticks" argument.  It's just a bad argument no matter how you slice it.

 

Chicago's gun laws were crippled by the ready supply of firearms from suburban Cook County and Indiana.  Banning the purchase of an item is unfortunately ineffective when you can travel literally five miles south and purchase it legally.  It would be interesting to see how it would have worked out had the entire multi-state region carried the same restrictions but it's a moot point anyway since the relevant laws were struck down.  Incidentally, I'm aware of the unlikelihood of the region having the same laws (barring a federal ban) but just making the point that you can't compare gun laws in Chicago and their effectiveness to those in places where you don't have the ability to take ten steps and legally buy a gun anyway.

I am not the one who introduced these objects in our conversation. Yet you are right that they are deterrents. A gun, would probably be the best deterrent. Guns are of course much more effective at killing someone, be it self defense or a murder. What I am trying to argue is that it is a tool, which is being used by men with evil intentions. If they think about killing someone, lack of a firearm will most likely not stop them. 

 

It seems to be the reason for the ineffectiveness of these gun laws is not because you can drive into a different county to legally buy a gun but because criminals do not care about laws. Just think of other nations which have strict gun control and yet the criminals in those countries find ways to supply themselves. Violent crime is still existent and of course the police is always late.

 

Last thing is that the 2nd amendment was created as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. I do not know about I have seen an unjust government that has turned on its own people. Therefore I would like to keep a gun to protect myself.

 

Also maces.

xpillow-mace.jpeg.pagespeed.ic.awcqpyLgE



#25 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:48 PM

Well, no,  That's terrible logic because I never stated that those things were used in homicides.  I said they would be deterrents to rape.  Several of them are expressly non-lethal deterrents so why you'd say "We'd have no homicides if we banned Mace" is beyond me.  The whole "But you can kill someone with a stick!" canard is moronic anyway since, if you're going to equivocate a gun with a pointy stick, you're essentially saying "We don't need guns because sticks are just as effective".  Or you admit that guns are much more effective at making people dead which trivializes the "But they'll just kill with pointy sticks" argument.  It's just a bad argument no matter how you slice it.

 

Chicago's gun laws were crippled by the ready supply of firearms from suburban Cook County and Indiana.  Banning the purchase of an item is unfortunately ineffective when you can travel literally five miles south and purchase it legally.  It would be interesting to see how it would have worked out had the entire multi-state region carried the same restrictions but it's a moot point anyway since the relevant laws were struck down.  Incidentally, I'm aware of the unlikelihood of the region having the same laws (barring a federal ban) but just making the point that you can't compare gun laws in Chicago and their effectiveness to those in places where you don't have the ability to take ten steps and legally buy a gun anyway.

 

So the murder rate in Chicago and gun violence is attributed to people going outside Chicago and LEGALLY buying firearms?

I don't think so.

 

While that certainly may be the case in "some" instances I'd have to say a majority of the inner city gun crime is committed by people who aren't legally allowed to own/carry a gun. period.



#26 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:17 PM

I don't understand why the right has such a fetish with Chicago. Not only do they really not give a shit about what happens there and cynically use it as a banner of gun regulations gone wrong, but they always conveniently ignore the facts that most of those guns used in gun violence in that city were in fact illegally purchased through authorized outlets and illegally sold. But hey, let's just blame buyers because how could the seller ever be responsible! They were just going along with the market, right? And it's not like the gun shops have any culpability either...it's not like straw purchases are illegal or anything.

inb4 "plausible deniability"
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#27 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:42 AM

So the murder rate in Chicago and gun violence is attributed to people going outside Chicago and LEGALLY buying firearms?

 

Well, a good number of them are attributed primarily to legally purchased fire arms.  Granted some of those were straw sales and the like.  I linked to an article about it and everything but I guess if "you don't think so", that's sort of close to the same thing.

 

I'd certainly agree though that many murders are committed by people who aren't legally allowed to own a gun.  Too bad then that the Usual Suspects fight tooth and nail to keep every avenue for illegal gun ownership open including straw sales, unregulated private gun sales, gun shows without  background checks, blocking requirements to report "stolen" weapons, etc.  There isn't some magic gun tree that creates these firearms -- guns illegally owned and used in murders were sold by manufacturers to agents who then let them fall through the cracks and circulate to criminals.  We can't do anything to stop that though because, you know, liberty 'n stuff.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#28 Syntax Error

Syntax Error

    Tortue d'Art

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 12:48 AM

I am not the one who introduced these objects in our conversation. Yet you are right that they are deterrents. A gun, would probably be the best deterrent.

You don't need a theoretical "best" deterrent, you just need an effective one. If a would-be assailant would be deterred by being Maced, then you didn't need a gun.
 

It seems to be the reason for the ineffectiveness of these gun laws is not because you can drive into a different county to legally buy a gun but because criminals do not care about laws.

Can't it be both? You cite other nations yet other nations with strict gun laws (and surrounded by nations with the same) have far lower homicide rates and certainly homicide-by-firearm rates that are a mere fraction of those in the US. It would seem that accessibility is a prime factor in how many people get shot.


Backlog Alphabet: Working my backlog A to Z [Blog Updated on Jan 28 - New Final Entry, Now With The Letter Z!]


#29 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:17 AM

You don't need a theoretical "best" deterrent, you just need an effective one. If a would-be assailant would be deterred by being Maced, then you didn't need a gun.

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. 

 

Can't it be both? You cite other nations yet other nations with strict gun laws (and surrounded by nations with the same) have far lower homicide rates and certainly homicide-by-firearm rates that are a mere fraction of those in the US. It would seem that accessibility is a prime factor in how many people get shot.

Well of course! Criminals will always find the best approach for them. If he is able to purchase a firearm without any hassle at a store, he will most likely do so unless he does not want to be seen buying a firearm. A criminal might also go the route of the black market for anonymity and cost effectiveness. 

 

These nations do have a lower firearm-related homicide rate, I have never denied that. What I have been trying to explain to people is that you need to find the actual reason for these crimes. Violent crime is still a major issue in all of these nations, some surpassing that of USA. It will occur because people themselves are dangerous. One of the best defenses an individual can have is a gun. You could argue that the law enforcement will protect you, I will disagree



#30 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:52 AM

But hey, let's just blame buyers because how could the seller ever be responsible! They were just going along with the market, right? And it's not like the gun shops have any culpability either...it's not like straw purchases are illegal or anything.

inb4 "plausible deniability"

I'm pretty sure it's a felony with mandatory jail time for selling a gun to a felon. It is actually taken very seriously.

 

http://bangordailyne...chsource=tophat

 

But uh.... where you want to place the blame next?