CNN has done a nice piece with some data about gun ownership and culture compare with the rest of the world. Most of the data provided I don't find that particularly interesting apart from two: Statistics on gun homicide rates and mass shootings. While neither is really that surprising, it does give some numbers to compare to other countries around the world. Here is the link to the article: http://us.cnn.com/2017/07/19/world/us-gun-crime-police-shooting-statistics/index.html The article also mentions a survey done in which 66% of US gun owners own multiple firearms and nearly three-quarter of gun owners saying the couldn't imagine not owning one. I do assume that some of these people are not hunters or need their weapon professionally in another capacity. So here my question: Why is the the possibility of not owning a firearm that unimaginable?
Here's a gem from that article: Countries without armed police officers on average exhibit gun-homicide rates markedly lower than countries with armed police forces. So let me see if I understand. CNN wants to tell us that police with guns shoot more people than police without guns. That's an amazing revelation right there. Then your article goes on to give us a list of "countries with the most guns" and "countries with the least guns", then tells us that GUN murder is much higher in countries with guns. Again, duh. Why does it only talk about "gun" murders? Here's why: http://www.nationmaster.com/country...-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people#country Out of the "top 10" countries with the least guns, the murder rate in half of them greatly exceeds that of the US, despite our swimming in firearms. East Timor murder rate: 6.95 per 100k Ghana murder rate : 15.7 per 100k Ethiopia 24.5 per 100k Indonesia 8.1 per 100k Eritria 16.3 per 100k There is NO GLOBAL CORRELATION between firearm ownership, and murder.
OK, but you didn't answer my question. The article points out that the countries with the highest homicide rates are in Central and South America. You're also implying that in terms murder rates, the US ought to be compared to countries with the least amount of firearms listed above, and not compared to Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. Why is it not justified to compare to a high income country? Would the article gotten your approval, if they hadn't listed the 10 countries with the least amount of firearms, and only stuck to the countries with the most? United States: 4.88 per 100k Japan: 0.31 per 100k Britain: 0.92 per 100k Canada: 1.68 per 100k Australia: 0.98 per 100k
The main correlation is between poverty and murder rate. However, south america countries tend to have even higher murder rate despite being slighty richer than africa. The main factor is the richness. Globally, the richer you are, the less you kill. However, their is secondary factors, like culture, laws and how powerfull are the gangs. The numbers of guns seems to influence, but not as a primary effect.
Because to not own a firearm after owning a firearm means that the government has exceeded it's Constitutional power to take those guns away. That's the unimaginable part -- that we would have to be subjected to that level of tyranny.
For the same reason it is unimaginable to not have a fire extinguisher in your house, or wear your seatbelt while in a car. You might not need it, but if you do, and don't have it, there is a really good chance you will not need to worry about it again.
This is greatly exacerbated by the fact a certain demographic which makes up 12.6% of our population commits ~55% of our murders.
Simple poverty is not a good explanation for murder. Petty crime, theft, things like that....yeah. Not taking someone else's life. The Appalachia area of the US has extreme poverty, but not high murder rates. When you exclude murder, poor hispanics in the US have a lower rate of crime than both whites and blacks: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137 In the US, even when income is adjusted for, there are still clear disparities in homicide:
Firearms are not uncommon in Canada I'm afraid. The firearm bans in both the UK and Australia did nothing other than make them feel better, there was no real impact on murder or violent crime: http://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654 After all, firearm sales in the US continue to break records, and our murder rate has been falling since the 90's as well. Clearly firearms are not a CAUSE of violent crime. One other interesting point about murder in Australia: Apparently they keep TWO statistics on murder The murder rate for "Indigenous" people in Australia is 5 per 100k as of 2014. The Northern Territory murder rate in Australia is 6.5 per 100k as of 2014. Let me ask you a question: If you had a firearm, would you be more likely to murder someone?
I said it was the primary determinant. If you look at the list of countries, poor countries tend to have the most murders, and rich countries the lowest. But it's not always true, for instance USA and some other developped countries have much more murder than a lot of poor countries. By the way, the murder rate of a country is something complex and can't be simplified at a simple determinant. Their is a lot of secundary determinants, culture, laws and I'm sure much more again. Both sides of pro and anti guns tend to resume the murder rate at something simple, it isn't. I would say that a lot of weapons tend to worsen the homicide rate but don't create by itself a high murder rate. Furthermore, a large population of the USA live slighty isolated and their is a lot of wild areas in the USA, guns are necessary in USA. I'm not american, so I look more at the situation with curiosity and by the way I respect any decision made by the US citizens. From the morality point of view, I think we can all agree that a gun is a big responsibility, like a car can be a big responsibility. You have to be extremly serious when you use it because both can destroy lives. That's why I think that having a gun without a license isn't a good thing. To many people are too much irresponsible and imature unfortunately.
I agree with the premise that it's not simple. My point is that having access to firearms, or machetes, or bomb making materials doesn't make someone more likely to kill.
I disagree with that because of many reasons : _ All murder attempt don't end with a death, and knife wounds are globally more easier to heal than gun bullets. For instance, not far from my home, a mad man assaulted some people before being shot by the police. He heavily wounded a young man but that man was saved, he assaulted two young girls too who could take shelter in a building without being harmed. _ It's easier to kill many people with a gun than with a knife. _ The emotions are a big part of the reasons people kill people, it's often not planned, but the result of anger, sometimes even sadness or madness. An angry man with a gun is more dangerous than an angry man with a knife. _ Accidents happens too. When you have an accident while using a knife, it's already a big issue, but accidents with guns are bigger. My two last points show for me how much important it's to be extremly responsible when you have a gun. By the way, some criminals can get guns through black market, but it's harder, you must have connections with black market which isn't often not the case for isolated mad people, and it cost more.
You took wrong meaning from his statement. Giving someone a weapon does not make him more likely to commit a crime than the next guy who has no weapon. Given the number of gun in the US and the number of people killed and injured in gun accidents, its hard to argue we, as a whole, are irresponsible with our firearms.
Again, you're missing the point of this entire topic and my question. I didn't claim nor did the article claim that murder rates or violent crime disappears without guns. The only thing they claim (in the article) is a significant reduction in mass shootings and apparently also a reduction of shootings committed by the police.
Actually, if your heart is still beating when you get to a hospital, you have a 95% chance of surviving a gunshot. 80% of gunshots are not fatal. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?mcubz=0 Regardless, one does not prevent murder and crime by disarming the VICTIMS. Lets say three men tried to break into your house and kill your family. What would you do?
This is well on topic and I thank you for that reply. Yeah that does make sense. But it is only a law (even if it's a constitutional one) after all. Do you think that all amendments are that sacred or is the 1st and 2nd special because they're mentioned in the media that often?
Well duh. If a cop doesn't have a gun, how is he going to shoot more people? Any people for that matter. It's entirely possible that police in country A without guns kill more people than police in country B with guns though.
So in your opinion the most homogenes peoples have the least murders, and diversity leads to murders, or are you specifically pointing out a specific group? By the way, nearly 5 million people (7%) out of the 67 million in France have an African background in France, yet 1.26 people out of 100k get murdered in France compared to 5 in the USA. So even if you took away all those 55% of the murders committed, it's still twice as likely to get murdered in USA compared to France. Why? http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime
I didn't even see that as the point. I saw the point elsewhere: If a cop stops someone for a random check, and there is no reason for the police officer to assume that the person they're stopping is armed, then it's less like for the police officer to be on edge and shoot someone. The entire German police-force shoots less than 200 rounds of ammo per year. I dare to say that that much is shot by the police in your state on annual bases. There is a reason that the US police actually shoots and kills people on pretty regular bases while this doesn't happen regularly in Germany, even though the German police is armed as well...
Yes. The reason is that there are more violent people and gangs in the US. Read the article again: it says that police without guns shoot fewer people than police that have guns. Not exactly rocket science. It doesn't say that police without guns kill fewer people than police with guns.
Relevant to the conversation because the 2.4 is still double of pretty much any Western European country, as I pointed out. This is true for Australia & Japan too. It's even 44% higher than Canada's.
Nope. Blacks in France and what they do is not relevant to the blacks in the US and what they do. Apples/oranges; the only commonality is the color of their skin. Yup. The point?
Double a small number is still a small number. Australia and Japan are both Islands. I lived in Japan for many years. You could hand every Japanese person there a firearm and the murder rate would not go up. Australia's murder rate is carefully scrubbed for appearances. Like I said earlier, the murder rate in Australias Northern Territory is 6.5 per 100k.
My point is that countries in Europe can be as diverse yet don't have the homicide rates of the US: So something is clearly different. And something is very unique about America to have that many violent crimes and incarcerated people compared to any other high income country in the world. And tell me what it could be, other than gun ownership. Because everything else you'd find in i.e. Canada too... I think you ought to look at the map. Australia is not an island. By that rational, if you took away all the guns in the US, you believe mass murders would be just as successful killing multiple people in minutes with knifes than with guns? And what does the one territory in Australia prove? Should we look then at Louisiana with 10.3 per 100k, rather than all of the entire US?
Yup. And this surely accounts for the disparity in homicide rates. Um...... no. If you want to argue the high rate of homicide in the US is caused by the high rate of gun ownership in the US - and apparently you do - the onus is on -you- to support said argument, not for someone to a show otherwise. Shame on you for engaging in such silliness. While trying to support said argument, be sure to allow for these facts: -For every gun in the US used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not. -1993-2016, the US murder rate dropped 55% while the number of the guns increased by scores of millions.