Mall Killing and Other Mass Killings

[ReillyT]

No, it didn't take long and I don't think the blurbs are meaningless. It shows that many foreign countries are having increasing crime problems despite their well-meaning gun control programs…Britain in particular where it is now much more dangerous than here in the US...

"Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."

And it appears you got your info from some of those Canadian "crazy fuckers"who started the Coalition for Gun Control. Not exactly an unbiased source. For example the site claims that Canada has a "staggering" 6 billion in economic costs of violence and then claims the US costs are so much higher - 13 billion - which is in truth double the cost in actual dollars but ignores the fact that the US population is about 10 times larger than Canada. I could turn right around and say that the per capita cost of violence in anti-gun Canada is five times greater than that in the pro-gun US. Which leads up to my major points:

Your homicide stats can be false or at least misleading for different reasons. It is difficult to directly compare countries for many reasons. For example, comparing murder stats with Britain:

1. In the US we stand our ground and defend ourselves, killing in self defense if necessary, and our law supports that - whereas in Britain the law insists that one should retreat when attacked. Thus you get a higher rate in the US because of two different kinds of attitude based in law.

2. Murder rates are affected by how each country counts their murders. For example, in the US the FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder no matter the outcome of a case later whether it is later dismissed or changed to a lesser charge. This results in making US numbers as high as possible. In Britain they do just the opposite, thus making the British numbers as low as possible.

You might want to read the following which lays out the history of your country and how it has so drastically changed for the worse.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

Some of what you say is fair. Crime rates may rise and fall irrespective of gun ownership prevalence. I have no disagreement with that. Nor do I discount arguments about the prevalence of home robberies in countries that outlaw gun ownership. It is certainly possible that gun ownership itself may have something to do with that. However, the discussion that was ongoing dealt with gun deaths, and that is why I was focusing on that particular statistic.

However, there is evidence that countries that outlaw guns suffer less gun crime, and lower murder rates. There may be other factors involved besides gun prevalence. In fact, I suspect there are. Nonetheless, I think it is silly to completely discount the discrepancies in these statistics when talking about guns.

For instance, in the countries that you referred to in your posts, if you analyze the murder rates in these countries, you see that they are much lower than in the US.

From 1998-2000 (homicides per 100,000 persons):

England - 1.40
Australia - 1.50
Italy - 1.28
Germany - 1.16
USA – 4.28

In fact, the USA has the highest homicide rate of any fully developed country on the list (I am taking the stand that Russia, Latvia, and South Africa are not fully developed countries in the same way that the US, Germany, Italy and the UK are).

Does this necessarily mean that gun prevalence is the sole reason for these discrepancies? Of course not. However, one can advocate for the legality of gun ownership and still accept that gun prevalence may be connected to homicide rates, as these statistics suggest it may be.

On your other point, I accept that gun prevalence does not appear correlated to other types of crime (at least that we can see). According to the UN Report of covering 1998-2000, the US has (only marginally) more assaults and rapes than most of these other countries, but fewer burglaries and robberies. In any case, the differences in these numbers are much less extreme than the differences in homicide rates.

All statistics can be found at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

 

[ReillyT]

The simple fact is you pea brains want to ban guns because of a rate of .005% , thats right not 1 10th of one percent, not 1 100th of a percent but 5 1000th of one percent.

Law abiding citizens should surrender their weapons because you think .005 % is to much.

The number of homicides conducted with firearms in the US in 2005 was 10,100. That is the number we should be talking about. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

Now again if we are talking all violent crimes 10 percent or less are done with firearms. Again you want to ban something that has nearly no impact on crime.

That is not really accurate. It may be true that firearms may play a rather insignificant role in the overall amount of violent crimes. However, they do play a major role in homicides. Firearms were used in 68% of all homicides. The next largest type of homicides were homicides conducted with knives and cutting instruments, which accounted for just 13% of homicides. If we are talking about gun restrictions, what we are really talking about is reducing homicides, not assaults, robberies or rape.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

Ignoring the whole time that banning guns does NOT keep the criminals from having them, from getting them and from using them. All it does is encourage their use because now armed criminals KNOW we are not armed.

Once again EXPLAIN Britain , they banned guns and the result? A skyrocketing crimewave involving guns that are banned. That worked out just wonderful now didn't it.

Good point. Even if we are just talking homicides, there doesn’t appear to have been a reduction in the number of homicides by shooting in the UK since stricter gun controls were introduced. It is something to consider. However, we shouldn’t ignore the differences in the prevalence of gun homicides in the UK generally, which were always pretty low. For the years 1994-2005, here are the total number of gun homicides in the UK per year: 63, 66, 47, 58,52,46, 61,72, 97, 75, 69, 77.

You are right that the trend is upwards, but the sample size has always been very small as compared to the US.

Let me make it real plain for you.... Ban guns and you will have an armed rebellion. I and a hell of a lot of other law abiding citizens will cease to be content to have our rights removed because you think it is for our own good.

It only takes a couple million to start a war, and you will have a lot more than a couple million refusing to turn in their weapons. And we will either have the ban revoked or we will have a shooting rebellion to replace an oppressive Government.

Further, parts of the military will join in the rebellion as will police and elected officials. You want a war, go ahead.

Ever see the bumper Sticker " You can have my weapon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" Multiple that by millions.

That is just silly. Are you and the other gun owners going to form a militia and fight the US military. No. You will just keep your guns hidden and no one is going to come pounding on your door to take them. If you are caught with a gun, your options would be a Ruby Ridge sort of disaster, or you could turn it over and pay a fine. I think most people would pay the fine, although there would surely be some violent incidents over the course of the years. In any event, I doubt there would be a rebellion and I doubt you would be forcibly required to turn over your gun. Over the years however, gun prevalence would eventually decline and the price associated with getting a new gun will increase – making them more difficult to procure.

I think there are good reasons to argue that outlawing guns is not productive in the US, but the whole mass armed rebellion thing is just not going to happen.

 

[Dr Grump]

The For the years 1994-2005, here are the total number of gun homicides in the UK per year: 63, 66, 47, 58,52,46, 61,72, 97, 75, 69, 77.

Note there were a couple of dips too. Was that because of the gun ban.

A couple of observations that RGS may not be aware of. Even though certain types of guns were banned in the UK, it was a very lightly armed society in the first place.

I'd also like to say, pro-gunnies tend to skew figures without thinking them out. They especially like to throw around percentages without looking at the base numbers. For example. Country A in 2006 might have 100 homicides. In 2007 they might have 150. That is a 50% increase. Country B might have 10,000 homicides in 2006 and 14,000 in 2007. A 40% increase. What progunnies will not do is give the base figures, only the percentages, which make Country A look worse off, but who, truly is worse off (especially if the base populations of each country have hardly changed at all)?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is hilarious...

Any deaths are too much.

Except of course when YOU think they are acceptable. Like car accidents.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Note there were a couple of dips too. Was that because of the gun ban.

Given that nothing was actually banned - no.

 

[ReillyT]

This is hilarious...



Except of course when YOU think they are acceptable. Like car accidents.

Have to weigh the benefits and the detriments. Why are you still harping on about the car accident thing? You don't see that these are both qualitatively and quantitatively different?

 

[ReillyT]

Given that nothing was actually banned - no.

Handguns were nearly entirely banned in Britian in 1997, and some of the dips do follow that period. I am not suggesting that the dips are the result of the ban, but there were additonal gun restrictions imposed at that time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The number of homicides conducted with firearms in the US in 2005 was 10,100. That is the number we should be talking about.

What % of guns does that 10,100 represent?

That is not really accurate. It may be true that firearms may play a rather insignificant role in the overall amount of violent crimes. However, they do play a major role in homicides.

Homocides are a very small % iof violent crimes. To concentrate on them skews the numbers and incorrectly represents the totality of the situation - only 30% of all violent crime is committed with a gun.

If we are talking about gun restrictions, what we are really talking about is reducing homicides, not assaults, robberies or rape.

As if those crimes arent significant on their own.

That is just silly. Are you and the other gun owners going to form a militia and fight the US military. No.

Why not? Its happened before.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Handguns were nearly entirely banned in Britian in 1997, and some of the dips do follow that period. I am not suggesting that the dips are the result of the ban, but there were additonal gun restrictions imposed at that time.

Sorry -- I thought he was referring to the dips in the US rates, and crediting the AW ban.

 

[ReillyT]

What % of guns does that 10,100 represent?

No idea.

Homocides are a very small % iof violent crimes. To concentrate on them skews the numbers and incorrectly represents the totality of the situation - only 30% of all violent crime is committed with a gun.

The focus on homicide rates is indicative of the fact that a low prevalence of firearms in a country doesn't appear to correlate at all with low levels of violence crime generally. It only appears to correlate with homicides. That is not insignficant however. I think everyone would prefer fewer homicides.

As if those crimes arent significant on their own.

Those crimes are significant. They just don't appear correlated with gun prevalence.

Why not? Its happened before.

When was the last time a developed nation resorted to mass rebellion as a result of an attempt to ban firearms?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No idea.

About 0.003 - 0.005%
If the avilaibility of guns correlated to the number of murder with guns, one woudl think that % to be a lot higher.

That, and while 0.005% of guns are used to commit a homocide, 99.995% are not. Does the misuse of that 0.005% warrant the banning of the 99.995%?

The focus on homicide rates is indicative of the fact that a low prevalence of firearms in a country doesn't appear to correlate at all with low levels of violence crime generally. It only appears to correlate with homicides. That is not insignficant however. I think everyone would prefer fewer homicides.

True, but:
Guns are used in violent crime, everyone wants fewer violent crimes.

Those crimes are significant. They just don't appear correlated with gun prevalence.

The overall issue is violent crime.
You can't just throw out numbers that dont support a pre-supposed conclusion.

When was the last time a developed nation resorted to mass rebellion as a result of an attempt to ban firearms?

As a result to ban firearms? 1775?
But, that's not really the point - armed militias -have- risen up to fight an invader or oppressive government.

 

[ReillyT]

About 0.003 - 0.005%
If the avilaibility of guns correlated to the number of murder with guns, one woudl think that % to be a lot higher.

That, and while 0.005% of guns are used to commit a homocide, 99.995% are not. Does the misuse of that 0.005% warrant the banning of the 99.995%?

Some would say yes, 10,000 lives does provide sufficient basis to ban guns for everybody.

True, but:
Guns are used in violent crime, everyone wants fewer violent crimes.

True, but it appears violent crime in general will happen regardless of gun prevelance, whereas homicides may happen less frequently if guns are less prevalent.

The overall issue is violent crime.
You can't just throw out numbers that dont support a pre-supposed conclusion.

I don't have a particular conclusion. However, if one is very concerned about homicide as one (and perhaps the most heinous) type of violent crime, then gun prevalence becomes part of the discussion.

As a result to ban firearms? 1775?
But, that's not really the point - armed militias -have- risen up to fight an invader or oppressive government.

Yes, militias have sprung to fight oppressive governments, but the oppression has always (or at least in any situation that I can recall) been more significant than the level of oppression (if one can even call gun restrictions that) in our hypothetical case. Also, where militias have sprung up, they have generally be geographically situated, where gun owners are a group that is dispersed throughout the country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Some would say yes, 10,000 lives does provide sufficient basis to ban guns for everybody.

They'd be wrong. Its a totally irrational conclusion.

True, but it appears violent crime in general will happen regardless of gun prevelance, whereas homicides may happen less frequently if guns are less prevalent.

"May" happen less, presuming that the person committing the murder would not find some other way to commit that murder -- like they do in 70% of all violent crime.

Do you, by any chance, know what weapons are -most- used in violent crime?

I don't have a particular conclusion. However, if one is very concerned about homicide as one (and perhaps the most heinous) type of violent crime, then gun prevalence becomes part of the discussion.

Yes it does. Buit that discussion cannot be limited to just homocide, as ALL violent crimes are significant.

Yes, militias have sprung to fight oppressive governments, but the oppression has always (or at least in any situation that I can recall) been more significant than the level of oppression (if one can even call gun restrictions that) in our hypothetical case. Also, where militias have sprung up, they have generally be geographically situated, where gun owners are a group that is dispersed throughout the country.

All true.
The point is that one cannot dismiss out of hand the argument that part of the reason we have a right to own and use guns, and part of the reason that right is protected, is so that we can, if necessary, undertake a successful armed resistance against the government.

 

[ReillyT]

They'd be wrong. Its a totally irrational conclusion.

They are neither wrong nor irrational, it is a normative conclusion.

"May" happen less, presuming that the person committing the murder would not find some other way to commit that murder -- like they do in 70% of all violent crime.

Do you, by any chance, know what weapons are -most- used in violent crime?.

To the first part, yes.

To the second part, I don't know but since it doesn't appear that gun prevalence and violent crime appear to be related, why does it matter in this discussion. If violent crime were completely steady over a ten year period, but homicide were reduced by 80%, this would still be an accomplishment. Since gun prevalence only appears to be correlated to homicide, we should only consider a reduction in homicides as a basis for restricting guns. As for homicides, something like 70% are done with firearms.

Yes it does. Buit that discussion cannot be limited to just homocide, as ALL violent crimes are significant.

Not if violent crime generally is not correlated with gun prevalence. This advances the pro-gun position, but don't overplay the hand.

All true.
The point is that one cannot dismiss out of hand the argument that part of the reason we have a right to own and use guns, and part of the reason that right is protected, is so that we can, if necessary, undertake a successful armed resistance against the government.

Fair point, but in the modern age, erosion of liberties in developed countries has been done by consensus more than anything else. You might think that gun ownership is just such a liberty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They are neither wrong nor irrational, it is a normative conclusion.

Doesnt the extraorinarily small % of guns used to commit homocide show an lack of correlation between the presence of guns and homocide?

To the first part, yes.

So then, the argument that homocides may happen less frequently if guns are less prevalent is, at best, an issue in doubt.

To the second part, I don't know but since it doesn't appear that gun prevalence and violent crime appear to be related, why does it matter in this discussion.... Not if violent crime generally is not correlated with gun prevalence. This advances the pro-gun position, but don't overplay the hand.

Well, certainly if we;re looking at reducing violent crime in terms of addressing the weapons used in violent crime, we need to look at the weapons that ARE prevelant in violent crime. Right?

 

[ReillyT]

Doesnt the extraorinarily small % of guns used to commit homocide show an lack of correlation between the presence of guns and homocide?

A large percentage of homicides are committed with guns. Something like 68%.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

So then, the argument that homocides may happen less frequently if guns are less prevalent is, at best, an issue in doubt.

I (personally) think that homicides would be reduced if we could stongly decrease the prevalence of guns. I think comparative evidence supports this.

However, I am not sure that we could strongly decrease the prevalence of guns (considering how prevalent they currently are and how easy it is to smuggle things across our borders).

Well, certainly if we;re looking at reducing violent crime in terms of addressing the weapons used in violent crime, we need to look at the weapons that ARE prevelant in violent crime. Right?

If we have reason to think that violent crimes will occur irrespective of the prevalence of guns, then the best we can probably hope for will be a reduction in homicide - just one type of violent crime. If we are concerned about decreasing all types of violent crime, then banning guns is not (apparently) the answer - just homicides.

Once again, I don't think this is insignificant. If we replaced all homicides by firearms with assaults, that is surely a preferable and less deadly world. I am unsure that even this would be possible though.

 

[ReillyT]

There is also the issue of the level of injury associated with violent crime. Hypothetical: Suppose that in countries where guns are less prevalent, only 1% of assaults are conducted with firearms and 5% of assaults result in severe bodily injury. Suppose that in the US, 10% of all assaults are done with a firearm, and that 12% of assaults result in severe bodily injury.

I made these numbers up, but it is just meant to demonstrate that just looking at rates of violent crime may not show that there are differing levels of injury based on the manner in which assaults are conducted. So in this case, gun prevalence would have an impact on violent crime.

Just something to consider. I don't know where one could get this type of information.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A large percentage of homicides are committed with guns

Well, lets see.
-70% of non-violent crime is not committed with guns. You argue that this shows there is no correlatiob between the prevelance of guns and violent crime.
-99.995% of guns are not used in murder. This must then show that there is no correlation between the presence of guns and murders.

That is, there is no relationship between 99.995% of guns and murder; there is no relationship between 99.85% of guns and violent crime. You discount the latter but count the former?

Such a small % guns are used in murder that it is imposible to argue that the number of guns correlates to the number of murders.

I (personally) think that homicides would be reduced if we could stongly decrease the prevalence of guns. I think comparative evidence supports this.

But, to what degree?

 

[ReillyT]

Well, lets see.
-70% of non-violent crime is not committed with guns. You argue that this shows there is no correlatiob between the prevelance of guns and violent crime.

I didn't argue that. I would argue that since a host of countries (thus helping account for other variables) which ban guns still show levels of violent crime commensurate with that seen in the US, this suggests that gun prevalence and the incidence of violent crime are not correlated.

-99.995% of guns are not used in murder. This must then show that there is no correlation between the presence of guns and murders.

That is, there is no relationship between 99.995% of guns and murder; there is no relationship between 99.85% of guns and violent crime. You discount the latter but count the former?

Such a small % guns are used in murder that it is imposible to argue that the number of guns correlates to the number of murders.?

On the other hand, in a host of countries that ban guns, levels of homicide (and especially homicide by guns) are significantly lower than in the US. This suggests that gun prevalence and homicides are correlated. (Actually, it does more than suggest, it is itself the correlation) Why would the fact that a small percentage of total guns are used in murder suggest that murder and guns aren't correlated when a large percentage of murders are done with a gun?

But, to what degree?

Don't know, but if I had to take a guess, I would think that if gun prevalence were reduced in the US to the same level as in Germany, Italy, the UK, and Australia, then our homicide rates would look closer to theirs - reduced by 50-75%. That is just my guess though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't argue that. I would argue that since a host of countries (thus helping account for other variables) which ban guns still show levels of violent crime commensurate with that seen in the US, this suggests that gun prevalence and violent crime are not correlated....

Why would the fact that a small percentage of total guns are used in murder suggest that murder and guns aren't correlated when a large percentage of murders are done with a gun?

Because if the availability or prevelance of guns related to the number of gun homocides, then there would be significant number of guns used in homocide.
0.005% is not a significant number.

Also, you so very quickly dicsount the correlation between the prevelance of guns and violent crime, when up to 40x more guns are used in violent crime than in murder. You discount a number that is 40x larger than the number you count on the grounds that there is 'no correlation' in the larger number?

Sure, a higher % (68%) of murders involve guns, but, given the relattionship to the number of guns involved (10k v 400k), that 68% is not SO much higher than the 30% of overall violent crime to allow you to simply dismiss the numbers involving violent crime with a 'there's no correlation'.

This is because murder is a tiny fraction of overall violent crime. A LOT more guns are used to commit a LOT more violent crimes than simnply homocide -- and you're trying to argue 'no corelation'. You're trying to focus the argument so the numbers skew in your favor.

Don't know, but if I had to take a guess, I would think that if gun prevalence were reduced in the US to the same level as in Germany, Italy, the UK, and Australia, then our homicide rates would look closer to theirs - reduced by 50-75%. That is just my guess though.

If you were to eliminate ALL gun murders in the US (and not replace any of them with non-gun murders) our murder rate will still be signifcantly higher.

This indicates that our 'probelm' is not the guns, and their 'solution' is not their gun control.