- Thread starter
- #161
So you're saying don't punish the offender if they are black?
Second Amendment advocates would this change your mind?
- Thread starter bigrebnc1775
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #162
A mass shooting is defined three or more people killed in one shooting incident. But since anti gunners changed the definition of mass shooting your count is going to be higher
- Thread starter
- #163
Pushing a false narrative is not the way to do it.
Cardinal Carminative
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2022
- 4,397
- 1,001
- 73
Not even close. But if oversimplifying topics is your thing then thing away.
Cardinal Carminative
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2022
- 4,397
- 1,001
- 73
I note you didn't actually address the numbers posted and the links.
Good for you!
False narratives are a LOT easier to push when you don't even bother to support your claims.
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Including suicides in your number is a sign of how weak your argument is.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
First, asshole...
First, crime is heavily concentrated by place. As a general matter, 5 percent of the locations in a given city account for 50 percent of that city’s crime. This finding has been replicated so often that it is sometimes referred to as “the law of crime concentration.” As David Weisburd and Taryn Zastrow note in a recent Manhattan Institute report, “there is tremendous consistency in the degree to which crime is concentrated at hot spots across cities.” This is not just a matter of neighborhoods: between 3 percent and 5 percent of specific addresses on city blocks generate 50 percent or more of reported crimes. And if the focus is strictly on violent crime, such as shootings, then even fewer locations—perhaps a drug house or a liquor-store check-cashing operation—are magnets for an even greater percentage of violent crime.
This first rule has important implications for law enforcement. Identifying and concentrating on hot spots can yield big rewards. Merely parking a patrol car outside of these addresses can lessen crime; even better to identify what exactly is going on there. Some crime may be displaced to other locations when the police shut down hot spots, but evidence shows that suppressing crime at these magnet addresses may create a diffusion of benefits that extends beyond the hot spot. After all, setting up another stash house or problematic liquor store is not always so simple.
Second, violent crime is heavily concentrated in a relatively few individuals. In general, 5 percent of the criminal offenders (not 5 percent of the general population) in a given city commit about 50 percent of that city’s violent crime. One study found that just 1 percent of offenders were responsible for over 60 percent of violent crime.
The concentration of crime among people reinforces the need for precision policing. If the police and prosecutors are able to focus on this high-offending cohort, they can respond with enhanced investigative efforts and increase the chance that these “violence generators” will face arrest, conviction, and sentencing for their crimes. Identifying the small fraction of the most dangerous criminals and taking them out of circulation reduces the violent crime rate—in a recent paper, Penn criminologist Aaron Chalfin notes that when the NYPD arrested and prosecuted members of violent criminal gangs, gun violence in gang areas fell by approximately one-third in the first year after a gang takedown. Focusing on the worst of the worst also eases the load on the criminal-justice system. In a hypothetical city of 1.5 million people with 100,000 criminal offenders, the police department has an achievable goal of targeting 5,000 violent offenders, rather than the Sisyphean task of proactively monitoring every criminal. Creative diversion programs for low-risk offenders can also preserve space in correctional facilities
Third and finally, crime is concentrated in time. It is predictable by hours, days of the week, and season. The small percentage of chronic offenders who generate the majority of serious crime and violence aren’t actively committing crime all day, every day. Instead, the criminal activity in crime hot spots and among chronic offenders tends to occur at night, during the weekends (Thursday night through early Sunday morning), and in the summer. In Philadelphia, for example, robberies and murder peak during the evenings between 10:00 P.M. and 1:00 A.M. The weekends are obvious triggers for violent crime, as there are simply more potential offenders and victims on the streets. And summer is the most dangerous time of year in most of the United States.
.Three Facts about Crime | City Journal
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
Those gun studies on having a gun are lies....created by gun grabbers...here is the most famous one....
Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....
Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;
------------
https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf
3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.
Nine Myths Of Gun Control
Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.
Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]
Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.
Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.
Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .
From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes
Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
-----
Public Health and Gun Control: A Review
Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who donÂąt.
In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or oneÂąs family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8
In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5
Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.
Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.
Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5
In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.
He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.
For example,
53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,
31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and
17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.
In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.
Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.
All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5
It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.
Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victimsÂą household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
The gun studies......
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)
2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.
CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
--------------------
Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)
Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)
Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)
Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])
Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
2021 national firearms survey..
The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
Our democrat party keeps releasing the most violent gun offenders over and over again...so it doesn't matter how many people we lock up, dipshit, if the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep releasing the most violent gun offenders who do almost all of our shootings....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
That number is a lie......because we only had 6 actual mass public shootings in 2021....according to the actual FBI definition of a mass public shooting, anti-gun fascists like you have to mix in every gang shooting you can find.....that is where the 693 comes from....
And if you stay out of democrat party controlled cities.....in the tiny areas where the gangs shoot at each other over and over again, you don't have to worry....
And again, the majority of actual gun murder victims are criminals....and of the rest, the vast majority are the friends and family of the criminals hit by mistake when the other criminals are shooting at the criminals......
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
Shitbird....you have an anti-gun extremist site that lies.....that mixes in gangs shooting at each other in order to inflate the number...because normal Americans know that an actual mass public shooting is an individual walking into a public space to murder strangers.......which happened 6 times in 2021...according to the actual FBI defintion.....
US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation
Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases.
-------
- Here is a description of the criteria we use:
- The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
- The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
- The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.)
- Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
- Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
- We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
- ----------------------
---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones......
Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...
The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
2021...6
2020....2
2019....10
Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...
2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
330 million Americans......how many committed mass public shootings in 2021....
6
How many did they murder....
43
Deer kill 200 people a year.....
Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....
Ladders 300 people a year....
bathtubs 350 people a year...
Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...
So....6 people in a country of over 330 million committed mass public shootings....and for this, you think we should ban 600 million guns...?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
Moron......the anti-gun extremists, like you....always include suicides in your numbers because if you don't, you can't generate enough murder to support your dreams of gun control........
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/
In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.
Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.
Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.
******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?
Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down.
New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.
At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.
Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.
According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.
Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.
"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.
****************
The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.
But that is of course not at all what it means.
In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.
This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.
And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.
Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review
Cardinal Carminative
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2022
- 4,397
- 1,001
- 73
Interesting. So people who commit suicides don't count as people?
Before you run around screeching that someone could easily commit suicide with non-guns, might I note that many people who kill themselves make a few attempts that are NOT successful. In some cases that means they get the time to get the help they need. But guns kind of make an "attempted suicide" a "successful suicide" more times than not.
I love how you gun folks carve out special exceptions based on your desperate hopes that guns aren't a problem.
So much special pleading. And nary a number in sight from you folks.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
murder rates are cultural. European murder is different from American murder...in America, our murder is primarily confined to criminals murdering other criminals in democrat party controlled cities.
In Europe, murder is generally a government organized and led activity directed not at criminals, but at innocent citizens, as we saw with the over 15 million murdered by the German Socialists,
Europeans murder far more innocent people than American criminals do.
If you take the American murder number, made up mostly of criminals murdering other criminals, using 1939 as a starting point...
10,235 gun murders in 2019 will be used to represent murder each year from 1939.....
10,235 X 82 years = 839,270 murders.....the majority of victims criminals
15 million murdered by European governments in the period 1939-1945, the majority of victims innocent citizens, men, women and children.
15,000,000 / 82. years.... = 182,926 averaged for each year
Any way you look at it, Europe murders far more innocent men, women and children that the US. criminals do...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
No...shithead...they don't count for gun murder.......Japan has extreme gun control...only their criminals and police have easy access to guns....you idiot...yet their suicide rate is higher than ours....as are the rates of China, South Korea, and many countries in Europe...you idiot.
So guns are not the issue in suicides, but you need to add them into the gun murder number to inflate that number......
Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide
There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.
According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.
========
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
Suicide rates by country, you idiot...
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/14/6/14_6_187/_pdf
And yet Scotland has a higher suicide rate than the U.S......Japan, where only criminals and cops have guns, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Denmark has a higher suicide rate than the u.S.....
France
Germany,
Hungary
Iceland
New Zealand
Poland
Norway
Japan
South Korea
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
Scotland..
15.7 suicides per 100,000
In 2019?
16.7 suicides per 100,000.
And in the U.S.?
13.93 per 100,000
Suicide facts and figures
Changes in Suicide Rates — United States, ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
South Korea 24.7
Hungary 21
Japan 19.4
Belgium 18.4
Finland 16.5
France 14.6
Austria 13.8
Poland 13.8
Czec Republic 12.7
New Zealand 11.9
Denmark 11.3
Sweden 11.1
Norway 10.9
Slovac Republic 10.9
Iceland 10.3
Germany 10.3
Canada 10.2
United States 10.1
A new report by Unicef contains a shocking statistic - New Zealand has by far the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world.
A shock but no surprise - it's not the first time the country tops that table.
The Unicef report found New Zealand's youth suicide rate - teenagers between 15 and 19 - to be the highest of a long list of 41 OECD and EU countries.
The rate of 15.6 suicides per 100,000 people is twice as high as the US rate and almost five times that of Britain.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,803
- 2,290
Now that I have easier access to my information, I have shown that you are an idiot, who can't back up the lies you are pushing........I backed up every stat.........you have nothing.......
Cardinal Carminative
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2022
- 4,397
- 1,001
- 73
Interesting approach there. I take it you aren't used to people questioning your "erudition".
Go ahead and work out the numbers. If you can.
You've got a population of 300million people, a gun homicide rate of 5.9 gun homices/100,000 people and 42% of American households with at least one gun.
WHile I will readily agree that high crime areas are, just that, high crime, I'm curious why our gun homicide rate is so much higher than any other developed nation (almost all of which have big cities in them).
We can make the argument that these other developed nations are either "a less violent species of humans than Americans" or that they have a society-based reason for it (more controls on guns in circulation, better social safety net, less poverty, etc.)
I know it's easy to oversimplify a system. But at some point you have to work the numbers closely.
Cardinal Carminative
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2022
- 4,397
- 1,001
- 73
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
When the DOJ declares a person is in the gangs, how do they verify that to evict the terrorist?- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 7
