Guns, Guns Guns

NZ murder rate? 0.9.

Conclusion? Entire Country of US has a far too high homicide rate.

Relatively, compared to each other, Houston has 'low' homicide rates. But in absolute terms, which is what you should be using to avoid rigging the stats, Houston still has a level of homicide above that of Pakistan, indonesia and mongolia. Syria pre civil war had a rate of around 2.5, so the entirity of the US has a higher murder rate than a country that is currently in the midst of an extreme civil war.

So, your gun laws dont work in lowering homicide rates.

NZ 0.9
Australia 1.0
UK 1.2
USA 4.7

Yep, having ready access to guns makes you safer. Not.

I've no problem with responsible gun ownership. Growing up on an outback station (US Ranch equiv) I got an air rifle at 7, a .22 at 10, a .303 at 15, and for my 21 birthday a magnificent 12 gauge side by side (still have them - actually can reach them from where I'm sitting now). When our government started to restrict ownership I was unhappy at first, but over time realised that I could prove my responsible right to own guns, but the 18 year old druggie couldn't, so I and my family were safer.
I don't have any 200 year old fantasy that I can overthrow my democratically elected government by force if I don't agree with it, so don't need an assault rifle to get myself killed with while challenging legitimate authority. I'd even be unkind enough to say that my masculinity is secure without having to resort to carrying a gun to show how tough I am.
Bottom line is, it's 2013, leave the 19th century.

Spacekiwi wrote:NZ murder rate? 0.9.

Conclusion? Entire Country of US has a far too high homicide rate.

Relatively, compared to each other, Houston has 'low' homicide rates. But in absolute terms, which is what you should be using to avoid rigging the stats, Houston still has a level of homicide above that of Pakistan, indonesia and mongolia. Syria pre civil war had a rate of around 2.5, so the entirity of the US has a higher murder rate than a country that is currently in the midst of an extreme civil war.

So, your gun laws dont work in lowering homicide rates.

We are back to comparing cultures. Guns don't even enter into it. Though I do like how you compare us to prior to a civil war and then the conclusion is during the civil war. Like the transposition.

Subtract the gun rate from the intentional homicide rate. you still get 1.1 for the US. Think none of those other intentional homicide rates would go up if we didn't have guns?

Of course we could have that ultra modern nations that people talk about and have no legal gay marriage like some countries(must all be right wing religious fanatics there). Which I personally could care less about.

Wonder what the US murder rate would be if you subtracted LA, Chicago, New York City, Houston, Miami and the like. Not enough to put the effort into finding out. But it seems that is where most of the US gun murders <Edit> and violent crime <end edit> are occurring. Which is backed up to a large degree by comparing New York State counties and vilent crime.

Which gets me back to the US is actually two maybe three society's barely getting along. For now.

So a clean miss as far as guns go. For the US, Nameless's argument holds the best method for reducing the actual murder rate. If that is the goal. Our culture is actually different.

We just need Langhorne and company to come along and reprogram everybody. I sure wouldn't want to live there though.

Enjoy,
T2M

Spacekiwi wrote:NZ murder rate? 0.9.

Conclusion? Entire Country of US has a far too high homicide rate.

Relatively, compared to each other, Houston has 'low' homicide rates. But in absolute terms, which is what you should be using to avoid rigging the stats, Houston still has a level of homicide above that of Pakistan, indonesia and mongolia. Syria pre civil war had a rate of around 2.5, so the entirity of the US has a higher murder rate than a country that is currently in the midst of an extreme civil war.

So, your gun laws dont work in lowering homicide rates.

Daryl wrote:NZ 0.9
Australia 1.0
UK 1.2
USA 4.7

Yep, having ready access to guns makes you safer. Not.

I've no problem with responsible gun ownership. Growing up on an outback station (US Ranch equiv) I got an air rifle at 7, a .22 at 10, a .303 at 15, and for my 21 birthday a magnificent 12 gauge side by side (still have them - actually can reach them from where I'm sitting now). When our government started to restrict ownership I was unhappy at first, but over time realised that I could prove my responsible right to own guns, but the 18 year old druggie couldn't, so I and my family were safer.
I don't have any 200 year old fantasy that I can overthrow my democratically elected government by force if I don't agree with it, so don't need an assault rifle to get myself killed with while challenging legitimate authority. I'd even be unkind enough to say that my masculinity is secure without having to resort to carrying a gun to show how tough I am.
Bottom line is, it's 2013, leave the 19th century.

There you go again, Daryl. You assume that the authority of governments are the same between you nation and ours. It is not. That statement of yours further illustrates your ignorance of some essential differences between our nations.

Australia's government was imposed on it from inception. The changes that came in the transition from colony to independent nation was one of its outward form, not fundamental flow of power. IIRC the Queen is still head state, no? Could be wrong.

Power flows from your monarch and parliament to the people, who will select members of parliament who executes that power.

In the US, we rejected monarch's authority from our inception. We asserted our individual sovereignty and composed a social contract called our Constitution to organize how our society and government might be organized. United States Citizens hold the ultimate authority in our country, not the agents we elect to hold office.

It is our right and responsibility to toss out elected officials that overstep their Constitutional limits. Those office holders are our agents acting with power we lend them. They are NOT our rulers, no matter how they were elected. Representatives, presidents, senators and judges aren't the source of authority, not the office or the individuals that hold the office. We the people do.

It doesn't matter how many people vote for the group of representatives in power. They are limited in what they can do. When those representatives violate the citizens' constitutionally granted liberties, they break our social contract. That violation is the act of overthrowing legitimate authority. Tossing the bums out through elections or other more violent means is simply reasserting the legitimate authority.

If enough people don't like the current social contract, then change it. Until our Constitution is changed, our guns remain the ultimate tool to resist the usurpation of the US citizens' authority granted by our Constitution.

How do you define "murder" or "homicide".

The US rate of 4.7 per 100,000 includes murder and non-negligent homicides aka "manslaughter." Most countries do not count deaths in their murder statistics unless they are deemed to be intentional killings. Great Britain does not count deaths as murder unless there is a conviction. Official murder rates are stable but arrest and conviction rates are going down. What does this tell you about actual death rates. Look up the statistics in the United Nations Demographic Yearbook.

Talk of murder in the US focuses on gun homicides. However; the US has an appallingly high rate of murder of young children (11 and younger). Almost all youg children murdered in the US are beaten, bludgeoned, strangled orstabbed to death. It is not a gun issue.


You can't ignore demographics. Adolescents and young adults are far more likely to commit murder than the elderly. Europe, Australia, Canada, and NZ have had much lower TFRs than the US for decades. Your populations are OLD!!!!

The US has a special problem with African Americans and to a lessor extent ilegal aliens. Subtract the murders committed by AAs and hispanics from murder statistics and the US is very
close to normal.

Of course the comparison between Chicago and Houston isaclinical trial. Gun control is a failure.

Daryl wrote:NZ 0.9
Australia 1.0
UK 1.2
USA 4.7

Yep, having ready access to guns makes you safer. Not.

I've no problem with responsible gun ownership. Growing up on an outback station (US Ranch equiv) I got an air rifle at 7, a .22 at 10, a .303 at 15, and for my 21 birthday a magnificent 12 gauge side by side (still have them - actually can reach them from where I'm sitting now). When our government started to restrict ownership I was unhappy at first, but over time realised that I could prove my responsible right to own guns, but the 18 year old druggie couldn't, so I and my family were safer.
I don't have any 200 year old fantasy that I can overthrow my democratically elected government by force if I don't agree with it, so don't need an assault rifle to get myself killed with while challenging legitimate authority. I'd even be unkind enough to say that my masculinity is secure without having to resort to carrying a gun to show how tough I am.
Bottom line is, it's 2013, leave the 19th century.

Spacekiwi wrote:NZ murder rate? 0.9.

Conclusion? Entire Country of US has a far too high homicide rate.

Relatively, compared to each other, Houston has 'low' homicide rates. But in absolute terms, which is what you should be using to avoid rigging the stats, Houston still has a level of homicide above that of Pakistan, indonesia and mongolia. Syria pre civil war had a rate of around 2.5, so the entirity of the US has a higher murder rate than a country that is currently in the midst of an extreme civil war.

So, your gun laws dont work in lowering homicide rates.

Australia's government was imposed on it from inception. The changes that came in the transition from colony to independent nation was one of its outward form, not fundamental flow of power. IIRC the Queen is still head state, no? Could be wrong.

Power flows from your monarch and parliament to the people, who will select members of parliament who executes that power.

In the US, we rejected monarch's authority from our inception. We asserted our individual sovereignty and composed a social contract called our Constitution to organize how our society and government might be organized. United States Citizens hold the ultimate authority in our country, not the agents we elect to hold office.

The really funny thing is that you probably wont even understand why what you write is almost hilarious.

It doesn't matter how many people vote for the group of representatives in power. They are limited in what they can do.

No! Really? And that differs from a lot of other nations(like say, Australia or something?) how exactly?

When those representatives violate the citizens' constitutionally granted liberties, they break our social contract. That violation is the act of overthrowing legitimate authority. Tossing the bums out through elections or other more violent means is simply reasserting the legitimate authority.

Right, so you´ve gotten politicians ejected from office how many times so far?

And all the former president had to do was exploit the fear to get away with almost anything. Oh yeah, very well working system.

If enough people don't like the current social contract, then change it. Until our Constitution is changed, our guns remain the ultimate tool to resist the usurpation of the US citizens' authority granted by our Constitution.

It is our right and responsibility to toss out elected officials that overstep their Constitutional limits. Those office holders are our agents acting with power we lend them. They are NOT our rulers, no matter how they were elected. Representatives, presidents, senators and judges aren't the source of authority, not the office or the individuals that hold the office. We the people do.

And once more, why don´t you try to explain how this is different from my country, or Daryl´s?

I admit that some time ago I was ignorant regarding the US political system, however over the past few months well informed commenters here have provided plenty of well sorted information, so I think I have a reasonable understanding of it now. I'm still ignorant regarding how such a system has managed to survive into the 21st century. To me the question is not how badly the US system works, which is to be expected, but how it actually has succeeded in leading the strongest nation on earth?
To answer a couple of points raised. Technically the English Queen is our head of government, but, if you look into it, this actually ensures we don't really have onerous supervision. Poor old Betty is sensible enough to realise that if she tried to exercise any power we would tell her to go elsewhere and fornicate and then we'd become a republic. I want us to become a republic, but the main resistance to this is from people who worry that an elected president might actually have some power and want to use it.
As in all responsible democracies we have checks and balances to avoid letting our politicians have too much power. One big difference is that our constitution gives the national government power to pass laws overruling state laws. Just this week they did so to repeal gay marriage laws passed in one jurisdiction. Personally I think that action was wrong, but I know it was legal.
Another difference is that very few Australian citizens would think it was ethical or moral to consider overthrowing their elected government by armed force. I'd imagine that if they cancelled elections, ignored the constitution, and started acting dictatorially this would change, but it is not the default position of many people at all, as it appears to be in the US.
As to being ruled by our politicians, we do expect them to govern and make decisions on our behalf (even unpopular ones), but there is little deference or even respect. Politicians here are lumped in with used car salesmen, born again preachers, con men, and shonky tradesmen when it comes to surveys on trustworthiness. Being a smaller country enables us to have more access to our politicians, I've met all of the past six PMs.
The comments regarding how some of the high murder rate may be related to racial background is puzzling. Could this be that these groups are materially disadvantaged because of society's prejudices, and desperation leads to desperate acts? Plenty of research points to no genetic predisposition to violence difference exists between races, so it must be something else?

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html


Here is an excellent analysis with statistics.

Interesting post.

Almost all "gun nuts" reject the idea of armed insurrection against a Constitutionally elected government. We would prefer that political decisions be decided by the ballot box rather than the bullet box. However; we are acutely aware of how dangerous governments can become. The 20th century saw more people systematically exterminated by their own government security forces then were killed by foreign invaders.

My comments about the immense racial disparity are made with the expectation that they will be misconstrued.

A world map of global homicide rates documents that there is an undeniable racial disparity. However; the fact that Blacks in the US commit homicide at a rate almost ten times greater than whites is astounding. It was not always this way.

The best correlation to a cause of the disparity is illegitimacy rate. While Blacks in the US once had higher marriage rates, lower divorce rates and lower illegitimacy rates than whites, US welfare programs with rules that penalize women for being married combined with "moral enlightenment" have caused the Black illegitimacy rate to soar. The heartbreaking statistics on how often black people kill their children make it understandable that the children who survive such abuse are more likely to become violent.

Daryl wrote:I admit that some time ago I was ignorant regarding the US political system, however over the past few months well informed commenters here have provided plenty of well sorted information, so I think I have a reasonable understanding of it now. I'm still ignorant regarding how such a system has managed to survive into the 21st century. To me the question is not how badly the US system works, which is to be expected, but how it actually has succeeded in leading the strongest nation on earth?
To answer a couple of points raised. Technically the English Queen is our head of government, but, if you look into it, this actually ensures we don't really have onerous supervision. Poor old Betty is sensible enough to realise that if she tried to exercise any power we would tell her to go elsewhere and fornicate and then we'd become a republic. I want us to become a republic, but the main resistance to this is from people who worry that an elected president might actually have some power and want to use it.
As in all responsible democracies we have checks and balances to avoid letting our politicians have too much power. One big difference is that our constitution gives the national government power to pass laws overruling state laws. Just this week they did so to repeal gay marriage laws passed in one jurisdiction. Personally I think that action was wrong, but I know it was legal.
Another difference is that very few Australian citizens would think it was ethical or moral to consider overthrowing their elected government by armed force. I'd imagine that if they cancelled elections, ignored the constitution, and started acting dictatorially this would change, but it is not the default position of many people at all, as it appears to be in the US.
As to being ruled by our politicians, we do expect them to govern and make decisions on our behalf (even unpopular ones), but there is little deference or even respect. Politicians here are lumped in with used car salesmen, born again preachers, con men, and shonky tradesmen when it comes to surveys on trustworthiness. Being a smaller country enables us to have more access to our politicians, I've met all of the past six PMs.
The comments regarding how some of the high murder rate may be related to racial background is puzzling. Could this be that these groups are materially disadvantaged because of society's prejudices, and desperation leads to desperate acts? Plenty of research points to no genetic predisposition to violence difference exists between races, so it must be something else?