Guns, Guns Guns

Invictus wrote:Might seem contrary, but I don't think, looking at the history and the current state of affairs, having an armed populace did deter tyranny. All it did was slow it down. Kind of like the frog in the pot, so long as it happens slow enough, it won't notice when the pot starts to boil. Consider this;

1. The American Revolution was kicked off by a number of things, including a tax on tea to repay the French and Indian wars (Please correct me if I'm wrong in the specifics) How do you think those colonists would have reacted to being told that they had to surrender a quarter of everything they earned to the crown? And yet, slowly but steadily, that's what has happened. It started with a 2% income tax after your civil war, became a permanent fixture with the 16th amendment, (which passed, in part, because "It's only 3%!"). How much of what you earn are you allowed to keep by your government?

2. The fourth amendment says;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
So, how is it legal to have you computers and data seized without warrant? "Its not paper." Ask yourself, if you changed the text of the amendment to read "Persons, houses, data, and effects", would it change the spirit of it at all?

Guns don't defend against tyranny. But they can help you defend yourself from direct violence.

Just my opinion anyway.

I wish I could disagree, but I can't. If a large enough plurality wants tyranny badly enough, they will get it.

PeterZ wrote:Agreed. The utility is indeed questionable depending on the circumstances. What isn't questionable, are those policemen on their bikes that weren't armed. They wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing even if the assailants were less powerfully armed. Those policemen were smart to flee immediately.

So having a weapon doesn't guarantee being able to successfully defend one's self against an opponent intent on causing harm. Not having a weapon deceases the average person's chances of defending himself/herself to near 0. When one's life is on the line, I would like any advantage I can beg, borrow or steal.

This reasoning skips over one critial part of the calculation. What disseminating weapons throughout the population does to the odds your life is going to be on the line in the first place.

And we know the answer to that part too. Yes, France had a nasty mass shooting. But that's a rarity there where in the US that could be any given month. So somehow I don't see "make your gun policy more like the US" to be a suggestion the average citizen of France is going to see as a spectacularly good idea as a response to this incident. Nor should they.

The average citizen of France has much less to worry about in the "if your life is on the line" department than the average citizen of the US, and that's just a fact of the statistics. Whether we're talking about make-the-headlines mass shootings or regular old homicides by any means.

Scrambling to arm up at the first realization or pointed reminder that there's bad people in the world is a panic reaction, not a reasoned strategy to improve the personal security of your citizenry. And as with most panic reactions, it ends up being counter productive.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Agreed. The utility is indeed questionable depending on the circumstances. What isn't questionable, are those policemen on their bikes that weren't armed. They wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing even if the assailants were less powerfully armed. Those policemen were smart to flee immediately.

So having a weapon doesn't guarantee being able to successfully defend one's self against an opponent intent on causing harm. Not having a weapon deceases the average person's chances of defending himself/herself to near 0. When one's life is on the line, I would like any advantage I can beg, borrow or steal.

This reasoning skips over one critial part of the calculation. What disseminating weapons throughout the population does to the odds your life is going to be on the line in the first place.

And we know the answer to that part too. Yes, France had a nasty mass shooting. But that's a rarity there where in the US that could be any given month. So somehow I don't see "make your gun policy more like the US" to be a suggestion the average citizen of France is going to see as a spectacularly good idea as a response to this incident. Nor should they.

The average citizen of France has much less to worry about in the "if your life is on the line" department than the average citizen of the US, and that's just a fact of the statistics. Whether we're talking about make-the-headlines mass shootings or regular old homicides by any means.

Scrambling to arm up at the first realization or pointed reminder that there's bad people in the world is a panic reaction, not a reasoned strategy to improve the personal security of your citizenry. And as with most panic reactions, it ends up being counter productive.

Sorry but the data indicates that the availability of guns in the US, all else being equal, is not strongly correlated to the per capita murder rate. That suggests that any variance in France's per capita murder rate to that of the US is driven by something else besides the availability of guns. Identifying that something is worthwhile.

I don't recall arguing that France should adopt the US gun model. I only suggested that being unarmed is more dangerous to one's health when confronted with an enemy desiring ones death than being armed all else being equal.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:This reasoning skips over one critical part of the calculation. What disseminating weapons throughout the population does to the odds your life is going to be on the line in the first place.

And we know the answer to that part too. Yes, France had a nasty mass shooting. But that's a rarity there where in the US that could be any given month. So somehow I don't see "make your gun policy more like the US" to be a suggestion the average citizen of France is going to see as a spectacularly good idea as a response to this incident. Nor should they.

The average citizen of France has much less to worry about in the "if your life is on the line" department than the average citizen of the US, and that's just a fact of the statistics. Whether we're talking about make-the-headlines mass shootings or regular old homicides by any means.

Scrambling to arm up at the first realization or pointed reminder that there's bad people in the world is a panic reaction, not a reasoned strategy to improve the personal security of your citizenry. And as with most panic reactions, it ends up being counter productive.

Sorry but the data indicates that the availability of guns in the US, all else being equal, is not strongly correlated to the per capita murder rate.

I already explained why the data you were looking at was useless for establishing the lack of correlation you were attempting to argue for. You cannot effectively utilize two regions with absolutely no barriers to gun flow between them for a study in how the presence of guns impacts their homicide rates. Your data on what guns are where at any given time will be totally unreliable.

AND I showed you cross-national data that was a useful test case since the borders between the different areas was controlled to prevent the free and unrestricted flows of firearms across them that showed the opposite. An extremely strong correlation was demonstrated.

I don't recall arguing that France should adopt the US gun model. I only suggested that being unarmed is more dangerous to one's health when confronted with an enemy desiring ones death than being armed all else being equal.

It's also hazardous to one's health to allow easy and ready access to deadly weapons to people prone to desiring one's death... by, say, saturating the general population with a ridiculous amount of said weapons. Much more so actually, seeing as the person desiring your death is almost always going to have the luxury of the initiative and picking when to take their shot.

gcomeau wrote:
I already explained why the data you were looking at was useless for establishing the lack of correlation you were attempting to argue for. You cannot effectively utilize two regions with absolutely no barriers to gun flow between them for a study in how the presence of guns impacts their homicide rates. Your data on what guns are where at any given time will be totally unreliable.

AND I showed you cross-national data that was a useful test case since the borders between the different areas was controlled to prevent the free and unrestricted flows of firearms across them that showed the opposite. An extremely strong correlation was demonstrated.

If the increase or decrease of the presence of guns do not influence the per capita murder rate in ANY region in the US, it follows that guns do not influence murder. If guns influence murder, then the mere increased presence of guns will drive the murder rate higher.There are many places in the world with fewer guns available that have higher per capita murder rates. France has fewer guns available and a lower per capita murder rate. There are other factors in play.

To assume that the cause of the disparity in murder rates between France and the US is the presence of guns when data suggests otherwise is an act of faith. As in believing through faith and faith alone that a truth is indeed true. Sounds like a religious argument to me. I pass.

If you are saying that people who wish to commit murder will take the time to ship in guns from other areas, that would argue the presence of guns have a different impact on premeditated murder than manslaughter. Because manslaughter is a heat of the moment event and premeditation requires planning to import a gun, this must be true. There is no evidence that suggests this is true. The national data does nothing to suggest this distinction.

Also, the population density influence is so much greater than the presence of guns that insisting that guns are the best target for the prevention of murder is a bit myopic.

Bottom line is that we begin to argue not data but faith. Again, I pass.

PeterZ wrote:If the increase or decrease of the presence of guns do not influence the per capita murder rate in ANY region in the US, it follows that guns do not influence murder.

I repeat, the data you were speaking to when you made that claim cannot be meaningfully used to show that. There are *no boundaries or controls* on the flow of guns between the different areas you are comparing, it is impossible to accurately account for the relative whereabouts of all the weaponry in those regions.

If guns influence murder, then the mere increased presence of guns will drive the murder rate higher.

Ahem:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3694&start=807

Why yes... it will...

Something has to be driving that ~75% lower murder rate. It may or may not be guns, but something big is definately having a factor in the vast reduction in murders.

Same with frances 3.1 deaths per 100,000 by guns, as compared to the states at 10.3. Almost triple the gun deaths in a country suggest somethings wrong.

As for density, paris has 12 million people at a density of 23,000, so its up there with a 6,000/km2 higher density than san fran, 10,000 more than boston, 11 more than chicago, and has the population of all 3 combined, and then some. Frances overall density is 110/km2, or about that of several of your states, so population density is similar.

Overall, france has a gun murder rate of around .2 per 100,000, with only Hawaii as the only state to go below that. the averaged gun murder rate for the us was 2.75 in 2011, or 14 times higher.

So, 3 times lower murder rate, violent crime rate, gun death rate, and a density higher than that of many states and cities, and 1/15th the gun murder rate. France is sure as hell doing something right.

Can't be the culture, as my french aunt has experiences of the countryside that showed some parts of france to be even more racist and isolationist than the stereotypical redneck, along with the street gangs associated with the anti immigration wing in france.

Cant be density, see above.

cant be overall crime rates, as france has an average of 1.5 times the overall crime rate of the us per capita.


Now the interesting thing is france has a gun ownership level of ~30 per 100 people, to the US's 90, so there appears to be a correlation, or potentially even caustion, between the gun ownership levels, and gun crimes. 1/3 the guns, 1/3rd the gun crimes, 1/3rd the gun deaths, 1/4th the murder rate, 1/2 the rape rate, and an overall lower violent crime rate. May not be causation, but theres definitely a strong hint of strong causation.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate


http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

PeterZ wrote:France has fewer guns available and a lower per capita murder rate. There are other factors in play.

To assume that the cause of the disparity in murder rates between France and the US is the presence of guns when data suggests otherwise is an act of faith. As in believing through faith and faith alone that a truth is indeed true. Sounds like a religious argument to me. I pass.

If you are saying that people who wish to commit murder will take the time to ship in guns from other areas, that would argue the presence of guns have a different impact on premeditated murder than manslaughter. Because manslaughter is a heat of the moment event and premeditation requires planning to import a gun, this must be true. There is no evidence that suggests this is true. The national data does nothing to suggest this distinction.

Also, the population density influence is so much greater than the presence of guns that insisting that guns are the best target for the prevention of murder is a bit myopic.

Bottom line is that we begin to argue not data but faith. Again, I pass.

In country France, Sundays tend to be hunting days.
An image I have retained from my last visit to France is a large field in Dordogne that had a circle of armed hunters converging on the few game birds in the centre. It appears that not only Ireland has circular firing squads.

Spacekiwi wrote:Something has to be driving that ~75% lower murder rate. It may or may not be guns, but something big is definately having a factor in the vast reduction in murders.

Same with frances 3.1 deaths per 100,000 by guns, as compared to the states at 10.3. Almost triple the gun deaths in a country suggest somethings wrong.

...snip...
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

I was going to do a big research first line I saw in the first article ~21% of the French are victims of crime. Or some such. Decided I really didn’t want to know after that. All right I looked 29% of Americans have been victims. Largest category 8% computer fraud lets ban all computers. from a 2007 survey.http://www.gallup.com/poll/102658/US-Cr ... -Flat.aspx

Thing is which of these countries is going in which direction. Violent crime rate in the US cut in half since 1993 actual incidents going down by 1/3(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1). France everything I can find is going up. I'm not smart enough to find actual numbers. Lets model on somewhere that is going in the wrong direction.

Did you look at France's Suicide Rate. Holy Cow Batman.

France is about double the US for all but one age group,15-24.

Oh wait ... that link data is from 1990 (for suicide anyway rest vary).

But in the US you are according to Wiki(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate) the rate for 2011 20.3 double that gun death rate. France's is 22.8.

Unless of course you go by this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in ... -trend.jpg) then it is only ~10 in 2005. I think.

Did I ever mention that I dislike wiki rather intensely. Which data do I trust? (Oh by the way the link above is using wiki data.)

I all fairness I don't think suicide should be a crime. A shame but not a crime. Which of course gets into each person's or country's definitions. Which aren't the same.

My religion if you want is personal responsibility. What promotes it? What detracts from it?

Do I want some thug bouncing my head off a sidewalk or to be able to be vilified by the press for killing him? Yep I will take that second option. Though due to size I normally don't have to worry about that I am more likely to be considered the thug. Big GUY, looks to be in shape.

Or perhaps the two pizza delivery people recently in the news. One female works for Papa John's guy throws her on the ground points a gun at her. She reaches in her pocket and shoots him in the face. Didn't kill him though, damn it, police did arrest him. PAPA JOHN'S ISN'T firing her for protecting herself. Wish I ate more delivery pizza have a local Papa John's.

Or the other guy unarmed gets shoved in the trunk of his car for a joy ride(?) while the idiots try to ram his car into a gun store (poetic irony on the topic?). Perpetrators still at large.

People deserve to be able to demonstrate their idiocy or competence not have me get up on my pulpit and tell them what they can and can’t have. They need to learn that actions have consequences. I used to think the three laws of robotics were a wonderful thing. Any more they are the source of nightmares.

A reason why my only vehicle is a motorcycle, any idiot out there can kill me any time they want. My fault if they can do it though. I should have seen them coming. Plus it is good for the environment less than 1/4 of the resources used as a car better fuel mileage and more efficient.

Which brings up another issue in my mind for all the crime stats. Ask the DMV or my insurance company I haven’t had an accident in this century. Ask me I have crashed my motorcycle somewhere north of 10 times not sure(does it count when I was on that ranch "road" in Montana mud looking like dry dirt . . . ). Get up duct tape pieces back together (if required) get bike home purchased/replace parts (if required). So how many like me for those crime stats? I don’t know.

I do know that comparing rape stats is more a function of many other things than how often it happens. Assault many of the same things are in there. Gun deaths pretty hard to cover up I do for the most part consider them accurate in the 1st world. I consider it a feature not a bug.

Have fun,
T2M

PS Still think it hilarious in a lot of ways that I seem to be one of the huge proponents for something I don’t own.

If guns by themselves caused higher murderer rates, the boundaries of control you are so in love with wouldn't matter. Where are are more guns there will be higher rates of murderer within the US. That data isn't supported.

Your claim on a national scale should indicate the the US has the highest murderer rate in the world. That is also not supported by evidence. There are countries with higher murderer rates but have less gun availability.

Popular culture, a desensitivity to violence, the glorification of violence and criminality all have their influences on murder rates. These might or might not find expression through guns. These influencers would also better explain international disparities in murder rates. Ignoring those influencers and focusing on guns primarily when the data DOES NOT definitively proove causation between guns and higher murderer rates, will do very little to reduce violent crime and attempted murderer.

Since gun ownership is protected by our Constitution, addressing those other more direct causes of violence will be more effective. NY is a case in point. That city always had strict gun controls. Under Juliani they reduced violent crime and especially murder by an astonishing degree. High population density and subject to no effective boundry control of guns but they are the exception to the rule in the US. Better to find out why and emulate that then chase chase unproven fancies that reduce our liberties.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:If the increase or decrease of the presence of guns do not influence the per capita murder rate in ANY region in the US, it follows that guns do not influence murder.

I repeat, the data you were speaking to when you made that claim cannot be meaningfully used to show that. There are *no boundaries or controls* on the flow of guns between the different areas you are comparing, it is impossible to accurately account for the relative whereabouts of all the weaponry in those regions.

If guns influence murder, then the mere increased presence of guns will drive the murder rate higher.

Ahem:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3694&start=807

Why yes... it will...