Jump to content

Looking for a 'news' story about an experiment with kids and guns


Recommended Posts

Posted that almost accidentally whilst looking for accidental gun deaths, and suicides. I am concious that shooting a would-be assailant would not be included in murder figures!

Or would it? !

I think it would because the stats are for homicides, which include all forms of killing, except for state sanctioned execution.

Culture plus access? Suicides feature very largely in European death figures with about 80% due to that.

Most of Australia's firearms deaths are suicides now days largely because farmers are one of the largest groups still with wide access to firearms and also one of the largest groups subject to considerable socio-economic pressures. They were also one of the groups most vocal about removal of weapons from the general populace. Sadly they shoot themselves more than the pigs, foxes and kangaroos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Culture plus access?

That culture plays a huge roll I think is beyond question. US homicide rates are not uniform across demographics. For example, over half of all homicides in the US are committed by African Americans. That is a staggering statistic considering that African Americans are only 13% of the US population. Anyone serious about crime in the US would be better served looking into this instead of guns, IMO.

9 of the top 10 states with the highest homicide rates are located below the Mason-Dixon line.

As for "access", if you look at firearm ownership rates by state and homicide rates by state the results are all over the map. There are states with a lot of guns and a lot of homicides, and states with a lot of guns and relatively few homicides. I happen to live in one of the latter. In fact, I live in the state with the highest per capita firearm ownership rate in the US. It also coincidentally has a homicide rate half the national average. At the other extreme end of the spectrum you have the District of Columbia, which had a near total ban on handguns from 1976 to 2007 and has a gun ownership rate smaller than any state, yet sports a homicide rate over 4 times the national average.

The good news is that the homicide rate in the US has dropped by almost half over the last 20 years. In fact, rates of crimes of all types are way down. I'm guessing that is not due to tougher guns control laws since there really haven't been any, except for the Brady Law, which I support since it aims to keep guns out of the hands of criminals specifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for "access", if you look at firearm ownership rates by state and homicide rates by state the results are all over the map.

I usually avoid gun control threads like the plague, but the point you raise is in line with the per country stats above. See how low Israel is? Yet that's a country where it's not hard to spot soccer mums with an Uzi slung over their shoulder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually avoid gun control threads like the plague,

Thereby proving you are a wiser man than I ;)

but the point you raise is in line with the per country stats above. See how low Israel is? Yet that's a country where it's not hard to spot soccer mums with an Uzi slung over their shoulder.

Yep. Mexico has a higher homicide rate than the US despite a much lower gun ownership rate. Switzerland has relatively lax (by European standards) gun laws and a high rate of gun ownership. Compared to, for example, the UK it has a higher rate of homicide by gun but it's overall homicide rate is lower.

Here in the US the state of Wisconsin has a gun in about 44.4% of households and a homicide rate of 2.5 per 100,000. The proud state of Louisiana has a nearly identical gun ownership rate of 44.1% of households but a homicide rate of 11.8 per 100,000. Clearly it's not the guns that are the difference. IMO cultural and economic factors are the driving forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weapons being issued to serving military personnel have no bearing on the crime rate, laws in Israel are far stricter than many countries

Israel : ".22 rifles are banned, except grandfathered ones, hunting with rifles is illegal. Any form of outdoor shooting is illegal. People may only buy 50 rounds per year, except those shot at public ranges."

And this is a country that is genuinely under threat not some macho, perceived, racially based preconception.

Switzerland:

"Each individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place. The ammunition are intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion. When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed"

It's all about the context. Swiss are required to be armed to guard against invasion from forces external to the country, as opposed to constitutionality permitted to gun down whom they see fit.

Best figures I can find for the Police in Oz is 69 deaths by Police shooting between 1984 and 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good news is that the homicide rate in the US has dropped by almost half over the last 20 years. In fact, rates of crimes of all types are way down.

The reason usually cited for that is that the percentage of males in the population between the ages of 15 and 40 has steadily declined during that period.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

North Carolina is the example that was given, apparently there are others

Not where I live. Laws vary from state to state, but in general, when in our homes, if someone breaks in we are not required to wait until the intruder has a weapon trained on us. If we see they are armed we can kill them right then and there, even if they are not yet aware of our presence. In some states you are only required to have reasonable cause to believe the intruder intends to commit a felony. For example, North Carolina:

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(B) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone breaking into my house is not just anyone I see fit. It's a very small subset of anyone I see fit. In fact, I just went to check and I could not find anyone breaking into my house right now. That means that, unfortunately, I cannot constitutionally shoot anybody at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we go back to talking about how the smuggleability (new word there) of items are based on their resale value, and our coming 1.7 billion dollar windfall when the Afghan war ends? I'm beginning to look back wistfully on that part of the discussion as a period of relative sanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we go back to talking about how the smuggleability (new word there) of items are based on their resale value, and our coming 1.7 billion dollar windfall when the Afghan war ends? I'm beginning to look back wistfully on that part of the discussion as a period of relative sanity.

You mean the bit were I tried to explain that if 1 Mexican smuggles 1 gun that weighs 1 kilo then 1 African American has 1 gun but if 1 Mexican smuggles 1kg of Coke then 1000 African Americans get a hit of drugs but I couldn't and you didn't get it?

But I am glad that you think shooting burglars is insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is a lot of people you want to shoot then ?

Just the ones breaking into my house. On most days that would not constitute "a lot".

You mean the bit were I tried to explain that if 1 Mexican smuggles 1 gun that weighs 1 kilo then 1 African American has 1 gun but if 1 Mexican smuggles 1kg of Coke then 1000 African Americans get a hit of drugs but I couldn't and you didn't get it?

Oh, I get that. What I don't get is how that makes smuggling guns in any way difficult.

But I am glad that you think shooting burglars is insane.

This is normally where JonS parachutes into the discussion out of nowhere blabbering about strawmen and declaring you the loser of this discussion via his personal unanimous decision.

I leave you with a random pic of the Swiss Army in action:

swissgirls.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the ones breaking into my house. On most days that would not constitute "a lot". ]

So as the people you see fit to shoot are the burglars, the premise is upheld that you have been given a legal right to shoot whom you see fit.

The problem arises now that at what point do you not have the right to shoot whom you see fit ? As the law goes little by little the precedent is set to broaden the interpretation, first it becomes you are allowed to shoot someone who was entering your house, then someone crossing the lawn, then to someone who looked like they would enter your property with intent, then to someone who just looked like they would enter your property, then to someone who just walked past your property and looked at you funny, and then to someone who looked at you from their property and it looked to you like they thought you were walking with intent so you had to shoot them before they shot you for walking by and on it goes.

This is already in train I remember reading a case where an elderly man shot 2 teenagers in the back as they ran away from his property because they had been throwing rocks on his roof, he was acquitted of any wrong doing. I cannot remember if the children survived.

Oh, I get that. What I don't get is how that makes smuggling guns in any way difficult.

Because 1 unit of gun is bigger, heavier and far more metallic than 1 unit of coke or put another way a Mexican has to make 1000 trips carrying 1 kg to deliver the same amount of items as he can deliver in 1 trip with 1 kg of drugs. So for every trip Pedro makes carrying drugs, Juan has to make 1000 carrying guns ergo it is easier to smuggle drugs.

This is normally where JonS parachutes into the discussion out of nowhere blabbering about strawmen and declaring you the loser of this discussion via his personal unanimous decision.

I've only seen him do that to you.

I leave you with a random pic of the Swiss Army in action:

I have no idea why you would do that. Teenage girls with guns get you hot or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if guns per capita is not necessarily the answer do you possibly think we ought to look who has the most violent media? You know murders per day for childrens TV, etc etc.

Perhaps comparing gun crime to TV watching in Wisconsin and Wyoming compared to southern states might be illuminating. Mind you I would also be interested in unemploymant rates, and social inequality profiles for the States.

The US having the advantage that it is a homogenous society where we can compare States rather than looking at comparing countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as the people you see fit to shoot are the burglars, the premise is upheld that you have been given a legal right to shoot whom you see fit.

I didn't say "burglars", I said people who break into my home. If I expand my list of people "that I see fit" to fat women wearing yoga pants in public then I'm fresh out of luck.

The problem arises now that at what point do you not have the right to shoot whom you see fit ? As the law goes little by little the precedent is set to broaden the interpretation, first it becomes you are allowed to shoot someone who was entering your house, then someone crossing the lawn, then to someone who looked like they would enter your property with intent, then to someone who just looked like they would enter your property, then to someone who just walked past your property and looked at you funny, and then to someone who looked at you from their property and it looked to you like they thought you were walking with intent so you had to shoot them before they shot you for walking by and on it goes.

Oh, is that how it works. Well, when people can legally shoot each other for dirty looks then I will concede the point.

Because 1 unit of gun is bigger, heavier and far more metallic than 1 unit of coke or put another way a Mexican has to make 1000 trips carrying 1 kg to deliver the same amount of items as he can deliver in 1 trip with 1 kg of drugs. So for every trip Pedro makes carrying drugs, Juan has to make 1000 carrying guns ergo it is easier to smuggle drugs.

You are conflating easier to meet demand with easier to smuggle. Even within that fallacy you are not considering that guns are a durable good, while drugs are a single use item.

I've only seen him do that to you.

LOL, yeah I know. Funny how that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep and you only joined in May 2011.

We've met before.

Give it time

If he keeps a lid on the conspiracy nonsense, and the strawmen out in the field where they belong, I'm sure we'll (mostly) get along fine.

Funny how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say "burglars", I said people who break into my home. If I expand my list of people "that I see fit" to fat women wearing yoga pants in public then I'm fresh out of luck.

The meaning of burglary : "Burglary is a crime, the essence of which is illicit entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence." But as we see you are already widening it to include anyone who breaks into your house, regardless of intent.

Oh, is that how it works. Well, when people can legally shoot each other for dirty looks then I will concede the point.

Won't be long:

New York: A 45-year-old man in New York shot at two teenagers after they refused to pull up their baggy pants when he had asked them to, a media report said.

Kenneth Bonds from Memphis area was charged with assault after he fired shots using a semi-automatic pistol at two teenagers - aged 16 and 17 - after he asked them to pull up their baggy pants and the teens refused, Fox News reported.

The boys ran as Bonds fired more shots, hitting the younger one in the buttock.The injured boy was later admitted to a hospital.

You are conflating easier to meet demand with easier to smuggle. Even within that fallacy you are not considering that guns are a durable good, while drugs are a single use item.

Ok how about this? If you tried to cross the border with 1 gun and 1 hit (or even a 10 hits) of coke, how easy would it be to secret the gun on your person as compared to the Coke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...