A british perspective on American Gun ownership

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
650px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
Gun violence is an individual act that's against our laws and draws down severe penalties.

The overwhelming majority of Americans who exercise their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms do so responsibly, lawfully and peacefully;


We should note that gun violence is at a fraction of the levels we saw in the 1950s, and has been waning steadily since then.

We also have more cars than anyone else, drive more miles and, largely as a consequence, experience higher proportions of auto related fatalities than do other societies.

The specific problem with guns isn't their number or their general availability, it's the access to them by the mentally disturbed and by criminals.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is the concept of the citizen soldier that defeated the British. Of course the French ships and cannons and the regular military armies also helped to defeat the British or at least got them to abandon the Colonies. I keep remembering the tyranny of the British, and the Crown. In America we kicked out the royal armies of the Crown. We have good reasons to hold onto our guns. We bow to no man.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.
* Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.

To cite a few pesky facts, but the one that stands out the most;

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,720
47,408
136
* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.
* Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.

To cite a few pesky facts, but the one that stands out the most;

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

Can you show me the data set you are pulling from? I find it highly unlikely any of those effects are statistically significant. (with the possible exception of the Chicago one, but even that is unlikely)

Stats are pesky like that.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
If you think gun violence has reached a new high, you're far from alone. However, according to a new statistical survey, you’re also wrong.

The study, published Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, says that gun homicides have declined by a full 49 percent since their peak in 1993. There has been an even steeper decline, 75 percent, in nonlethal crime victimization (with or without a gun) in the period between 1993 and 2010.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show there were 11,078 gun homicide deaths in the U.S. in 2010, compared with 18,253 deaths in 1993.
Nonfatal gun crimes dropped by 69 percent during that same period, according to a separate report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics that was also released Tuesday.
Interestingly, the Pew study finds that 56 percent of respondents believe that deaths caused by guns are more frequent than they were 20 years ago, compared with just 12 percent who accurately said the rates had declined.


Still, there are some interesting findings in the study that do appear to back up fears about gun violence. While describing more recent numbers as “statistically insignificant,” Pew does acknowledge that there appears to be a small uptick in gun violence numbers since 2008. In addition, the study found that a vast majority of the drop in homicides took place in the 1990s.


So, who or what is to credit for that decline? The roaring economic boom that took place through the second half of the '90s? The Federal Assault Weapons Ban in effect from late 1994 through 2004? The dramatic increase in incarceration rates? (A controversial 2001 paper says that legalized abortion is at least partially responsible for declining crime rates.)


Pew says the data is inconclusive, writing: “Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened.”


“It’s hard to know what’s going on there,” D’Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center, told the Los Angeles Times.


Another interesting statistic from the study concerns gun ownership and homicide rates in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. “Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate and higher rates of gun ownership, but not higher rates for all other crimes,” the Pew study says.


Other findings from the Pew Research Center study:

  • Men and boys make up the vast majority (84 percent in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).
  • By age group, 69 percent of gun homicide victims in 2010 were 18-40, an age range that was 31 percent of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18-24 and 25-40.
  • A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55 percent in 2010), despite blacks making up just 13 percent of the population.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
No, the question is not if a gun makes you commit suicide, the question is if greater ratios of gun ownership are associated with increased suicides. They are. You would only expect suicides to certainly be higher in Texas than in the UK if gun ownership were the only variable. Since it is not, we use regressions.

If you think my link supports your argument, you need to go read it again. I don't blame you for not understanding research design to begin with, but I do blame you for not learning once you've been told.

And you own link says that such regressions do not show causation.

For more evidence backing me:

The highly debated issue of suicide was explored as well. The World Health Organization ascertains, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” While this is true, removing the firearm does not remove the suicide risk. The study points out that, “The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means,” concluding that there is “no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, more or less resulting in the same amount of death.”
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2344296
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,720
47,408
136
And you own link says that such regressions do not show causation.

Basically nothing in social science shows direct causation. Why do you try and argue about things you so clearly do not understand? Is it some sort of mental illness?


So many hilariously bad things about that. You just don't know when to quit.

1.) That's not a Harvard study, that's a study published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

2.) The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Poilcy is a self described conservative advocacy organization.

3.) That study isn't peer reviewed, it is part of a law journal reviewed by second and third year law students. College kids were the ones who checked it. lol.

4.) T study is riddled with errors. Its data set includes things such as Luxembourg having a murder rate of 9 per 100,000 in 2002 when it was more likely about 1/10th that. Hell, it's just descriptive statistics anyway.

5.) Your passage appears to be quoting the WHO when in fact it is quoting the authors of that same study who are simply offering their opinion.

I could go on, but what's the point? I love how you think that social science reviewed by college kids is good evidence though. lol.

In case you are interested in such a thing however, I encourage you to read an actual peer reviewed study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756560/pdf/v008p00313.pdf

Across the nine regions for the early 1990s (n = 9), household handgun ownership rates are positively correlated with the suicide rate (r = 0.59) and are not correlated with either the lifetime prevalence of major depression or suicidal thoughts. After controlling for major depression and suicidal thoughts (and any of the four additional control variables), handgun ownership rates remain significantly associated with the overall suicide rate.

I can quote more studies all day and unlike yours, mine are real studies.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
A statement by one of the authors of the above cited "study".
"“Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. . . . The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun.- David Hemenway

Sounds like an unbiased source. Sounds like you can trust what this guy publishes about firearms. lol.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
in addition to the Harvard study, at least two other studies have come up with similar conclusions. In 2003 the U.S. Center for Disease Control and again in 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences both concluded that they “failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicides, or gun accidents.”
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
A statement by one of the authors of the above cited "study".


Sounds like an unbiased source. Sounds like you can trust what this guy publishes about firearms. lol.
Yeah, that guy sounds like a huge douche and an idiot, to boot. When you fight you play to win.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,027
3
76
So OP, I guess you got your curiosity satisfied, but apparenty, not in the way you framed your query?

Attitudes differ, but did you also know that the folks that are first up to reply will invariably have a hair trigger big bang response to questions like yours and that they are...uhhhhh, VERY "ardent" supporters of their interpretation of the Second Amendment? ;)

Absolutely. I didn't post this to hear from the gun nuts I know what they have to say "Ya can't take our guns! Who and what army?" or "Lol british people are talking about American politics" etc

I'm hear to read what other people are saying
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,027
3
76
Interesting read, but it's apparent the author doesn't grasp conditions in the US, or the size of it.

Of course the logistics would be impossible. It's mainly satire but it raises some interesting points and it's well researched. I appreciate it when the statistics are included to make the point more clearly.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
While I doubt it will see the light of day, here is my response to the Guardian/Observer.

There are a number of simplifications, biases and mistakes in The Observer article by Henry Porter from 21 September. So many, in fact, that as an American who has devoted a majority of his life to academic and professional involvement in these matters I felt compelled to respond in hopes of achieving academic honesty, and greater cultural understanding.


It is true that Starbucks recently released a memo suggesting customers not bring openly carried firearms into their establishments. However, this was not about 'customer safety', and has nothing to do with the various legal situations alluded to.


Starbucks has always adhered to all laws regarding weapon restrictions. This means in most states it's completely legal to carry a firearm openly. It is also legal in 49 states to carry a firearm concealed, at least with a permit. This has not been an issue until recently.


A couple years ago, likely in response to the media fueled emotional breakdown surrounding one tragic event or another, someone decided to suddenly be offended that someone else was openly carrying their firearm at Starbucks. The company made it clear that they were merely abiding by the law. A few small grassroots groups started raising an outcry (against the company mind you, not the laws). Most recently they called for a one-day boycott of Starbucks to protest their policy of following the law.


In response to each of these opposition protests there has been the inevitable 'support counter-protest'. This gave rise to an increase in the number and frequency of people open carrying at Starbucks.


So Starbucks released the request, without any force or requirement mind you. They have not prohibited weapons, merely suggested that people not bring them. Quite obviously this is an attempt to appease those actively campaigning. However, in recent polls barely better than fifty percent supported the toothless move by the besieged corporation.


While I would agree there was bravery on the part of Starbucks, it existed prior to their most recent concession by standing up for the rule of law in the face of media and some marginal popular opposition. They were brave for choosing to be a company, instead of a political pry-bar. Now they have abandoned their ideological high-ground, and have no better than half the country's support in response.


Now we get to the real crux of the piece: the idea that the world gets to dictate domestic policy to sovereign nations, and what qualifies as a crisis to necessitate such intervention.

Before I do, in order to appease the likely calls of hypocrisy, know that the vast majority of Americans do NOT believe our nation should be doing this to others. We strongly oppose US involvement in most situations, as demonstrated by the overwhelming response against intervention in Syria. Sadly, our government is in no way accountable to, nor controlled by, the will of the people any longer. It is essentially an autonomous force at this point. With that out of the way, I address the statements and issues raised.

First, that we have a supposed epidemic of maiming and killing children. The WHO limits 'child mortality' to those less than five years of age, even though technically it would include children up to twelve. We have an annual death toll of around 55 such children from firearms (119 if we expand it to twelve year olds). While very sad, if we're going to use this mortality rate (~.00000275%) as the threshold for international intervention then nearly every nation in the world (~80% in fact) will be a target for various causes. It's absurd on its face.


Next the tired old '~30,000 deaths from firearms' tirade. Yes, it's very high. However, roughly 2/3 are suicides, and if we are going to base international response on suicide rates then I'd like to know when the UK plans on invading Greenland, South Korea, Lithuania, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Belarus, China, Slovenia, Hungary, Japan, Sri Lana, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova, Serbia, Belgium, Bhutan, Uruguay, South Africa, Poland, Taiwan, Estonia, France, Suriname, Bosnia, Austria, Czech Republic, Cuba, and Bulgaria...all of which lose more people annually to suicide than we do in the United States.


Of the remaining ~10,000 firearm deaths it's vital to realize that roughly sixty percent are criminal on criminal crimes. It's mostly gangs and criminal cartels killing each other. Even with those deaths our rate places us 103rd in international rankings. This leads us to understand that we don't so much have a homicide problem, as we do have a criminal problem.


If we remove those 'gang on gang' homicides our rate drops to roughly 1.6-1.8, ranking us equivalent to Canada in homicides. So if this homicide rate is the qualifier to international intervention more than 2/3 of the world is about to be invaded by the UN. That begs us to question if maybe each country should just keep their troops at home and save on travel costs.



Thirdly, there has been an ENORMOUS campaign in the areas of firearm education and safety. It has been going on since the 1950s in one form or another, but has been especially concentrated since the mid '80s. It even used to be the primary focus area of the NRA, before they became a dedicated conservative political sledgehammer.


There have been vast improvements in firearms, ammunition, and accessory safety, as well as personal training. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in firearm incidents. In fact, our crime rate is now down to levels not seen since 1970, our suicide rates are almost to pre-1960s levels, and our accident rate has dropped lower than at any time in recorded history (1/15 what it was in 1900, and 1/8 what it was in the 50's at the start of the education and safety improvement trend).


In nearly every way the United States is safer now than at any time in the last four decades. In fact, according to many reports the US now has lower rates in several negative metrics than does the UK.


Fourth, the suggestion that the United States is somehow split in half on firearm matters is patently false. Likely this is due to the misconception that the population here follows the two-party model. In fact, there are more Americans who are neither left nor right, Democrat nor Republican, than there are Americans who adhere to this simplistic dichotomy.

However, even with those among the actual parties opinions are not unified, merely more predictable.


What we can say is that 85-90% of Americans support the right of individuals to own firearms (as shown in poll after study, going back many decades). This isn't a partisan issue. Americans fervently believe in and support the right to access to firearms. The only split comes when dealing with specific regulations regarding the pragmatic application of that right.


Fifth, there is no supportable evidence suggesting that 'people become less safe as gun ownership rises'. This has been the finding of the CDC, NAS, Harvard, and numerous government and independent researchers. While there is likewise no hard evidence to the contrary there is simply no defensible causal relation (and only a weak correlation subject to numerous outliers and controls) between the two things.


Finally when I speak to American friends I always sense a despair that there is a massive disconnect between politicians, media, and international onlookers on the one hand, and American citizens on the other. Unlike those first few categories, we're the people that actually live in and deal with the way things truly are, and not just how they're represented.


There really isn't a huge special interest conspiracy that prevents erasure of firearm rights in the US. What there is, is almost universal support for firearm ownership, if with varying degrees of preferred regulation.


So if the world thinks it can come in and dictate domestic firearm regulation they would do well to consider the (almost certainly mis-attributed) words of Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." We like our guns here, and we will be keeping them, thank you very much.
 

OGOC

Senior member
Jun 14, 2013
312
0
76
It is a FACT, a gun in a home will be 3-4 times more likely be used against a family member or friend, either through death or injury.
Where is that fact from? The discredited Kellerman study, or where?
Let me also add, this is not about the 2nd amendment or any of that. But it is clear that gun ownership clearly has reached the level of problems similar to when we dealt with smoking and drunk driving. Not enough is being done to prevent gun violence and we have too many stupid people who are not willing to see the elephant in the room.
Americans own more guns than at any time in history, more AR-15s, more semi-autos, more "high-capacity" magazines, carry laws are more free than at any time in the past decades, and crime is down.

The UK has passed more and more gun restrictions, and their homicide rate stayed about the same and violent crime went up.

Nearby Marines said they could have stopped that Navy Yard shooting by about victim #3. But they weren't allowed to carry ammunition. The law-abiding citizens inside who normally carry also weren't allowed to carry and may have stopped the shooter before he killed 13 people.

Months back in London, two people walked up to a soldier on the street and killed him with a hatchet. They also had illegal guns. (Maybe they didn't notice the "no guns" signs.) The law-abiding citizens on the street wouldn't have been able to stop them if they had wanted to kill even more people.
No, the question is not if a gun makes you commit suicide, the question is if greater ratios of gun ownership are associated with increased suicides.
Japan doesn't like guns. Japan has a far higher rate of suicide than the U.S.
Since we are linking guns and suicide, I guess Japan should encourage more gun ownership so they can lower their suicide rate.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
While I doubt it will see the light of day, here is my response to the Guardian/Observer.

There are a number of simplifications, biases and mistakes in The Observer article by Henry Porter from 21 September. So many, in fact, that as an American who has devoted a majority of his life to academic and professional involvement in these matters I felt compelled to respond in hopes of achieving academic honesty, and greater cultural understanding.


It is true that Starbucks recently released a memo suggesting customers not bring openly carried firearms into their establishments. However, this was not about 'customer safety', and has nothing to do with the various legal situations alluded to.


Starbucks has always adhered to all laws regarding weapon restrictions. This means in most states it's completely legal to carry a firearm openly. It is also legal in 49 states to carry a firearm concealed, at least with a permit. This has not been an issue until recently.


A couple years ago, likely in response to the media fueled emotional breakdown surrounding one tragic event or another, someone decided to suddenly be offended that someone else was openly carrying their firearm at Starbucks. The company made it clear that they were merely abiding by the law. A few small grassroots groups started raising an outcry (against the company mind you, not the laws). Most recently they called for a one-day boycott of Starbucks to protest their policy of following the law.


In response to each of these opposition protests there has been the inevitable 'support counter-protest'. This gave rise to an increase in the number and frequency of people open carrying at Starbucks.


So Starbucks released the request, without any force or requirement mind you. They have not prohibited weapons, merely suggested that people not bring them. Quite obviously this is an attempt to appease those actively campaigning. However, in recent polls barely better than fifty percent supported the toothless move by the besieged corporation.


While I would agree there was bravery on the part of Starbucks, it existed prior to their most recent concession by standing up for the rule of law in the face of media and some marginal popular opposition. They were brave for choosing to be a company, instead of a political pry-bar. Now they have abandoned their ideological high-ground, and have no better than half the country's support in response.


Now we get to the real crux of the piece: the idea that the world gets to dictate domestic policy to sovereign nations, and what qualifies as a crisis to necessitate such intervention.

Before I do, in order to appease the likely calls of hypocrisy, know that the vast majority of Americans do NOT believe our nation should be doing this to others. We strongly oppose US involvement in most situations, as demonstrated by the overwhelming response against intervention in Syria. Sadly, our government is in no way accountable to, nor controlled by, the will of the people any longer. It is essentially an autonomous force at this point. With that out of the way, I address the statements and issues raised.

First, that we have a supposed epidemic of maiming and killing children. The WHO limits 'child mortality' to those less than five years of age, even though technically it would include children up to twelve. We have an annual death toll of around 55 such children from firearms (119 if we expand it to twelve year olds). While very sad, if we're going to use this mortality rate (~.00000275%) as the threshold for international intervention then nearly every nation in the world (~80% in fact) will be a target for various causes. It's absurd on its face.


Next the tired old '~30,000 deaths from firearms' tirade. Yes, it's very high. However, roughly 2/3 are suicides, and if we are going to base international response on suicide rates then I'd like to know when the UK plans on invading Greenland, South Korea, Lithuania, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Belarus, China, Slovenia, Hungary, Japan, Sri Lana, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova, Serbia, Belgium, Bhutan, Uruguay, South Africa, Poland, Taiwan, Estonia, France, Suriname, Bosnia, Austria, Czech Republic, Cuba, and Bulgaria...all of which lose more people annually to suicide than we do in the United States.


Of the remaining ~10,000 firearm deaths it's vital to realize that roughly sixty percent are criminal on criminal crimes. It's mostly gangs and criminal cartels killing each other. Even with those deaths our rate places us 103rd in international rankings. This leads us to understand that we don't so much have a homicide problem, as we do have a criminal problem.


If we remove those 'gang on gang' homicides our rate drops to roughly 1.6-1.8, ranking us equivalent to Canada in homicides. So if this homicide rate is the qualifier to international intervention more than 2/3 of the world is about to be invaded by the UN. That begs us to question if maybe each country should just keep their troops at home and save on travel costs.



Thirdly, there has been an ENORMOUS campaign in the areas of firearm education and safety. It has been going on since the 1950s in one form or another, but has been especially concentrated since the mid '80s. It even used to be the primary focus area of the NRA, before they became a dedicated conservative political sledgehammer.


There have been vast improvements in firearms, ammunition, and accessory safety, as well as personal training. This has resulted in a dramatic reduction in firearm incidents. In fact, our crime rate is now down to levels not seen since 1970, our suicide rates are almost to pre-1960s levels, and our accident rate has dropped lower than at any time in recorded history (1/15 what it was in 1900, and 1/8 what it was in the 50's at the start of the education and safety improvement trend).


In nearly every way the United States is safer now than at any time in the last four decades. In fact, according to many reports the US now has lower rates in several negative metrics than does the UK.


Fourth, the suggestion that the United States is somehow split in half on firearm matters is patently false. Likely this is due to the misconception that the population here follows the two-party model. In fact, there are more Americans who are neither left nor right, Democrat nor Republican, than there are Americans who adhere to this simplistic dichotomy.

However, even with those among the actual parties opinions are not unified, merely more predictable.


What we can say is that 85-90% of Americans support the right of individuals to own firearms (as shown in poll after study, going back many decades). This isn't a partisan issue. Americans fervently believe in and support the right to access to firearms. The only split comes when dealing with specific regulations regarding the pragmatic application of that right.


Fifth, there is no supportable evidence suggesting that 'people become less safe as gun ownership rises'. This has been the finding of the CDC, NAS, Harvard, and numerous government and independent researchers. While there is likewise no hard evidence to the contrary there is simply no defensible causal relation (and only a weak correlation subject to numerous outliers and controls) between the two things.


Finally when I speak to American friends I always sense a despair that there is a massive disconnect between politicians, media, and international onlookers on the one hand, and American citizens on the other. Unlike those first few categories, we're the people that actually live in and deal with the way things truly are, and not just how they're represented.


There really isn't a huge special interest conspiracy that prevents erasure of firearm rights in the US. What there is, is almost universal support for firearm ownership, if with varying degrees of preferred regulation.


So if the world thinks it can come in and dictate domestic firearm regulation they would do well to consider the (almost certainly mis-attributed) words of Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." We like our guns here, and we will be keeping them, thank you very much.

Thanks PoW, one of the best posts i've ever read about gun rights in this and any other forum.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
3
0
Posting in a Hal9000 gun thread.

I'm just going to say I've yet to hear an informed, rational argument on American Gun Control from the UK, and this op-ed is no exception.