4 ms·

No offence intended, just a stereotypical image i go to when thinking about the US's gun culture and all the problems it brings.

wil421 7y ago
The US is not Texas. The image a lot of my Europeans co-workers have is Texas. Not sure where you are from.
- runarb 7y ago
  Fun fact, in my language "Texas" means crazy: https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-use-the-word-texas-as-slang-to-mean-crazy/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-...
swebs 7y ago
I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership. If you were to plot the percent of gun ownership vs the crime rate among various states or even countries, you wouldn't find much of a correlation.
- rcruzeiro 7y ago
  But there is a correlation with mass shootings (yes, I know it's kinda obvious since you need guns for mass shootings whereas you don necessarily need guns for most crimes).
  - rcruzeiro 7y ago
    Copying the same source as a comment above to whoever downvoted this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
- wffurr 7y ago
  It's actually quite clear that there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun violence: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... Overall crime, no, there is no correlation, but there is for guns used in crimes, which dramatically increases the rate of deaths and severity of those crimes.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Wouldnt that be a common sense thing ? A criminal mind would use the tools available and a gun makes throwing rocks (chunks of lead) at people deadly more often than using your hand. Look at criminal states, those leaders use armies instead of guns because they have an army available.
  - swebs 7y ago
    Gun "violence" includes suicides. There is actually a negative correlation between gun ownership and homicides. https://medium.com/@tgof137/gun-ownership-rates-do-not-predict-gun-violence-rates-dafbc8984ce1 https://medium.com/@tgof137/gun-ownership-rates-do-not-predi...
  - losvedir 7y ago
    The extremely obvious, plain reading of the gun ownership / gun murder rate data is that there's no relationship. Check this scatterplot[0]. The studies in your link are after "controlling for poverty and urbanization", "after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation", etc. I'm not a statistician enough to argue the methodology of the papers, but I'll say given that the trend only emerges after lots of adjustments, it makes me a little skeptical. At least, it would be pretty easy to let some bias or motivated reasoning slip in. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
- hanniabu 7y ago
  > I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership Exactly, if the same logic for guns were used on other things then you'd have people up in arms saying nobody should be able to drive cars because of how many people kill others with them.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    Lol are you seriously comparing cars to guns? Guns have one primary purpose, to shoot things. A car's primary purpose is not to hit things.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      >guns have one purpose - shoot things There is another one you are missing: deterring people from violence against other people, given the knowledge they might be carrying a gun. In a similar way to how nukes are actually used in 21st century.
      - admax88q 7y ago
        Doesn't make the comparison between cars and guns any less stupid.
        filoleg 7y ago
        That one, I can definitely agree with.
- davinic 7y ago
  There are several studies on this that conclude otherwise. For example[1]: "Firearm prevalence is significantly related to total violent crime (B = .600, p < .05). With each unit increase in firearm prevalence, the expected count of the violent crime index increases by .600. This also indicates that the percent change in the total violent crime is an 82% increase for every unit increase in firearm ownership. The prevalence of guns does significantly increase the violent crime in the county. This finding is consistent with previous research on firearm prevalence and crime both in the United States and internationally." [1]: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_owner...
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    So the study found a correlation between suicide by firearm and violent crime, not firearm prevalence and violent crime. They try to justify using suicide by firearm as a stand in for gun ownership, but if they don't have good stats on gun ownership to use for this study, then how could the previous studies have been able to make the connection between suicide by firearm and prevalence since they would need the same data. >Firearm prevalence in the United States is difficult to determine because there is no database that collects information on firearm ownership and prevalence. Thus, analyses that study firearm prevalence have had to develop proxies for firearm ownership. As a proxy for firearm ownership, the current analysis used the percentage of suicides by a firearm from 2000 to 2010. Little tricks like this are why people lose faith in science.
    - heavyset_go 7y ago
      Proxies are used all of the time in studies and analysis of information that can't be directly collected. To claim that proxies are why people lose faith in science is absurd.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    I view that study with suspicion as there are also some which show a very poor link or no link at all. But in either case: prohibiting the possession, sale, and consumption of alcohol would decrease disease and increase productivity. Why should we not do that?
pandemicsyn 7y ago
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you didn't intend to offend, but I'd venture to guess that only extends to not intending to offend folks in this forum? You chose to use term "redneck". When used like you did that's clearly a snide derogatory term that blankets a certain class of disadvantaged folks. Not only is that term insulting when used by you to a whole class of struggling people but you also then applied the implication of that term to a whopping 30% of Americans.
Thriptic 7y ago
It's definitely the case that an armed populace acts as a check against tyranny. You can argue that this is not enough of a benefit to warrant private gun ownership given the societal costs and low probability of a tyrannical government in the US, but this benefit definitely exists.
- swarnie_ 7y ago
  How do you think almost ever other country in the world with more mature and developed democracies manage to maintain human rights without hoarding firearms? I'm genuinely wondering.
  - Thriptic 7y ago
    I am not making the claim that private firearms ownership is required for maintaining human rights. My claim is that it is an additional control against tyranny, which it is. It is more difficult for a tyrannical government to enforce it's will on an armed populace than an unarmed populace.

wil421 7y ago

The US is not Texas. The image a lot of my Europeans co-workers have is Texas. Not sure where you are from.

runarb 7y ago
Fun fact, in my language "Texas" means crazy: https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-use-the-word-texas-as-slang-to-mean-crazy/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-...

swebs 7y ago

I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership. If you were to plot the percent of gun ownership vs the crime rate among various states or even countries, you wouldn't find much of a correlation.

rcruzeiro 7y ago
But there is a correlation with mass shootings (yes, I know it's kinda obvious since you need guns for mass shootings whereas you don necessarily need guns for most crimes).
- rcruzeiro 7y ago
  Copying the same source as a comment above to whoever downvoted this: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
wffurr 7y ago
It's actually quite clear that there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and gun violence: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... Overall crime, no, there is no correlation, but there is for guns used in crimes, which dramatically increases the rate of deaths and severity of those crimes.
- geggam 7y ago
  Wouldnt that be a common sense thing ? A criminal mind would use the tools available and a gun makes throwing rocks (chunks of lead) at people deadly more often than using your hand. Look at criminal states, those leaders use armies instead of guns because they have an army available.
- swebs 7y ago
  Gun "violence" includes suicides. There is actually a negative correlation between gun ownership and homicides. https://medium.com/@tgof137/gun-ownership-rates-do-not-predict-gun-violence-rates-dafbc8984ce1 https://medium.com/@tgof137/gun-ownership-rates-do-not-predi...
- losvedir 7y ago
  The extremely obvious, plain reading of the gun ownership / gun murder rate data is that there's no relationship. Check this scatterplot[0]. The studies in your link are after "controlling for poverty and urbanization", "after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation", etc. I'm not a statistician enough to argue the methodology of the papers, but I'll say given that the trend only emerges after lots of adjustments, it makes me a little skeptical. At least, it would be pretty easy to let some bias or motivated reasoning slip in. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
hanniabu 7y ago
> I think the problems are unrelated to gun ownership Exactly, if the same logic for guns were used on other things then you'd have people up in arms saying nobody should be able to drive cars because of how many people kill others with them.
- admax88q 7y ago
  Lol are you seriously comparing cars to guns? Guns have one primary purpose, to shoot things. A car's primary purpose is not to hit things.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    >guns have one purpose - shoot things There is another one you are missing: deterring people from violence against other people, given the knowledge they might be carrying a gun. In a similar way to how nukes are actually used in 21st century.
    - admax88q 7y ago
      Doesn't make the comparison between cars and guns any less stupid.
      - filoleg 7y ago
        That one, I can definitely agree with.
davinic 7y ago
There are several studies on this that conclude otherwise. For example[1]: "Firearm prevalence is significantly related to total violent crime (B = .600, p < .05). With each unit increase in firearm prevalence, the expected count of the violent crime index increases by .600. This also indicates that the percent change in the total violent crime is an 82% increase for every unit increase in firearm ownership. The prevalence of guns does significantly increase the violent crime in the county. This finding is consistent with previous research on firearm prevalence and crime both in the United States and internationally." [1]: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_owner...
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  So the study found a correlation between suicide by firearm and violent crime, not firearm prevalence and violent crime. They try to justify using suicide by firearm as a stand in for gun ownership, but if they don't have good stats on gun ownership to use for this study, then how could the previous studies have been able to make the connection between suicide by firearm and prevalence since they would need the same data. >Firearm prevalence in the United States is difficult to determine because there is no database that collects information on firearm ownership and prevalence. Thus, analyses that study firearm prevalence have had to develop proxies for firearm ownership. As a proxy for firearm ownership, the current analysis used the percentage of suicides by a firearm from 2000 to 2010. Little tricks like this are why people lose faith in science.
  - heavyset_go 7y ago
    Proxies are used all of the time in studies and analysis of information that can't be directly collected. To claim that proxies are why people lose faith in science is absurd.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  I view that study with suspicion as there are also some which show a very poor link or no link at all. But in either case: prohibiting the possession, sale, and consumption of alcohol would decrease disease and increase productivity. Why should we not do that?

pandemicsyn 7y ago

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you didn't intend to offend, but I'd venture to guess that only extends to not intending to offend folks in this forum? You chose to use term "redneck". When used like you did that's clearly a snide derogatory term that blankets a certain class of disadvantaged folks. Not only is that term insulting when used by you to a whole class of struggling people but you also then applied the implication of that term to a whopping 30% of Americans.

Thriptic 7y ago

It's definitely the case that an armed populace acts as a check against tyranny. You can argue that this is not enough of a benefit to warrant private gun ownership given the societal costs and low probability of a tyrannical government in the US, but this benefit definitely exists.

swarnie_ 7y ago
How do you think almost ever other country in the world with more mature and developed democracies manage to maintain human rights without hoarding firearms? I'm genuinely wondering.
- Thriptic 7y ago
  I am not making the claim that private firearms ownership is required for maintaining human rights. My claim is that it is an additional control against tyranny, which it is. It is more difficult for a tyrannical government to enforce it's will on an armed populace than an unarmed populace.