4 ms·

This is a bullshit article. Why are we trying to minimize "gun deaths?" What the article doesn't mention is that most of those are suicides that would just do i

This is a bullshit article. Why are we trying to minimize "gun deaths?" What the article doesn't mention is that most of those are suicides that would just do it another way if they were less readily available. Violent crime in the UK is 4x what it is in the US yet there are less gun deaths because of the strict gun control. Who gives a shit if guns are involved or not?

clarky07 14y ago
For those that like citing stats: Murder rate in 2011 Montana - 2.8 New Jersey - 4.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-... Violent Crime rates - http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.htm... Please note DC, the place with the most gun control in the country, is also by far the most violent, with the most murders per capita by a huge stretch.
- bane 14y ago
  > Please note DC, the place with the most gun control in the country, is also by far the most violent, with the most murders per capita by a huge stretch. It's worth it to note then that as gun control has increased in D.C., the murder rate has dropped tremendously. http://news.yahoo.com/dc-pace-fewer-100-homicides-2012-094716815.html http://news.yahoo.com/dc-pace-fewer-100-homicides-2012-09471... from ~500 in the early 1990s to under 90 this year.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    While true, all crime in the US has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. Many have suggested Roe v Wade had a big impact in this, but I'm not sure it's conclusive. From Freakanomics, the theory being that many would be kids in bad situations would have ended up as criminals 18 years later were instead aborted. This has led to a big overall crime drop. Whether it's actually because of this isn't the point though, crime has dropped a lot everywhere, and the violent crime in DC is still much much higher than other places with far less strict gun control. FWIW, the strict gun control in DC started in the late 70's. It may have gotten stricter over time, but I'd say it's a stretch to say that it getting stricter 15 years later was causal to the crime drop.
    - bane 14y ago
      I don't disagree. Like most large socio-economic issues, pointing to one thing is overly simplifying things. Growing up near D.C. I remember being terrified of going into the city. Stray rounds regularly found their ways into people's living rooms, and just a block or two from the national mall, one would have been ill-advised to spend any time. I definitely subscribe to the national trends impacting local crime rates. D.C. today, while not an exceptionally nice place to be, isn't comparable to D.C. of the 1980s and 90s. But there are other things that impacted D.C. w/r to very local issues. For example, I don't think it's a stretch to think that the end of Marion Barry's tenure as "mayor for life" and the reversal of decades of population flight which started around the time of his first term is all a big coincidence. The drop-off of crack-cocaine as a local drug of choice was also a major contributor. The gentrification that followed, while often viewed in negative terms by many, has resulted in a city with large physical areas of relative safety and good maintenance. The only comparable city I'm aware of is New York, which had a similar dangerous reputation, and is now a pretty nice place to be. Gun crime in D.C. was and is significant. In the interest of being mindful that correlation does not equal causation (gun control up and gun violence down in the same period does not mean that one caused the other), I'd probably argue that there's little evidence that gun control in either direction has had the majority impact on D.C. gun crimes, but that external factors that have contributed to improving the city and have had larger impacts.
alan_cx 14y ago
Equally a bull shit post. Suicide is easier and more irreversible with a gun. You can be saved from an overdose, for example. But its much harder to piece a brain back together after a bullet has ripped through it. A bullet to the head is pretty final, and overdose less so. Clearly you dont understand suicide or its psychology. Next, violent crime is not murder or death. It can be robbery or assault. Your comparison is, to coin your phrase, bullshit. Finally, "who gives a shit if if guns are involved". Well, what would you prefer to face, a knife or a gun. What are your chances of surviving a hair trigger lunge or trigger? I know I have a better chance of dodging a knife than a bullet. Just like a criminal knows he has more control over a victim with a gun rather than a knife. Can you dodge bullets? Even so, the US is a gun based culture. International comparisons are the bullshit you crave. The US was formed with guns. It started that way and will remain that way. Taking guns out of the US is as unlikely as taking pubs out of the UK. Which, interestingly suggests why violent crime is maybe higher in the UK. We have an alcohol problem many other countries don't have. Which is another reason why international comparisons are "bullshit". Fact is, culturally we are very different. I am a Brit and I don't want US gun culture and we will never have it. Equally, I bet the US doesn't want our alcohol culture. So, Americans should keep their guns, but equally not complain about other freedoms being compromised to compensate.
- clarky07 14y ago
  As for the suicides, who am I to say he shouldn't be doing it? He wants this to happen, so it shouldn't be included in any kind of gun control stats. It is not the thing we are trying to limit or stop. As for what I'd rather face, I'll turn that around. If you are a criminal, which would you rather face? I'd rather not face someone trying to hurt me with either a knife or gun while unarmed. I'm not sure why you consider my post bullshit. Is it just because I said the original was bs? He clearly used meaningless stats to argue his point and I was calling him on it. I even provided stats to back up my position.
- boboblong 14y ago
  >Next, violent crime is not murder or death. It can be robbery or assault. Many gun deaths are gang-related or otherwise criminal-on-criminal. Also, with less strict gun control a robber is more likely to be shot dead by their intended victim, which is a good thing. Yes, I mean that; I'm not equivocating: it is a Good Thing when an attempted robbery fails because the would-be robber is shot dead. (Minor assailants should of course not be shot, but it's also a Good Thing when an assault bordering on attempted murder ends with the death of the assailant.) Hell, it's a Good Thing when gangbangers shoot one another dead. There's a Tupac line that goes "[something something something] give 'em guns, step back, watch 'em kill each other". Bearing in mind that I'm referring to gangsters ONLY and in no way black people in general, Tupac's darkly humorous suggestion is actually a good one. To put it bluntly, if I could push a button and reduce violent crime by 75% across the board but it meant that gun deaths would quadruple--but 80% of those new deaths would be violent criminals--I would do it. >So, Americans should keep their guns, but equally not complain about other freedoms being compromised to compensate. I don't even own a gun and have only fired a gun a few times (when I went trap shooting just for the hell of it). Still, I wish you would try to take some freedoms from the "gun nuts" as "compensation" just so I could watch you get your ass handed to you.

clarky07 14y ago

For those that like citing stats: Murder rate in 2011 Montana - 2.8 New Jersey - 4.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-... Violent Crime rates - http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.htm... Please note DC, the place with the most gun control in the country, is also by far the most violent, with the most murders per capita by a huge stretch.

bane 14y ago
> Please note DC, the place with the most gun control in the country, is also by far the most violent, with the most murders per capita by a huge stretch. It's worth it to note then that as gun control has increased in D.C., the murder rate has dropped tremendously. http://news.yahoo.com/dc-pace-fewer-100-homicides-2012-094716815.html http://news.yahoo.com/dc-pace-fewer-100-homicides-2012-09471... from ~500 in the early 1990s to under 90 this year.
- clarky07 14y ago
  While true, all crime in the US has dropped significantly in the last 20 years. Many have suggested Roe v Wade had a big impact in this, but I'm not sure it's conclusive. From Freakanomics, the theory being that many would be kids in bad situations would have ended up as criminals 18 years later were instead aborted. This has led to a big overall crime drop. Whether it's actually because of this isn't the point though, crime has dropped a lot everywhere, and the violent crime in DC is still much much higher than other places with far less strict gun control. FWIW, the strict gun control in DC started in the late 70's. It may have gotten stricter over time, but I'd say it's a stretch to say that it getting stricter 15 years later was causal to the crime drop.
  - bane 14y ago
    I don't disagree. Like most large socio-economic issues, pointing to one thing is overly simplifying things. Growing up near D.C. I remember being terrified of going into the city. Stray rounds regularly found their ways into people's living rooms, and just a block or two from the national mall, one would have been ill-advised to spend any time. I definitely subscribe to the national trends impacting local crime rates. D.C. today, while not an exceptionally nice place to be, isn't comparable to D.C. of the 1980s and 90s. But there are other things that impacted D.C. w/r to very local issues. For example, I don't think it's a stretch to think that the end of Marion Barry's tenure as "mayor for life" and the reversal of decades of population flight which started around the time of his first term is all a big coincidence. The drop-off of crack-cocaine as a local drug of choice was also a major contributor. The gentrification that followed, while often viewed in negative terms by many, has resulted in a city with large physical areas of relative safety and good maintenance. The only comparable city I'm aware of is New York, which had a similar dangerous reputation, and is now a pretty nice place to be. Gun crime in D.C. was and is significant. In the interest of being mindful that correlation does not equal causation (gun control up and gun violence down in the same period does not mean that one caused the other), I'd probably argue that there's little evidence that gun control in either direction has had the majority impact on D.C. gun crimes, but that external factors that have contributed to improving the city and have had larger impacts.

alan_cx 14y ago

Equally a bull shit post. Suicide is easier and more irreversible with a gun. You can be saved from an overdose, for example. But its much harder to piece a brain back together after a bullet has ripped through it. A bullet to the head is pretty final, and overdose less so. Clearly you dont understand suicide or its psychology. Next, violent crime is not murder or death. It can be robbery or assault. Your comparison is, to coin your phrase, bullshit. Finally, "who gives a shit if if guns are involved". Well, what would you prefer to face, a knife or a gun. What are your chances of surviving a hair trigger lunge or trigger? I know I have a better chance of dodging a knife than a bullet. Just like a criminal knows he has more control over a victim with a gun rather than a knife. Can you dodge bullets? Even so, the US is a gun based culture. International comparisons are the bullshit you crave. The US was formed with guns. It started that way and will remain that way. Taking guns out of the US is as unlikely as taking pubs out of the UK. Which, interestingly suggests why violent crime is maybe higher in the UK. We have an alcohol problem many other countries don't have. Which is another reason why international comparisons are "bullshit". Fact is, culturally we are very different. I am a Brit and I don't want US gun culture and we will never have it. Equally, I bet the US doesn't want our alcohol culture. So, Americans should keep their guns, but equally not complain about other freedoms being compromised to compensate.

clarky07 14y ago
As for the suicides, who am I to say he shouldn't be doing it? He wants this to happen, so it shouldn't be included in any kind of gun control stats. It is not the thing we are trying to limit or stop. As for what I'd rather face, I'll turn that around. If you are a criminal, which would you rather face? I'd rather not face someone trying to hurt me with either a knife or gun while unarmed. I'm not sure why you consider my post bullshit. Is it just because I said the original was bs? He clearly used meaningless stats to argue his point and I was calling him on it. I even provided stats to back up my position.
boboblong 14y ago
>Next, violent crime is not murder or death. It can be robbery or assault. Many gun deaths are gang-related or otherwise criminal-on-criminal. Also, with less strict gun control a robber is more likely to be shot dead by their intended victim, which is a good thing. Yes, I mean that; I'm not equivocating: it is a Good Thing when an attempted robbery fails because the would-be robber is shot dead. (Minor assailants should of course not be shot, but it's also a Good Thing when an assault bordering on attempted murder ends with the death of the assailant.) Hell, it's a Good Thing when gangbangers shoot one another dead. There's a Tupac line that goes "[something something something] give 'em guns, step back, watch 'em kill each other". Bearing in mind that I'm referring to gangsters ONLY and in no way black people in general, Tupac's darkly humorous suggestion is actually a good one. To put it bluntly, if I could push a button and reduce violent crime by 75% across the board but it meant that gun deaths would quadruple--but 80% of those new deaths would be violent criminals--I would do it. >So, Americans should keep their guns, but equally not complain about other freedoms being compromised to compensate. I don't even own a gun and have only fired a gun a few times (when I went trap shooting just for the hell of it). Still, I wish you would try to take some freedoms from the "gun nuts" as "compensation" just so I could watch you get your ass handed to you.