5 ms·

What a ridiculous article. Yes, in the context of rapidly declining crime rates of all kinds, gun homicides are down. And yet it's the specter of omnipresent

What a ridiculous article. Yes, in the context of rapidly declining crime rates of all kinds, gun homicides are down. And yet it's the specter of omnipresent crime that many Americans hold up as the reason we need guns to keep us safe, ignoring all the statistics that show overall gun deaths and gun suicides are far higher in the U.S. than any other developed country.

sp332 12y ago
Countries with looser gun laws also have lower gun crime rates. So banning guns doesn't seem to be the answer.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- makmanalp 12y ago
  Maybe you got the relationship backwards. Maybe the countries that have lower crime gun crime rates just don't feel the need for gun laws.
- hahainternet 12y ago
  Correlation does not equal causation.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Lack of correlation is evidence of lack of causation.
- _delirium 12y ago
  One thing I've tried and failed to find on this subject is a breakdown by kind of guns. The vast majority of gun crime uses handguns, so I've been interested in finding data on handgun ownership rates and seeing if there's any relationship. But all the data I can find comparing gun-ownership rates to gun-homicide rates includes both handguns and long guns (rifles, shotguns), which have very different crime characteristics. For example Sweden actually has quite a few guns, but they are almost all rifles in the rural far north, not handguns in Stockholm or Malmö, which I suspect makes a big difference. I'm not sure the data I'm looking for would actually show anything interesting either, but it's kind of odd that I can't find it at all.
wyager 12y ago
> overall gun deaths and gun suicides Most gun deaths are accidents, where the person who died knew they were entering a dangerous situation. I'm pretty sure the people who die in gun accidents wouldn't want guns to be banned, or else they probably wouldn't be in that situation in the first place. Also, accidental gun death rates have been declining almost monotonically since 1903. For scale, almost 8 times as many people died of choking than of gun accidents in the US in 2011. America's suicide rate is not bad at all. It's actually pretty low compared to many other developed countries. So what, exactly, are you getting at? Should we ban guns to prevent accidents, presumably against the wishes of those who are the victims of such accidents? Should we ban guns to maybe prevent a few suicides, with no evidence that doing so would decrease the suicide rate and not just cause people to use other methods? There are also considerations beyond safety. Cars are very dangerous, but we use them anyway because they have tremendous utility. Fatty meat and smoking (anything) are very dangerous, but we allow those things anyway because they are enjoyable and people deserve the right to expose themselves to dangerous things if they so desire.
- scottkduncan 12y ago
  Most gun deaths in the U.S. are not accidents, they are suicides. Then homicides, then accidents. And I'm not proposing banning guns, I'm challenging the commonly-held narrative that guns "keep us safe." The statistics are unequivocal that they do not.
  - jordan0day 12y ago
    Sometimes I think the "keep us safe" line, though, is really just an attempt at trying to have a more respectable-sounding defense than "I think they're pretty neat!" Gun owners are constantly on the defensive (except, of course, when their lobbying groups are being rather offensive), and constantly required to justify their existence, so of course they're going to go with something that sounds more noble than "but it's a cool hobby!" It's probably been parroted so much that a lot of people who say it actually believe it. Full disclosure: I've never owned a gun, but I do think they're pretty neat.
    - 12y ago
dlsx 12y ago
From my cold dead hands.
angersock 12y ago
Given the past year of revelations on just how corrupt and shitty the government can be, I think that many people probably support gun ownership for reasons beyond mere crime prevention.
- UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
  I have a question: Who would win, a citizen with an AR-15 or an Apache gunship? What about 30 citizens or an Apache gunship?
  - mjfl 12y ago
    The situation would be a lot more complicated even if it came to that. What's your point? If we're going to suggest a hostile government takeover I would rather have the gun and I don't know who wouldn't.
  - jauer 12y ago
    There aren't /that/ many Apache gunships / the Taliban are still hanging on despite their opponents having them.
    - jordan0day 12y ago
      The taliban were (effectively) a national government before 2003. Before that, they were part of a civil war to become the national government. They're hardly a couple of unorganized gun enthusiasts.
      - mjfl 12y ago
        So? They don't have an air force, tanks, radar installations, anything really besides guns, rpgs, and improvised explosive devices. It's at least as naive to believe that our government will always be benevolent as it is to believe that the armed civilians of the USA could rebel against the military. I would argue that the second is much more plausible.
    - hahainternet 12y ago
ChuckMcM 12y ago
It points out a pretty well established effect that repeating the same story in the news several times is internalized by people has several different instances. So when a plane crash is covered again and again, and then you ask people if plane crashes are up they will assert that they are. Similarly with child abductions and other "high impact" stories.

sp332 12y ago

Countries with looser gun laws also have lower gun crime rates. So banning guns doesn't seem to be the answer.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
makmanalp 12y ago
Maybe you got the relationship backwards. Maybe the countries that have lower crime gun crime rates just don't feel the need for gun laws.
hahainternet 12y ago
Correlation does not equal causation.
- sp332 12y ago
  Lack of correlation is evidence of lack of causation.
_delirium 12y ago
One thing I've tried and failed to find on this subject is a breakdown by kind of guns. The vast majority of gun crime uses handguns, so I've been interested in finding data on handgun ownership rates and seeing if there's any relationship. But all the data I can find comparing gun-ownership rates to gun-homicide rates includes both handguns and long guns (rifles, shotguns), which have very different crime characteristics. For example Sweden actually has quite a few guns, but they are almost all rifles in the rural far north, not handguns in Stockholm or Malmö, which I suspect makes a big difference. I'm not sure the data I'm looking for would actually show anything interesting either, but it's kind of odd that I can't find it at all.

wyager 12y ago

> overall gun deaths and gun suicides Most gun deaths are accidents, where the person who died knew they were entering a dangerous situation. I'm pretty sure the people who die in gun accidents wouldn't want guns to be banned, or else they probably wouldn't be in that situation in the first place. Also, accidental gun death rates have been declining almost monotonically since 1903. For scale, almost 8 times as many people died of choking than of gun accidents in the US in 2011. America's suicide rate is not bad at all. It's actually pretty low compared to many other developed countries. So what, exactly, are you getting at? Should we ban guns to prevent accidents, presumably against the wishes of those who are the victims of such accidents? Should we ban guns to maybe prevent a few suicides, with no evidence that doing so would decrease the suicide rate and not just cause people to use other methods? There are also considerations beyond safety. Cars are very dangerous, but we use them anyway because they have tremendous utility. Fatty meat and smoking (anything) are very dangerous, but we allow those things anyway because they are enjoyable and people deserve the right to expose themselves to dangerous things if they so desire.

scottkduncan 12y ago
Most gun deaths in the U.S. are not accidents, they are suicides. Then homicides, then accidents. And I'm not proposing banning guns, I'm challenging the commonly-held narrative that guns "keep us safe." The statistics are unequivocal that they do not.
- jordan0day 12y ago
  Sometimes I think the "keep us safe" line, though, is really just an attempt at trying to have a more respectable-sounding defense than "I think they're pretty neat!" Gun owners are constantly on the defensive (except, of course, when their lobbying groups are being rather offensive), and constantly required to justify their existence, so of course they're going to go with something that sounds more noble than "but it's a cool hobby!" It's probably been parroted so much that a lot of people who say it actually believe it. Full disclosure: I've never owned a gun, but I do think they're pretty neat.
  - 12y ago

dlsx 12y ago

From my cold dead hands.

angersock 12y ago

Given the past year of revelations on just how corrupt and shitty the government can be, I think that many people probably support gun ownership for reasons beyond mere crime prevention.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
I have a question: Who would win, a citizen with an AR-15 or an Apache gunship? What about 30 citizens or an Apache gunship?
- mjfl 12y ago
  The situation would be a lot more complicated even if it came to that. What's your point? If we're going to suggest a hostile government takeover I would rather have the gun and I don't know who wouldn't.
- jauer 12y ago
  There aren't /that/ many Apache gunships / the Taliban are still hanging on despite their opponents having them.
  - jordan0day 12y ago
    The taliban were (effectively) a national government before 2003. Before that, they were part of a civil war to become the national government. They're hardly a couple of unorganized gun enthusiasts.
    - mjfl 12y ago
      So? They don't have an air force, tanks, radar installations, anything really besides guns, rpgs, and improvised explosive devices. It's at least as naive to believe that our government will always be benevolent as it is to believe that the armed civilians of the USA could rebel against the military. I would argue that the second is much more plausible.
  - hahainternet 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago

It points out a pretty well established effect that repeating the same story in the news several times is internalized by people has several different instances. So when a plane crash is covered again and again, and then you ask people if plane crashes are up they will assert that they are. Similarly with child abductions and other "high impact" stories.