Firearms and their relation to crime figures

[MutantScalper]

And again: gun death isn't relevant, what's relevant is overall death. If guns are removed and instead of death by gun we get an equal amount of death by knife, that won't make the dead people any more alive. Hence why pointing to gun violence is irrelevant, and monitoring overall violence levels is.

In gun deaths Switzerland is higher then Finland but in total deaths below. In your opinion does this prove that Swiss don't have a problem with guns?

There are high mortality weapons such as guns and weapons that don't have quite as high mortality such as knives. If you don't think that guns aren't higher mortality weapons then say knives then are you in favour of, say, ABC-weapons for civilians? Surface to air missiles? Tanks? After all, the deaths that they would cause will be covered by knives and other methods, right?

Again: proof.

Of what? Of the change in the types of weapons Finns have? During the last few years we have had two bloody school shootings, I'll look around if you really are interested in figures from Finland.

Aaaaand yet another straw man. As I kept saying, the EuroStat study was flawed but they were the only numbers I could find at the time. That's not exactly an illogical stance.

I still don't understand your view of the UK gun laws but as it was at the time when that study was published it caused the pro gun folks to go "hahaa, UK violent = guns good!" or something. I guess this was your point as well.

In short: legal gun availability is largely irrelevant for violent crime. Illegal gun availability on the other hand is relevant.

What next, gun studies from Colombia meant to change gun laws in Europe?

Dismissing studies out of hand without even having seen them. Nice.

You don't think there's an anti-gun lobby commisioning studies too? Instead of saying "Well that's just funded by gun lobbyists[which you don't even know in this case] so it's bound to be bullshit", maybe you should look at the contents of the study and see if you can find anything wrong with it?

I quote mostly numbers such as the ones above about Switzerland not being so safe when it comes to gun violence as you thought it was. I also quote studies made by UN, WHO and also governmental organisations that at least hopefully aren't in the pocket of global weapon industry. I rarely quote individual scholars and claim that as the end-all wisdom when it comes to the gun law - issue.

I have no problem with the term "negro", although it seems it's more disapproved of than I thought. But that's completely irrelevant here.

Good. At least some progress has been made.

 

[Yoshi525]

Why does this topic seem to bring out the spastic in otherwise-non-spastic posters?

As the few non-spastics have already said, there are a lot of factors at play - saying that increased gun possession = increased gun crime, or the converse is somewhat spastic. You can use statistics to support aforementioned spastic conclusions if you like, I really couldn't care less.

Despite the above, I'm going to dip my feet into the sea of spasticity and throw in my two pence. It's fairly bleeding obvious that if one could control gun possession with a high degree of success, then one would see reduced gun crime. No guns = no gun crime. Singapore is a tiny state, with pretty damn good border controls, a small population and the death penalty, ergo in such a climate it is indeed possible to control gun possession with a reasonable degree of success. Also, as someone mentioned (or else I dreamed it up in some opium fueled oriental nod), there are always alternative weapons available. If your rival gangs don't have shooters, then it ain't as necessary for you to.

In contrast, the US is huge and borders three highly anarchistic nations by the names of Mexico, Texas and Canada. Hence control ain't going to be successful.

that won't make the dead people any more alive. Hence why pointing to gun violence is irrelevant, and monitoring overall violence levels is.

You talk a lot of sense, but....really? The issues seem pretty damn immiscible to me, for a plethora of reasons that I can happily volunteer if you do so require?

The recipe for having the highest murder rate is always the same. Lots and lots of welfare recipients, lots of black residents, crammed into an urban environment, usually run by democrats.

Cristo mate, it seems like more than your arms are backwards...

Hope this helps...everyone concerned ( minus Dammitboy). Ta-ta!

EDIT:

Alright thought i'd stick my two pence worth in here,

For pity's sake, some capital fellow country man already threw in his two pence *loads antique Baker rifle normally reserved for them-across-the-channel-who-aren't-Dutchelgian*[/quote]

 

[Sander]

In gun deaths Switzerland is higher then Finland but in total deaths below. In your opinion does this prove that Swiss don't have a problem with guns?

There are high mortality weapons such as guns and weapons that don't have quite as high mortality such as knives. If you don't think that guns aren't higher mortality weapons then say knives then are you in favour of, say, ABC-weapons for civilians? Surface to air missiles? Tanks? After all, the deaths that they would cause will be covered by knives and other methods, right?

I'm not saying they will be covered, but I'm saying that assuming they will not be is lazy. In a country with lots of guns, of course there are going to be more gun deaths. That doesn't mean that those deaths are caused by the presence of guns, but simply that guns are the tools used.

Of what? Of the change in the types of weapons Finns have? During the last few years we have had two bloody school shootings, I'll look around if you really are interested in figures from Finland.

Proof of increased violence being connected causally to (rather than just correlated with) increased presence of legal handguns.

I still don't understand your view of the UK gun laws but as it was at the time when that study was published it caused the pro gun folks to go "hahaa, UK violent = guns good!" or something. I guess this was your point as well.

You may want to read my points instead of making assumptions about what my point is.

In short: legal gun availability is largely irrelevant for violent crime. Illegal gun availability on the other hand is relevant.

What next, gun studies from Colombia meant to change gun laws in Europe?

See? You won't even discuss the contents of this study, instead just dismissing it without contemplating whether they may be right. And you then turn around and accuse others of being illogical and stubborn. Give me a break.

I quote mostly numbers such as the ones above about Switzerland not being so safe when it comes to gun violence as you thought it was. I also quote studies made by UN, WHO and also governmental organisations that at least hopefully aren't in the pocket of global weapon industry. I rarely quote individual scholars and claim that as the end-all wisdom when it comes to the gun law - issue.

No, what you do is cite numbers on violent crime and gun possession, establish a correlation and then translate it into a causation. And, as I've said over and over again despite your apparent disregard for it: examples and anecdotes won't do. And that's all you've been able to bring to the table: examples and anecdotes. When pro-gun folks cite examples that favour gun control you dismiss them out of hand. Instead of looking at the issue from a neutral angle and taking in all the possible evidence, you have a set thesis and look solely for supporting evidence. You suffer from confirmation bias.

Moreover, that study actually differentiates between legal and illegal gun availability (which is relevant), establishes a positive causal relationship between illegal gun availability and violent crime. This implies that guns in the hands of criminals leads to more violence.

At the same time, it also establishes that, at least in the areas it studied, legal gun availability seemed to be irrelevant to violent crime. Hence implying that guns in the hands of citizens are not relevant for violent crime.

But, of course, you don't differentiate. To you, any gun is a bad gun.

You talk a lot of sense, but....really? The issues seem pretty damn immiscible to me, for a plethora of reasons that I can happily volunteer if you do so require?

I can think of plenty of reasons myself why the presence of guns are going to lead to more violence. That doesn't make those reasons correct, though. But more importantly, the issue isn't whether guns 'cause' violence - it's whether gun control can reduce that.

 

[MutantScalper]

I'm not saying they will be covered, but I'm saying that assuming they will not be is lazy. In a country with lots of guns, of course there are going to be more gun deaths. That doesn't mean that those deaths are caused by the presence of guns, but simply that guns are the tools used.

Exactly, and that is why a country such as Switzerland has more gun deaths then Finland. The availability of guns facilitates those deaths that wouldn't have occurred without guns.

Proof of increased violence being connected causally to (rather than just correlated with) increased presence of legal handguns.

Both of those school shootings were committed with legal handguns by two demented individuals allowed to keep their guns despite a history of mental illness. Because of them 20 people are now dead.

You may want to read in my points instead of making assumptions about what my point is.

Of course you would be changing your point afterwards when you've been caught not even having read the study.

See? You won't even discuss the contents of this study, instead just dismissing it without contemplating whether they may be right. And you then turn around and accuse others of being illogical and stubborn. Give me a break.

I believe in the total gun deaths figure that the US government provides but that's about it. Why shouls European nations that have gun violence pretty well under control need to take pointers from individual US citizens who have drawn conclusions based on some numbers that they have acquired? US is the one with the gun problem, not Europe and it's US that should take heed of European studies about the subject.

No, what you do is cite numbers on violent crime and gun possession, establish a correlation and then translate it into a causation. And, as I've said over and over again despite your apparent disregard for it: examples and anecdotes won't do. And that's all you've been able to bring to the table: examples and anecdotes. When pro-gun folks cite examples that favour gun control you dismiss them out of hand. Instead of looking at the issue from a neutral angle and taking in all the possible

Moreover, that study actually differentiates between legal and illegal gun availability (which is relevant), establishes a positive causal relationship between illegal gun availability and violent crime. This implies that guns in the hands of criminals leads to more violence.

At the same time, it also establishes that, at least in the areas it studied, legal gun availability seemed to be irrelevant to violent crime. Hence implying that guns in the hands of citizens are not relevant for violent crime.

But, of course, you don't make any such differentiates. To you, any gun is a bad gun.

Anecdotes, look who's talking, mr "I don't even read the studies I claim prove guns are great".

 

[Sander]

Exactly, and that is why a country such as Switzerland has more gun deaths then Finland. The availability of guns facilitates those deaths that wouldn't have occurred without guns.

See, that last sentence is a lazy, unsubstantiated jump in logic.

Both of those school shootings were committed with legal handguns by two demented individuals allowed to keep their guns despite a history of mental illness. Because of them 20 people are now dead.

Tragic. I have no problem with limiting gun ownership to people without a history of mental illness.

Of course you would be changing your point afterwards when you've been caught not even having read the study.

Please point out what my point before and after was and see if you can find any changes. I can't. Because there aren't any.

I believe in the total gun deaths figure that the US government provides but that's about it. Why shouls European nations that have gun violence pretty well under control need to take pointers from individual US citizens who have drawn conclusions based on some numbers that they have acquired? US is the one with the gun problem, not Europe and it's US that should take heed of European studies about the subject.

Again: you refuse to even discuss the contents of such a study because they're written by US citizens. And then you turn around and call others close-minded, stubborn and illogical. I have no idea how you keep up this hypocrisy.

Evaluate the argument itself, not who is presenting the argument.

Plus, the idea that a random European citizen like yourself is more qualified to speak on the subject than a scholar who's done research on the subject is pretty damn arrogant.

Anecdotes, look who's talking, mr "I don't even read the studies I claim prove guns are great".

A comprehensive, detailed, peer-reviewed study at a level that's a bit higher than "They have guns and lots of violence!THEY MUST BE CONNECTED!"

Mr. "I don't even read studies because they're written by Americans"

Now, if you could go back to actually debating arguments instead of simply attacking me for one instance of not reading a study I pulled numbers from, I won't have to vat this thread for turning into nothing but personal attacks and sniping. Again.

 

[Yoshi525]

I can think of plenty of reasons myself why the presence of guns are going to lead to more violence.

That's not what I meant old chap. Forgive me for not making it more apparent; I'm tired and somewhat delirious from fever at present. Was referring more to:

If guns are removed and instead of death by gun we get an equal amount of death by knife,

I know you don't literally mean that, and I get your point but still...

 

[MutantScalper]

See, that last sentence is a lazy, unsubstantiated jump in logic.

Because you don't believe that guns are a higher mortality weapon then, say, knives? Back to square one again.

Please point out what my point before and after was and see if you can find any changes. I can't. Because there aren't any.

You were wrong and failed to knowledge it. Maybe you should gather even a modicum of knowledge about the subject before claiming to know something?

Again: you refuse to even discuss the contents of such a study because they're written by US citizens. And then you turn around and call others close-minded, stubborn and illogical. I have no idea how you keep up this hypocrisy.

Evaluate the argument itself, not who is presenting the argument.

Plus, the idea that a random European citizen like yourself is more qualified to speak on the subject than a scholar who's done research on the subject is pretty damn arrogant.

Well I have studied the matter and am in a position where I could write a study about the subject. That study would be on the same line as the Stolzenberg-study and would thus 'equal it out'. Or would actually be more applicable for Europe since I would base my study on European data and not US data.

However both of those studies would be below the studies made by European governmental organisations and organisations such as UN and WHO who aren't just individual people off the streets.

A comprehensive, detailed, peer-reviewed study

There are plenty of those made in the US from both sides of the issue. Why should we in Europe worship one of them? Why can't we make our own studies based on European data and apply that here in Europe?

Hint: there are pro-gun studies made in Europe too. It just looks a little stupid to worship a pro-gun study from high gun death nation.

at a level that's a bit higher than "They have guns and lots of violence!THEY MUST BE CONNECTED!"

Mr. "I don't even read studies because they're written by Americans"

Now, if you could go back to actually debating arguments instead of simply attacking me for one instance of not reading a study I pulled numbers from, I won't have to vat this thread for turning into nothing but personal attacks and sniping. Again.

Again, why should a study made in US that uses US data be applicable in Europe? This isn't mathematics or physics where the data is similar everywhere in the world.

 

[Yoshi525]

Well I have studied the matter and am in a position where I could write a study about the subject. That study would be on the same line as the Stolzenberg-study and would thus 'equal it out'. Or would actually be more applicable for Europe since I would base my study on European data and not US data.

You could do what now!? God save Ireland!

Again, why should a study made in US that uses US data be applicable in Europe? This isn't mathematics or physics where the data is similar everywhere in the world.

On that note, why should you presume (or else imply) there to be a degree of demographic objectivity for >50 nations? Please don't do this, it offends myself and Horatio Nelson's ghost deeply.

 

[MutantScalper]

You could do what now!? God save Ireland!

Yees? So?

On that note, why should you presume (or else imply) there to be a degree of demographic objectivity for >50 nations? Please don't do this, it offends myself and Horatio Nelson's ghost deeply.

Where did I do that?

 

[Wintermind]

Hell, didn't the OP make a point that in lieu of guns, gangsters in singapore just as happily picked up knives and went to stabbing and chopping each other up. You can't just look at gun deaths when concerned about if gun control affects violence.

I'm pretty sure if you took all the guns out of baltimore, them 'negroes' would still beat each other to death with baseball bats and stab each other with every from knives to screwdrivers, over money, respect, and most likely, drugs and drug money. (and I'm still pretty sure that if they were white they'd still get with the violence). Of course that's inference on that being poor in an area heavily influenced by the drug leads towards violent crime and not being black.

 

[MutantScalper]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/studies?s=1

From Assault weapons, Shootings with Assault Weapons Since the Ban Expired.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/assault/awb_violence.pdf

Some pretty wacky stuff right there.

McKinney, TX ٠ 8/17/10. A 29-year-old man loaded a trailer with explosives, set his truck on fire to
attract attention, and then opened fire on the McKinney police station. He shot more than 100 rounds at
the building and officers outside before shooting and killing himself. He was armed with an assault rifle,
a shotgun and a handgun, and had more weapons at home.1
Shreveport, CA ٠ 8/16/10. A 33-year-old convicted felon opened fire with an assault rifle with a 30-
round clip, killing three brothers in their car. The shooter had been hiding in the woods waiting for the
brothers who he believed had stolen his girlfriend's XBox. The brothers were 20, 18, and 13.2

Plenty of studies there for those with interest in US gun escapades.

 

[DammitBoy]

the brady campaign? yeah, there's a real unbiased source for data...

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

If you are going to use the Brady Campaign for source material you are not allowed to call foul if anyone uses the NRA or (insert random pro-gun study here). They are about as extreme and biased as it gets against gun ownership.

 

[MutantScalper]

Dammitboy, you have problem with looking at, for example, that case where a guy killed three young dudes because of a stolen xbox? Are you saying it didn't happen?

 

[Sander]

Because you don't believe that guns are a higher mortality weapon then, say, knives? Back to square one again.

Again, straw man. Because I have seen no evidence that suggests that legal ownership of handguns leads to more violent crime. That's why it's a jump in logic.

You were wrong and failed to knowledge it. Maybe you should gather even a modicum of knowledge about the subject before claiming to know something?

I acknowledged it when you provided a different source with more apt statistics.

Well I have studied the matter and am in a position where I could write a study about the subject. That study would be on the same line as the Stolzenberg-study and would thus 'equal it out'. Or would actually be more applicable for Europe since I would base my study on European data and not US data.

However both of those studies would be below the studies made by European governmental organisations and organisations such as UN and WHO who aren't just individual people off the streets.

I haven't seen a detailed study by the UN or WHO that links violent crime and legal gun ownership. I've seen data on violent crime, homicides and the like and I've seen data on legal gun ownership. I've also seen you and others link the two, but that's analysis at a very sophomoric level.

Furthermore, I haven't seen you write a study nor get it approved for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Get back to me when you do.

There are plenty of those made in the US from both sides of the issue. Why should we in Europe worship one of them? Why can't we make our own studies based on European data and apply that here in Europe?

Hint: there are pro-gun studies made in Europe too. It just looks a little stupid to worship a pro-gun study from high gun death nation.

Yes, there are vast differences between Europe and the US. There are also vast differences between each country within Europe itself. Those are all good reasons why you need to look skeptically at each study and evaluate its methods. That does not mean that you just get to ignore a study because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. That Stolzenberg is hardly the only study, but it is the highest-quality study I've seen so far.

Besides that, this thread wasn't about Europe, it was about the relation between gun ownership and crime in general. The fact that you want to apply it specifically to Finland doesn't particularly concern me.

Plenty of studies there for those with interest in US gun escapades.

Those aren't studies. Those are reports on incidents. They're an attempt to create a Moral Panic surrounding guns. "Oh no someone used a gun to kill some kids. BAN ALL GUNS NOW." Reactionary bullshit. The fac that you think pointing out incidents is relevant only undermines your credibility. The fact that you go to the Brady Campaign makes you look like a hypocrite. Because not only is the Brady Campaign the most biased anti-gun source there is, it's also a US source which makes it completely irrelevant to you. At least, that's what you were arguing before about that Stolzenberg study. But apparently that doesn't count when the study is arguing that guns are bad, right?


Here's how I see gun ownership
- Guns in the hands of criminals leads to more (or at least more fatal) violent crime
- Guns in the hands of legal citizens don't lead to more violent crime
- Guns in the hands of legal citizens probably do lead to more accidents and incidents like school shootings, but that impact is negligible compared to, say, car deaths, or pool deaths.

Hence, the issue becomes whether legal ownership of handguns leads to more guns in the hands of criminals.

 

[MutantScalper]

Again, straw man. Because I have seen no evidence that suggests that legal ownership of handguns leads to more violent crime. That's why it's a jump in logic.

So you do appreciate the difference between guns and knives in terms of levels of mortality?

I haven't seen a detailed study by the UN or WHO that links violent crime and legal gun ownership. I've seen data on violent crime, homicides and the like and I've seen data on legal gun ownership. I've also seen you and others link the two, but that's analysis at a very sophomoric level.

Furthermore, I haven't seen you write a study nor get it approved for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Get back to me when you do.

Here's a study from JSTOR that proves that guns are a high mortality weapon and links guns to more dangerous crime.

Yes, there are vast differences between Europe and the US. There are also vast differences between each country within Europe itself. Those are all good reasons why you need to look skeptically at each study and evaluate its methods. That does not mean that you just get to ignore a study because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. That Stolzenberg is hardly the only study, but it is the highest-quality study I've seen so far.

Besides that, this thread wasn't about Europe, it was about the relation between gun ownership and crime in general. The fact that you want to apply it specifically to Finland doesn't particularly concern me.

If you're a pro gun-person then it's like trying to convince a religious person not to be religious. You will always claim that the pro gun studies are "of highest quality", regardles if you read them or not.

Those aren't studies. Those are reports on incidents. They're an attempt to create a Moral Panic surrounding guns. "Oh no someone used a gun to kill some kids. BAN ALL GUNS NOW." Reactionary bullshit. The fac that you think pointing out incidents is relevant only undermines your credibility. The fact that you go to the Brady Campaign makes you look like a hypocrite. Because not only is the Brady Campaign the most biased anti-gun source there is, it's also a US source which makes it completely irrelevant to you. At least, that's what you were arguing before about that Stolzenberg study. But apparently that doesn't count when the study is arguing that guns are bad, right?

Did you read all of them? What exactly is a study, could you give me a precise definition?

And as for the one linked to, the first one on the list, are you saying those incidents didn't take place?

Here's how I see gun ownership
- Guns in the hands of criminals leads to more (or at least more fatal) violent crime
- Guns in the hands of legal citizens don't lead to more violent crime
- Guns in the hands of legal citizens probably do lead to more accidents and incidents like school shootings, but that impact is negligible compared to, say, car deaths, or pool deaths.

Hence, the issue becomes whether legal ownership of handguns leads to more guns in the hands of criminals.

How much legal gun crime is there? And when does a gun owner or a gun become "illegal", when a crime is committed with it? How convenient, doesn't that mean that there aren't any legal gun criminals because they turn into criminals when they commit a crime with a gun?

Where do the illegal weapons appear from, out of thin air? They were legal at one point, especially in a nation like US where it is easier to get weapons from legal markets then it is to smuggle or manufacture them from scratch.

http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/documents/crime/htfd_courant_071606.asp

A study about children's gun accidents, suicides and homicides.

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

 

[Crni Vuk]

Hence, the issue becomes whether legal ownership of handguns leads to more guns in the hands of criminals.

I guess probably not. Criminals will get their hands on weapons one way or another.

 

[MutantScalper]

Hence, the issue becomes whether legal ownership of handguns leads to more guns in the hands of criminals.

I guess probably not. Criminals will get their hands on weapons one way or another.

In a country like Japan criminals pretty much have to build the weapons from scratch because there aren't that much of them in the illegal markets because of Japan's legislations. If it wasn't for guns illegally imported from the States Japan would be even more safe from gun violence.

 

[Wintermind]

His point of whether it's legal or not relates to how it was acquired. If it was legally purchased from a retailer or other gun owner. Not from some corner boy armory or a friend of a friend of a friend.

Also, you know what happens when kids kill themselves/their friends in an accident? The same thing as if he drowns. The world is less one person, who, probably, was an idiot. Which is probably what you are when you play around with a loaded gun and it goes off and kills you. Yes it sounds horrible, but those kids deserve their darwin awards.

Also, after reading that short study, the person who wrote I wouldn't say is too bright. You don't keep your guns safe and hidden away. You have to *teach* your kid how to handle a gun. If he's big enough to hold it and pull the trigger, he's big enough to know the four rules. Ingrain that in your kid, and I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine that. And if you want to make a dramatic showing, take a jug of water or a melon to a range, and tell them how it's similar to a person's head and *this* is your head when it gets shot by a 9x19mm or a .357 magnum or whatever.

Also, I have to say that mentioning "gun safety" in the same sentences as "homicide" is basically retarded. When people make the conscious decision to shoot each other, it's very clearly unsafe. Unless the shooter shot himself in the leg because he drew with his trigger finger on his glock.

 

[MutantScalper]

More guns, more crime.

Gunning for the world. About the global reach of NRA.