Thread: USA Gun Laws Poll

Originally Posted by HamburgO

I sincerely appreciate the point of view put forward by you and Sailor, both living in Finland, and I understand the usual European perspective that civilian gun ownership is questionable and should be highly regulated (which in most EUR countries, it already is). As I've said before, if I lived there, I might not even own a firearm. In view of this perspective, it's even more shocking to me that some of the worst rampage killings of the past five years have all occurred in Europe, in countries that do allow civilian gun ownership, but under much more severe restrictions than in the US: Jokela and Kauhajoki in Finland, 2007/2008, 19 casualties - Winnenden, Germany, 2009, 16 casualties - Oslo/Utoya, Norway, 2011, the worst rampage killing in history, leaving 77 dead and more than 300 injured.

I agree 100% that gun restrictions do not stop maniacs from doing what they do. I said in another thread, sadly both pro-gun and anti-gun folks can use those incidents to support their own views. All i can say about those shootings is that i am happy that they are most unusual and atypical type of crime here. We are getting international, sadly.
Gun laws and restrictions work relatively well in Finland where typical form of violence is family violence or between friends. Weapons do not help but make it all worse. Luckily even such violence is rare.

Originally Posted by HamburgO

I don't think there is anything "wet" about this at all. In combination with the rest of our social disorders, the glorification of violence and the individual desensitization and disassociation that goes with it, IMO definitely compounds the problem - although I must note that kids in Canada and Europe and Japan are exposed to the same material, and we're not seeing the same levels of predatory violence in those countries. An excellent book on the subject, written not long after the Columbine shooting, is Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's "Stop Teaching Our Kids How To Kill". Grossmann is a former Army Ranger and psychologist whose studies on the physiological and psychological effects of inter-personal violence are considered seminal.

I think this is an important point, desensitization. What do people expect when there is a lot of footage from modern wars that show the view from a camera in the nose of a smart bomb or a drone delivering a strike and so on. It all starts to look like those games kids love to play on their PCs. There is a real disconnect with reality. In reality people riddled by a mini gun don't get up for round 2 and a replay. There ain't much left of them and what is would make you want to hurl your guts out in reality.

Unfortunately other countries are not immune to this either. At least Canada is not according to this Firearms and Violent Crime . The stats on the 12 to 17 age group is more than just a little worrying. We may be late to the party but we are getting there, sadly enough.

Originally Posted by BobH

I would really like to see a link to where that info came from.

Bob

University of Leiden study. Buried toward the bottom of this webpage. Also alluded to here.

EDIT:
The reason that the U.S. is not in the top 10 for "highest levels of violence in the western world" is likely the same reason as for any "higher gun violence". That is... We use firearms for self-defense about once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Successful self defense shootings are included in the "homicide rate", as are police shootings, criminals shooting criminals, and suicides.

I wouldn't count anything in the last sentence as a violent crime. Successful self-defense with a gun is obviously not a crime (maybe it is in Canada, from what I've read here), although it is certainly a "violent gun use". Police shooting a criminal is also not a crime, hopefully. Criminal shooting a criminal (mostly gang/drug related) strictly speaking is a crime, although I would call it more of a "public service". Criminals shooting criminals is by far the most frequent use of "gun violence". It heavily weights the gun use/violence stats (anywhere from about half to 90%). Suicides a crime? If so, who will you prosecute?

The statistic that means the most to me: Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. <--In the great majority of cases, the gun successfully defends without firing it.

(Source/citation for most stats: last link listed above.)

Sticky

You are entitled to argue semantics all you want but but the UNODC talks about homicides by firearms. The US with a per capita homicides by firearms of 3.0 is very high compared to virtually all of western Europe including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The average for those other countries seems to be about 0.4, significantly smaller. Those countries, it can be argued, also have a similar standard of living, some even better than the US. Peru came close to matching the US with a reported 2.6 per capita. South Africa was much worse at 17.0. Anyway, among peer countries you are not doing too well.

Bob

Originally Posted by Sticky

University of Leiden study. Buried toward the bottom of this webpage. Also alluded to here.

EDIT:
The reason that the U.S. is not in the top 10 for "highest levels of violence in the western world" is likely the same reason as for any "higher gun violence". That is... We use firearms for self-defense about once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Successful self defense shootings are included in the "homicide rate", as are police shootings, criminals shooting criminals, and suicides.

I wouldn't count anything in the last sentence as a violent crime. Successful self-defense with a gun is obviously not a crime (maybe it is in Canada, from what I've read here), although it is certainly a "violent gun use". Police shooting a criminal is also not a crime, hopefully. Criminal shooting a criminal (mostly gang/drug related) strictly speaking is a crime, although I would call it more of a "public service". Criminals shooting criminals is by far the most frequent use of "gun violence". It heavily weights the gun use/violence stats (anywhere from about half to 90%). Suicides a crime? If so, who will you prosecute?

The statistic that means the most to me: Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. <--In the great majority of cases, the gun successfully defends without firing it.

(Source/citation for most stats: last link listed above.)

it's mostly anecdotal evidence really. How many times does the existence of a weapon cause a situation to escalate to a gun being used that otherwise would just dissipate by itself or result in a fist fight?

You forgot that part.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

it's mostly anecdotal evidence really. How many times does the existence of a weapon cause a situation to escalate to a gun being used that otherwise would just dissipate by itself or result in a fist fight?

You forgot that part.

No, I didn't forget. The evidence and stats are just "what they are", unless they state additional restrictions or parameters.
The parameters you mention were not in the study or statistics (that I know of); nor did anyone say they were. I may be missing the point you are trying to make.

EDIT: which part is anecdotal? The stats come from different sources.
2nd EDIT: Since the sources that I cited differ, I should ask which source(s) was/were found to be anecdotal?

Originally Posted by BobH

Sticky

You are entitled to argue semantics all you want but but the UNODC talks about homicides by firearms. The US with a per capita homicides by firearms of 3.0 is very high compared to virtually all of western Europe including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The average for those other countries seems to be about 0.4, significantly smaller. Those countries, it can be argued, also have a similar standard of living, some even better than the US. Peru came close to matching the US with a reported 2.6 per capita. South Africa was much worse at 17.0. Anyway, among peer countries you are not doing too well.

Bob

Semantics? I am not arguing semantics at all. "Homicide by firearms" is distinct from "Homicides from all sources" or "homicides by non-gun sources".

Going by "levels of violence" from all sources, we are not in the top 10. I want to know about all violence, not just guns. Like I said before: The statistic that means the most to me is, "Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. <--In the great majority of cases, the gun successfully defends without firing it."

Citations available on request...nm, already provided them earlier.

Originally Posted by BobH

The US with a per capita homicides by firearms of 3.0 is very high compared to virtually all of western Europe including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The average for those other countries seems to be about 0.4, significantly smaller. Those countries, it can be argued, also have a similar standard of living, some even better than the US. Peru came close to matching the US with a reported 2.6 per capita. South Africa was much worse at 17.0. Anyway, among peer countries you are not doing too well.

Bob

The countries you've mentioned have stringent regulations against private possession of handguns. That is something to take into consideration.

Sticky

I thought the poll was about USA gun laws and homicide by firearms seems to fit in there. Like I have said else where, as a Liberal and a gun owner in a different country I am not in favour of more gun laws in my own country just better enforcement of the ones we have. I did not vote in this poll as I don't know enough about your gun laws. I do know that you have a very much higher homicide by firearms rate than a lot of countries in roughly the same peer group. I don't know what causes that to be so. I can say that it looks like, to me, that you have a problem but then it is yours to either try and fix or ignore at your pleasure. We just have differing views is all and that is fine.

Bob

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

The countries you've mentioned have stringent regulations against private possession of handguns. That is something to take into consideration.

Well, yes and no to that. It might be that but it almost seems too easy an assumption to connect those dots together. Too many other differences in attitudes, levels of poverty and education, more effective enforcement and so much more that could also make the difference.

Bob