Guns, Guns Guns

KNick wrote:Hi Spacekiwi.

While that seems to be the case, it is more complicated than that. Some of the measures in the bill, such as the background check, are merely extensions of laws that are already on the books. That one has already been challenged and upheld. It has been deemed to be in the public interest to attempt to exclude criminals from purchasing a gun of any type. The new parts of the law add point of sale requirements that are not covered by previous law (the so called gun show exemption). They also add some classes of people that are not currently covered. That amendment to the law would pass almost anywhere.

The assault weapons part of the bill is the one I personally have the most trouble with. Not with what it attempts to do, but the language with which it is written. Under the proposed definitions, even a handgun could be classified as an "assault weapon". The second reason I think this is bad law is the fact that such a law already exists, with very precise definitions, very strict controls and has already been in use for over fifty years.

I object to the magazine measures because it makes owning such a magazine illegal. That would automatically make anyone who owns one a criminal, even though it was legal when purchased. Separate the different parts and let each one be decided separately.

the wording on assault rifles has baffled me multiple times when researching this, so i agree that people will have a lot of trouble with it. it seems to be worded to ban parts, not actual guns. And I had always wondered about those exemptions for gunshows.

as for the magazines, what if you were to grandfather it in over a year or two, with a buyback time so the state government would buy back the magazines. it gets them off the streets, doesnt penalise the owners as much, and gives an incentive to hand them in.

Spacekiwi wrote:

KNick wrote:Hi Spacekiwi.

While that seems to be the case, it is more complicated than that. Some of the measures in the bill, such as the background check, are merely extensions of laws that are already on the books. That one has already been challenged and upheld. It has been deemed to be in the public interest to attempt to exclude criminals from purchasing a gun of any type. The new parts of the law add point of sale requirements that are not covered by previous law (the so called gun show exemption). They also add some classes of people that are not currently covered. That amendment to the law would pass almost anywhere.

The assault weapons part of the bill is the one I personally have the most trouble with. Not with what it attempts to do, but the language with which it is written. Under the proposed definitions, even a handgun could be classified as an "assault weapon". The second reason I think this is bad law is the fact that such a law already exists, with very precise definitions, very strict controls and has already been in use for over fifty years.

I object to the magazine measures because it makes owning such a magazine illegal. That would automatically make anyone who owns one a criminal, even though it was legal when purchased. Separate the different parts and let each one be decided separately.

the wording on assault rifles has baffled me multiple times when researching this, so i agree that people will have a lot of trouble with it. it seems to be worded to ban parts, not actual guns. And I had always wondered about those exemptions for gunshows.

as for the magazines, what if you were to grandfather it in over a year or two, with a buyback time so the state government would buy back the magazines. it gets them off the streets, doesnt penalise the owners as much, and gives an incentive to hand them in.

I am not sure that reducing the size of magazines available to law abiding citizens makes anyone safer. Chicago's very strict gun control laws leading to the highest muder rate in the country. At best this argues that other factors are more important than the availablity to violent crime and murder rates. At worst it suggests that the absence of guns leads to higher amounts of violent crime and murder.

Before we bring in Britain as a counter example, recall that in the UK one is 4 times as likely to be violently assaulted as in the US and women are twice as likely to be raped. So, the argument that guns lead to violent crime is suspect when one considers the data.

PeterZ wrote:I am not sure that reducing the size of magazines available to law abiding citizens makes anyone safer. Chicago's very strict gun control laws leading to the highest muder rate in the country. At best this argues that other factors are more important than the availablity to violent crime and murder rates. At worst it suggests that the absence of guns leads to higher amounts of violent crime and murder.

Before we bring in Britain as a counter example, recall that in the UK one is 4 times as likely to be violently assaulted as in the US and women are twice as likely to be raped. So, the argument that guns lead to violent crime is suspect when one considers the data.

thats because the us and uk have different definitions on violent crime.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#United_Kingdom

So the fbi count violent crime as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
While the Brits includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses.

that right there will probably throw the numbers off. The BJS http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cv11pr.cfm note that the violent crime rate in 2011 for the US is approximately 23 crimes per 1,000 people. this compares to 16 in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

According to wikipedia, the rate of rape in the uk and us are approximately similar, at between 27 and 29 per hundred thousand population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

according to the fbi, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain, in 2010, there was a murder rate of 4.8 per 100,000 in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States notes a rate of 1.4 for britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime notes that around 9% of britains homicides involved guns, as opposed to 67% in 2009 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


these may not by themselves suggest much, but together they can certainly suggest a bit more.

On a related note, another Colorado prosecutor's house was broken into by an armed man. It took the man long enough that she was able to call 911 and report it. Before the local police arrived, the man gained entry and attempted to shoot the woman. She and her husband both shot him in return, killing him. It does say something when criminals go to that length to try to kill someone. By the way, the husband was a cop.

Using the percentage of how someone was killed is less than useless in this discussion; how isn't nearly as useful as the rate. And of course more guns are involved in the US than the UK, you can actually get guns in the US without spending a ton of time jumping through hoops.

Spacekiwi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime notes that around 9% of britains homicides involved guns, as opposed to 67% in 2009 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Donnachaidh wrote:Using the percentage of how someone was killed is less than useless in this discussion; how isn't nearly as useful as the rate. And of course more guns are involved in the US than the UK, you can actually get guns in the US without spending a ton of time jumping through hoops.

Spacekiwi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime notes that around 9% of britains homicides involved guns, as opposed to 67% in 2009 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

But if we assume that a drop in guns results in a drop in crimes, then the reduction of guns in the united states should remove a significant portion of homicides, or result in a decrease in homicides and an increase in serious injuries. more people can stand back and pull the trigger the first time round then knife someone the first time, when its on purpose. removing the guns would reduce the on purpose shootings and probably the amount of crimes as criminals would be less likely to have guns, while knowing the cops are guaranteed to have guns.

Spacekiwi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:Using the percentage of how someone was killed is less than useless in this discussion; how isn't nearly as useful as the rate. And of course more guns are involved in the US than the UK, you can actually get guns in the US without spending a ton of time jumping through hoops.

But if we assume that a drop in guns results in a drop in crimes, then the reduction of guns in the united states should remove a significant portion of homicides, or result in a decrease in homicides and an increase in serious injuries. more people can stand back and pull the trigger the first time round then knife someone the first time, when its on purpose. removing the guns would reduce the on purpose shootings and probably the amount of crimes as criminals would be less likely to have guns, while knowing the cops are guaranteed to have guns.

That's a bit conviluted. Might it not be the case that armed victims reduce the perception in the criminal that the crime is worth the effort.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Some stats from the UN that compares US and UK in 2002. Key stats are assault victims, rape victims and total crime victims.

Percentage of rape victims in female population:
UK-0.9% US 0.4%
Percentage of assault victims in the total population:
UK-2.8% US-1.2%
Percentage of crime victims in the total population:
UK-26.4% US-21.1%

As an aside, the total crimes commited in the UK vs. the US iillustrates a slightly different picture.
UK-6,523,706 US-11,877,218
Compared to the population of about 60,000,000 in the UK compared to 290,000,000 in the US and we get:
UK- ~1 crime every 9 people
US- ~1 crime every 24 people

As for the definitions, I am comfortable that the tradition of common law shared by both the US and the UK make these stats reasonably comparable.

And finally we get to the WHO comparison on murders.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_who-crime-murders-who

I believe these numbers are per 100,000 people. That appears to be the standard, but I cannot seem to get a definition. I make the assumption that these numbers are therefore comparable regardless of the comparison standard used in these 2004 statistics.

These numbers are per unstated portion of the population assumed to be 100,000.
UK- 6.6
US- 5.6

So, to me the logic leading one to assert reduced availability of guns reduce rates of crime and especially murder are not supported by the statistics. These stats suggest that perhaps an armed population reduces the rate of crime. Even if this relationship is simply a corelation and not causal, reducing the availability of guns, without a guaranty that such a change wouldn't impact the relationship, wouldn't necessarily lead to reduced crime.

I understand that some people would feel safer if guns were not available. That does not mean they actually would be safer. That said, I would prefer to have my family actually be safer at the expense of those peope feeling less safe (especially if they actually are safer).

It is my understanding that most homicides are either accidents or done in the heat of the moment, not planned. Either way the argument that more people can pull a trigger than use a knife doesn't come into play.

Many crimes that involve guns in the US also involve guns that are either illegal or purchased illegally now. So making more laws doesn't seem like it will affect that unless they want to try to just ban guns all together and start collecting them. Which will end poorly given how people in the US feel about guns and our constitution.

Spacekiwi wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:Using the percentage of how someone was killed is less than useless in this discussion; how isn't nearly as useful as the rate. And of course more guns are involved in the US than the UK, you can actually get guns in the US without spending a ton of time jumping through hoops.

But if we assume that a drop in guns results in a drop in crimes, then the reduction of guns in the united states should remove a significant portion of homicides, or result in a decrease in homicides and an increase in serious injuries. more people can stand back and pull the trigger the first time round then knife someone the first time, when its on purpose. removing the guns would reduce the on purpose shootings and probably the amount of crimes as criminals would be less likely to have guns, while knowing the cops are guaranteed to have guns.

PeterZ wrote:
That's a bit convoluted. Might it not be the case that armed victims reduce the perception in the criminal that the crime is worth the effort.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Some stats from the UN that compares US and UK in 2002. Key stats are assault victims, rape victims and total crime victims.

Percentage of rape victims in female population:
UK-0.9% US 0.4%
Percentage of assault victims in the total population:
UK-2.8% US-1.2%
Percentage of crime victims in the total population:
UK-26.4% US-21.1%

As an aside, the total crimes committed in the UK vs. the US illustrates a slightly different picture.
UK-6,523,706 US-11,877,218
Compared to the population of about 60,000,000 in the UK compared to 290,000,000 in the US and we get:
UK- ~1 crime every 9 people
US- ~1 crime every 24 people

As for the definitions, I am comfortable that the tradition of common law shared by both the US and the UK make these stats reasonably comparable.

And finally we get to the WHO comparison on murders.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_who-crime-murders-who

I believe these numbers are per 100,000 people. That appears to be the standard, but I cannot seem to get a definition. I make the assumption that these numbers are therefore comparable regardless of the comparison standard used in these 2004 statistics.

These numbers are per unstated portion of the population assumed to be 100,000.
UK- 6.6
US- 5.6

So, to me the logic leading one to assert reduced availability of guns reduce rates of crime and especially murder are not supported by the statistics. These stats suggest that perhaps an armed population reduces the rate of crime. Even if this relationship is simply a corelation and not causal, reducing the availability of guns, without a guaranty that such a change wouldn't impact the relationship, wouldn't necessarily lead to reduced crime.

I understand that some people would feel safer if guns were not available. That does not mean they actually would be safer. That said, I would prefer to have my family actually be safer at the expense of those peope feeling less safe (especially if they actually are safer).

Just checked the dates on your data, and the data for your facts is from between 2002 and 2004, according to the site. the Data I used was from a later study in 2012 according to the data on the wikipedia pages. Im not sure how they did it, but according to your numbers and mine, the british managed to drop their murder rate by around 4.5 per hundred thousand over 8 to 10 years. the US also managed a respectable 0.8 per 100,000 drop, which assuming a population of 400 million, is still a drop of 3200 deaths.

although, http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/Crime1.pdf notes that they cut all violent crime by 30% between 2006 and 2011 to 13.5 violent crimes per thousand pop.

Also of note is that due to the narrower criteria in the US, rape numbers can be counted as lower.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/federal-rules-on-rape-statistics-criticized.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 this noes that in 2010, around 25% of rapes in New York were not accepted by the fbi as rape. It also notes that Chicagos rapes are not included as they use a borader definition of rape then the fbi. Really we should be comparing all sexual crimes to prevent definitions altering the number.


So yes in 2002 to 2004 Britains stats were comparable to the US's, but now they are much lower. I am guessing for the people per crimes that it must include all crimes including theft, and its probably the small crimes which are so prevalent in the uk, or maybe the US doesnt count multiple crimes or some such. I have no idea.

cant think of anything else at the moment.

Spacekiwi wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
That's a bit convoluted. Might it not be the case that armed victims reduce the perception in the criminal that the crime is worth the effort.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Some stats from the UN that compares US and UK in 2002. Key stats are assault victims, rape victims and total crime victims.

Percentage of rape victims in female population:
UK-0.9% US 0.4%
Percentage of assault victims in the total population:
UK-2.8% US-1.2%
Percentage of crime victims in the total population:
UK-26.4% US-21.1%

As an aside, the total crimes committed in the UK vs. the US illustrates a slightly different picture.
UK-6,523,706 US-11,877,218
Compared to the population of about 60,000,000 in the UK compared to 290,000,000 in the US and we get:
UK- ~1 crime every 9 people
US- ~1 crime every 24 people

As for the definitions, I am comfortable that the tradition of common law shared by both the US and the UK make these stats reasonably comparable.

And finally we get to the WHO comparison on murders.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_who-crime-murders-who

I believe these numbers are per 100,000 people. That appears to be the standard, but I cannot seem to get a definition. I make the assumption that these numbers are therefore comparable regardless of the comparison standard used in these 2004 statistics.

These numbers are per unstated portion of the population assumed to be 100,000.
UK- 6.6
US- 5.6

So, to me the logic leading one to assert reduced availability of guns reduce rates of crime and especially murder are not supported by the statistics. These stats suggest that perhaps an armed population reduces the rate of crime. Even if this relationship is simply a corelation and not causal, reducing the availability of guns, without a guaranty that such a change wouldn't impact the relationship, wouldn't necessarily lead to reduced crime.

I understand that some people would feel safer if guns were not available. That does not mean they actually would be safer. That said, I would prefer to have my family actually be safer at the expense of those peope feeling less safe (especially if they actually are safer).

Just checked the dates on your data, and the data for your facts is from between 2002 and 2004, according to the site. the Data I used was from a later study in 2012 according to the data on the wikipedia pages. Im not sure how they did it, but according to your numbers and mine, the british managed to drop their murder rate by around 4.5 per hundred thousand over 8 to 10 years. the US also managed a respectable 0.8 per 100,000 drop, which assuming a population of 400 million, is still a drop of 3200 deaths.

although, http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/files/Crime1.pdf notes that they cut all violent crime by 30% between 2006 and 2011 to 13.5 violent crimes per thousand pop.

Also of note is that due to the narrower criteria in the US, rape numbers can be counted as lower.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/federal-rules-on-rape-statistics-criticized.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 this noes that in 2010, around 25% of rapes in New York were not accepted by the fbi as rape. It also notes that Chicagos rapes are not included as they use a borader definition of rape then the fbi. Really we should be comparing all sexual crimes to prevent definitions altering the number.


So yes in 2002 to 2004 Britains stats were comparable to the US's, but now they are much lower. I am guessing for the people per crimes that it must include all crimes including theft, and its probably the small crimes which are so prevalent in the uk, or maybe the US doesnt count multiple crimes or some such. I have no idea.

cant think of anything else at the moment.

I don't disagree with your caveats. That does of course strongly suggests that assuming fewer firearms DOES NOT automatically lead to fewer violent crimes. That was all I wanted to assert. I suppose I would also like assert that MORE firearms DOES NOT automatically lead to greater safety.

Firearms do appear to have a slight corelation to fewer violent crimes. How that corelation manifests is worthy of further study.