CT school shooting - Horrible

[Nekojin]

I'm very impressed by the fact that we managed to five days before someone claimed this was a conspiracy by Obama to take away people's guns...

It wasn't. There were people who were claiming that the shooter was hired by (insert government agency) in order to (fill in the blank), and that it was all orchestrated by Obama... within 20 minutes of the first news report.

[siead_lietrathua]

Those facts in the first link are interesting: But some of them are examples of "big scary numbers." I suspect that a few, when given more context (you know, such as how many of the world's guns [not owned by military and police] are in which nations) would be far less "OMG!" and a little more, "Oh, well, yeah, that would make sense."

but it takes two seconds on google to see that that states had less than 5% the population of the planet, 50%ish of gun ownership (that's people, not weapons), and is only outranked in gun deaths by countries with drug and war problems... the information out there is easy to find. heck all i did was type "global percentage of gun deaths" and got a slew of info

july 23 this year: http://billmoyers.com/2012/07/23/map...es-by-country/
here's a neat one on japan: http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...deaths/260189/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
the line for US: United States/ 60%of homocides by firearms/ 9,146 #of firearm homicides/ 2.97 homicide per 100,000ppl/ 1 rank of rate by ownership/ 88.8 average firearms per 100 ppl/ 270,000,000 average total of all civilian firearms

civilian firearms. not military, police or anything else. everyday joes with guns.

the data isnt hard to find. for a first-world nation, the US stands alone for it's gun volume and gun-death amount.

[Andara Bledin]

The data is also incomplete. Most of the sites that aggregate data make note that you can't actually compare different countries data side by side due to the fact that even among first-world nations, the definitions and reporting levels don't match.

I've actually tried to do serious research in related matters (mostly dealing with alcohol-related deaths and accidents) and for some countries it's estimated that up to a frightening 80% of actual crime is never reported and thus never makes it into the reports. And that's for things that were witnessed and had actual specific victims who were harmed.

In the US, it's a requirement that all gunshot victims that go to the doctor are reported. Other countries that don't have that requirement will necessarily have a less-reported incidence of gun violence as a percentage of actual incidents. Also worth noting is that the requirement to report actually increases deaths due to gunshot as people choose to avoid getting treatment to avoid being investigated by the police.

And then you get into the fact that most of the gun data requires self-reporting which is never accurate. And the less "free" a country gets, the less accurate the self-reporting becomes until you reach full totalitarian, at which point it becomes moot.

Without a totalitarian regime, there is no way to have accurate data. We can just approximate, and even then, there have to be allowances made for differences in societies, laws, reporting standards, data collection standards, and cultural situations. Most of which is flat out ignored by most side-by-side comparison articles, despite the place where they get their data often having such a disclaimer.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

What country is this where you can go to the ER with a gun shot wound and its no questions asked? It gets reported to the police in Canada.

You're talking like guns exist in some sort of data vacuum. Guns are a product. If we can figure out how many people own an Nintendo Wii in America, we can be reasonable accurate over how many civilian firearms there are. While its true that the definition of a violent crime varies from country to country, countries are still going to have a yes or no response to whether a gun was used in a crime. As its often a factor that determines severity of a crime.

There is enough comparative data to see there's a problem in the US with the current system. Even if the fine details are muddy.

[AdminAssistant]

What country is this where you can go to the ER with a gun shot wound and its no questions asked? It gets reported to the police in Canada.

In Russia/Eastern Europe, if you have enough money you can get pretty much anything swept under the rug. Especially with the police.

[Gravekeeper]

In Russia/Eastern Europe, if you have enough money you can get pretty much anything swept under the rug. Especially with the police.

Yeah, but Russia isn't exactly a first world bastion of freedom and liberty. US gun violence looks pretty good when you start comparing it to second or third world countries. The problem is how the US compares to its peers.

[siead_lietrathua]

Yeah, but Russia isn't exactly a first world bastion of freedom and liberty. US gun violence looks pretty good when you start comparing it to second or third world countries. The problem is how the US compares to its peers.

agreed. if you look at global numbers of deaths by gun violence, the US usually falls between 4 and 7, depending on year. but the countries above it are either warzones or involved in drug wars.
that's why the stats all say in the ranks of the 23 countries that can be considered first world, US is highest. it's on the links i've put before, i'm not reposting them.

edit: i just found this. someone who loves guns. loves them! but hates semis and thinks certain guns should be banned for very personal reasons. please, read if you get a chance. http://www.xojane.com/issues/on-blac...now-to-be-true

[lordlundar]

The data is also incomplete. Most of the sites that aggregate data make note that you can't actually compare different countries data side by side due to the fact that even among first-world nations, the definitions and reporting levels don't match.

I've actually tried to do serious research in related matters (mostly dealing with alcohol-related deaths and accidents) and for some countries it's estimated that up to a frightening 80% of actual crime is never reported and thus never makes it into the reports. And that's for things that were witnessed and had actual specific victims who were harmed.

In the US, it's a requirement that all gunshot victims that go to the doctor are reported. Other countries that don't have that requirement will necessarily have a less-reported incidence of gun violence as a percentage of actual incidents. Also worth noting is that the requirement to report actually increases deaths due to gunshot as people choose to avoid getting treatment to avoid being investigated by the police.

And then you get into the fact that most of the gun data requires self-reporting which is never accurate. And the less "free" a country gets, the less accurate the self-reporting becomes until you reach full totalitarian, at which point it becomes moot.

Without a totalitarian regime, there is no way to have accurate data. We can just approximate, and even then, there have to be allowances made for differences in societies, laws, reporting standards, data collection standards, and cultural situations. Most of which is flat out ignored by most side-by-side comparison articles, despite the place where they get their data often having such a disclaimer.

^-.-^

Wait wait wait. You're saying your defence against those reports is that the numbers are most likely too low? Did I read that right?

I mean, that's like saying that drunk driving isn't a problem because the percent of incidents is reported to be 5% when the actual level is 10%. It does not really help your case.

[Greenday]

Wait wait wait. You're saying your defence against those reports is that the numbers are most likely too low? Did I read that right?

I mean, that's like saying that drunk driving isn't a problem because the percent of incidents is reported to be 5% when the actual level is 10%. It does not really help your case.

No, what Andara is saying is that other countries don't report crimes as strictly as America meaning that those other countries report lower numbers than what really is true.

[Nyoibo]

Actually what it sounds like is making excuses.

[s_stabeler]

especially when Andara's argument seems to be to demand data on why guns are a problem, then to say any such data is inaccurate. Andara, we have provided data to support our arguments. You claim that the data is misleading. please provide evidence to back up said claim. ( you allege that there is systematic underreporting of gun crime. Sources?)

second, America might not be quite the same, but i do know of an example where, in response to tragedies, gun control legislation was introduced, albeit extreme. the UK. Guns used to be available relatively freely. Then, a license was introduced ( incidentally, self-defense wasn't a justification for getting the license) and later, handguns were banned entirely. Gun crime became relatively insignificant.

[Greenday]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...gun-crime.html - Cops in Nottinghamshire underreport crimes to make their area seem better.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...mo-admits.html - More underreported crime in the UK

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847 - Australia, five years after the gun ban, saw no difference in gun related crime. In fact, crime in general went UP (Though I'm not going to say for sure that gun control laws were the reason they went up).

[Tanasi]

I've been wanting to comment on this thread and have typed in three different responses only to delete them. What I will say is the rifle being in "assault mode" is a term of ignorance. Assault Mode is meaningless in regard to the rifle the nut-job used. He used a run of the mill semi-automatic rifle. One shot for each pull of the trigger, he did not have an actual assault rifle as defined by the BATFE. I have similar rifles and none are full-automatic or "machine guns." Operationally they are very very similar to the old Remington 740 rifle. Cosmetically they're world's apart but that's all. Another difference the Rem 740 fires a much more lethal round than the AR-15.

[s_stabeler]

quote from your first source- Failings have left the public there at greater risk of crime than anywhere else in the country. It's an extreme. ( and gun crime still fell)

the second source- you have a point there, though it doesn't mention the scale of the problem ( IIRC, there would need to be something like a 10-20-fold increase in crimes if you include unreported crimes to make Britain as bad as america per capita)

third source- has a point, but that's a gun ban, not control, plus it doesn't mention if there was any effort to get guns off the street at the same time. Yes, a gun ban alone will do nothing. But reducing the number of guns available? will.

so all in all, yes, those sources DO prove there is underreporting of crime; they do NOT prove the level of underreporting, which is the issue here. For Andara to be correct, there would need to be sufficient gun crimes going under-or un- reported to increase Britain's gun crime to the level per capita of america.

[s_stabeler]

I've been wanting to comment on this thread and have typed in three different responses only to delete them. What I will say is the rifle being in "assault mode" is a term of ignorance. Assault Mode is meaningless in regard to the rifle the nut-job used. He used a run of the mill semi-automatic rifle. One shot for each pull of the trigger, he did not have an actual assault rifle as defined by the BATFE. I have similar rifles and none are full-automatic or "machine guns." Operationally they are very very similar to the old Remington 740 rifle. Cosmetically they're world's apart but that's all. Another difference the Rem 740 fires a much more lethal round than the AR-15.

assault mode is another name for burst fire, I think. You're right it's not an assault rifle though.