America, Violence and Guns

[Assume Nothing]

Note: This thread is based on what I've watched on the Documentary of the Columbine Massacre/Murder of Kayla Rolland by Michael Moore.

 

It starts with a question - Why does America have one of the highest gun murder rates in the entire world? (This may be outdated, as it's years back).

 

Here's my quick analysis on the subject;

 

Some people blame gun crime to violent video games, violent history of the United States, and all the other crap people could come up with (Marilyn Manson, for example). I think that's silly, because there are plenty of other countries similar to the United States with all the same 'problems' being blamed, with very low gun crime.

 

Why doesn't America's neighbour from the North, Canada (who also has widespread ownership of guns), have the same problems? I recognise the fact that they are different countries, most likely with different cultures and customs, but they are still relatively similar (in comparison to China/Japan Wars, the Nazi invasion, etc.)

 

Personally, I feel that it's largely to do with fear and the media. The media forces a lot of paranoia into ordinary citizens of the United States, with practically everything on Fox being murders, gun crimes and gang related crimes.

 

I'm not sure what else to add to this thread at this moment in time, but I'll edit it later.

 

Discuss

[Ginger_Warrior]

Before the inevitable America vs the World paradigm comes into play, here's some facts found by quick googling 'Global epidemiology of gun-related deaths'. They're from 1998, which I guess instantly discounts the widespread use of FPS games as the sole cause, much to the annoyance of neurotic mothers everywhere - CoD and GTA simply weren't around then so cannot be blamed as the sole environmental factor.

 

Source: http://www.medicinen...articlekey=6166

 

[hide=Article body]

The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

 

The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

 

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

 

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

 

• U.S.A. 14.24
• Brazil 12.95
• Mexico 12.69
• Estonia 12.26
• Argentina 8.93
• Northern Ireland 6.63
• Finland 6.46
• Switzerland 5.31
• France 5.15
• Canada 4.31
• Norway 3.82
• Austria 3.70
• Portugal 3.20
• Israel 2.91
• Belgium 2.90
• Australia 2.65
• Slovenia 2.60
• Italy 2.44
• New Zealand 2.38
• Denmark 2.09
• Sweden 1.92
• Kuwait 1.84
• Greece 1.29
• Germany 1.24
• Hungary 1.11
• Ireland 0.97
• Spain 0.78
• Netherlands 0.70
• Scotland 0.54
• England and Wales 0.41
• Taiwan 0.37
• Singapore 0.21
• Mauritius 0.19
• Hong Kong 0.14
• South Korea 0.12
• Japan 0.05

Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.[/hide]

Seems that it's not so much the US that has a problem with guns, so much as the whole of the Americas (Canada aside). The low rates in east Asia are staggering. :blink:

 

There's a list on Wikipedia showing more up-to-date figures but they aren't significantly different.

[obfuscator]

Before the inevitable America vs the World paradigm comes into play, here's some facts found by quick googling 'Global epidemiology of gun-related deaths'. They're from 1998, which I guess instantly discounts the widespread use of FPS games as the sole cause, much to the annoyance of neurotic mothers everywhere - CoD and GTA simply weren't around then so cannot be blamed as the sole environmental factor.

 

Source: http://www.medicinen...articlekey=6166

 

[hide=Article body]

The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

 

The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.

 

The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.

 

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

 

• U.S.A. 14.24
• Brazil 12.95
• Mexico 12.69
• Estonia 12.26
• Argentina 8.93
• Northern Ireland 6.63
• Finland 6.46
• Switzerland 5.31
• France 5.15
• Canada 4.31
• Norway 3.82
• Austria 3.70
• Portugal 3.20
• Israel 2.91
• Belgium 2.90
• Australia 2.65
• Slovenia 2.60
• Italy 2.44
• New Zealand 2.38
• Denmark 2.09
• Sweden 1.92
• Kuwait 1.84
• Greece 1.29
• Germany 1.24
• Hungary 1.11
• Ireland 0.97
• Spain 0.78
• Netherlands 0.70
• Scotland 0.54
• England and Wales 0.41
• Taiwan 0.37
• Singapore 0.21
• Mauritius 0.19
• Hong Kong 0.14
• South Korea 0.12
• Japan 0.05

Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.[/hide]

Seems that it's not so much the US that has a problem with guns, so much as the whole of the Americas (Canada aside). The low rates in east Asia are staggering. :blink:

 

There's a list on Wikipedia showing more up-to-date figures but they aren't significantly different.

Interesting that Canada has the lowest rate in the americas - as it's quite hard to get a gun here.

 

Look - I understand where americans are coming from. Guns are pretty [bleep]ing cool, to be honest. I understand the desire to want to have one because they're cool, or because you feel safe, or whatever. Unfortunately, releaxed gun laws have consequences. I'm willing to waive my right to bear arms (I never intend to own a gun) if it lowers gun crime in society, which it does.

[Sbrideau]

As far as I know, it's illegal to own a handgun in Canada. I think the only guns allowed are for hunting.

 

I do have to agree on the media hypothesis, all I'm seeing on the U.S. news is muders and that kind of stuff. We almost never see that in the news here in Canada. Hell, we don't even need to lock the doors.

[Giordano]

I think we fail to realize why these deaths are for. Gang members deaths by a rival gang member's bullet counts, but is it a worth statistic? As in, does the average person need to concern themselves in gangs that are killing each other?

 

And then the innocents that are caught in between these gang shootings. They're the ones that matter, but I still believe gang-to-innocent killings is a small number compared to gang-to-gang killings.

 

Basically what I'm trying to say, not all these deaths are "dude stole my girlfriend, let her rip!" or what a kid saw in Grand Theft Auto, but rather most are linked with criminal organizations. If you take that in account, I can grantee the USA's death rate will be dramatically lower.

 

Now if you were to SOLVE this crime-related with more gun laws, then you're just hurting the common folk. You can impose rules on people who just ignore them, and if the police refuse to take down these gangs, then it's basically every man for himself.

 

 

 

And that list is highly flawed. Where is Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Sudan's death statistics? Trust me, the European and American world is VERY safe compared to the real world.

[Alg]

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

 

I'm starting to love that chart.

[Range_This11]

I think we fail to realize why these deaths are for. Gang members deaths by a rival gang member's bullet counts, but is it a worth statistic? As in, does the average person need to concern themselves in gangs that are killing each other?

 

And then the innocents that are caught in between these gang shootings. They're the ones that matter, but I still believe gang-to-innocent killings is a small number compared to gang-to-gang killings.

 

Basically what I'm trying to say, not all these deaths are "dude stole my girlfriend, let her rip!" or what a kid saw in Grand Theft Auto, but rather most are linked with criminal organizations. If you take that in account, I can grantee the USA's death rate will be dramatically lower.

 

Now if you were to SOLVE this crime-related with more gun laws, then you're just hurting the common folk. You can impose rules on people who just ignore them, and if the police refuse to take down these gangs, then it's basically every man for himself.

 

 

 

And that list is highly flawed. Where is Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Sudan's death statistics? Trust me, the European and American world is VERY safe compared to the real world.

So in essence what you're saying is that it's perfectly alright for gangs to kill each other, as long as they're not killing "innocent" people (or at least that they are not worth of being counted as a gun related death). That seems to be a little bit discriminatory if you ask me.

[Faux]

here's something that happened just yesterday

 

http://www.star-tele...tally-shot.html

 

yeah i know right they were probably gangstas

 

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

 

I'm starting to love that chart.

 

because you're on the same level as thirld world countries? kinda low standards if you ask me

[sees_all1]

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

 

I'm starting to love that chart.

That chart is misleading, as wikipedia puts it:

"The legal definition of "intentional homicide" differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include assault leading to death, infanticide and assisted suicide or euthanasia."

I'm pretty sure that when compiling statistics, the U.S. tends to include everything rather than leave it out.

 

That's part of the reason our infant deaths are so high - if a baby is born with a heartbeat, we (the U.S.) count it as a live birth, no matter how pre-mature, versus many European countries, where if an infant is born more than a month premature, they don't include it as a live birth, so if the baby dies they don't include it as an infant death.

[Alg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Would that one be better?

 

Re: Faux:

What.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Iraq isn't included because it's not in the top 35 richest nations as they were in 2004. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Afghanistan one of the poorest (or at least the most impoverished)?

[highlanders]

It's actually very difficult to get a gun in Canada. Also if you get attacked, you pretty much are not allowed to defend yourself. Pepper spray, stun guns, and most self-defence weapons are all banned in Canada. Not quite sure what the Canadian gov. expects you do if you get attacked; roll over and die?

[obfuscator]

Oddly enough, since those things are harder to get a hold of, attackers are less likely to have them as well ;)

[Giordano]

So in essence what you're saying is that it's perfectly alright for gangs to kill each other, as long as they're not killing "innocent" people (or at least that they are not worth of being counted as a gun related death). That seems to be a little bit discriminatory if you ask me.

It's their choice to join gangs and face possible risks for possible rewards. Life is like that. But what does matter is when politicians try to limit gun control by referencing statistics which include criminals' deaths, criminals who don't listen to the law now, and won't listen to the new gun laws tomorrow.

 

Oddly enough' date=' since those things are harder to get a hold of, attackers are less likely to have them as well [/quote']

But that's not the real issue here. It doesn't matter if some guy attacks with me with a gun, pepper spray, or a crowbar, restrictive gun laws usually comes with restricting self defense laws as well, rather what qualifies as self defense. THAT'S what concerns me.

[The_Gabe]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[obfuscator]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

 

 

But that's not the real issue here. It doesn't matter if some guy attacks with me with a gun, pepper spray, or a crowbar, restrictive gun laws usually comes with restricting self defense laws as well, rather what qualifies as self defense. THAT'S what concerns me.

 

I've never heard of anyone who's defended themselves (with a legal weapon or without) being punished for it when their life was in danger.

 

But yes, if you're carrying around an illegal weapon and you kill someone with it (in self defence) you'll be prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.

[highlanders]

Oddly enough, since those things are harder to get a hold of, attackers are less likely to have them as well ;)

Not really considering you can easily find a murder weapon in your typical kitchen and be certain that whoever you attack will be defenceless.

[Giordano]

 

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

 

Missing the point there, I know you love to go off-topic and rip the insignificant up, but please focus on the main idea first.

 

 

 

I've never heard of anyone who's defended themselves (with a legal weapon or without) being punished for it when their life was in danger.

 

[2]But yes, if you're carrying around an illegal weapon and you kill someone with it (in self defence) you'll be prosecuted for possession of an illegal weapon.

I have. Plus, many people have the fear of dealing damage because our courts are so messed up.

 

[2] Which is ridiculous. Another example on how our courts are messed up.

[Range_This11]

So in essence what you're saying is that it's perfectly alright for gangs to kill each other, as long as they're not killing "innocent" people (or at least that they are not worth of being counted as a gun related death). That seems to be a little bit discriminatory if you ask me.

It's their choice to join gangs and face possible risks for possible rewards. Life is like that. But what does matter is when politicians try to limit gun control by referencing statistics which include criminals' deaths, criminals who don't listen to the law now, and won't listen to the new gun laws tomorrow.

It's still absurd that you would say that because they are gang related shootings, they don't count. It also seems like you're implying that people outside of gangs don't use guns in a manner that harms other people and if they do, it is somehow okay to count those statistics. I hate playing this card, but you really need to back up your initial claims with some sort of statistics. There is enough evidence out there on the topic of gun law/crime rate to justify your argument if it really is sound.

[obfuscator]

Oddly enough, since those things are harder to get a hold of, attackers are less likely to have them as well ;)

Not really considering you can easily find a murder weapon in your typical kitchen and be certain that whoever you attack will be defenceless.

If you can find a murder weapoin in your typical kitchen, how can you be so certain that whoever you attack will be defenceless?

 

The bottom line is that killing someone with a knife is much harder than doing so with a gun - the survival rate for knife assaults compared to gun assaults proves that.

 

Which is ridiculous. Another example on how our courts are messed up.

 

Why is it so ridiculous to be prosecuted for breaking the law?

[Giordano]

Which is ridiculous. Another example on how our courts are messed up.

 

Why is it so ridiculous to be prosecuted for breaking common sense?

Answer that, sir.

[highlanders]

Oddly enough, since those things are harder to get a hold of, attackers are less likely to have them as well ;)

Not really considering you can easily find a murder weapon in your typical kitchen and be certain that whoever you attack will be defenceless.

If you can find a murder weapoin in your typical kitchen, how can you be so certain that whoever you attack will be defenceless?

You're not allowed to defend yourself using a knife against an aggressor. In other words, if you get attacked and are carrying a knife and use it against your aggressor, you could be prosecuted for it. See the problem? A crazy person will have no qualms about breaking the law, however if you want to defend yourself within the law you can't do anything. Banning pepper spray makes no sense at all when it's a good way to fend off an aggressor without causing any real damage.

[The_Gabe]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Ahh ok, so you're just as scared of a random guy than a random guy with a gun. Right.

 

 

No, but a gun won't shoot by itself. There must be a person behind the gun that does it. Anything can kill, but this is just 1 method. People will easily find a way around it.

[obfuscator]

Which is ridiculous. Another example on how our courts are messed up.

 

Why is it so ridiculous to be prosecuted for breaking common sense?

Answer that, sir.

It's ridiculous to be prosecuted for breaking common sense because we can all make our own choices, as long as they don't hurt others. Time and time again, we have seen how the "common sense" choices many people make to carry guns around has severe negative repercussions.

 

Look - I seriously feel for those people in the world (in Canada particularly) who are killed because they can't defend themselves by carrying a gun around. Rare cases, I'll admit, but it certainly happens, and I don't want to trivilaize the pain felt by the families of the victims.

 

But the bottom line is that when I'm asked to choose between a 12% firearm deaths per capita and 4%, I'll take the four every time...I'd rather have 4 people die defenceless than 12 people die defended.

[Giordano]

Look - I seriously feel for those people in the world (in Canada particularly) who are killed because they can't defend themselves by carrying a gun around.

Well, see there you go. You think people are too stupid to defend themselves but I believe they are. You're the pessimistic and idealistic one, I'm the optimistic and realistic one.

 

Learn to disagree to what we agree? :-)