Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (versus, murder rate)

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Why would that be a fair assumption, though? We can't say that because the situation in Denmark is not the same as it is in the US regarding firearms. In the US, 44% of Americans live in a household that has guns, with 32% owning them personally. At most, only 7% of Danes personally own them, so personal gun ownership is almost 5x higher in the US. This actually corresponds fairly well with the difference in gun violence rates. Gun violence deaths in Denmark run about 0.95 per 100,000, while in the US, the rate is about 5.9 per 100,000, or about 6x higher.
So it seems like personal gun ownership, at least in this comparison, is mostly correlated with gun violence, not the people themselves. It would argue that gun access is the main player.

It's not about whether it's fair. It's about, are Americans more violent people than Danes, all else equal. You're saying we're not? We play American football. We have street gangs and organized crime. We create and export intense violence in media, video games, etc. We invade and occupy countries.

You're arguing that this is not the case? I can't tell.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by memph

The US has a lot of social issues. Finland has one of the next highest rates of firearm ownership but much lower homicide rates.

Wyoming and Idaho are in the top 5 states for gun ownership and near the bottom for homicide rates.

States with lowest homicide rates (2022) vs Gun Ownership rate

RI 1.46/100k vs 13.9%
NE 1.63/100k vs 39.2%
IA 1.66/100k vs 38.5%
NH 1.81/100k vs 46.3%
HI 1.94/100k vs 9.1%
UT 2.01/100k vs 39.7%
MA 2.12/100k vs 9.9%
ME 2.19/100k vs 47.7%
WY 2.42/100k vs 60.7%
MN 2.59/100k vs 39.1%
NJ 2.74/100k vs 8.9%
ID 2.79/100k vs 57.8%
VT 3.41/100k vs 50.3%
ND 3.48/100k vs 53.3%
CT 3.77/100k vs 18.8%
NY 3.84/100k vs 14.5%

So you have states with high gun ownership with low homicides (WY, ID, ND, VT, ME, NH), states with medium gun ownership with low homicides (NE, IA, UT, MN) and states with low gun ownership with low homicides (RI, HI, MA, NJ, CT, NY).

Also, if you compare the northern plains/mountain states of the US to their Canadian neighbours, and the rural high gun ownership northern New England states to their Canadian neighbours, the Canadian provinces have much lower gun ownership rates, but it doesn't seem to lead to lower homicide rates.

You can't really compare states, though, because people can easily cross borders to purchase guns when laws are not federal. Also, why are you comparing overall homicide rates caused by all causes to gun ownership rates? Why wouldn't you compare gun-related homicides only to gun ownership rates?

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

You can't really compare states, though, because people can easily cross borders to purchase guns when laws are not federal. Also, why are you comparing overall homicide rates caused by all causes to gun ownership rates? Why wouldn't you compare gun-related homicides only to gun ownership rates?

Why don't you try it, and see if you get different results? It doesn't seem to me that the odd case of, say, stabbing a person to death with a pencil should make a material difference in this type of analysis.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

It's not about whether it's fair. It's about, are Americans more violent people than Danes, all else equal. You're saying we're not? We play American football. We have street gangs and organized crime. We create and export intense violence in media, video games, etc. We invade and occupy countries.

You're arguing that this is not the case? I can't tell.

There are sports more violent than American football, such as rugby and basically most types of martial arts. All nations have gangs and organized crime. All nations with any type of media industry has violent content. Many nations have invaded or fought wars with others. I don't think any of that is unique to the US.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by cheech14

There are sports more violent than American football, such as rugby and basically most types of martial arts. All nations have gangs and organized crime. All nations with any type of media industry has violent content. Many nations have invaded or fought wars with others. I don't think any of that is unique to the US.

Are you or are you not arguing that Danes and Americans are equally violent people, all else equal? It seems that you are, which is an incredible argument. I can't decide which is more incredible, actually: that, or the argument that rugby is more violent than American football.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

That's exactly what you said. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of anecdotes from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Surely, given their vast number, by now they would have been synthesized into something that could be used as empirical proof of the aliens' existence?

No, it's not. Anecdotes are one of the primary categories of evidence in survey research, which constitutes much what's done in both private and governmental research studies regarding the lawful use of firearms in self defense. It's OK that you don't understand it, as those that are actually doing the research do.

No, what's squishy - until you post a source of your numbers - is the highlighted phrase.
No, it's not.

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-la...rms-is-common/


A comprehensive study done by Gary Kleck Marc Gertz (Fall 1995) puts the number at up to 2.5 million times per year.

The national Crime Victimization Survey estimates the number between 60,000 and 120,000.

The actual number is likely somewhere between the two.

Glad I could help with your education. . .

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

Are you or are you not arguing that Danes and Americans are equally violent people, all else equal? It seems that you are, which is an incredible argument. I can't decide which is more incredible, actually: that, or the argument that rugby is more violent than American football.

You seem really hung up on American football being some kind of blood sport.

I think all of humanity overall has the same basic tendency towards violence. Other factors make the expression of that violence more or less likely, but humanity is not different in one country versus the other all things being equal, no.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

So, the only anecdotes you'd allow are the ones that prove your point of view, but not ones that disprove (or, rather, fail to prove) it, is that what I'm reading? That's not how this thing works, at all.

No, not at all. Its simply that what cheech14 presented isn't an anecdote. It's a non-occurrence. It's something that didn't happen. Assuming that what was presented was factual, it only serves to establish that no gun was owned by cheech14, and no violence has yet been experienced. But no causal relationship between the two can be drawn.

If the opposite were true, if some sort of causal relationship could be drawn, we'd be flooded with Government and academic research studies showing numbers of people that don't own firearms, and have never experienced violence. We don't see that. I'll leave it to you to come to a meaningful conclusion as to why.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

I'll leave it to you to come to a meaningful conclusion as to why.

Because it's generally asinine to report on an absence of something except for when it contextualizes the very thing it opposes. E.g., you would normally not attempt to prove that you didn't kill someone until you're accused of doing that.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

First of all, we are not arguing the same thing. Too many people in this debate equate "gun control" or "gun regulation" with banning guns, and it's a dishonest argument. One's ability to own certain types of guns does not mean one cannot protect oneself with other types of guns, nor do things like background checks ultimately impede that outcome.

Banning guns is just an extreme level of gun control, but it's certainly not descriptive of gun control in it's entirety. It's not part of my discussions about gun control, except in situations where someone is actualy pushing for a ban.

Second, I question the conclusion you are drawing here about the "saved" figures. My first question is about the method in which all those people were threatened in the first place that they were "saved" by firearms. I suspect firearms themselves were a big part of the threat.

"Saved" isn't really part of my discussion here. If you'll review what I said, I'm talking lawful use of guns in self defense. If you want to describe that as "saves," OK.

My second is how most other nations with no laws protecting personal firearm ownership or with otherwise low rates of firearm ownership do not tend to have correspondingly high rates of homicide? After all, if people in those nations can't protect themselves with firearms, how are they protecting themselves? Shouldn't we be seeing huge numbers of murders all across Europe, for example?
Or are you arguing that Americans are uniquely violent people?

While Americans be be quite violent, I'm not sure that we are uniquely so. But what I will argue is that in many ways, the United States is a very different country.

Violence (both gun and non-gun) is prevalent in inner city areas in the US in a way that is uncommon in other developed nations. Our legal and criminal justice systems are different. We have a very large population of heterogeneous people - a condition not universally shared by other countries.

Instead of comparing the US with other countries around the world, a much more reasonable comparison would be to compare locations in the US with lax gun control laws, versus other areas in the US with strict gun control laws. At least it would be starting with the same endogenous factors - something that is necessarily missing in any comparison between countries.