NRA is too radical

[PanzerJaeger]

By your own link, England/Wales is reported with a .46/.38 compared with 10+ for the US. That is significant...

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

My point being that while you do have a statistically higher chance of being shot and killed in America than in Europe, the actual chance that you will die by gunfire in either place is highly remote.

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

Certainly. I wouldn't trust my life to pepper spray.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Why would the girl in the example walk home alone? I understand that you are reaching to try and invalidate the example, but such hypotheticals should at least make sense.

For example, An AK-47 maybe......

An example is not a definition.

What characteristics of the AK-47 make it more dangerous and/or deadly than other firearms?

What about hunting rifles like this? Would you ban them?

[rory_20_uk]

Are you suggesting that in the course of a year there are no women who unwisely walk home alone?

And why be afraid when you've got a semi-automatic pistol in one's handbag - I thought that these guns make people safe?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is it?

Eliminating suicides brings America's stat to approximately 7. Now, in the range of 0-7, the difference is highly significant. However, in the range of 0-100,000, I would argue that it is not.

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

My gut reaction is to view firearms as one of the reasons for the difference. Such weapons are readily available, lethal even with limited or no training in their use, and often very portable. The ready availability of such tools suggests that, when drunk or upset, the typical American is far more likely to have a gun available with which to vent their frustrations than is the typical Brit. The likelihood of an attack of some form is probably pretty similar in both cultures, but the Yank is likely more lethally armed and more likely to kill the person who has angered them. Moreover, the ready availability of weapons yields a higher number of accidental gun deaths (though there is nothing in the data to suggest that we're more likely to have such accidents than some other culture, only that we have more weapons per person and hence more accidents).

Personal firearms are a right and a guarantor of rights and freedoms. In strict terms of physical safety, the confiscation of all such weapons and their restriction to government military use only is likely to result if fewer deaths.

To me, the right is worth the price.

[PanzerJaeger]

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically. What that cannot prove, of itself, is whether firearms are the cause of INTENTIONAL deaths. However, even there, recent statistics suggest that you are more than thrice as likely to be intentionally killed in the USA as you are to be killed intentionally in the UK. The question is whether the difference is firearms, culture, or both.

Again, while the difference may be statistically significant, that does not mean that the average American has a significant chance of being killed by gunfire in the traditional sense of the word. Gun control advocates mix the two to try to create public anxiety over guns, which is likely the reason that our European friends have such a skewed understanding of American life.

Speaking of stats, here are a few that I found interesting.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

* In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]



* On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]


* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

* In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38]

* In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]

* In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]



† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings[41]

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

* In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45]

* In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

* In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51]

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

* On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective.[103]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course.[104]

* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[106]



* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]

* From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. Of these:

• 522 permits were revoked for crimes committed prior to licensure

• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a firearm.[109]

* In January 1996, Texas's right-to-carry law became effective.[110]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be at least 21 years of age (or 18 years of age if a member or veteran of the U.S. armed forces), have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a handgun proficiency course.[111]

* In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active licensees,[112] constituting roughly 2.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[113]




* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]

[/QUOTE]

And finally...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

So it appears that the unfortunate case of our young woman double-tapping her friend by mistake would be an exceedingly rare event.

[Brenus]

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.

So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…

One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…

Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?

[PanzerJaeger]

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).

Oh boy. This is a perfect example of the lack of understanding I was talking about.

So in fact, all the mobs and gangsters can have all the weapons they are ready to pay for?
Guys, awake, they will win… And they will be ready, not you… They will not hesitate to shoot to innocent by passers… You will…
And when the police will arrive, they won’t no the bad from the goods, and with all theses bullets flying over…

One think scared me: I was at the Airport when a stupid man drove his car in, hoping blowing-up some people. The reaction was to send untrained Police officers armed with submachine gun. I hope without bullets in the magazine because I can’t imagine what effect would be if a terrorist started to shoot to people. My guess is the Police Force would have kill more innocent than the terrorist.
And even if the terrorist just pretend to have a gun…

Ok, you have your weapon. In the shop centre, hoops, bullets start to fly. Because you are courageous, you go and you see several people shooting at each others and, well, because you have now your weapon in hand, both side not knowing (at least one) in which camp you are shoot at you. To whom you answer?

To carry a weapon in public, every state (IIRC) requires a permit. Part of obtaining that permit is attending and passing a class on proper firearms handling and appropriate usage.

In said classes, people are taught that firearm use is only acceptable as a last resort when the operator's life or the life of another is clearly in danger. They are taught that one should only draw and discharge one's weapon when every other avenue has been rendered unacceptable - including calling the police, giving up personal property, and fleeing. Such instructions preclude jumping into a firefight, guns ablaze.

I too must ask whether you have ever been to the United States. Surely just a few days in country would eliminate such Wild West fantasies.

[TinCow]

I used to be a big control control advocate, but changed my mind when I realized that the situation is a Pandora's Box. Like it or not, guns are already everywhere in the US. It's impossible to get rid of them, so pointless to even have the argument. What can be done is to place proper checks on purchasing weapons so that people cannot purchase them when they are mentally ill or in a temporary rage. The rules implementing those checks are very weak in some states, but they can be improved. Banning them outright is just pointless.

As for the assault weapon thing... no one commits crimes with those things. The issue is handguns, pure and simple.

[rory_20_uk]

It sounds like you are in favour of control, but view that banning is not realistic. I think that there are further refinements that should be made in terms of regulating storage and implimenting "smart" features that are coming into all other walks of life but remain firmly out of guns.

[ajaxfetish]

Actually, PJ, if you run the chi square on it, you would quickly determine that a .4 versus a seven is highly significant statistically.

Statistical significance and practical significance are often conflated, and this I think is one situation where it is particularly likely. It sounds like the chances of being killed by firearm violence are unquestionably higher in the US than in Europe. The question is, are they enough higher for it to matter?

Ajax

edit:

So, the streets of the US are so unsafe that you need to carry a small firearm (or a tank for shopping).
Don’t bother about a supposed will from the Federal Government to take you Freedom away. It is already done.
If you can’t wander in the streets without a full gear and back-up, well, I understand why Bush believed and still believes that the Iraqis are better now that before.

Nice dystopian fantasy. Have you ever been to the US?