Florida School Shooting

[rogue06]

Yeah, Sheriffs run a political campaign, and win by popularity or expenditure of money, not because they're particularly good administrators or lawmen.

He's had his share of controversies and is politically connected

DWVKDpHUMAAfWJH.jpg

00000000000000ars6a.jpg

[rogue06]

Jamaica is also an incredibly poor and corrupt developing nation. It doesn't seem fair to compare a 1st world power, and the wealthiest nation on earth to Jamaica, and having to do so seems to say something about the gun issue in general. The other statistics are interesting though.

Jamaica^[1] and the other countries with high rates of homicide despite having strict laws against possessing firearms does make the point that gun control laws don't stop murder or other violent crimes.










1 Back in the early 80s when I was there we were cautioned to keep all firearms well concealed on the boat since they commonly sent folks to jail for a year for having a bullet.

[rogue06]

What would you say the difference is between countries with higher homicide rates than the US with stricter gun laws and countries with lower homicide rates than the US with stricter gun laws?

The UK has both tight firearms restrictions and a very low rate of firearms-related homicides, so they are a good example of what happens when there are fewer guns to go around. That handgun ban was very limited in scope. Very few people in the UK had handguns prior to the ban, so of course there shouldn't be a significant reduction in firearms-related deaths, let alone homicides period.

And as noted many times, Switzerland is a country where you can find a fully automatic weapon in virtually every household and yet also enjoys a very low rate of firearms-related homicides.

And of course there is this

00000000000000ars2.jpg

These strongly suggest there is something else at play going on here other than the availability of guns.

[Cow Poke]

And as noted many times, Switzerland is a country where you can find a fully automatic weapon in virtually every household and yet also enjoys a very low rate of firearms-related homicides.

And of course there is this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26643[/ATTACH]

These strongly suggest there is something else at play going on here other than the availability of guns.

I wonder how many other countries have developed idiotic "everybody gets a trophy" mentalities, and have twisted and perverted the fabric their society in other similar ways.

[Adrift]

And as noted many times, Switzerland is a country where you can find a fully automatic weapon in virtually every household and yet also enjoys a very low rate of firearms-related homicides.

And of course there is this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26643[/ATTACH]

These strongly suggest there is something else at play going on here other than the availability of guns.

I imagine it likely has something to do with tighter gun restrictions and background checks since the early 90s, as well as the fact that the number of guns are being more and more concentrated towards "super owners". Also, Vox does an interesting side-by-side comparison between the US and a few other nations,

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada

Switzerland
Gun ownership rate (2007): 45.7 guns per 100 people

Gun homicide rate (2012):

© Copyright Original Source

[Littlejoe]

What would you say the difference is between countries with higher homicide rates than the US with stricter gun laws and countries with lower homicide rates than the US with stricter gun laws?

Great question...I suspect when we know that answer then we would realize it's not the guns causing the problem and would be much closer to an actual solution. I personally think it might be poverty mixed with dense population creating interpersonal stress.

The UK has both tight firearms restrictions and a very low rate of firearms-related homicides, so they are a good example of what happens when there are fewer guns to go around. That handgun ban was very limited in scope. Very few people in the UK had handguns prior to the ban, so of course there shouldn't be a significant reduction in firearms-related deaths, let alone homicides period.

I think you missed the point. The point I raised is that for 12 years AFTER the ban, the murder rate including gun murder rate soared in the UK (relatively speaking). The fact that 12 years later it has finally come back to pre-ban levels has zero correlation IMO with the ban.

[Psychic Missile]

And as noted many times, Switzerland is a country where you can find a fully automatic weapon in virtually every household and yet also enjoys a very low rate of firearms-related homicides.

And of course there is this

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26643[/ATTACH]

These strongly suggest there is something else at play going on here other than the availability of guns.

Switzerland has both much stricter gun control than the US and mandatory military service. If you approve of their gun culture, than surely you approve of highly regulated gun control. Glad we agree on a solution!

There are two factors to take into consideration when it comes to that chart. The first is that guns per person isn't relevant. In the US, people who own at least one firearm tend to own many. Instead what matters is households with at least one firearm, which this source reports as having been at 53% at the peak of gun homicides on your chart and 36% as of 2016. However, take that with a grain of salt, since statistics about gun ownership have reliability issues. The second is that there are other factors that can contribute to firearm homicides outside of ownership, like an increase in gang activity.

[Cow Poke]

...Instead what matters is households with at least one firearm, which this source reports as having been at 53% at the peak of gun homicides on your chart and 36% as of 2016. However, take that with a grain of salt, since statistics about gun ownership have reliability issues. The second is that there are other factors that can contribute to firearm homicides outside of ownership, like an increase in gang activity.

So, they ask 1,001 people if they own a gun in a culture where guns are being demonized and....

[Psychic Missile]

Great question...I suspect when we know that answer then we would realize it's not the guns causing the problem and would be much closer to an actual solution. I personally think it might be poverty mixed with dense population creating interpersonal stress.

I think you missed the point. The point I raised is that for 12 years AFTER the ban, the murder rate including gun murder rate soared in the UK (relatively speaking). The fact that 12 years later it has finally come back to pre-ban levels has zero correlation IMO with the ban.

I agree that the murder rate has zero correlation with the ban. I also agree that, like you suspect, there are other factors resulting in the US's gun problem, like poverty.

[Darth Executor]

I agree that the murder rate has zero correlation with the ban. I also agree that, like you suspect, there are other factors resulting in the US's gun problem, like poverty.

There is zero evidence poverty results in elevated murder rates.

[Littlejoe]

Jamaica is also an incredibly poor and corrupt developing nation. It doesn't seem fair to compare a 1st world power, and the wealthiest nation on earth to Jamaica, and having to do so seems to say something about the gun issue in general.

Perhaps you could explain why you think that it's unfair instead of just assuming the moral high ground here? I see this reasoning often, but no one ever explains why that is. I think this demonstrates an obvious bias against those "lowly war-torn, squalid, brutish countries". What tends to pass for comparisons is a few cherry picked nations to compare to.


However, I see your reasoning actually seems to point to the fact that it really isn't about the guns, but the environment/conditions that tends to drive gun violence, so...you are conceding the point that it's not about the guns?

The other statistics are interesting though.

Yes it is...and mass shootings seem to be driving these discussions, as we don't get "worked up" about gun violence until there's a mass shooting at a school, church, mall, etc. Surprisingly, France had more people injured and killed in "mass gun attacks" than the US had during the whole Obama Administration.

[Jedidiah]

Perhaps you could explain why you think that it's unfair instead of just assuming the moral high ground here? I see this reasoning often, but no one ever explains why that is. I think this demonstrates an obvious bias against those "lowly war-torn, squalid, brutish countries". What tends to pass for comparisons is a few cherry picked nations to compare to.


However, I see your reasoning actually seems to point to the fact that it really isn't about the guns, but the environment/conditions that tends to drive gun violence, so...you are conceding the point that it's not about the guns?


Yes it is...and mass shootings seem to be driving these discussions, as we don't get "worked up" about gun violence until there's a mass shooting at a school, church, mall, etc. Surprisingly, France had more people injured and killed in "mass gun attacks" than the US had during the whole Obama Administration.

Well, the media does not much care when minority folks kill other minority folks.

[Adrift]

Perhaps you could explain why you think that it's unfair instead of just assuming the moral high ground here? I see this reasoning often, but no one ever explains why that is. I think this demonstrates an obvious bias against those "lowly war-torn, squalid, brutish countries". What tends to pass for comparisons is a few cherry picked nations to compare to.


However, I see your reasoning actually seems to point to the fact that it really isn't about the guns, but the environment/conditions that tends to drive gun violence, so...you are conceding the point that it's not about the guns?

No, I definitely do think guns play a big part, I just believe that, like Australia and England and other 1st world nations that have carried out strict legislation, the US has the wealth, the resources, and the transparency to carry out gun control. Jamaica...not so much. I'm surprised you even have to ask the question. This seems obvious to me.

Yes it is...and mass shootings seem to be driving these discussions, as we don't get "worked up" about gun violence until there's a mass shooting at a school, church, mall, etc.

Well, yeah. Of course. Why wouldn't people get worked up about a mass shooting?

Surprisingly, France had more people injured and killed in "mass gun attacks" than the US had during the whole Obama Administration.

Why are you narrowing mass shootings to just the Obama administration? The US has had way more mass shootings than France throughout the course of it's history. And why are you including both injured and dead? That sounds like you're purposely attempting to balloon up numbers.

By my count, the US had 36 mass shootings during the Obama administration which left 329 dead (numbers pulled from here). Meanwhile, France had 6 mass shootings in the same period; 1 of which, the 2015 Paris attack, was a coordinated terrorist attack which included both mass shootings and suicide bombing, and contributed to the most deaths (and injuries) at 130 lives lost. The other 5 mass shootings contributed to an additional approx. 28 people killed which totals about 158 lives lost to mass shootings.

[Littlejoe]

No, I definitely do think guns play a big part, I just believe that, like Australia and England and other 1st world nations that have carried out strict legislation, the US has the wealth, the resources, and the transparency to carry out gun control. Jamaica...not so much. I'm surprised you even have to ask the question. This seems obvious to me.

You still haven't really explained your reasoning. Obvious to you doesn't mean we get it. Explain exactly why you pick Australia and England instead of Mexico and Brazil? I'm sure you don't m mean to but...you are still coming across as very prejudice IMO and cherry picking.

Well, yeah. Of course. Why wouldn't people get worked up about a mass shooting?

Because they make up such a small percentage of the total? Why focus on only those? So far, 349 people died in Chicago from gun violence this year why is there no outcry, no threads about it?

Why are you narrowing mass shootings to just the Obama administration? The US has had way more mass shootings than France throughout the course of it's history. And why are you including both injured and dead? That sounds like you're purposely attempting to balloon up numbers.

By my count, the US had 36 mass shootings during the Obama administration which left 329 dead (numbers pulled from here). Meanwhile, France had 6 mass shootings in the same period; 1 of which, the 2015 Paris attack, was a coordinated terrorist attack which included both mass shootings and suicide bombing, and contributed to the most deaths (and injuries) at 130 lives lost. The other 5 mass shootings contributed to an additional approx. 28 people killed which totals about 158 lives lost to mass shootings.

You read right over my point...it was easy to do, so I don't blame you...I actually said INJURED and killed.

What are you using as a criteria for Mass shootings on that site? If you go by the 4 dead minimum then I think your number is off. According to the site you don't trust (CPRC) the US total should be 264 injured, 263 dead for a total of 527. Yes, we have more dead, but that's just coincidence IMO as there were 382 more that were injured in the mass shooting in France for a total of 540. US had

[rogue06]

I agree that the murder rate has zero correlation with the ban. I also agree that, like you suspect, there are other factors resulting in the US's gun problem, like poverty.

Were things worse during say the Great Depression?