HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Unemotionally looking at ...

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:02 PM

Unemotionally looking at the effectivesness of gun control with real facts

Here's a very interesting read with real statistics:

Time to face facts on gun control
by Fareed Zakaria


Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green Ė those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.

But the sheer number of guns isnít an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. Thatís four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers donít flatter America.

I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data Ė gun control restrictions Ė you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.

link:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

35 replies, 4099 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Unemotionally looking at the effectivesness of gun control with real facts (Original post)
samsingh Jul 2012 OP
Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #1
msongs Jul 2012 #4
Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #5
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #6
electedface Jul 2012 #2
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #7
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #8
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #12
OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #13
Kaleva Jul 2012 #11
samsingh Jul 2012 #15
gejohnston Jul 2012 #16
Kaleva Jul 2012 #17
samsingh Jul 2012 #20
Kaleva Jul 2012 #23
X_Digger Jul 2012 #24
samsingh Jul 2012 #31
gejohnston Jul 2012 #32
samsingh Jul 2012 #33
gejohnston Jul 2012 #35
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #29
PavePusher Jul 2012 #27
Trunk Monkey Jul 2012 #28
Remmah2 Jul 2012 #9
gejohnston Jul 2012 #10
EX500rider Jul 2012 #14
jody Jul 2012 #18
samsingh Jul 2012 #19
jody Jul 2012 #21
samsingh Jul 2012 #22
jody Jul 2012 #25
Clames Jul 2012 #26
ProgressiveProfessor Jul 2012 #30
NewMoonTherian Jul 2012 #34

Response to samsingh (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:06 PM

1. If you just look at incidents with firearms that sounds pretty bad for us

 

However if you look at the entire picture.... not so much

""

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:16 PM

4. a quick change of subject, a diversion, a feint lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:18 PM

5. Not at all

 

We have far more people armed than the UK. Hence we have higher incidents of use of those guns. The idea that gun control will make people safer isn't true. How many of those on that chart would have liked to have the ability to defend themselves? Good try at deflection yourself though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:18 PM

6. Nope...puts the OP in a more honest perspective

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:08 PM

2. Online Gun Sales

While I believe it is our given right to own a firearm, I don't think our founding fathers necessarily intended on us having semi-automatic rifles when they wrote the Declaration. I do think that stricter regulations are necessary, mainly in the online gun sale department.

https://electedface.com/article_full_view.php?ArtID=69

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:13 PM

3. I don't think you know what are talking about,

especially in the "online gun sale department"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:21 PM

7. Your citation cites the Brady Bunch

Surely you can find more honest sources if what they are saying is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:35 PM

8. Private citizens during the FF's era owned warships, cannons and common military arms.

 

Citizens were allowed to own the most advanced weaponry of the day - that's exactly what the Founding Fathers allowed.

Online gun sales are ALWAYS through a dealer and ALWAYS background checked.
What is wrong with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:18 PM

12. John Hancock owned his own warships...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:21 PM

13. Lieutenant Worf (Michael Dorn) owns a jet Fighter.

 

Lieutenant Worf > John Hancock (the old dead one, not Will Smith's superhero)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:55 PM

11. I wouldn't trust that website you linked to.

There is an on line petition one can sign there:

"Change: Sign Our Petition

To: Members of Congress

Region: The United States of America

Background: According to the FBI, in 2011, more police officers died in the line of duty than at any time since the terrorist attacks of 9/11: 72 officers lost their lives at the hands of criminals, a 25% increase from the year before. With 85% of the firearms recovered in New York City having come here from other states, illegal firearms are a growing issue.

Petition: We the undersigned urge Members of Congress Mandate a law prohibiting the purchase of guns and assault weapons over the internet."

The petition has nothing to do with the background given. This petition gives one the impression that any Joe Blow can buy a gun off the internet and have it shipped directly to them with no questions asked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:40 PM

15. sounds like facts that favor gun control

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:47 PM

16. using Brady Campaign or VPC as a source is like

using the Family Research Council as a source about gays adopting kids or gay marriage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 05:18 PM

17. But how would banning intenet sales of guns accomplish anything?

Considering one has to go thru the same procedures to acquire the gun as one does when going to a gun shop and picking a gun from selection there. Meaning one still has to show I.D, fill out the questionnaire and go thru the background check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:10 PM

20. for starrs it would have saved a lot of people in Norway where the shooter got his weapons over the

internet from a US dealer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:38 PM

23. He bought the high capacity magazines off the internet but not the guns

equating weapons designed for war with hunting rifles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:46 PM

24. Bzzzt, not quite..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Upon returning to Norway, Breivik obtained a legal permit for a .223-caliber Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic carbine, ostensibly for the purpose of hunting deer. He bought it in late 2010 for Ä1,400 ($2000).


From November 2010 to January 2011 he went through 15 training sessions at the Oslo Pistol Club, and by mid-January his application to purchase a Glock pistol was approved.


All bought in Norway. He *did* purchase fertilizer over the internet, after setting up a fake farm company- from Poland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:15 PM

31. he bought the higher size mazagines over the internet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:31 PM

32. They were legal in Norway

and drove to Sweden to shop for cheaper ones, but found them even cheaper from the US. They went through Norwegian customs.
About the same time, I bought a couple of magazines for a Mauser Hsc from a Canadian supplier.
Mine is a .380 made in the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_HSc


If I committed a similar atrocity, would it be the fault of the German firearms industry, or a Canadian gun store that that exported the magazines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:56 PM

33. the magazines were not legal in Norway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:24 AM

35. how did they get though Norwegian customs?

If a customs inspector saw a package from a sporting goods or gun supply store, and the customs form saying in "rifle magazine", you don't think it wouldn't be opened?
You are thinking of a Norwegian hunting regulation that limits to three rounds. Hunting regulations are not the same as gun laws. Finland has hunting regulations requiring silencers in some areas, but you don't have to keep the silencer on once you leave that area. As I recall, he drove to Sweden looking for black market full autos (but not knowing the right people, he was out of luck) and found that he could buy US magazines cheaper than Norway or Sweden. According to the accounts I read, he priced the magazines in both countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:26 PM

29. Yet another misstatement of the facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:08 PM

27. Uunh, what "facts"? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:16 PM

28. Repeating arms existed in the 18th century

 

I'm sure the idea of a semiautomatic firearm was much less difficult to comprehend than the internet. Perhaps you should log out and continue this discussion by quill and ink

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:35 PM

9. What? No ven diagrams?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:39 PM

10. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

If you look at percentage of households with firearms the last time the UN did the study:
Finland
US
Norway
Canada
Switzerland

Here are world murder rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


guns per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country


Show us the Atlantic piece. Every state has "at least one firearms law". Even Vermont has at least one. There are five federal laws that apply to all of the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:37 PM

14. And even that isn't the whole picture...

....because no body even counts the dead in the most violent countries...

Not on list:

Somalia
Sudan
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Yemen
Congo/Zaire
Iraq
etc..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 05:30 PM

18. You assert "real statistics" but the stats are not presented by demographics. If you do that then

 

intelligent people reach different conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:09 PM

19. actually, i'm pretty intelligent so to your point i do reach a different conclusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:13 PM

21. OK, please share it with the Internet audience. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:20 PM

22. i already have with all my posts

gun supporters say there is no evidence that gun proliferation adds to violent deaths and that gun control does not work anywhere. Every study that is brought forward to demonstrate the opposite is parsed down until something, anything, real or not can be identified to suggest discrediting the study. The strategy of the gun supporters is to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

The same thing happened with smoking. For decades, arguments were used to dissociate smoking from being a health hazard.

It's now happening with climate change. With the hottest summer on record, lots of ice melting, and even a koch funded study suggesting that climate change is man made, it will not be possible to ignore this much longer.

The conclusions around the benefits of effective gun control, allowing law-abiding citizens to own a reaonable and appropriately powered firearms, and effective checks and balances are out there but still subject to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This will eventually change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:57 PM

25. Since government is not obligated to protect individuals from criminals how do you propose that

 

individuals defend them self or do you propose a victim submit to a criminal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:16 PM

26. Wow. You seriously have not been paying attention around here.

 

gun supporters say there is no evidence that gun proliferation adds to violent deaths and that gun control does not work anywhere.



First off, cite where this has been stated. Second, if you are referencing the comments in this group then you should know that most of us "gun supporters" speak to what works in the US.

Every study that is brought forward to demonstrate the opposite is parsed down until something, anything, real or not can be identified to suggest discrediting the study. The strategy of the gun supporters is to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.


What studies? I've seen nothing but fluff pieces posted that come from groups like Brady Campaign, VPC, and MAIG. Worthless. Even worse are those posted as evidence which turn out to be nothing more than opinion pieces. Try this study from the CDC on the effectiveness of gun laws in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab


The conclusions around the benefits of effective gun control, allowing law-abiding citizens to own a reaonable and appropriately powered firearms, and effective checks and balances are out there but still subject to fear, uncertainty and doubt. This will eventually change.


I've already posted one such study and many others reach similar conclusions. None of them are liked by those that advocate for strict gun-control laws because they can't be pointed to to instill fear and doubt. Technical ignorance and deliberate obfuscation are other hallmarks of gun-control groups. They do not care about the significant differences between a legally defined assault rifle and a civilian semi-automatic rifle. All they care about is looks and not function. The 1994 AWB proved that. Nothing but cosmetic issues were addressed by it and the pre-ban rifles functioned exactly the same as the post-ban rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:29 PM

30. GIGO's law always applies

You repeatedly state things as facts that are actually not true. At some point, no matter how smart you think you are; Garbage In, Garbage Out starts to kick in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:10 AM

34. Why are gun deaths treated as a seperate category?

Of course a nation with more guns will have more gun crime. In nations with fewer guns, those crimes are committed by other means. This is something I really want to understand. Why are gun deaths treated as more egregious than other wrongful deaths?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread