Last year handguns killed 48 people in Japan

[jimbob]

Here is the UNDOC data link:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-...istics2012.xls

There is a negative correlation between wealth and homicide rate:

I have just made this in excel from the World bank data and UNDOC data



The US stands out as having a homicide rate that you'd expect for a far poorer country.

Equatorial Guinea is notorious for a large oil wealth in the hands of a small elite, with a lot of poverty, so its rate is roughly in line with most of the population's wealth.


I don't know the special situation for Trinidad and Tobago


If I have more time I might plot the same data for the Gini ranking...

[DGM]

Originally Posted by jimbob

The US stands out as having a homicide rate that you'd expect for a far poorer country.

And this is because of the gun laws and nothing else? Care to substantiate this?

Save the time, you can't.

[NWO Sentryman]

Ok, jimbob, if inequality is an indicator of violent crime (especially homicide) why has it decreased in the US rather than increased?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by DGM

And this is because of the gun laws and nothing else? Care to substantiate this?

Save the time, you can't.

Well as I took about 10-minutes getting the data, and another 20 formatting the graph, I haven't controlled for confounding factors, nor have I attempted to.

I have mentioned another possible (gini coefficient).

However it does show that the US does stand out and where it is in world rankings, unlike the link you posted (where the data source wasn't entirely clear)

I used Rank as opposed to actual numbers because there is no reason to suppose the data is normally distributed, so rank is more robust

The data is better than in the link below:

Originally Posted by DGM

Total murders. (US does not even make the list)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Murders by guns.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

There are tons of these statistics. I have yet to see a compelling case that guns are the primary cause of crime. In the US it just seems to be the preferred method.

and easier to see than the other link

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Ok, jimbob, if inequality is an indicator of violent crime (especially homicide) why has it decreased in the US rather than increased?

I haven't devoted much time to this - I only started looking at this this evening.

I am just using a similar approach to that which I use when confronted with a yield problem at work*, which is to first plot the data and see if there is anything that stands out before looking at something more complex.

ETA: I'd heard that violence has tended to decrease in wealthier times, and that it was more prevalent in poorer countries, so I thought I'd actually see how obvious it was. I think it is pretty obvious

*I am an engineer by inclination ETA, as well as profession and they are interesting problems as well as highly important in my industry.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I think hand guns or firearms in general make the "psychology" of killing, including suicide, easier.

I think it's easier to put a gun against your head and pull the trigger in a moment of severe psychological distress than it is to go through the rig-moral of other methods that take time and potentially give you time to think or other people time to intervene.

Similarly it's far less distressing to shoot someone than it is to bludgeon them to death with a rock. It's also a far, far more efficient which is what guns are designed to do - kill as efficiently as possible.

In my area we have the Golden Gate Bridge, and for the last twenty years or so we've had many suicides by train on the Southern Pacific tracks, but firearms and deliberate OD are the predominate suicide method.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Looking at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, homicide by handgun was 6,220 in 2012 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8), which indicates a 40% decrease from the time the poster was originally made. This also fits in with a trend of violent crime decreasing significantly from 1.42m estimated offences in 2007 to ~1.2m estimated offences in 2012 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime)

Did "homocide by handgun" include suicides and "legal intervention" ie self defense and police shootings? ?

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by casebro

Did "homocide by handgun" include suicides and "legal intervention" ie self defense and police shootings? ?

Those are covered under suicide and justifiable homicide respectively IIRC.

[jimbob]

Now plotted as rates as opposed to ranks (log:log plot used)

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by jimbob

I haven't devoted much time to this - I only started looking at this this evening.

I am just using a similar approach to that which I use when confronted with a yield problem at work*, which is to first plot the data and see if there is anything that stands out before looking at something more complex.

ETA: I'd heard that violence has tended to decrease in wealthier times, and that it was more prevalent in poorer countries, so I thought I'd actually see how obvious it was. I think it is pretty obvious

*I am an engineer by inclination ETA, as well as profession and they are interesting problems as well as highly important in my industry.

It just struck me as odd that despite inequality rising in the UK, crime is still decreasing, as this chart should indicate a crime rise.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

It just struck me as odd that despite inequality rising in the UK, crime is still decreasing, as this chart should indicate a crime rise.

You are right, it is interesting. I was pointing out that I am far from an expert.

Any anthropologists, criminologists or sociologists around?

Apart from "there are lots of confounding factors" I don't know. I also wonder how much equations will help explain these factors. I am not merely talking about nonlinear relationships, but whether the rules themselves are subject to change due to something nebulous like "mood".

[Cain]

[snipped charts n' stuff]

Jim, don't be so naive. When has evidence ever proven anything?

[jimbob]

Well Cain, the fact of evolution is now uncontested.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Well as I took about 10-minutes getting the data, and another 20 formatting the graph, I haven't controlled for confounding factors, nor have I attempted to.

I have mentioned another possible (gini coefficient).

However it does show that the US does stand out and where it is in world rankings, unlike the link you posted (where the data source wasn't entirely clear)

I used Rank as opposed to actual numbers because there is no reason to suppose the data is normally distributed, so rank is more robust

The data is better than in the link below:



and easier to see than the other link

I agree. So what do you have that guns are the actual problem ?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

The alert might note that 'West Germany' ceased to exist as a state in 1990, and if it really referred to 'last year', they might have included Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 in one spree. Of course, you might also argue that the USA is so far ahead, it hardly matters.

The poster is talking about handguns (aka pistols), so not even all of those 77 deaths would be counted.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by DGM

I agree. So what do you have that guns are the actual problem ?

It is more what it eliminates.

Many other countries have higher homicide rates, but they tend to be a lot poorer, and that is much of he explanation for their higher rates.

Something is different in the US.

Guns are obviously important in shootings. Lionking has posted that the rate of spree killings in Australia did coincide with a ban on semi automatic weapons.

If it was some other cause of death, one might typically look for a plausible mechanism and correlation and then investigate further. I have merely highlighted the abnormality of the US data.

You would certainly need to control for per-capita GDP in any comparison between countries.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Well Cain, the fact of evolution is now uncontested.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Many other countries have higher homicide rates, but they tend to be a lot poorer, and that is much of the explanation for their higher rates.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Because they're poor makes them more likely to kill?

It's not the guns. They are just a means to an end. The more money the more options, Guns are just easy, what's to say if you took them away some other means wouldn't fill in right after them? . Bombs are cheaper and much less personal. Could that be why they are used more in less developed nations?

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

Having done a little Googling, the statement seems to have been made by Harlan Ellison in 1982, making the stats 30 years old (assuming they're accurate). Does anyone have any further thoughts on the subject? Let's keep this thread focussed on the accuracy, age and relevance of the internet meme, though. We have plenty of others on gun control and the Newtown massacre.

The more recent numbers for Japan:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

Quote:

What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

So even if you assume that murderers will just find other means, there's more than 1 death per day in the US only from accidental discharges.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The more recent numbers for Japan:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

So even if you assume that murderers will just find other means, there's more than 1 death per day in the US only from accidental discharges.

Does anyone honestly think Japan's homicide rate would go up if guns were readily available?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by DGM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Many other countries have higher homicide rates, but they tend to be a lot poorer, and that is much of the explanation for their higher rates.

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Because they're poor makes them more likely to kill?

It's not the guns. They are just a means to an end. The more money the more options, Guns are just easy, what's to say if you took them away some other means wouldn't fill in right after them? . Bombs are cheaper and much less personal. Could that be why they are used more in less developed nations?

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Because they're poor makes them more likely to kill?
I was pointing out that there was a pretty clear inverse relationship between the homicide rate and the per-capita GDP. Just from looking at the graph.

Taking that observation I was then saying that there is this relationship, and whatever the mechanism, this relationship can explain most of the homicide rate difference for most countries. If you then start looking for any other factors affecting differences in homicide rates, you have to account for per-capita GDP, otherwise you are missing one of the strongest factors.


It's not the guns. They are just a means to an end. The more money the more options, Guns are just easy, what's to say if you took them away some other means wouldn't fill in right after them? . Bombs are cheaper and much less personal. Could that be why they are used more in less developed nations?

I'd say that guns are more effective, because they are designed to be. If you are talking about stopping spree shootings, then the easy availability of handguns makes those a lot easier, as well as providing reminders of that option to people who might be prone to such ideas.

Quote from t'other thread:

Originally Posted by jimbob

Originally Posted by DGM

If you wanted to kill some one, you would have no other options? You would give up because, why?

Originally Posted by zooterkin

How many of those ways are easier and require less planning than taking your mother's gun? And it's not someone being killed, it's several people.

And there is the effectiveness of using a tool designed for its function compared to something that is bodged together. Stricter gun control at least means that potential spree killers have to also manage a more complex plan, which is more likely to fail or be spotted, or be beyond the capability of some potential killers - probably a higher proportion than the general population.

Originally Posted by jimbob

In much of the rest of the world, the lone nuts find it harder to get hold of such effective weapons, meaning that any mass killings require more planning, and probably can't be acts of impulse.


There is also significant difference in the rate of killings, especially mass killings between the US and Europe. Breivik was an isolated case, these killings are part of a pattern.

In the UK we are in a different situation: My google fu is weak (anyone help please?) but there have been many news stories pointing out that here the same illegally held firearm tends to be used in many crimes by different people. A lot of the firearms are also reactivated ones using ammunition made by refilling the empty cases. These are far from as reliable as industrially made weapons and ammunition; to my mind this is a good thing.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The more recent numbers for Japan:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths



So even if you assume that murderers will just find other means, there's more than 1 death per day in the US only from accidental discharges.

From that link:

Interesting in light of the second amendment argument:

Quote:

Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.

[Graham2001]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Isn't Canadian gun ownership comparable if not even more widespread in the US?

McHrozni

But do Canadians view their gun ownership as a responsiblity or a right?

I think that the answer to that will illuminate at least a part of the dynamic in the US.

I've also seen comments on the snopes forum, that suggest that paranoia might also feed into this.

For example:

Quote:

I saw an episode of "Cops" that showed this very thing. The officer was called to a scene of reported gun shots. A call had come from someone on behalf of his neighbour saying that someone was trying to break in to the neighbour's house. The police arrived on the scene and it was quiet. A gun shot came from the house. They got on the loud hailer and told the occupant to come out. The guy was cooperative and explained (somewhat rambling) that four or five guys dressed in black had been trying to break in -front door, back door, windows. The cops asked him why he shot at the front door. He said it was because the guys were there, trying to get in. The cops had clearly seen that no one was at his front door.

hotrod

For the relevant series of posts, just use the link below:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread...=83517&page=13

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Cain

Does anyone honestly think Japan's homicide rate would go up if guns were readily available?

Yes, I am absolutely certain of it.

Scenario 1: (gun-free environment) Too much saki and a bar-room argument = fist-fight

Scenario 2: (gun-filled environment) Too much saki and a bar-room argument = shooting incident.

Does anyone honestly think that a gun-free environment is more dangerous than a gun-free environment?

Mike

[Cain]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Yes, I am absolutely certain of it.

OK, but Puppy's article is still intellectually dishonest because it fails to make any mention of the bombings in Japan. As some of us have repeatedly emphasized on these forums, you can never stop someone who wants to visit carnage and mayhem on innocents. NEVER. If you take away guns, then it's a stone cold fact they'll just use bombs. What, you think that's pure arm-chair speculation??

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

One thing though, you can't get a permit to own a 1000 lb bomb.

Not strictly true. You might want to do a bit more reading before making blanket statements like that.

A 1000 pound bomb would be licensed through the federal government as a 'destructive device' under the national firearms act, and require IIRC a 200 dollar fee and registration. You would need a class 10 federal firearms license to manufacture it, which would cost you several thousand dollars, and require a pretty extensive background check. It might be illegal to sell to anyone dependent on where you live, as some states prohibit the buying and selling of destructive devices. In any case, to sell one, you'd need at least a class 3 firearms license, and if you just wanted to buy one, you'd have to find a class three dealer to sell it to you. All these are surmountable obstacles. Nevertheless, I'm going to speculate that no one has ever manufactured a 1000 pound bomb through legal means, registered it, then gone on to use it in a crime. I couldn't find any mention of such, and such a happening would be newsworthy. Also in practice local law enforcement would have to be notified and approve the process, and they have a habit of 'losing the paperwork'. Only a few states have laws that require local law enforcement to sign off on the purchase and manufacture of destructive devices, machine guns, and the catchall 'any other weapon' class. So, assuming you live in Alaska or Tennessee, where they have to approve your paperwork, you can pass a stringent background check, you're willing to fill out lots of paperwork and pay a lot of fees and taxes, and you don't mind local and federal law enforcement paying really close attention to you for the rest of your life, not at all impossible. Just inconvenient, expensive, and pointless.

Might want to talk with user Ranb who has actual experience navigating through such things, as silencers are also classified under the destructive device label.

ETA: you'd have to comply with state and federal laws and licenses for storage of explosives too. Again, those are surmountable obstacles. Even amateur rocketry hobbyists have to do that if they're making rocket engines above a certain size.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Cain

OK, but Puppy's article is still intellectually dishonest because it fails to make any mention of the bombings in Japan. As some of us have repeatedly emphasized on these forums, you can never stop someone who wants to visit carnage and mayhem on innocents. NEVER. If you take away guns, then it's a stone cold fact they'll just use bombs. What, you think that's pure arm-chair speculation??

Right, that's why there has been such an increase in the number of bombings in the UK in the last few years since handguns were banned. Oh, wait...

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Yes, I am absolutely certain of it.

Scenario 1: (gun-free environment) Too much saki and a bar-room argument = fist-fight

Scenario 2: (gun-filled environment) Too much saki and a bar-room argument = shooting incident.

Does anyone honestly think that a gun-free environment is more dangerous than a gun-free environment?

Mike

But everybody be kung-fu fightin! Them fists are fast as lightning!

[Cain]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Right, that's why there has been such an increase in the number of bombings in the UK in the last few years since handguns were banned. Oh, wait...

The sarcasm is unnecessary. "No guns = more bombings" is an intuitively plausible assumption that I'm unwilling to give up. That means one of the only realistic explanations for your situation in the UK must be that your government-controlled MSM suppresses information on all the bombings. Given your restrictions on guns, I'm guessing that would be a LOT of bombings.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Right, that's why there has been such an increase in the number of bombings in the UK in the last few years since handguns were banned. Oh, wait...

Throwing a bomb at someone is going to show up on a different set of statistics than shooting at someone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._Great_Britain

[meg]

Originally Posted by Cain

The sarcasm is unnecessary. "No guns = more bombings" is an intuitively plausible assumption that I'm unwilling to give up. That means one of the only realistic explanations for your situation in the UK must be that your government-controlled MSM suppresses information on all the bombings. Given your restrictions on guns, I'm guessing that would be a LOT of bombings.

Are you serious? Are you seriously saying that when innocent people die in bomb blasts it doesn't make the news?

And are you seriously trying to say that limiting gun purchases automatically increases the number of people that die by bombings? Do you seriously think that all the people in the US that have shot someone in anger, in revenge, while intoxicated.. that every one of those people, if they didn't have a gun handy, they would have stewed and thought and figured out how to attain or build a bomb in order to kill whoever it is they shot?

[Cain]

What kind of questions are those?

I would tell Her Majesty's subjects to violently rise up, but with what weapons? Repurpose all the unused dental equipment? You're doomed, Cousin.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Cain

"No guns = more bombings" is an intuitively plausible assumption that I'm unwilling to give up.

This is brilliant and yet some people will still get annoyed with you.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by DGM

Do you have the statistics for murder rates by all means by country? You wouldn't want to paint an incomplete picture.

While I have no idea what the intent of the poster you were responding to might be, it seems to me that all too many advocates, pro- or anti-gun-control, most definitely do want to paint an incomplete picture, providing that it supports their position.

Remember, 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[NWO Sentryman]

Any comparison between Japan and the US falters when you consider:

- Japan has had a rather insular culture (it is literally a chain of islands) compared to America's.
- There wasn't much of a prevalence of firearms when these regulations were introduced
- The political cultures are completely different.

There is more to this issue than just saying "look to X, they have guns/no guns yet their crime rate is Y/Z!". It is simplistic illogic that does not take into account various factors.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

- Japan has had a rather insular culture (it is literally a chain of islands) compared to America's.

On the other hand, the United States is bordered by two oceans which provide it with a good measure of geographic isolation. To its north and south it is bordered by just two countries, with one of which it shares a great deal in common.

[Renaiconna]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

On the other hand, the United States is bordered by two oceans which provide it with a good measure of geographic isolation. To its north and south it is bordered by just two countries, with one of which it shares a great deal in common.

Yes, and the other is a developing nation with a major ongoing drug/gang warfare taking place not too far from the border. I wonder if our proximity to a violent, developing country might explain some (not all) of the differences.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by meg

Are you serious? Are you seriously saying that when innocent people die in bomb blasts it doesn't make the news?

And are you seriously trying to say that limiting gun purchases automatically increases the number of people that die by bombings? Do you seriously think that all the people in the US that have shot someone in anger, in revenge, while intoxicated.. that every one of those people, if they didn't have a gun handy, they would have stewed and thought and figured out how to attain or build a bomb in order to kill whoever it is they shot?

No, I don't think he is being serious. Unfortunately, his assumed position is nigh on indistinguishable from that of some other posters who appear all too earnest.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

ETA: I think it would be better to focus on the causes of violent crime (poverty, mental illness etc.) rather than a symptom (gun crime).

ETA: I also find it interesting that despite gun sales increasing significantly during the Obama Administration, violent crime has gone down rather than up. This would be an interesting question to answer.

Originally Posted by jimbob

The US stands out as having a homicide rate that you'd expect for a far poorer country.

The US has a far more heterogenous population than most; with a substantial underclass.

I did the numbers on this a few years ago (don't have time to look up the link to my old post as I'm on break at work); but per the US DOJ and FBI Uniform Crime statistics, the overwhelming majority of firearm-involved homicides are gang-related. Violent street gangs fighting over drug distribution territory and sources. Control for this, and the rates more closely mirror other first-world countries, where such gang violence is far less prevalent. Add to that, the rate of violent crime involving legally obtained firearms is miniscule compared to the rate involving illegally obtained firearms.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Renaiconna

I wonder if our proximity to a violent, developing country might explain some (not all) of the differences.

Since the most recent act was in Connecticut are you calling Canada a "violent, developing country" or do you not understand that proximity of Mexico to the northeast?