Skip to main content

We’ve got to do something about guns.  We have got to find a way to convince the general public that increased gun ownership is bad and only leads to more violence. Tragically the facts we've got on crime, violence and gun ownership won't make that an easy task.

The latest FBI crime statistics clearly show that crime is down.

In the categories of violent crime where the type of weapon used is recorded, (murder robbery and aggravated assault) gun crime is down.

49 states have passed laws allowing people to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either with or without a permit.

In 2009 Texas concealed carry permit holders account for .1541% of the 65,561 total criminal convictions.

Gun ownership is up and is up everywhere, in the north, south, east and west. Of course it is up among Republicans but unbelievingly it is also up among Democrats and women.

What we need to do to reverse this disturbing trend is to enact more gun laws and severely restrict gun ownership. Once we do that, not only will gun violence fall (even more than it has, what with the weak laws we have in place and the millions of guns in the hands of citizens), but we can finally become more like truly "civilized" countries, countries that have stricter gun laws and limited gun ownership, countries where the percentage of people victimized by crime is lower than the US.

Total crime victims
     Australia 30.1% - U.S. 21.1%

Assault victims
     U.K. 2.8% - U.S. 1.2%

Rape victims
     New Zealand 1.3% - U.S. 0.4%

Robbery victims
     Italy 1.3 % - U.S. 0.6%

Rapes
     France 10,277 per 100,000 – U.S. 30.2 per 100,000

Burglaries
     Australia 1,530.2 per 100,000 – U.S. 714.4 per 100,000

Okay, ignore those statistics, but I am sure other countries that don’t have so many guns in the hands of people who could snap at any moment and go on a shooting rampage feel safer and have a perception of safety that is higher than the U.S.

Perception of safety (burglary)
     U.S. 78%
     Canada 66%
     U.K. 58%
     Australia 57%
     France 43%
     Japan 43%
     New Zealand 42%

Perception of safety (walking in the dark)
     U.S. 82%
     Japan 78%
     Switzerland 77%
     U.K. 70%
     Australia 64%
     New Zealand 62%

Fuck, ignore those statistics too, they mean nothing because we have the moral high ground. Think of all the people who commit suicide by using a gun they found just laying around. Those other more "civilized" countries most certainly have fewer people killing themselves because they have reasonable and common sense gun laws and less guns.

Suicide rates in ages 15-24
     New Zealand 26.7 per 100,000
     Finland 22.8 per 100,000
     Switzerland 17.9 per 100,000
     Canada 15 per 100,000
     Australia 14.6 per 100,000
     U.S. 13.7 per 100,000

Suicide rates in ages 25-34
     Finland 33 per 100,000
     New Zealand 25.1 per 100,000
     France 21.3 per 100,000
     Switzerland 18.8 per 100,000
     Canada 18 per 100,000
     U.S. 15.3 per 100,000

Dammit, shit, okay so what if people in more "civilized" countries that have stricter gun laws are killing themselves more without using guns as much? That doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if you commit suicide with a gun, because if you kill yourself with a gun that is an act that could have been prevented if only gun nuts would have let us pass reasonable and common sense gun laws. The bottom line is that guns are bad and and make people commit crimes and do things they wouldn't feel empowered to do if they didn't have a gun. So what we need to do, since the crime statistics dont favour our position,  is convince people that gun ownership is anathema to democracy and a peaceful society. We need to get them to ignore the facts and appeal to their emotions and help them understand that;  

•    guns only cause harm,
•    they are a threat to the safety of society,
•    they infringe on the rights of people to live without fear,
•    guns are a public health issue,
•    a gun is a threat to the owner not a criminal,
•    guns cannot be used effectively as a means of self-defence,
•    guns can no longer be used as a check against a tyrannical government,
•    only people who live in fear carry a gun,
•    using a gun for hunting is kinda okay but come on, we have grocery stores now,
•    without access to a gun 15,000 people a year wouldn't have committed suicide,
•    if you own a gun you are more likely to commit a crime with a gun,
•    criminals legally acquire guns, so we must restrict access to the law biding,
•    guns cause crime,
•    someone breaking into your home only wants your stuff
•    the 2nd Amendment references the militia because that is who should have guns

It won't be easy to convince people to ignore the facts and statistics on crime. But I think it can be done. Unfortunately the biggest hurdle we face in achieving our goal of a peaceful, crime free society is our constitution.  If it wasn’t for that pesky piece of paper and the archaic 2nd Amendment things would be much easier for us, the pro-gun control crowd.

We need our own memory hole so to speak, we need to get people to forget the fact that the constitution was intended to limit government control over the people. We need to make sure they never understand that the Bill of Rights clearly enumerates individual rights that the government isn’t supposed to infringe upon without due process. But if we can't get that done then what we need to do is find a way around the amendment process, because once we do that then we can change the constitution as we see fit. We can change it so it will be easier to take action, to stand up for democracy and really get some things done that will benefit the majority and will be in the best interests of the world, our nation our people and most importantly our children.

Remember, we aren’t authoritarians.  We aren't in favor of a principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power of our wisdom and authority, no, authoritarians are doubleunplusgood and don't do good things and we are doubleplusgood. We want to do good for the majority, which will benefit everyone, especially those that can't see the good of what we want to do. We aren’t doing this because we don’t trust our fellow citizens. We aren’t doing this because we don’t believe in rights. We are doing this because we know what is best for society. We are doing this because we know that guns in the hands of the citizenry is dangerous but guns in the hands of the police and government keeps us safe. We are doing this because regardless of the facts, we know that it is only common sense that guns are bad. We know that crime will drop even further without concealed carry permits because no one needs to carry a concealed gun. And we know that without the 2nd Amendment and the wrong interpretation of an individual right to keep and bear arms that we will elevate our society, we will become more caring towards of each other and not look first to violence as a solution but to mutual respect and dialogue to resolve all our personal and national conflicts.

UPDATE My thanks to billybush for catching the error regarding France, Mea culpa. I will, however stand by the premise of my dairy, specifically that even with the number of firearms in the US our incident rate for many violent crimes is lower than many "civilized" countries that have much more stringent control over firearms.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  If you're just here to disrupt or troll, expect to get a Do Not Respond (DNR) comment and then be ignored. Insults, lies, and willful ignorance will be dealt with by normal community moderation. Disagreement by itself is not considered trolling.

As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.

Poll

Is this snark?

45%19 votes
11%5 votes
26%11 votes
16%7 votes

| 42 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sounds like France is a place to avoid (7+ / 0-)
    Rapes
         France 10,277 per 100,000 – U.S. 30.2 per 100,000

    Either that, or something ain't right with that statistic.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:53:13 AM PST

    •  Is that a typo? If the comma were a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, oldpunk

      Decimal point it would seem more belivable 10.277 vs 30.2

      The link you gave has a comma but could they have made a mistake?

    •  I was just thinking the same thing. WTF? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, gerrilea, oldpunk

      What's up with France?

      I can just about forgive the Brits for starting our revolutionary war and burning DC to the ground during the war of 1812 for giving us Led Zeppelin.

      by Pager on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:34:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It appears to be a mistake. (2+ / 0-)

      See my comment below.

    •  Must be a typo. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, rockhound, oldpunk

      If you follow the other rape statistics link in the diary, it has France at 0.7%, which I find much more believable.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:04:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This won't end well. (0+ / 0-)

      The data is corrupt.
      Follow the links, then follow their links.
      Nationmaster does not get the interwebs seal of truth and accuracy.

      I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

      by labradog on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:28:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My WOT rates it as... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, PavePusher, gerrilea

        "excellent"

        Same rating given to dot-coms of Michael Moore, Bank of America, The Daily Caller, and Rachel Maddow.

        A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

        by 43north on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 05:24:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Low bar for "excellence". (0+ / 0-)

          One in ten French women raped? Bullshit.

          I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

          by labradog on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 08:08:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  number too low? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            You may need to meet more women, and learn of what they classify as rape.

            No, ignored = rape.

            No.  The real no.  The NO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU no.

            No.  My parents are home/coming back/stop.  That no.

            No.  I don't want to have sex with you in the boys locker room - even if you're the hottest boy in school.  I know what you did to Karen.  I know your friends watched.  I know what they did after.

            No.  I really don't want a drink.  Why am I feeling so sick?
            Why does my head feel this way?  Why are my clothes off?

            No.  Let go of me.  Stop taking pictures.  Let go of my arms.  STOP!  GET OFF OF ME!

            No, I don't have money to fix the heater.  Why are you taking off your pants?  Send me a bill, I'll pay you when the check comes in 8 days.  No.  Stop.  I'll pay you.

            None of these are the "hooded guy who dragged me into an alley" - so they must not be rape.

            Or should I translate these into French so you believe that 1-in-10 is a very real, if low number.

            A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

            by 43north on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 04:56:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then in America, it must be 80% raped. (0+ / 0-)

              Are you saying French women are far more aware of the types of rape than American women, and thus report more of them?
              Every French rape victim (1 in 10!) then must report her crime, while American victims just walk it off and let it go?

              There's only one thing to do with bad data, and that is eat it. Bon appetit.

              I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

              by labradog on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 06:21:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So rape isn't as endemic (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                as most women's advocacies claim?  That for every two women secure in her person, there's one other who's been violated.
                That rape is under-reported, under-recognized, and under acknowledged by most men, law enforcement, and legislators.

                That there's still a "she wanted it" or "she's a slut" or "look where she was" or "look what she's wearing" that makes it not a crime.  That makes it the woman's fault.

                Yeah, the figures are wrong - they're too fucking low.

                A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

                by 43north on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 10:05:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So are you saying... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...that America is more rape-free than France, or the French report it while Americans under-report it?

                  Remember the initial thrust of this diary was lower crime in America than other places.

                  Are we to think that if Americans didn't under-report, then we'd be at the top of crime stats? That the satirical diarist's contention, that America with our gun culture has less crime, is bullshit because we under-report?

                  I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

                  by labradog on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 10:55:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  regardless of country - rape is under-reported (3+ / 0-)

                    I knew one woman in NY who, with a carry permit, shoved a Charter Arms .38 SPL in a would-be rapists 'wood'.  His accomplice bailed, taking the car with him.  The would-be rapist clung to the car door, skidding down the road.

                    I'd say gun possession worked in Jill's favor.  She didn't act like the women on Lifetime Network®, she didn't get all weak and weepy - she planted a gun in the fellow's junk, and her obvious determination was conveyed.

                    A gun wasn't a talisman for or against evil.  It was a means, a tool, a tool requiring a learned skill and determination.

                    Over the years, I wished for more Jills, less everyone else.
                    Just handing-out guns wouldn't do it, as Jill was trained-to-arms, and carried herself with awareness of her surroundings, and a responsible attitude towards others.

                    That's something that can't be issued, and must be taught.

                    A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

                    by 43north on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 12:15:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Anecdotes are fascinating. (0+ / 0-)

                      I challenge neither the existence of unreported rape,nor the criminality of certain types of rape that our society conditions us to sweep under the rug.

                      Nor do I challenge the right to protect oneself with arms.

                      But the stats that back this diary are suspect. That is my only point.

                      I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

                      by labradog on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 02:02:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Ignoring murder rates because you don't like em? (4+ / 0-)

    Because the horrific level of firearms murders in the U.S. works directly against your argument, you have chosen to ignore it completely.

    Ah, the 'well chosen mean'. A prominent chapter in the classic How to Lie with Statistics

    You guys crack me up.

    •  It's okay to rape and steal from me but if I (8+ / 0-)

      fight back, it's evil?

      Who "ignored" anything here? You want to write about murder rates, have at it.

      I'll wait for your diary.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:48:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What does murder rate have to do with rape/steal? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splintersawry, Scientician

        Why, nothing of course.

        You're ignoring my observation that the U.S. has a vastly higher rate of firearms murders than just about anywhere on the planet outside of Brazil or Baghdad, and my point that you left this out of your very selective citation of statistics to avoid it ruining your argument.

        •  From the website (11+ / 0-)

          cited in the diary, the US ranks #8 in firearm homicides with 39.5 per hundred thousand, while Germany (for example) ranks #12 with 28 per 100K.

          Germany controls firearms very tightly, as do all of the countries with lower homicide rates than the US. Unfortunately (for your argument anyway) so do all of the nations with higher homicide rates than the US.

          It seems the link between gun control laws and firearm murders is not so linear as one might think. It would appear that criminals are not obeying the law...

          The diarist has shown that in nations with tight control of firearms, property crimes and violent assaults are higher than they are in the US. Would you care to address that?

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:22:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  My how we obfuscate. (9+ / 0-)

          Defensive gun use is anywhere from 800,000 to 2.5 million here in the US (depending on whom you believe).

          How many murders are a result of our "war on drugs"?

          How many murders are a result of our failed social programs?

          How many people are homeless in America again? At least 3.5 million.

          How many are Veterans?

          1 in 4

          HOW MANY VACANT HOMES ARE THERE IN AMERICA?

          18.5 million.

          POINT, SET, MATCH.

          AS for this:

          You're ignoring my observation that the U.S. has a vastly higher rate of firearms murders

          Let's see, if we ban pesticides, how many people will be dying from them?

          How many Americans are armed vs other countries?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          US is ranked #1 at  88.8 per 100 residents.

          NO country even comes close, so of course there are going to be more deaths by firearms, except if you live in Australia.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:08:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You could have stopped right here: (5+ / 0-)
            How many murders are a result of our "war on drugs"?

            How many murders are a result of our failed social programs?

            Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children's Zone reaches only so many children in a given year, only so many children have a chance to do as he did, attend college and achieve gainful employment.

            The other 100,000 become fodder for the War on Drugs.

            Geoffrey addressed his solutions in Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun: (wikipedia synopsis)

            Canada recalls growing up in an inner city neighborhood of Harlem in the 50s and 60s. He details the social expectations and culture that promoted violence among children such as himself and his brothers.[1] He writes he and other boys in the area had parents command them to counter violence and threats (real or perceived) in kind by fighting back. That parental mindset, argues Canada, is certainly well-intentioned but has devastating consequences for children. He also recalls his own familial issues being raised in fatherless poverty.[4]

            Canada writes, "many times children as young as six and seven would bring weapons to school, or pick up bottles, bricks, or whatever was at hand." He writes as well, "The first rules I learned on Union Avenue stayed with me for all of my youth. They were simple and straightforward. Don't cry. Don't act afraid. Don't tell your mother. Take it like a man. Don't let no one take your manhood" (emphasis in original).[4]

            Canada asserts that the culture of violence has been compounded in the decades since he grew up. He cites increases in recreational drug use and handgun usage. He specifically refers to the about 50,000 American children killed by guns between 1979 and 1991 to support his argument. Canada concludes that inner city neighborhoods must enact measures restricting handgun manufacture and possession as well as create safe haven areas for children.[4]

            By restricting - I believe and I haven't read the book again in recent years - he calls for handguns to be police-only.

            It's still a band-aid approach to failed schools, failed manufacturing, failed institutions, and a lack of gainful opportunity for the average inner-city youth.
            For that matter, there's not a lot of opportunity for rural youth, who are leaving the farm - as there's no money in milking cows for the rest of your life either.

            The war on drugs requires these disaffected youth.  Be they inner city heroin dealers or rural meth makers.

            These kids make the system PAY.  You - the citizens, pay for the cops, pay for the jail, pay for the prosecutors, pay for the judges, pay for the prisons, pay for the guards, pay for the parole/probation officers.

            More importantly, you pay for the high dollar Federal system, which funds anti-drug cops on a local level.  Which provides M4 carbines - just like those used by the military in Iraq.
            Which provides armored vehicles - just like those used in Iraq.  Which employs officers as DEA agents at double what Mayberry RFD is paying.

            Yet, for so many, it's really just a matter of eliminating the handguns.  

            "Get rid of the handguns (and those fucking goddamn assault clips) and the whole thing will get better."

            "Get rid of those fucking goddamn assault weapons, those pump and automatic shotguns - and for fucksake - why the hell do you need a rifle?"

            There's a Walmart, Safeway, Wawa, or some other supermarket near you.  
            EAT vegetarian.  Meat IS MURDER.

            We need a program:
            Turn in your guns, get a $50 WalMart gift card.

            Then, go buy a veggie burger.  You'll end inner city violence by doing so.  A simple idea that I can get my head around.
            If it doesn't work?

            AT LEAST THE FUCKING GUNS ARE GONE.
            Which was the point all along.  The rest of it is just too complex.  Too many competing issues.  Put the kids to work, and what will happen to all of these prisons, these law enforcement jobs?  Union jobs.

            No.  Ban the guns.  That's the solution.

            A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

            by 43north on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 04:39:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Norway? (0+ / 0-)

    Stohastic terrorism?

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:49:51 AM PST

  •  Dang it, OP, you are soo right...so should (6+ / 0-)

    I start making the signs for our protests to repeal the constitution itself???

    ;)

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 09:49:55 AM PST

  •  Your numbers on rapes appears way off. (6+ / 0-)

    I found it hard to believe that the number of rapes in France was so high so I took a look at your source.  The numbers you cite appear under the heading of "Totals"  Obviously, there were more than 30.2 rapes in the U.S. in 2004 so I wonder if there was a mistake in reporting the total rapes of some countries and the rate for others.  I checked one of the sources they gave and found the following.

    In 2004 the rate of rape in France was less than 20 per 100,000 population.  The latest rate given for the United States(year not given) was about 25 per 100,000.

    •  Edit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scientician, oldpunk

      That should have been about 30/100,000 for the U.S.

    •  Much of the site's stats are glitchy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scientician, oldpunk

      where the sight has click through sources, the sources aren't matching the numbers presented on the site

      i think the diarist should have checked the validity of the data / statistics before using it as a foundation for this diary ....

      "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

      by josephk on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:53:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think too often... (3+ / 0-)

        we tend to defer to information we find on the internet, especially if it appears to be from a credible source.  To a certain degree we have to rely on information we get from various sources.  The best bet is probably to try and get multiple sources for facts and check to make sure that those facts are independently derived.  I suspect that that is rarely done, even among the major media.  I  have used statistics from that site before.  I probably would have accepted the rape stats at face value if they didn't seem so absurd.  It is disappointing, really.

        •  Thanks for the input and catching the error. (6+ / 0-)

          I will maintain that the premise of my dairy is accurate, specifically that even with the number of firearms in the US our incident rate of violent crime is lower than many "civilized" countries that have much more stringent control over firearms.

          Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

          by oldpunk on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:42:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You may be right... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, 43north

            but the way you've used statistics here is dangerous.  The situation with rape stats illustrates this.  If we are to accept that a higher rate of rape in France indicates that less restrictive gun laws may deter crime, what are to infer when we find the opposite to be true?

            I also went to the trouble of checking your stat on Concealed License Holders in Texas.  While they made up only .1541% of total convictions, from what I could find, they made up only about .12% of the population.

            Using statistics to back up an argument is great.  Using them to make an argument opens one up to accusations of cherry picking.

    •  rape (0+ / 0-)

      I'll leave aside the obvious problem in that stat which really should have told anyone serious about this subject that something was wrong.  What could possibly account for 10% of French women being raped every year?  (which is what those per 100,000 stats typically mean).  

      Rape is an incredibly problematic statistic to use, and the glib use of it in this diary shows the complete lack of depth of the diarist.  Different countries have different definitions of rape being one big problem (such as what specific acts constitute "rape" versus say "molestation" or just "sexual assault", the other being the cultural norms that either discourage or allow women to report rape.  And not just norms, but how seriously the police treat these reports, how the courts handle the cases, whether there are female police officers assigned to take rape reports from female victims, etc etc.  

      When the best guesses of rape reporting suggest that maybe a third of actual rapes are reported to the police, it's pretty hard to countenance including it here.

      •  Wow, now take this thought process (5+ / 0-)

        and apply it to gun history in THIS COUNTRY.  We have been conditioned from the inception of this nation that guns are the most effective answer, we proved it by overthrowing the most powerful nation at the time.

        So powerful are guns in the hands of the people that we wrote a specific document that made it illegal for our created government to abrogate their ownership.

        Government is and always has been by force.  He with the most force wins, see Civil War for further details.

        We are not a subservient country, like the Japanese. And this is not a swipe at them.  Their mores are such that today if you are arrested you must plead guilty.  If you don't they willingly accept if someone is tortured until they do.

        http://www.tokyotimes.co.jp/...

        We are not nor can we be compared to other nations.  It's a nice idea but what motivates someone to commit murder here is not the same elsewhere.  And from the practical research I've personally engaged in, the statistics from many of these so called "civilized" Western Nations is hogwash. The British Crime Survey is a telephone interview of Britain and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are not included. The simple facts that the police do not report everything, even after laws were passed that they had to makes their "we're civilized" crap, just propaganda.

        So, since you can understand societal differences with rape, it is only logical you do the same with guns.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 03:53:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bull fucking shit (0+ / 0-)

          "We are not nor can we be compared to other nations. "

          You are not exceptional.  Angel trumpets did not sound when John Hancock signed the Declaration.  You are an ordinary empire like dozens that went before you and your citizens are ordinary people like the other 6 billion people on earth.

          You have lots of guns and the only appreciable consequence of that is that lots of extra people die every year in murders that wouldn't happen if guns weren't so easily available, suicides that wouldn't happen if guns weren't sitting around the house, accidents that wouldn't happen if loaded guns weren't left where children can get them.  

          And your lack of sensitivity in equating rape to say whether I might report being burglarized again demonstrates the facile grasp of the issues involved.  

          •  Or not... (5+ / 0-)
            You have lots of guns and the only appreciable consequence

            108k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 06:41:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So, am I to understand that you are not from (3+ / 0-)

            this country? If true, then how can you stand in judgment of us? And this isn't some swipe that if you don't live here you have no authority to tell us what to do....IT IS a reality check that if you haven't lived here you can not understand our own mores and customs.

            It's like in Italy, they allow children to drink BUT their social customs are very ingrained where you do not dishonor your family's name and drive drunk. While they do have instances of such they do not have the problems we do with alcohol.

            And your faux indignation that I'm not sensitive to rape is because I've pointed out your own hypocrisy and the irrational thought process you've engaged in here.

            As for your "you have lots of guns", etc, etc. has been proven immaterial. Repeating lies and propaganda doesn't work against 40 yrs of facts.  Those facts are: gun ownership has increased while crimes have gone down.

            We accept that the costs of emergency/medical care in this country includes the unnecessary deaths of 90,000+.  We accept the costs of pharmaceuticals killing and maiming 108,000+ each year, in the hopes that those deadly concoctions will help more than they kill.

            I won't pretend, we accept the costs of having the force to be free. Freedom is ugly and vile BUT it's the greatest gift we give ourselves.

            Having the right to do as we please AND living with the consequences IS freedom.  I do not want nor need the State to protect me from myself.

            We cannot be like any other country, stamp your feet, pound on the table, rant and rave, it isn't going to change anytime soon.

            Your righteous indignation is meaningless against the consequences of allowing or granting the government a monopoly on force.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 10:46:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  After seeing a campaign worker have his cat killed (8+ / 0-)

    My advise to Dem campaign workers is to get a gun if you don't have one.  Next time one of those right wing psychos comes to a Democrat's house, he may be looking to kill more than just a cat.

    And not having a gun won't stop that psycho from bringing one, out of some notion of "fairness".  Defend yourself or be vulnerable.  I don't like it one bit, but there it is...

    •  And a bigger cat. (3+ / 0-)

      Honestly, stuff like that makes my blood boil.  If it happened to me, it would show that a Sociopath had ready access to my house as my cat is indoor only.

      Don't like my politics?  Fine.  Killing my kid's pet is a great way to get me to hunt you down and after you fell down a few stairs turn you over to the cops.

      After that, they better hope that justice is served or else they'd become my new 'project'.

      Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered." Member of the Liberal Gun Club

      by ErikO on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 07:25:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  From the same website as your statistics: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scientician
    A recent United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime "Global Burden of Armed Violence" study by the UN, shows that firearms cause an average 60% of all homicides. The study has provided some answers about the relationship between gun ownership and murder rates. Across the United States, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

    More guns = more homicides.

    But, let's just keep increasing gun ownership, as it apparently lowers crime in general...right.

    •  This may be true, but who does all the killing (7+ / 0-)

      these days with guns?
      Death By Government:

      169 million murders in less than 100 yrs by governments killing it's own people.

      *Not including world wars.

      Believing that humanity will change if x,y or z is banned is naive and idealistic.  

      Drugs & Crime, how appropriate though...make something illegal and poof a crime is created.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 12:30:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or, alternatively... (8+ / 0-)

      ...the United States is more violent altogether than some other countries, and there would be more homicides even if guns were not available.

      No, that couldn't be right.  That would mean one would have to consider more factors than just the one -- and that would make it a more complex, meaningful discussion.

      Can't have that.  

      Blame it on the inanimate object, rather than decades of persecution of minorities, an economic system in which the poor get poorer and the rich become filthy rich, and the wholly-failed "War on Drugs."

      That's much easier to support with strawmen like:

      But, let's just keep increasing gun ownership, as it apparently lowers crime in general...right.

      You know, the claim that no one here is making?  That one.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:11:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  More cars = more car deaths. (8+ / 0-)

      More pools = more pool deaths.
      More knives = more knife deaths.
      More planes = more plane deaths.
      Electricity = electrocutions
      More chemicals = more poisoning deaths.
      More motorcycles = more motorcycle deaths.

      The advent of just having an item increases the likelihood of an incident occurring with that item. I intentionally left out statistics involving firearms because since the US has one of the highest concentrations of firearms in the world the incident rate for firearms is going to be higher than most other places. That shows correlation not causation.

      Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

      by oldpunk on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:34:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, you agree with more = more. Also, the study (0+ / 0-)

        was clear:

        The study has provided some answers about the relationship between gun ownership and murder rates. Across the United States, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

        Unless you are saying the study was wrong?

        •  In case I wasn't clear the first time. (6+ / 0-)
          I intentionally left out statistics involving firearms because since the US has one of the highest concentrations of firearms in the world the incident rate for firearms is going to be higher than most other places. That shows correlation not causation.

          Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

          by oldpunk on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 03:00:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't care about "most other places". (0+ / 0-)

            I'm concerned about homicides here, in the US.

            And it also doesn't refute your assertion that more = more.

            •  If you are concerned about homicides (7+ / 0-)

              I am of the opinion that your time and efforts would be better spent focusing on the circumstances that lead to criminal behavior and on the criminal that commits the crime instead of the implement used in the crime.

              Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

              by oldpunk on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 03:29:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Less = less. I favor stricter laws and enforcemnt (0+ / 0-)

                I would also point out that gun violence disproportionately affects poor and minorities.

                More guns would increase that effect.

                •  But gun ownership is up and crime is down. n/t (7+ / 0-)

                  So it doesn't appear that more guns cause more crime.

                  Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

                  by oldpunk on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 04:19:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Per your argument, that shows correlation, (0+ / 0-)

                    not causation.

                    The study finds that more guns = more gun violence.

                    •  More freedom = more risk. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, oldpunk

                      I'd rather have the risk.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 03:12:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  But more guns = more gun violence (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, theatre goon

                      only shows that there is a correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun violence and like I stated before, the advent of just having an item increases the likelihood of an incident occurring with that item. It comes done to being exposed to things that have the potential to cause harm. The greater the exposure the greater the probability of an incident occurring.Which means:

                      More cars = more car deaths.
                      More pools = more pool deaths.
                      More knives = more knife deaths.
                      More planes = more plane deaths.
                      Electricity = electrocutions
                      More chemicals = more poisoning deaths.
                      More motorcycles = more motorcycle deaths.

                      An important thing to keep in mind is that non of these inanimate objects cause anything to happen and that is where the cite from the UN you provide is at the very least inaccurate and possibly deeply biased.

                      A recent United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime "Global Burden of Armed Violence" study by the UN, shows that firearms cause an average 60% of all homicides.
                      (emphasis mine).

                      Guns are not the cause of anything. Guns are not animate, do not have a conscience or are self aware. Guns cannot take independent action, rather a gun must be acted upon. I feel confident that this is something that you are aware of, unless of course you are a practicing member of a religion that believes in animism.

                      Guns do not make the crime rate go up or go down and nothing I have said could be construed to lead anyone to believe otherwise. We should focus our attention on 2 areas, 1) correcting the conditions (economic, cultural, educational, health) that lead people to believe that crime and violence are viable solutions to the situations they find themselves in and 2) strict enforcement of the law and what I would consider draconian punishments for violent crime. If someone commits rape, assault, kidnapping, murder...I am not interested in killing them but in making them disappear and ensuring that the time they spend incarcerated is so fucking unpleasant that the thought of committing another violent act upon release is impossible.

                      Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

                      by oldpunk on Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 05:01:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  Snark aside, good points for discussion... (9+ / 0-)

    Statistics lead to contrary statistics in response, but the main points still comes down to what is in the Constitution, it's current SCOTUS interpretation, and how only Amendment change is the alternative for gun control advocates.
     The prevelance of gun ownership cannot be put back in the bag. Only an Amendment could alter the current situation. Good luck with that...

     

    Where the hell are the Liberal Democrats on this Site? My Site

    by meagert on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:17:47 AM PST

  •  Whether or not (10+ / 0-)

    It doesn't matter whether you think guns are bad or not, it is very much the case that if Democrats and liberals and progressives are perceived as being "the people who will enact gun control," then we will lose elections.

    When we are seen to support the 2nd Amendment and when people on our side are observed to be responsible gun owners, conservative republican heads explode. It does not compute.

    Over on the Redstate side of the page, they are fully committed to a frame in which if you are, say, a Kossack, then you perforce believe that all guns should be seized from everyone and destroyed.

    When they see diaries like this (and they do, and they comment on them), it seriously challenges their false assumptions.

    Being able to carry a concealed firearm is a tremendous responsibility and nothing to take lightly. Making that decision should have nothing to do with political affiliation. If you want to protect yourself you should have the means and training to do so.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to the man. - dls

    by The Raven on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 10:22:19 AM PST

    •  No, you'll WIN elections: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Scientician

      "Should the federal government be allowed to ban the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, except for use by the military or police, or is it more important to protect the rights of gun owners to purchase any guns they wish to purchase?"

      Allowed to ban 62% Protect rights of gun owners 35% ( 6/20-21/11)

       Unsure/Refused
      35%3%  

       "Overall, do you think that gun control laws in this country should be more strict than they are now, less strict, or are gun control laws about right now?"

        More strict 51% Less strict 7% About right  39%Unsure
      Refused   2%

      Pew Research Center. Feb. 22-March 1, 2011. N=1,504 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

      "In general, do you think gun control laws should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"

        More strict 46% Less strict 13% Kept as they are now  38% Unsure   3%

       1/15-19/11

       Republicans
       27 17 53 3  
       Democrats
       68 5 25 2  
       Independents
       42 17 40 1  

      http://www.pollingreport.com/...

  •  Compare the number of accidental deaths (8+ / 0-)

    by physicians and those by guns.  We need physician control more than gun control.

    Rick Perry is George Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:22:19 AM PST

  •  Absurd cherry picking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martinjedlicka

    Nationmaster is just an aggregator of stats, useful at times, but hardly the gold standard for interpreting statistical data.  Seeing as the diary has picked some absurd cherries (like claiming France has a rape rate of 10,000 per 100,000 per year?) and ignoring all the data on murders, gun murders and so forth, I thought I link to a great aggregation of peer reviewed literature on guns.

    It's great, there are reams of studies on the effects of guns on rates of homicide, suicide, accidental death, reported self-defence use, illegal self-defence use, aggressive driving, use against spouses, and the utter lack of evidence of criminals reporting being shot by legal gun owners in self defence.

    On suicide, I will highlight this one which found the highest gun ownership US states have twice as many suicides as the lowest gun ownership US states.  Both groups had comparble populations, and their non-gun suicide rates were practically identical.  The difference was all gun suicides.

  •  Interesting view from here. (9+ / 0-)

    I love how when the anti-gun folks can find a statistic that supports their claims, they insist, "See?  There it is!  Can't argue with statistics!"

    On the other hand, when the statistics don't support their stance, there's always a reason the number doesn't say what it actually says.  Or it doesn't matter.  Or... or... or... something.

    Of course, gun rights advocates don't actually say what anti-gun rights people claim that they say, so I guess it all fits right into the same mindset.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 01:20:20 PM PST

  •  Your data for rapes in France is wrong. Not your (4+ / 0-)

    fault since the source you're referring to is wrong.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site