First mathematical analysis of gun policy tradeoff emphasizes need for more data

Aug 19, 2013 by Lisa Zyga feature
The first mathematical analysis of the gun policy tradeoff makes several assumptions due to a need for more scientific data.

(Phys.org) —While many people have already taken a stance on whether gun control laws need to be stricter or more lenient, a pair of researchers from the University of California Irvine argues that there isn't yet enough scientific data to make an informed policy decision either way.

Dominik Wodarz and Natalia Komarova, both from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Department of Mathematics at the University of California Irvine, have developed the first of the gun availability tradeoff. Their paper is published in PLOS ONE.

With 11,000 gun-related homicides occurring each year in the US, the gun policy tradeoff has been the subject of many recent arguments. While a strict "no guns" policy would seem to decrease the overall number of available guns and therefore decrease gun use, a "guns for all" policy that allows anyone to own a gun may arm potential victims and deter criminals from attacking in the first place. And then there is also a middle ground: a moderate gun policy in which certain kinds of guns are available to some people under certain circumstances.

So which policy is best? According to the model, the somewhat surprising result is that the gun-related homicide rate can only be minimized for the two extreme strategies: either a complete ban or a "guns for all" policy. The moderate policy—although seemingly most realistic of the three—results in a higher homicide rate than either of the two extreme policies. So the problem is still far from solved.

"The effect of partial restriction of is complicated," Wodarz told Phys.org. "According to the model, a partial reduction in gun ownership can lead to a certain reduction in the gun-induced homicide rate, even if it does not minimize it. However, it is also possible that a partial reduction in gun ownership first leads to an increase in gun murders, and only leads to a reduction once gun ownership is restricted substantially. There is not enough data available at the moment to determine which outcome is more likely. Once more data are collected, we will be able to say something more concrete."

Overall, the big takeaway of the study is not a comparison of the effectiveness of different gun policies, but that the data required to make such a comparison is lacking. The researchers' model makes several assumptions, such as the degree of law enforcement to prevent criminals from illegally owning guns, the degree of protection provided by guns to potential victims, and the fraction of the population that actually takes up its right to own and carry a gun, for which limited data exists.

For this reason, the researchers view their model as a first step on the path to scientifically and logically formulating the issues involved in the gun control debate, and to guide the design of future epidemiological studies. As they explain, "any mathematical model of a behavioral process represents by definition a simplification and abstraction of a complex system." From this perspective, the researchers propose that the gun control debate should focus on the scientific methods of gathering and interpreting data, rather than on single gun-related events that capture the public's attention or anecdotal evidence.

"What we tried to do is to examine how different strategies regarding gun availability in the general population influence the amount of shooting-induced murders that will occur," Wodarz said. "This is a scientific question, similar to asking how certain biomedical strategies influence the incidence of a disease (such as cancer) in the population.

"It was an interesting finding that the two extreme strategies minimize gun-induced murders. Regarding practicality: There are other issues that are relevant, such as constitutional issues in the US, which can limit the policies that can be implemented. However, our goal was to ask a very focused question about the amount of gun-induced murders, and to use scientific methods, based in the field of disease epidemiology. It is our hope that this will initiate a different kind of discussion, where people argue about scientific assumptions, data, and scientific methodologies. This would be the most immediate practical implication of our work, and I think if this was achieved, it would be very valuable.

"Another, equally important practical implication of this work is that it identifies what needs to be measured statistically in order to make more precise predictions. Therefore, it serves as a guide for the design of future statistical studies, which will hopefully result in the availability of more data and thus more accurate predictions. As mentioned in the paper, right now only a limited amount of data is available in the literature and more data are needed to better parameterize and refine the model."

Here's some of the data that the researchers considered in their analysis:

  • Currently, about 30% of all American households own a gun. Assuming that gun ownership offers some protection against attacks, this percentage does not provide sufficient protection against attacks to counter the increase in gun-related deaths that occurs under a "guns for all" policy, according to the model. If a "guns for all" policy were to be effective, the government would have to persuade more people to purchase guns and carry them around at all times.
  • There is evidence that gun ownership by potential victims does not offer any protection from attacks. Previous studies have found that gun ownership by potential victims actually increases their chances of being fatally shot during an attack compared to potential victims who do not carry a gun. These studies suggest that gun possession might escalate a gun fight and make it less likely that the potential victim will retreat.
  • The majority of gun-related homicides in the US are one-against-one attacks, although one-on-many attacks are usually more widely publicized. The researchers suggest that the results from one-against-one attacks should dictate policies in order to minimize the overall gun-related homicide rate.
  • A study of a UK prison population that was not legally allowed to own guns revealed that 8% had illegally owned guns during the past year, of which 23% had taken the gun with them on an offense. That is, less than 2% of the individuals who were not legally allowed to own guns owned and used a gun for criminal purposes.

Finally, the researchers note that is not the only factor that contributes to the gun-related . This fact is highlighted by the gun policies of the UK and Switzerland. Both countries have drastically lower rates of gun-related homicide than the US, but very different gun policies. In the UK, private gun possession is largely banned, while gun prevalence in Switzerland is widespread. Clearly, other factors such as socioeconomic conditions and cultural differences also play an important role in reducing gun-related .

Explore further: US gun violence: Murders down, suicides up, CDC reports

More information: Dominik Wodarz and Natalia L. Komarova. "Dependence of the Firearm-Related Homicide Rate on Gun Availability: A Mathematical Analysis." PLOS ONE. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071606

Related Stories

With high-tech guns, users could disable remotely

May 21, 2013

A high-tech startup is wading into the gun control debate with a cellphone controller that would allow gun owners to know when their weapon is being moved—and disable it remotely.

The arithmetic of gun control

Jul 27, 2013

Aiming to quell heated national debate about gun control with factual answers, two UC Irvine mathematicians have designed parameters to measure how to best prevent both one-on-one killings and mass shootings in the United ...

Recommended for you

F1000Research brings static research figures to life

18 hours ago

F1000Research today published new research from Bjorn Brembs, professor of neurogenetics at the Institute of Zoology, Universitaet Regensburg, in Germany, with a proof-of-concept figure allowing readers and reviewers to run ...

How science can beat the flawed metric that rules it

19 hours ago

In order to improve something, we need to be able to measure its quality. This is true in public policy, in commercial industries, and also in science. Like other fields, science has a growing need for quantitative ...

User comments : 112

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ab3a
2.8 / 5 (15) Aug 19, 2013
The implicit assumption behind a study on "gun violence" is that if violence where a gun is involved is curbed, that the contribution to overall societal violence will not happen with other weapons such as a baseball bat, a pipe-bomb, or a knife.

I disagree with this assumption. But clearly there are many who feel otherwise. And to those of you who seem to feel that banning something helps, good luck banning a technology that has been through steady improvements over centuries...
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 19, 2013
" Clearly, other factors such as socioeconomic conditions and cultural differences also play an important role in reducing gun-related homicides.:"

Then the focus should not be on a firearm but the humans who use them to murder.
But that gets into issues statists do not want to address because one they can't control humans well (although they try) and two, statists want to have all the weapons to try and complete their first goal, control.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 19, 2013
Obama's own CDC report turns "polite society" hypothesis into a fact, as covered by Instapundit yesterday:

http://pjmedia.co.../174361/

However, in big cities and especially NYC, a vast majority of busy professionals have an utterly different Drug War era agenda to simply disarm gangs rather than themselves have to gunsling all day! A hardened criminal versus a tipsy gal in a tube dress? And the only way for city folk to brazenly disarm thugs is to chip away at the Second Amendment, nationwide. Imagine Sex In The City with a bunch of ankle strap guns instead of proactive Guiliani era policing.... Ain't gonna happen.
tadchem
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
"30% of all American households own a gun" ignores the threat presented by guns in the hands of thugs who may not belong to a conventional household, and probably do not legally (reportably) own their guns.
"gun ownership by potential victims does not offer any protection from attacks", but it certainly can influence the survivability of an attack.
"The majority of gun-related homicides in the US are one-against-one attacks", and a large proportion of those involve thug-against-thug with weapons not legally owned.
"A study of a UK prison population" has only limited applicability to the US population.
"the gun policies of the UK and Switzerland" point out the folly of equating law-abiding gun owners with law-breaking gun owners.
blc
3 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2013
The idea that a successful mathematical analysis is the definitive end of the debate is a pipe dream. You can't measure what doesn't get recorded. At what point does a person contemplating a life of crime with a gun decide that – no, it is too risky. I might end up dead? And there will never be a metric of repelled attacks where no shots were ever fired. Just the subtle body language of a lawful armed citizen could be enough to cut short a developing assault.

This "guns for all" idea is totally bogus. "the government would have to persuade more people to purchase guns and carry them around at all times". Is there someone seriously proposing such a thing? Perhaps only gun control zealots that wish to instill fear in the low info voter by portraying such a vision as a goal of the gun rights group.

"There is evidence that gun ownership by potential victims does not offer any protection from attacks." And there is evidence to the contrary. What is your point? Do you have one?
jdbertron
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2013
The assumption here of course is that Government still has a monopoly of Law Enforcement, Street ownership and zoning, all of which is does a very poor job of managing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2013
The most important statistics are those involving how the presence or display of a gun prevents crimes from happening, but these are the hardest to gather as they are not reported. Guess we'll just have to rely on the common sense of most rational people who see the obvious and irreplaceable value of it.

Uh oh - looks like more trouble in Deutschland.
http://www.indepe...309.html

-Obviously the only way to prevent this sort of thing is with more and more and more and more laws. It's what lawmakers do best isn't it? If they weren't making laws then how would we know they were doing their jobs?
bearly
3.1 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2013
There is only one study that matters.
Study the 2nd amendment !
indio007
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 19, 2013
Police have no duty to protect anyone.
That's all you need to know.
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2013
Axing UC-Irvine about gun control© is like axing algore about global warming™
Milou
1.1 / 5 (15) Aug 19, 2013
A gun is only a tool. Let's just hope you do not practice using the tool with Dick Cheney!
krundoloss
2 / 5 (15) Aug 19, 2013
While the statistics are helpful, they cannot help us solve the problem. To be honest, I do not see how you can reduce gun violence by doing anything that affects honest gun owners. The lawmakers need to make the penalty extremely high for possession of a firearm by an unlicensed unregistered person. And yes, we should do background checks for all firearm sales, including long guns. Do Not try to ban guns, it will just cause a huge civil war! Arming people that normally would not have a gun is OK, but it is ultimately more harmful than helpful. Remember, too, that if you have a gun it just means you are more likely to get shot yourself, either by accident, suicide or in a gun fight that you should not have been in to begin with.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 19, 2013
Meanwhile supply meets demand in a city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation:

"A pair of gunrunners smuggled firearms into New York City by hiding them in luggage they carried on discount buses offering cheap fares...254 weapons in 45 transactions since last year - the largest total from a gun case in recent memory.

"Walker, 29, of Sanford, N.C. and Campbell, 24, of Rock Hill, S.C., were trafficking guns separately but using the same middleman in New York City.

"Some guns were obtained on the black market, while others were bought from gun dealers using straw buyers to get around one-gun-a-month restrictions."

-And if the straw purchases is somehow curtailed they will simply increase the supply across our borders. Millions of full-auto AKMs sit in third world warehouses waiting for the opportunity.

"The amount of illicit drugs believed to enter Arizona alone each year from Mexico is easily in the thousands of tons..."

-And 1000s of people. Guns are easier to smuggle.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2013
Remember, too, that if you have a gun it just means you are more likely to get shot yourself, either by accident, suicide or in a gun fight that you should not have been in to begin with
I was ready to uprate your post when I read this load. Where did you get this bullshit?

Guns in the hands of responsible people prevent crime and reduce violence. Like I say, the statistics which would show this are hard to come by and less attractive to hype-loving politicos
vertex
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2013
Where did you get this bullshit?

http://aje.oxford...929.full

From the abstract:
Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2013
having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home
Your study does NOT include figures on crimes prevented by the presence of a gun, which is the whole POINT of having one for self-defense.

We can only examine what happens with violent crime rates when gun bans are lifted, or when guns are banned.

"The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million."

According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows."

"[NYC gun ban expiration] has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments."
dtxx
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 19, 2013
I think the suicide point is really moot. We are talking about people motivated enough to actually kill themselves. If all guns disappeared tomorrow these people would likely be jumping off bridges, hanging themselves (leading to calls of 'ban rope!!'), taking too many pills, etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2013
From your study;

"Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm "
(A notorious statistic. It does not delineate legal vs illegal guns used by criminals)

"...to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a firearm or by using other means."
(This includes ALL deaths, not just firearms-related deaths, and fact gun deaths were in the minority:

"Nearly three quarters of suicide victims lived in a home where one or more firearms were present, compared with 42 percent of homicide victims and one third of those who died of other causes"
(They are apparently also including guns brought into the home during the commission of a crime along with guns actually kept in the home.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2013
cont>
"Homicide victims were mostly male, less than 35 years of age, and of racial or ethnic minority status."
(No indication of gang affiliation or narcotics trafficking which may indicate that these households were intrinsically violent to begin with.)

"with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent's previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors."
(Bingo.)

"Nearly one third (31.7 percent) of the homicides occurred during a family argument, 15.4 percent during a robbery, 4.1 percent during a drug deal, 0.2 percent during an abduction, and 44.1 percent for other unspecified reasons...Female sex, age less than 45 years, and being of a racial or ethnic minority group were also important predictors of homicide risk..."
(Remembering that 42% of homicides occurred in homes without guns, and 1/3 of these occurred during a family argument, we can assume that some of these victims may have survived had they been armed.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2013
As far as gun bans go, we can examine one shining example; the UK.

"According to the Mail, "the level of violent crime in Britain has risen by 70 per cent. Gun crime is up by more than half and there are more than 100 serious knife crimes each day, with fatal stabbings having reached the highest level on record."

"There are many explanations offered for the rise in crime, family breakdown, devaluing of marriage, welfare as a way of life, increasing unemployment, increasing drug use, and the rise in power of street gangs. Despite this blunt portrayal, they failed to note one important thing... that disarmed citizens are at the mercy of the criminal element."

"100,000 assaults. 1,000 rapists sentenced. Shockingly low conviction rates revealed "

"The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America"

Subjects = victims
animah
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2013
Guns in the hands of responsible people prevent crime


Good point, but "guns for all" includes irresponsible people by definition, so there has to be a measure of balance I think.

ab3a also points out that people will pick up other weapons in the absence of guns, which makes sense, especially in a country that has the highest rate of murders per capita in the developed world.

So I think the problem is not gun violence, but violence.

I am not sure how politically fraught tackling the wider "culture of violence" issue would be, but it seems beyond US society's appetite at the moment. What do you think?

baudrunner
1 / 5 (15) Aug 19, 2013
Clearly, other factors such as socioeconomic conditions and cultural differences also play an important role in reducing gun-related homicides.
That's a mouthful. Obviously, the Swiss think it is simply bad form to be shooting at anyone. Teaching kids good manners in school will do the most to prevent gun violence.

Your study does NOT include figures on crimes prevented by the presence of a gun, which is the whole POINT of having one for self-defense.
I strongly disagree. Pulling a gun on anyone in the U.S. is liable to get you shot, because there exists a legal argument for the case of self-defense. Criminals get away with murder all the time.

Face it, Americans don't own guns because they are trying to protect themselves. That's just a lame excuse. They own guns because it makes them feel more macho, more virile.

Owning a gun makes you more liable to be a victim of violent crime.
roldor
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2013
I think, a self regulating market would be the best:
Higher prizes: No gun under 1000$.
One is only allowed to carry his own gun, that is registered to him.
Criminal condemnation would result in a ban of buying, owning
and carrying a weapon ever again
djr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2013
So Otto - according to your source - the UK is the violent crime capitol of Europe.

But their murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000, and the U.S. is 4.8. Any explanation?

http://en.wikiped...ide_rate
dtxx
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2013
So Otto - according to your source - the UK is the violent crime capitol of Europe.

But their murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000, and the U.S. is 4.8. Any explanation?

http://en.wikiped...ide_rate


Violent crime does not always equal murder. I mean cmon djr, are you serious with that or did you misread? Violent crime could be a beating, armed robbery, etc. Looking at the rates from the source you provided, the US is 4.8. But, in the Europe region we see Greenland at 19.2, Russia at 10.2, Moldova at 7.5, Lithuania at 6.2, Belarus at 4.9, etc. What exactly is your point about violence in the US compared to Europe?

I know, it's fun and easy to paint americans as gunslinging murderers with no remorse.
Kedas
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2013
Why don't they just study the countries that already have a better gun policy. Seems like a much better way to make sure your conclusions are right.
In Belgium we removed or broke them all (except licensed ones) and I'm glad for that, I don't have a gun so I like the chances that someone else has one to be as low as possible.

You don't have to wait to arrest someone with a gun until they shoot. (having a gun is enough)
Kron
2.3 / 5 (19) Aug 20, 2013
guns are not some mysterious thing they are a way of propelling a projectile a criminal in need of a projectile throwing machine can easily construct one removing guns from non-criminals leaves them in a disadvantaged state against an armed assailant whose intent is to victimize them there are numerous illegal ways of acquiring an already manufactured weapon the bottom line is as long as there is a will there is a way get rid of legal ownership and good guys lose the ability to protect themselves against the bad guys who illegally do
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
@baudrunner Owning a gun makes you more liable to be a victim of violent crime.
Agreed, if you're a policeman. Don't you agree that Obama should have the SS barred from carrying guns? A proper scowl will scare away anyone with impure intentions
Imagine Sex In The City with a bunch of ankle strap guns instead of proactive Guiliani era policing.... Ain't gonna happen.
NYC sounds like a criminal paradise
djr
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2013
dtxx: "I know, it's fun and easy to paint americans as gunslinging murderers with no remorse"

I did not do that. But as a scientist - do you not think it is interesting to ask the question - 'If the U.K. is the violence capitol of Europe - then why does the U.S. have 4 times the murder rate?'

I just asked the question.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
Ten most dangerous US cities:
Detroit
St. Louis
Oakland, CA
Memphis, TN
Birmingham, AL
Atlanta
Baltimore
Stockton, CA (city is bankrupt)
Cleveland
Buffalo, NY
""Overwhelmingly when there's a homicide, the two parties knew each other," he said. "Violence begets violence."

Drugs also beget violence, and some of the other cities in the Top 10, such as Atlanta, St. Louis and Stockton, Calif., lie on well-traveled drug transport routes."
http://www.forbes...-cities/
Safest cities:
Plano, TX,
Henderson, NV
Honolulu
Santa Ana, CA
Lincoln, NE
San Jose, CA
Mesa, AZ
Colorado Springs
Aurora, CO
NYC
http://www.forbes...ork-n-y/
Doug_Huffman
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies is now available in an edition of one volume. Popper wrote this on social/political philosophy after having written The Logic of Scientific Discovery, in which he drew a bright line demarking the boundary between sense and nonsense that cannot be falsified.

Gun control is merely another aspect of control by the tribe against the individual. MOLON LABE Lord of FLies
Anda
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2013
All this debate is funny for (west) europeans.
I've never seen in my life anyone with a fire weapon in his hands around here.
So I've never thought of needing one myself.
Keep debating.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 20, 2013
So Otto - according to your source - the UK is the violent crime capitol of Europe.

But their murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000, and the U.S. is 4.8. Any explanation?

http://en.wikiped...ide_rate
For what? The statistics or your inability to understand that VIOLENCE does not necessarily involve murder?

The UK has the highest rate of assaults, stabbings, beatings, rape, and kidnappings in Europe. One can surmise that this is because the people there are unable to defend themselves.

Take the excerpts I posted, drop them into GOOGLE, and learn the true cost of gun bans. People rape in the UK knowing that there is very little chance of them being caught. Most women would gladly use a gun to prevent this.
As a scientist
You're a scientist?? Then how is it you did not know that VIOLENCE dies not necessarily involve murder? Or that to understand the situation you have to consider all the facts?
EnricM
1 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2013

Take the excerpts I posted, drop them into GOOGLE, and learn the true cost of gun bans. People rape in the UK knowing that there is very little chance of them being caught. Most women would gladly use a gun to prevent this.


And when and how, if I may ask, are they exactly going to use the gun?
If a guy points a gnu at you... how many chances do you think you can have to:
1) put your hand in your bag
2) take your gun out of your bag
3) release the security lever
4) point the gun
5) press the trigger

Recall this Democrat shot in the face? Her security didn't manage to do the above. Figure out the rest. Thanks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2013
guns are not some mysterious thing they are a way of propelling a projectile a criminal in need of a projectile throwing machine can easily construct one removing guns from non-criminals leaves them in a disadvantaged state against an armed assailant whose intent is to victimize them there are numerous illegal ways of acquiring an already manufactured weapon the bottom line is as long as there is a will there is a way get rid of legal ownership and good guys lose the ability to protect themselves against the bad guys who illegally do
Why don't you write like a human being instead of a fucking chimpanzee so that we can understand what you're trying to say? This is only polite.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 20, 2013
And when and how
So because of your list we can surmise that it is futile for cops and security guards and soldiers to carry guns as well -?

People can and do use guns to defend themselves dozens of times every day, often without firing a shot. There are dozens of real-world examples on YouTube. Here's one
http://www.youtub...a_player

A gun will give you a chance whereas without one you have no chance whatsoever.
krundoloss
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
I think the suicide point is really moot.


I agree, that is not a "problem" per se, frankly if more people killed themselves there would be less whiney neurotic people left to eat all the food and drag us closer to Armageddon. But my only point was that, statistically, you are more likely do accidentally get shot, or shoot someone, or kill yourself, than you are to successfully defend your home against invaders. Now, this is only true for certain conditions. If you live in a bad neighborhood, than you are probably more likely to stop a home invasion than you are to kill yourself or accidentally shoot someone. Its just logic, if you are a chef, then you are more likely to cut your finger with a knife, simply because of exposure and probability!
Eikka
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2013
But, in the Europe region we see Greenland at 19.2, Russia at 10.2, Moldova at 7.5, Lithuania at 6.2, Belarus at 4.9, etc. What exactly is your point about violence in the US compared to Europe?


Good that you cherrypicked ex-soviet countries with barely any law and order. Greenland is a bit of an outlier as well.

The UK has the highest rate of assaults, stabbings, beatings, rape, and kidnappings in Europe. One can surmise that this is because the people there are unable to defend themselves.


If that's the case, then would it be a case for even stricter laws since much of Europe has similiar or stricter laws, and they don't seem to be having the issue.

Or could it be that the UK is an outlier for some other reason than gun policy, and handing everyone guns would just make things worse there.
brt
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2013
1.) You should never make a wide ranging generalization based on the actions of a small percentage of the population.

2.) The fact that there are only 12,000 gun deaths each year is not enough for me to accept any sort of gun ban. 12,000 is nothing compared to things like heart disease, diabetes, car accidents, the list goes on.

3.) I would not be comfortable with any weapons bans given the current level of corruption of police departments and local government. I do think that if you are ever checked into a mental health facility, then you should have a mark on your police record that says you can't own a firearm. You could get it removed, but it would be extremely difficult, like getting a crime expunged from your record.

my 2 cents.
brt
2 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
dtxx: "I know, it's fun and easy to paint americans as gunslinging murderers with no remorse"

I did not do that. But as a scientist - do you not think it is interesting to ask the question - 'If the U.K. is the violence capitol of Europe - then why does the U.S. have 4 times the murder rate?'

I just asked the question.


There was something on the news not to long ago (or maybe it was Bill Maher?) that Americans under the age of 40 have the widest gap between their perceived abilities and skills and the actual level of their abilities and skills. In other words, we are 4 times more egotistical and delusional than Europeans are. That results in a lot of things that lead to violence. We aren't as respectful to each other, we look to boost our self confidence by insulting the status of those less fortunate, we escape reality more often, etc. It's a formula for violence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (17) Aug 20, 2013
Americans own guns because it makes them feel more macho
Again, is this the reason cops and security guards and soldiers carry them? Does carrying them mean that THEY are more apt to be shot?

Everyday people have guns for the same reasons that cops and security guards and soldiers do. They face the potential threat of armed individuals who mean them harm and who want to take what they have. The only reliable way to prevent these things is with a gun.
brt
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2013
Americans own guns because it makes them feel more macho
Again, is this the reason cops and security guards and soldiers carry them? Does carrying them mean that THEY are more apt to be shot?

Everyday people have guns for the same reasons that cops and security guards and soldiers do. They face the potential threat of armed individuals who mean them harm and who want to take what they have. The only reliable way to prevent these things is with a gun.


those studying this issue have a tendency to group in all firearms rather than separate firearms used for hunting from those that could be used for self-defense, police, or military styles. If we were to separate firearms into 2 main categories, then I would be willing to bet that 70% are hunting rifles or hunting shotguns. I think that changes things in a major way. What are those 30% doing and who owns them? Anyone who thinks there is no difference between a hunting rifle and a handgun doesn't know the facts.
krundoloss
1 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
Americans own guns because it makes them feel more macho
Again, is this the reason cops and security guards and soldiers carry them? Does carrying them mean that THEY are more apt to be shot?

Everyday people have guns for the same reasons that cops and security guards and soldiers do. They face the potential threat of armed individuals who mean them harm and who want to take what they have. The only reliable way to prevent these things is with a gun.


1. Yes police officers are MORE likely to be shot than a normal person.
2. Yes guns serve a purpose as protection. But the sad fact is that the winner of any gun fight is the one who was most prepared. Who can be prepared more than the person planning to do something that the other has no knowledge of?

I saw a news story about a man in Virginia who regularly open carried his glock around. People noticed, and someone came up behind him, put a gun to his back, stole his $500 Glock, and took off. His gun made him a target!
brt
2 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
Americans own guns because it makes them feel more macho
Again, is this the reason cops and security guards and soldiers carry them? Does carrying them mean that THEY are more apt to be shot?

Everyday people have guns for the same reasons that cops and security guards and soldiers do. They face the potential threat of armed individuals who mean them harm and who want to take what they have. The only reliable way to prevent these things is with a gun.


I saw a news story about a man in Virginia who regularly open carried his glock around. People noticed, and someone came up behind him, put a gun to his back, stole his $500 Glock, and took off. His gun made him a target!


for every extreme example you cherry pick, there are 10, if not more, brutal examples that someone on the opposing side of this argument could cherry pick.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 20, 2013
Americans under the age of 40 have the widest gap between their perceived abilities and skills and the actual level of their abilities and skills.


Thank the 'progressive' self-esteem education movement that started in the 70's.
"Once upon a time – a time you probably don't remember if you're younger than 30 – American schools sought to teach children self-control, personal responsibility, and respect for others, especially adults. "
"Then, sometime in the 1970s, schools began to embrace the peculiar notion that kids should never be criticized or feel self-doubt. The "self-esteem" movement was born – and ushered in a generation of kids who think they can do no wrong.'
http://townhall.c...age/full
krundoloss
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
for every extreme example you cherry pick, there are 10, if not more, brutal examples that someone on the opposing side of this argument could cherry pick.


Yes that is true. I just try to bring perspective to the argument on how useful guns are for protection, and how they are useful in that role. Obviously if someone is not ready to kill you, and you point a gun at them, they will probably run away.

People watch movies like "Panic Room" or "Law Abiding Citizen" and they think, "Man, if someone busts into my house and I don't have a gun, I will be screwed". In those situations that we witness in movies over and over again, we have constructed a set of criteria where it seems dangerous to not have a gun in the home. How often do these things happen? Not too often, but I would much rather have a few guns stashed in the house for that unlikely event, even if that event is perceived by me to be much more likely than it really is.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
"It comes as Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford said he had secured the confession of the 17-year-old who summoned investigators to his jail cell and claimed he and the younger boys were bored "so they decided to kill somebody".

"He said he was the driver of the car," Chief Ford said.

"They saw Christopher jog by the house they were at, they chose him to be the target, they got in the car, drove up behind him and shot him in the back.

"He said the 16-year-old fired the shot."

The three teenagers are being held in the Stephens County Jail in Duncan."
"The mother of the 16-year-old accused of firing the single bullet from a handgun into Lane's back said she didn't believe her son was involved.

The father of the 15-year-old admitted his son had been in trouble with the law, but described him as a good boy."
http://www.herald...00172461
A Clockwork Orange?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2013
"While the self-esteem movement hasn't made children any smarter, it has made them more self-centered, manipulative, and indulgent... The link to the self-esteem movement is clear: if everyone deserves to feel good regardless of how they behave, why should a student feel bad about stealing a copy of the final exam? It doesn't mean he's a bad person. The self-esteem movement has indeed had enormous effects on children born since the 1970s – and almost none of them are good. The California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility spent a quarter-billion dollars trying to raise Californians' self-esteem, only to find that it had no effect on teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, or chronic welfare dependency. On the other hand, people with high self-esteem tend to be unwilling to take responsibility for their own failures and bad behavior."
http://townhall.c...age/full
Who blames Bush?
brt
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013


Thank the 'progressive' self-esteem education movement that started in the 70's.
"Once upon a time – a time you probably don't remember if you're younger than 30 – American schools sought to teach children self-control, personal responsibility, and respect for others, especially adults. "
"Then, sometime in the 1970s, schools began to embrace the peculiar notion that kids should never be criticized or feel self-doubt. The "self-esteem" movement was born – and ushered in a generation of kids who think they can do no wrong.'


Now THAT, I do agree with. When you teach your kids that nothing less than absolute success is acceptable, then that creates unrealistic standards. There's nothing wrong with being a garbage man, or a painter, or doing any dirty job. Everyone is taught to be rich and/or famous when they need to be taught how to be happy contributing to society and being a part of something bigger. We all have our part in making society work.
krundoloss
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
Did you know:

"Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower."

http://www.pewsoc...unaware/
owenel
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
homicide rate is only one of many metrics that matter in the world. there are obviously many ways to arbitrarily reduce homicide rate, like lock everyone in their homes or install cameras on every square meter of public space, and if you only use one metric, like homicide rate those will look like great options.
owenel
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2013
furthermore, using this same "scientific" approach to other kinds of policy-making we could conclude that outlawing alcohol will greatly reduce traffic deaths (which outnumber homicides), so let's do that. or outlawing waterskiing will reduce waterskiing deaths by 99%, so let's do that. or outlawing sugar will greatly reduce diabetes-related deaths, so let's do that.
krundoloss
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
Its this simple people:
1. Kid plays games with guns
2. Kid watches movies with guns
3. Kids watches TV shows about guns
4. Kid hits puberty and becomes emotionally detached
5. Kid plays with real gun, oops, people get killed.

It happens over and over. Whats the cause? All of it. Whats the solution? Taking away freedom. Is that acceptable to reduce gun violence. NO!!
owenel
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2013
the other problem with this study is that the results are obvious. this study is not newsworthy at all.
djr
3 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2013
Otto :"You're a scientist?? Then how is it you did not know that VIOLENCE dies not necessarily involve murder? Or that to understand the situation you have to consider all the facts?"

All I did was ask a question. It is a very valid question. I did not draw any conclusions - or make any statements about the implications of that question. But surely when we are discussing gun control - recognizing that we have 4 times the homicide rate of another country is good grist for the mill. You are the one going all postal over someone asking a question.

I can offer an opinion on why we have a much higher homicide rate. I would agree with brt - that the issue of respect for each other is very much a part of this issue. But that is not a scientific conclusion. But don't we need to study the issue - and have a good dialogue about our whole society? The way you go off on people for asking questions may be instructive. Very similar to road rage.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2013
It happens over and over.

It is not just 1-5 but also absence of discipline enabled by the 'progressive', govt run schools and the baby boomers.
outlawing sugar

The 'positive' law concept of the Regulatory State only enables and promotes the socialist state.
The law should hold people accountable for their acts, not directly control their behavior. Kill someone driving drunk or drugged, it's murder.
The regulatory state only enables excuses and disables holding individuals accountable for their actions.
Imagine if all the money wasted on the regulatory state funded a court system to hold people accountable. Once the integrity of such courts were established and people held do account, the need and cost for such courts would diminish has more individuals would act responsibility. But this does not increase the size and scope of the state.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2013
70% are hunting rifles or hunting shotguns
Well depending on who you are talking to, these would be called 'high-powered sniper riflles' and 'street sweepers'.
Anyone who thinks there is no difference between a hunting rifle and a handgun doesn't know the facts
They feel that they have all the facts they need. Much like boko haram.
1. Yes police officers are MORE likely to be shot than a normal person.
Lets pick this notion apart. Suppose we compare the number of situations where officers may be relying on their firearm to protect them, whether actually used or just displayed, vs the same sorts of incidents that an ordinary citizen might find themselves in. People are more reluctant to fire on a cop than an ordinary citizen, and so while they are routinely in danger more often, they are attacked far less per situation.

But as cops NEED guns to defend themselves in certain situations, so do citizens.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2013
Who can be prepared more than the person planning to do something that the other has no knowledge of?
A GUN GIVES YOU A CHANCE. A person in his own home who has the common sense to consider just how to defend it, will have an idea of what to do if someone tries to break in. This person has the advantage over someone who doesnt know the layout, the location of occupants, and how prepared they are.

But the occupant still has no clear advantage without a gun. Without it time is on the invaders side. Without it they can be found and overpowered, and killed or kidnapped in the time it takes for the police to arrive.

There is no reliable way to defend yourself in your own home, other than with a handgun. A little old lady with a gun can beat 3 thugs with clubs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
Its this simple people:
1. Kid plays games with guns
2. Kid watches movies with guns
3. Kids watches TV shows about guns
4. Kid hits puberty and becomes emotionally detached
5. Kid plays with real gun, oops, people get killed.

It happens over and over. Whats the cause? All of it. Whats the solution? Taking away freedom. Is that acceptable to reduce gun violence. NO!!
Of course not. How are you going to protect them from bad guys?

Kids can find all sorts of dangerous things to play with. Parents who leave dangerous things around for kids to play with whether guns or car keys or whatnot, can be and are charged with serious crimes.

"Results from Poisson regressions that control for various hospital, county and state characteristics, including state-specific fixed effects and time trends, indicate that Child Access Prevention laws substantially reduce non-fatal gun injuries among both children and adults."
http://www.nber.o...s/w11613

-A rational approach with real results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
All I did was ask a question. It is a very valid question
But it was not YOUR question. You did not think it up because you did not think it through.
I did not draw any conclusions - or make any statements about the implications of that question.
Of course you did. You drew the conclusion that homicide rates were indicators of overall violence. Obviously theyre not, and had you thought about the question instead of just parroting it, this may have occurred to you.

I would use a gun to prevent myself from being crippled, or my wife from being raped, or my car from being stolen if I lived in texas. Would you? George zimmerman rightfully used his gun because he was in a position to be killed or crippled.
we have constructed a set of criteria where it seems dangerous to not have a gun in the home
Again, you think that just because there are movies then dangerous situations dont happen in reality? Of course they do.
http://www.nraila...zen.aspx
djr
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2013
Otto: "Of course you did. You drew the conclusion that homicide rates were indicators of overall violence"

No I did not - show me any statement that I made that implies that homicide rates are indicators of anything more than homicide rates. But I do think it is interesting that the country you identify as the violent crime capitol of the world - has 1/4th the homicide rate that we do. Here is my statement - "But their murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000, and the U.S. is 4.8. Any explanation?"

I did think my question through - and I think it is a very signifcant issue to give some study to. It is sad that on a science web site - so much of the commentary is so reactionary - I personally think that your tendancy to go off on a simple question - is very much part of the crisis we face as a society - a crisis that seems we only know how to tackle with conflict - which is the very crisis in the first place - it is circular
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
"The video shows a teenage boy walking along less than 15 feet away during a spate of wild gunfire on the street during broad daylight. He looks around to see what's happening and then, satisfied that he's not in the line of fire, casually walks away."
http://www.mrcons...ppening/

"A proposal to ban hammers, wrenches, shields, sling shots, paint projectiles and other potentially destructive items at protests will be considered by the Oakland City Council at its meeting on Tuesday night."
http://sanfrancis...rotests/

"Detroit, Michigan is the most liberal "
"Gary, Indiana, a rust belt former steel town, comes in as Americas second most liberal city, followed by Berkeley, California, which ranks third. Washington, D.C. comes in as the fourth most liberal and Oakland,
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2013
"Gary, Indiana, a rust belt former steel town, comes in as Americas second most liberal city, followed by Berkeley, California, which ranks third. Washington, D.C. comes in as the fourth most liberal and Oakland, California comes in fifth.

On the list of the nations most conservative cities, Texas cements its reputation as Americas most rock-ribbed state, having three cities in the top five. Lubbock and Abilene, Texas rank as the second and third most conservative cities, respectively, followed by Hialeah, Florida in fourth place and Plano, Texas in fifth."
http://americanci...e-cities

What a coincidence, Plano, TX is one of the safest cities!
kochevnik
1 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2013
If a guy points a gnu at you... how many chances do you think you can have to:
That's a fucking big IF, knowing that the target is carrying carrying, Not that I'm carrying as unfortunately I visit places where handguns are banned, Vegas being the marvelous exception though I doubt that extends to foreign nationals
"Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower."
Abortion and guns are two of the best things in the USA
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2013
Abortion and guns
Nearly 50% of all pregnancies are aborted in the USS- er excuse me, Russia, as compared to about 22% in the US. And who was it that invented the AK47?
Show me any statement
You were responding to my comment about violence in the UK with your factoid about homicides, implying that it was an indicator of overall violence rates. It's not. And by responding in a thread about gun violence you implied that the homicide rate directly correlates to the availability of guns.

It doesn't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2013
Hey gunphobes. Here is one reason why we choose to own guns.
http://dailycalle...r-sport/

Take a very good look at these people. There are hundreds of thousands of them in the US. Many are in prison but are soon to be released. Their idea of fun and gainful employment is to invade your home and kill and rape and rob. Sometimes this is a requirement of gang membership.

And THEY will always have guns. When your dog starts barking or you hear your kitchen door being broken down, you will be glad you had had the common sense to buy a gun and learn how to use it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
Here is some more for your viewing entertainment
http://www.busted.../chicago

-Oh and a disclaimer - the guys in the last post are still alleged aren't they? 'I don't believe my son did this.' -one of the 'fathers'
djr
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2013
Otto - " implying that it was an indicator of overall violence rates."

Implying nothing of the sort. You want to play psychic - that is your issue. All I did was ask a question. The questions was - 'You have indicated that the U.K. is the violience capitol of Europe - and yet they have 1/4 the homicide rate of the U.S. Do you have any explanation for this odd situation. If England is the violence capitol of the Europe - then the lower homicide rate can presumably not be attributed to lower rates of overall violence. So what do you think is the explanation? Could it be lack of access to guns? Just a question.......
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2013
Violence does not equal homicide.

" "In my quiet neighbourhood, a man stepped on to a driveway and shot straight through the driver's windscreen into the dashboard of a car.

"The police later played it down in the local paper as criminal damage, yet two police officers who came to see me confirmed it was a gunshot.

"The reason they are playing it down is because of the commercial status of Nottingham. If crime is high, people won't want to buy homes here, set up businesses or send their children to university in Nottingham." "
http://www.telegr...ime.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
Could it be lack of access to guns?
Hmmm. Well I looked at your wiki page and I am not able to tell whether these were drug- or gang-related homicides (which usually involve illegal guns), whether they were justifiable homicides, or what. So if I were to venture a guess, I would guess that there are fewer homicides per capita in britain because fewer people are able to kill the criminals who are attacking them.

Prove me wrong.

In the meantime you need to ponder these statistics:

"...the reality is that gun homicides are overwhelmingly tied to gang violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million"

-And as we know, gangs have unlimited access to illegal firearms, and always will.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2013
You might also want to consider this:

"Ann Coulter made a jawdropping claim about gun crime and minorities on Monday's "Hannity."

"The conservative commentator said that she just got back from England, and addressed comparisons of the country's low rate of gun crime relative to the United States.

"If you compare white populations, we have the same murder rate as Belgium," Coulter said. "So perhaps it's not a gun problem, it is a demographic problem, which liberals are the ones pushing, pushing, pushing."

-On the surface this sounds unabashedly racist. But if you compare it to gang demographics:

"Hispanics and African-Americans constituted the majority of gang members. The following aggregate percentages were reported nationally: Hispanic—44 percent, African-American—35 percent, Caucasian—14 percent, Asian—5 percent, and other—2 percent"

-You can see that it roughly correlates with what ann is saying, and with the numbers in my previous post.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2013
Otto - firstly - I am a supporter of having guns available to law abiding citizens for their own protection. Given the current state of our world - I think it would be evil to suggest otherwise. I even agree that gun violence situations like the Connecticut pre-school shootings may well have better outcomes if some of the adults in the proximity had had access to a gun - and been able to protect themselves. I also agree that it is a demographic problem. Of course when you see the correlation between race, and violence, only an idiot would discount that data. I do believe that overall it is a complex issue - encompassing poverty, gang violence, drugs, street crime, education, societal values, AND access to guns. It is also foolish to ignore data like the lower homicide rate in other countries (Canada has about an equal rate of gun ownership, but much lower homicide rates). Wow - you say - you just contradicted yourself. I don't think so - I just think the problem is highly (con)
djr
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2013
(cont.) complex - and as a society we need to be willing to have a highly complex and open conversation about the issue. Finally (and I promise this is my last word) - I would say 2 quick things. 1. Quoting Ann Coulter really degrades the argument (if you spend your time listening to her - God help you). 2. Posting newspaper articles that are blatantly racist also rights you off in terms of ever getting a response from me in the future.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2013
The questions was - 'You have indicated that the U.K. is the violience capitol of Europe - and yet they have 1/4 the homicide rate of the U.S. Do you have any explanation for this odd situation.
Homicides in Europe are punished strongly while assaults are considered much more a part of the human condition and have much lighter penalties than in the USA. Criminals are hence incentivized to beat and maim their victims to near death, but not kill outright. Maiming and crippling are the outcome of European criminal activity, and there is much more of it than in the USA. Much is not reported as it is considered typical human activity, whereas US citizens have a notion of constitutional violation to their persons beyond the actual assault
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2013
"A string of violent incidents has rocked Berlin in recent months, and a deadly beating over the weekend is just the latest example. Statistics indicate that the city remains safe, but experts say that crimes are becoming more brutal. "
http://www.spiege...782.html
Posting newspaper articles that are blatantly racist

Is this racist?
http://www.herald...00172461
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2013
Of course when you see the correlation between race, and violence, only an idiot would discount that data
Its the culture not necessarily the race. British gangs have notoriously been the worst:

"this wasn't another outbreak of modern gun crime, teenage stabbings or hoodie trouble-making. The 'scuttlers', as the whole of Britain learned to know and detest them, were a serious social problem in the 1870s and 80s.

"Influenced by an empire almost permanently at war, from the Sudan to Afghanistan, they took over music halls, openly paraded with home-made weapons and staged fights where more than 500 young people took part."
Quoting Ann Coulter really degrades the argument
I thought ryggnuts would appreciate it. A fact is a fact no matter where it comes from.
Posting newspaper articles that are blatantly racist
I dont think I did that. The article implied she was a racist. It was from the huffington freeking pinko post.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2013
I do believe that overall it is a complex issue - encompassing poverty, gang violence, drugs, street crime, education, societal values, AND access to guns.


Discipline is not really that complex.

"Progressives treat blacks as victims in need of kid glove treatment and special favors, such as racial quotas and preferences. This approach has been tried in education for decades and has revealed itself a failure."
http://townhall.c...n1667942

There is nothing complex about Walter E. Williams suggestion of holding individuals accountable for their actions.

The complexity arises from 'progressive' deceit. What a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive.
djr
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2013
"I dont think I did that. The article implied she was a racist. It was from the huffington freeking pinko post."

This is from the Huff Po? Shit - Ariana has changed her writing style a lot.

http://dailycalle...r-sport/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2013
"That is also an issue of far greater consequence to the future of young black men than the acquittal of George Zimmerman in his awful showdown with Trayvon. If only Mr. Sharpton and his fellow black leaders paid attention to what was missing in the lives of those three teenagers. Maybe President Obama would even care to use it as one of his teachable moments. "
http://online.wsj..._LEADTop
racistblackguy
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2013
As your article observes: "Some are focusing on the ease of obtaining a gun in the U.S., as (inevitably) is the reflexive CNN, and it would almost be a relief if we could blame such a murder on guns."

"Then we wouldn't have to focus on a culture that produces teenagers for whom the prospect of shooting an innocent man in the back on a Friday evening apparently raised not a scintilla of conscience. That is the deeper tragedy, and the real scandal, of too much of American life."

If we look deeper and closer at American culture, especially in Black culture, we will find that there is a far bigger problem that surpasses the problems of poverty and lack of education. It is insidious and invasive and takes its toll on the hearts and minds of Black youth. It has to do with all the White faces on TV and in movies which Black youth can't help but see and hear. Those faces are a constant reminder that one is different in appearance and that the characteristics of Europeans are more valued.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2013
Those faces are a constant reminder that one is different in appearance and that the characteristics of Europeans are more valued.


Regardless of the color of the face on TV and movies, everyone is constantly reminded they don't look like the beautiful people. Maybe that's why paparazzi sites are popular showing what they look like without makeup and without daily diet and exercise.
This is not a 'black' problem, its a culture problem.
racistblackguy
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
It is not the gun nor the bullets that are to blame, but it is the pervasive hateful attitudes of the teen killers who saw a White man running down the road and decided to kill him without even seeing his face. They would have seen his arms and legs as he jogged along the path and identified him as being White. This is similar to all the beatings given to innocent Whites from Black youth in the U.S.
American Black youth in these modern times know nothing of the struggles that our people had to endure since the first slave ship brought our forebears to America in chains. We waited centuries for the chance to be free and honorable men, and many of us succeeded far beyond expectations.

But now, our own youth bring dishonor to our cause and our struggles, and instead bring fear of the Black man into the hearts of White Americans. But not only to Whites in America, but also to those Whites from foreign lands. This is now the Black man's burden.
racistblackguy
1.4 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
Yes, it is true that the media of whichever type, such as magazines, has a penchant for propagandizing the most beautiful and comely appearance of all races. They do that because it sells magazines and ugliness or plain need not apply. Editors understand this very strong principle in any commercial venture. A messy house with an unkempt yard will not sell as well as a well kept home.
But Black youth only see beautiful and handsome White people whose skin, eye color and hair texture is far different from theirs. They notice that many Black women are dying their hair blonde or red, or wearing a wig of such colors that are mainly identified with the White race, and even bleaching their skin. Hair straightening is standard practice. To the youth who see all of this pretense from their own mothers and other female relatives, it is only a confirmation that their Blackness is not good enough and it is done out of self hatred and loathing of one's race.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
Blackness is not good enough and it is done out of self hatred and loathing of one's race.

It's a culture problem, not a 'black' problem.

Why do the various tribes in Africa, all black, murder each other? Do they hate their race?
racistblackguy
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
In my own youth I saw the ugliness of racism and I had to find a way to deal with the ugliness and get past it. That is why I chose Psychiatry so that I could better understand the causes, symptoms, reactions and solutions to racism as well as other afflictions of the mind. I have been on Phys.org for over a year now, and have read many fine comments as well as those whose authors are clearly either self destructive and have mental afflictions that are easily ascertained, if not officially confirmed on this website, or are on a mission to make fools of everyone.
It is very refreshing to read and learn how the mind can be very accommodating as to revealing its true motives and its mental baggage on the web. This is not always the case in a one to one session in a live setting where the mental patient finds it necessary at times to hide his true feelings.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2013
Blackness is not good enough and it is done out of self hatred and loathing of one's race.

It's a culture problem, not a 'black' problem.

Why do the various tribes in Africa, all black, murder each other? Do they hate their race?
You do know that youre talking to obama_socks who recently animated this drone sockpuppet of hers who has been downrating myself and others for months now? this sock is pretending to be a black male PSYCHIATRIST who's recommending that posters here should be institutionalized.
ugliness or plain need not apply
Lying is ugly and the plain feel the need to pretend to be something theyre not.

Go away pussytard.
racistblackguy
1.2 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
Blackness is not good enough and it is done out of self hatred and loathing of one's race.

It's a culture problem, not a 'black' problem.

Why do the various tribes in Africa, all black, murder each other? Do they hate their race?


Of course not. Race has nothing to do with it in a continent composed of mostly Black Africans. Africa is a continent of many countries, cultures and religions. Most often it is a difference in culture or a problem of religion where different tribesmen will seek to eliminate such a problem, depending on their numbers and how well they can accomplish it. Moreover, economics play a large part in tribal warfare, where one tribe sees another as being far wealthier and tries to steal that wealth. Theft with the aid of government officials is also necessary. Killing is a way of life in many African countries. Personally, I am happy to be living in America even though it meant that my ancestors arrived here in chains.
racistblackguy
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2013
LOL. I have no knowledge of any Obamasocks, but I DO know that TheGhostofOtto1923 has all the symptoms of a mentally deranged individual whose sock puppets enable him or her to converse with him or herself. TheGhostofOtto1923 has been doing this since I first registered on in 2012, and from what I have read, he or she had been doing it long before I arrived.

I need no sock puppets and TheGhostofOtto is obviously lying about me. I have rated GhostofOtto 1's because I and my colleagues recognized that he or she is using this website for immoral purposes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2013
obama_socks
Member since: February 21, 2012, 5:33 pm

URaTard
Member since: February 20, 2012, 10:45 am

racistblackguy
Member since: February 23, 2012, 12:51 am

-There are others which showed up back then too arent there? Come on help me out here-

I have rated GhostofOtto 1's because I and my colleagues recognized that he or she is using this website for immoral purposes
Yes and as we know, this is something psychiatrists are known to do, sitting around a computer reading comments in a news forum and downrating people and telling them they should be institutionalized. Because they ARE professionals and they do feel the need to share their professional faculties with the world.

Have they also diagnosed your condition as retarded pussytard or is that an outmoded term?
racistblackguy
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 22, 2013
LOL. Hell NO. None of those other names are me. I have downrated TheGhostofOtto1923 and his sock puppets because, as I have said, Otto's comments are verifications of his or her mental illnesses which I have already described in a previous thread, and is a clear indication of Ghost's desire to abuse people. Ghost attempts to mentally abuse other commenters on a website which also indicates that Ghost enjoys what he does in an extremely sadistic fashion.
As far as sitting around, I do this in my spare time when I am not with my patients or reading journals, or in my off hours at home. TheGhostofOtto1923 is a classical case of certain types of mental illness and Ghost shows it well. Please continue with your mental afflictions, Ghost. We are writing a book on what we have observed here in this website, including your treatment of others and your dependency on your sock puppets. LOL. Absolutely classic.
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2013
baudrunner says "Face it, Americans don't own guns because they are trying to protect themselves. That's just a lame excuse. They own guns because it makes them feel more macho, more virile.

Owning a gun makes you more liable to be a victim of violent crime."

you are wrong. some own weapons because if where they live, and the fact that they face natural forces that cannot be dealt with by talking to them, or by avoidance, such as a hunting mountain lion or a bear that needs to fatten up for winter, and is late for his/her nap... etc.
I don't even bother with concealed carry anymore, I WEAR my weapons. there is no time to move clothing when you have to confront a pissed off bear, etc and i carry weapons to feed my family. this has another side effect: people don't bother trying to rob me.
they SEE it, and they do not try it! carrying works.
racistblackguy
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
OK, I'll tell you what, GhostofOtto. YOU provide the evidence where MY name is in other Phys.org threads other than this one and the only other thread where my comments are on record. So far, my name can be found in TWO threads. My downrating you doesn't count since many others hate your guts and downrate you also. Your only friends in this website are your sock puppets, and you have made enemies left and right. Does that make you happy? Of course it does.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2013
As far as sitting around, I do this in my spare time when I am not with my patients or reading journals, or in my off hours at home. TheGhostofOtto1923 is a classical case of certain types of mental illness and Ghost shows it well. Please continue with your mental afflictions, Ghost. We are writing a book on what we have observed here in this website, including your treatment of others and your dependency on your sock puppets. LOL. Absolutely classic
No you retard you are missing the point. Psychiatrists would not pretend to be able to diagnose people in a forum such as this, let alone give out advice, and they wouldnt TRY. Its unprofessional and dangerous. No doctor would attempt to diagnose illness here, no engineer would suggest structural remediation, and so forth. It demeans their professions.

This is one of the many reasons we know that you are lying. Now STFU and go away.
hate your guts and downrate you also
-Is this your professional opinion? Ahaahaaaaa
racistblackguy
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
To continue, the climate of fear in America grows with each and every Black on White beating or killing. The reluctance of the media, law enforcers and the courts to label such actions by Black youth as racially motivated is an injustice to Black communities whereby the misidentification of such motives as not racial actually increases the chances that Black youth will boldly and brazenly continue to take their hatred out on Whites. When Black youth kill and beat up more Whites, eventually there will come a tipping point when Whites, even those who have never been racists, will resort to vigilantism to protect themselves and their own from such harm.
The fact is that both Whites AND Blacks are capable of racism in America, but Blacks are most often racist against themselves or each other, and this angers them. They will take out their anger on Whites as well as other Blacks. Evidence of Black hatred against Blacks is very much in evidence in Chicago, Detroit and other urban areas.
racistblackguy
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
It appears that TheGhostofOtto1923 is desperate to prove that which is unprovable about me. He or she is also consistently off topic. Please do go on, Ghost. I am recording your remarks using "cut and paste" and those remarks will count as a part of the book we are writing which is an ongoing work in progress. I can see that there will be many volumes as my colleagues and I refer to the many older threads in which you also chose to abuse people rather than sticking to whichever topic was being discussed by everyone else.
I will look up the names that you choose to call me in your strange preoccupation with other commenters rather than the topic that commenters wish to discuss.
I would assume that you are a very lonely person whom nobody likes to be with, but I cannot confirm that. As far as diagnosing your mental afflictions in a website, you have provided us with plenty of material with which to make a full diagnosis. All that is missing is whether or not you have a nervous tic.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 22, 2013
"I could go on and on with countless examples of youths displaying a callous disregard for human life and the moral decay eating away at the soul of America."
"My wife Mary believes it began with liberals being allowed to infiltrate our public schools. Their philosophy is, in a nutshell, God out and government in. Liberals introduced the concept of moral relativity. In other words, nothing is absolutely right or wrong.
{dj, it's that simple}
"Personal accountability is for the most part unheard of in our liberal government and liberal media-dominated America. Consequently, disability, food stamp, and welfare fraud are through the roof.
"If Obama and the mainstream media's vision for America is realized, there will be far fewer great American success stories like my dad's. Most Americans will be on food stamps, abortions and murder rates will continue to skyrocket, and mediocrity will be distributed equally."
http://dailycalle...alues/2/
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2013
EnricM "...Recall this Democrat shot in the face? Her security didn't manage to do the above. Figure out the rest. Thanks"
@EnricM - surprise is a very effective weapon. Also, when a person goes into a situation willing to risk their lives for a cause/objective, there is little you can do to stop them, regardless of their choice of weapon.
krundoloss "I saw a news story about a man in Virginia who regularly open carried his glock around. People noticed, and someone came up behind him, put a gun to his back, stole his $500 Glock, and took off. His gun made him a target! "
that is not always the case. i open carry. it has stopped more crime in my neck of the woods than concealed carry (even against other people, as they really dont want me involved). No one wants to look down the barrel of a firearm, especially if it is in the hands of someone who WILL use it. thus, criminals use guns for their ends, as an effective tool
Captain Stumpy
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2013
In the end, restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying only makes more targets. again, criminals, by DEFINITION, do not obey the laws. they dont CARE about the fact that they are doing something illegal. they only care about there own ends, and few really plan ahead... most criminals are not master criminals, just an idiot with a gun wanting to take what they perceive is the easiest way to money: by taking from those who they perceive to have it.

What is needed, is not more gun laws, but better enforcement of existing laws, and keeping criminals off the streets. the more criminals are let out on "good behaviour", the more criminals are on the street. we do NOT have a justice system that rehabilitates, we have one that punishes. locking away a person, especially one with a criminal mentality, in a strict, regimented society, then releasing him after said conditioning into the free world is a recipe for disaster.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2013
All but one mass shooting in schools since 1990 occurred in "gun free zones"
vlaaing peerd
2 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2013
to djr's question.

UK gun related deaths 0.25 per 100.000 per year
UK intended homicide rate 1.2 per 100.000 per year
US gun related deaths 10.3 per 100.000 per year
US intended homicide rate 4.8 per 100.000 per year

Now this tells me the US lot really don't know how to handle guns as you apparently unintentionally kill more then twice as much with guns than actual intended murders. Why is that?

Guns to protect yourself from other gun carriers (Herr Otto) That's the most ridiculous bull I've heard in a while. What is the plan there? Does it help dodging a bullet while you're firing one yourself?

If I were to rob someone while using a gun to reinforce my intentions. Would I more quickly shoot the victim if I just got the wallet and can walk away or would I shoot more quickly if I see someone grabbing his/her gun in response?
vlaaing peerd
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2013
All but one mass shooting in schools since 1990 occurred in "gun free zones"


Good one Einstein. Fallacy seems to be your nature mr Kochevnik. Assuming schools are gun free zones by default (at least I hope so!) of course any school shooting happens in gun free zones.
vlaaing peerd
3 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2013
Homicides in Europe are punished strongly while assaults are considered much more a part of the human condition and have much lighter penalties than in the USA. Criminals are hence incentivized to beat and maim their victims to near death, but not kill outright. Maiming and crippling are the outcome of European criminal activity, and there is much more of it than in the USA. Much is not reported as it is considered typical human activity, whereas US citizens have a notion of constitutional violation to their persons beyond the actual assault


Fallacy #2

first of all, severity of punishment is quite in par with US laws, in general all are lower than US has.

second, criminals won't compare laws and punishment with other continents and use it as an incentive for their behaviour, that's just stupid.

3rd. Neither are there more crippled and maimed victims of violence in the UK. Please use facts and numbers when you're having a rant.
vlaaing peerd
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2013
4th: "Much is not reported" Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

5th Europe is a continent, not the UK. UK is not Europe. Don't deliberately switch between one and another to whatever figures support your (weak) debate most conveniently.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2013
dear vlad

You didnt bother to read the thread. Go back to where you see something like this:

"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

"The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours..."
http://www.telegr...ope.html
criminals won't compare laws and punishment with other continents and use it as an incentive for their behaviour, that's just stupid
Who said this? Criminals are opportunists. If they think they can get away with something they will try. Like these little monsters
http://www.busine...e-2013-8

-Who should have been shot. Or this monster
http://en.wikiped...ik_Hasan

-Who should have been shot again.
Doc Jackson
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2013
As usual, the utterly ridiculous assumption made that banning all guns will remove all guns. It won't. Banning guns will remove all guns in the hands the law-abiding, not everyone, leaving the with the guns having a free-for-all because there is nobody to stop them. Ask any cop how many criminals he or she has caught and they'll answer with at least several. But ask them hire many crimes they have prevented, and you'll be told that catching criminals after they commit the act is their job, and that it's impossible for them to protect anyone, even those within their field of view, from a dedicated predator. So the bi-polar outcome ifs based on a faulty premise, and in the real world, arming all non-criminals or everyone is the only way to radically decrease violence, especially since the criminals are the minority and would statistically be killed off before the law-abiding.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
All but one mass shooting in schools since 1990 occurred in "gun free zones"
Good one Einstein. Fallacy seems to be your nature mr Kochevnik. Assuming schools are gun free zones by default (at least I hope so!) of course any school shooting happens in gun free zones.
Your assumption is wrong, which invalidates your entire post. Many states have right to carry laws which must be contravened by campus policy explicitly

I have never seen as much street violence and crime as in London
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2013
The OK assassination can't be racist, the murder has white friends!
"Chris Lane Murder Suspect's Sister: 'He Has a Lot of Caucasian Friends'"
http://www.breitb...-Friends
JohnGee
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
So you are mocking someone for using the same fallacy you commonly employ to shield yourself with. Did you realize that?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2013

The only solution to racism is conservatism.Racist 'liberals' are cured of racism when any minority becomes a conservative.
Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Allen West, Mia Love, .... are no longer black in the eyes of a 'liberal'.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2013
"In the mind of the progressive, it is not the color of your skin that makes you a racist. It is the simple fact you believe in free-market capitalism.

Let that sink in. If you mention food stamps, Section 8 housing, black-on-black crime, abortion rates, high school dropout rates, or single parent households, you are a racist. It has nothing to do with your skin color.

It's about your audacity to favor free-markets and individualism over the failures of collectivism and socialism."
http://www.breitb...-America
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 24, 2013
Sonnie Johnson, the author of my previous link:
"Of the thousands of Americans who descended on Washington, D.C. last Wednesday for the "Audit the IRS" Tea Party rally, one person who stood out as a fresh face and voice was Breitbart News contributor Sonnie Johnson. In her address, she offered the crowd red meat, stating that she wanted to "destroy the America" of her youth. Her justification? She said that she wasn't taught the trinity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" growing up, but instead learned a different one: "Democrats, skin color, and gender." There was very little "God, country, and family" during her upbringing, but there was a whole lot of "bitch, moan, and whine," she said.

She went on to blast the welfare state and concluded with The Lord's Prayer. "
http://www.breitb...ea-Party
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2013
"Authored by Dr. Paul Gallant, Dr. Joanne D. Eisen, Alan J. Chwick, and Sherry Gallant, and published at AmmoLand, the report shows that as recently as 2008 "one in three [Brits] had been a victim of crime, or knew someone who had been." Also in 2008, "nearly half [of survey respondents] knew of someone in their community who had been a victim in the last year.""
"The report shows that "the Brits...freely admit to massaging crime figures" and "are vigorously and openly beating their statistics to a bloody pulp, as they have created a stunningly large bureaucracy to deal with crime figures."

This bureaucracy decides "how...crime will ultimately be reported." This includes deciding what crimes will or will not be reported as well.
http://www.breitb...dgun-Ban