This goes into the whole "airline travel is dangerous" fallacy. Every time a plane crashes, hundreds of people die. Therefore, using this logic, airline travel is inherently dangerous and should be banned. However, overall, the total number of people dying in place crashes is tiny compared to the total number of people who fly.
If I was saying that the 10,000 figure corresponded to a high level of danger or risk, you'd have a point. However, that's not what I was saying it all - I was simply saying that 10,000 is a tragic number of deaths per year.
Which is why I also pointed out that even with the low number of airplane crashes per year, they are all investigated and often result in changes to regulations to prevent similar crashes from happening again, with the long term goal of hopefully reaching zero crashes per year. I also stated that the same applies to murder rates. 10,000 is a tragic number, despite being relatively small when compared to the overall population. However, it's still too big when the ideal number is zero, and measures should be taken to bring the number as close to zero as possible.
My point isn't that you're at high risk of murder by living in the U.S. - that would be ludicrous. That being said, a relatively low overall murder rate does not preclude there being certain outlier areas where the rate is very high, and such areas would also be the best place to expend effort.
Indeed. If any areas can be determined to be the equivalent to the "poorly designed DC-10 cargo bay door" airplane example I mentioned earlier, then the "cargo bay door" should be fixed and methods to reduce the rate in those areas should be investigated and implemented.
Although, to briefly go back to the whole economic issue by making a comparison based on per capita GDP, the US also has a lower murder rate than Bermuda, which has the highest per capital GDP in the world. It also is geographically close enough to deal with some of the same geographic issues that the US faces that the other countries you mentioned do not with respect to drug trafficking and such.
A quick search tells me that Bermuda's violence problem is primarily gang-related, and so it's decent evidence of the greater point you're trying to make about the U.S.
However, while I agree that the drug trade is a significant cause of violence in the U.S., I'm not convinced that it fully explains the discrepancy between other advanced countries and the United States. For one thing, many of those nations have similar or even greater rates of drug usage; Australia is an example here.
Of course, drug usage is not the same as drug trafficking, but ultimately the drugs have to come from somewhere, and the networks that distribute those drugs are always illegal by necessity.
Very true. Without a proper breakdown of the various motives for murder (i.e. drug trafficking, mafia hits, crimes of passion, mental illness, etc.), it's hard for any of us to figure out where the real problems are. While my gut tells me that drug trafficking is a major contributing factor, it's just a gut feeling and I don't have any statistics to back it up. I would love to see statistics to show just where the problem areas are so they could be properly tackled.
I would argue that in general, drug usage and the associated distribution is, by itself, not that strong a factor except when it is also combined with areas of concentrated, cyclical poverty - it is the two in combination that lead to significant problems. In general, I'd say that the greater factor behind drug-related crime, for the most part, poverty and not drugs.
As such, I don't feel that your argument that the geography plays a large role in U.S. violence is a particularly good one.
I also don't think poverty alone is a good one either, as there are countries on the list you provided with much higher poverty rates than the US (Sao Tome and Principe, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, etc.) that also have lower murder rates. Is poverty a factor? Sure. Is it the primary factor? Hard to tell. There are many, many factors to keep in mind. I will agree that wealthy people are, in general, less likely to commit certain types of crimes, including violent crime, than poor people, though. In fact, the only examples of wealthy people who commit violent crimes I can think of are those who gained their wealth via criminal methods, such as mob bosses, drug kingpins, and the like.
Or you could you know, teach your kids how to properly handle guns, including leaving them the fuck alone when you don't need them.
That's a losing argument Jack, and I'm pretty sure you where here last time we had it. From a statistical standpoint, No gun is safer than any gun, no matter how well trained. I. you want to argue that a gun gives you piece of mind or that you want it for other purposes like target shooting that's fine, those arguments have some validity to them.
There are a lot of arguments for owning a firearm, but trying to argue that a gun for home defense is a net gain on safety is bull-crap, especially if you have kids around.
Edit: Exceptions to this probably do exists for folks with an increased risk of home invasion or who live in proximity to dangerous animals. Like any statistical evidence it may not apply to outliers.
I'm just saying there's mitigating factors and again if you can't handle the knowledge even with those then don't get a gun. I will do all I can to mitigate the risk of my child shooting themselves, but I know sometimes that nothing in the world can stop a tragedy. Such is life.
A gun for home defense raises the absolute chance of a member of your household being shot. The chance of the accidental discharge is higher than the chance of it ever being useful in a defense situation.
Yes, if you are a randomly selected member of the population, you're probably better off without a gun. The thing is, you aren't a randomly selected member of the population, and so you may or may not be better off depending on the circumstances.
It might well be the case that those people who properly handle their guns are at a vastly lower level of risk. However, that lower level of risk can only be worthwhile if the supposed benefits you're trading that risk off for are genuine ones.
If one more person suggests that we have guns in a school for 'protection', I'm driving to their home and punching them in the testicles. Rym stated the only fact that matters. The chance of an accident is exactly zero without a gun, and the chance not only goes way up, but the result could also be catastrophic.
More guns will never equal more safety.
What if a trained person with a concealed carry permit at that school blew away that 6th grader?
It's not a bad argument, but in my opinion it's still flawed in that someone brought a gun into the school from outside, automatically bringing up the "baseline" statistic. At that point, an armed resource officer may very well have reduced the casualties, or may not have. I'd guess we don't have many statistics about two-way firefights in schools for some reason.
I can think of too many things that can go wrong without a gunman ever being anywhere around let alone if one actually was.
Additionally, there is nothing to say that the responder will be effective, or even not be targeted first. What happens if the trained security officer, heck, make them a cop, gets shot, and now there is another gun in play? What if an untrained adult or student got to it and tried to take out the aggressor?
What happens if the shooter uses a human shield?
How long do you think it would take before there was an accidental shooting?
How long would it take before there were more injuries and deaths from accidental shootings than from the occasional psychopathic asshole?
Edit: Also, while the 'if you properly educate a child' argument would normally be sensible, if said child is, to put it gently, out of their fucking mind, then no amount of gun safety lessons is going to help.
Ass? These people are only in town because of the school shooting. If these 20 kids died in unrelated incidents those folks would not care about these kids.
It just took me 30 minutes to go one mile in Newtown. Why do people travel so far for funerals where they have no connection to the deceased?
Sorry that the murder of twenty children and six very brave teachers is causing you an inconvenience.
Ass.
Eh, wasn't Westboro supposed to show up? They have a following. They send like 6 protestors, and around 2000 people show up in town to counter-protest. On the surface, that seems all well and good, but when I found out how much money is involved on both sides related to this I was kinda dumbfounded. That is, if they did show up.
I'm totally fine with police officers being armed just about anywhere. My only issue is civilians.
One officer, one armored shooter with an AR-15.
So?
Every police study shows that the best way to reduce deaths once a shooting spree has begun is with the fasted possible police intervention. Even a single officer with a weapon can often hold a shooter at bay or slow them down substantially until more officers arrive.
My only problem at all is if a civilian tries to do the same thing. I don't trust them. I also saw a few recent papers talking about how statistically, the only civilians who intervene successfully are off-duty police officers anyway. ;^)
I'm totally fine with police officers being armed just about anywhere. My only issue is civilians.
Require identical training for civilian permit holders to police firearm and combat training, with identical re-cert requirements. Done. Problem solved. Let's go home.
Adam, you are totally missing the upside, it will be WAY easier to ask for a raise if you are armed.
You would think so, but in actuality the boss tends to be much better armed. I, personally, am very much disinclined to argue with the fellow who has a functional Thompson on display next to his desk.
If you can get a gun your boss can probably get a bigger one.
Ass? These people are only in town because of the school shooting. If these 20 kids died in unrelated incidents those folks would not care about these kids.
Maybe they're in town to counter-protest the WBC (If they've showed up, I don't know)
I'm totally fine with police officers being armed just about anywhere. My only issue is civilians.
Require identical training for civilian permit holders to police firearm and combat training, with identical re-cert requirements. Done. Problem solved. Let's go home.
I would be pro this if police training was good. Everyone I know who understands the issue has told me that police training is a joke.
Comments
There are a lot of arguments for owning a firearm, but trying to argue that a gun for home defense is a net gain on safety is bull-crap, especially if you have kids around.
Edit: Exceptions to this probably do exists for folks with an increased risk of home invasion or who live in proximity to dangerous animals. Like any statistical evidence it may not apply to outliers.
It might well be the case that those people who properly handle their guns are at a vastly lower level of risk. However, that lower level of risk can only be worthwhile if the supposed benefits you're trading that risk off for are genuine ones.
"6th-grader brings gun to school to protect against ‘Connecticut-style’ attack"
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/sixth-grader-brings-gun-school-protect-against-connecticut-215442104.html
More guns will never equal more safety.
What if a trained person with a concealed carry permit at that school blew away that 6th grader?
Ass.
Additionally, there is nothing to say that the responder will be effective, or even not be targeted first. What happens if the trained security officer, heck, make them a cop, gets shot, and now there is another gun in play? What if an untrained adult or student got to it and tried to take out the aggressor?
What happens if the shooter uses a human shield?
How long do you think it would take before there was an accidental shooting?
How long would it take before there were more injuries and deaths from accidental shootings than from the occasional psychopathic asshole?
Edit: Also, while the 'if you properly educate a child' argument would normally be sensible, if said child is, to put it gently, out of their fucking mind, then no amount of gun safety lessons is going to help.
still, I don't think there's anything wrong with the compulsion to go to Newtown and pay respects and try to help. It's very human.
Every police study shows that the best way to reduce deaths once a shooting spree has begun is with the fasted possible police intervention. Even a single officer with a weapon can often hold a shooter at bay or slow them down substantially until more officers arrive.
My only problem at all is if a civilian tries to do the same thing. I don't trust them. I also saw a few recent papers talking about how statistically, the only civilians who intervene successfully are off-duty police officers anyway. ;^)
If you can get a gun your boss can probably get a bigger one.