So I've been looking to compare gun deaths per country in a way that controls for gun ownership, since the US has by far the highest gun ownership per capita in the world: about 113 per 100 citizens.
Wikipedia has data on that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Assuming these numbers to be accurate, if a bit dated (some as old as 2010), one can craft a graph like this in Excel:
I include most other first world countries, but I also included Serbia, who has the second highest gun ownership per capita at about 76 per 100. China and Russia had no data here.
The only consistent information I can glean from this, again assuming the numbers are accurate, are two things:
1. The US is not an outlier in terms of gun deaths.
2. Europe has a serious freaking gun suicide problem. One would think the entire firearms industries of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland were kept afloat by people killing themselves.
Germany, the UK, NZ, and Australia have pretty strict gun laws. But so do France and Japan.
And Paddock only killed 1.2 people per gun he owned. With numbers like that you guys can get those numbers in line in no time.But Sweden has like 3 guns ...
Just going to put this here.
So does tha homicide rate include deaths related to illegal drugs and gangs? As we now the majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Roughly 29,000 per leaving ~11,000 firearm deaths that are not suicide. Of the 11,000 the vast majority is gang violence.
I usually watch the local news and 2-3 times a week there are reporting shootings. Very rarely is there a shooting outside an area that is overrun with gangs. When it is outside those areas, again it is typically gang members.
Unfortunately liberals policies since the 1960's has created the inner city drug problem.
Don't forget those urban youth gangs at Sandy HookExactly, Texas church, filled with gangs. Las Vegas country music concert, overrun by gangs, we must do something about these gangs.
So does tha homicide rate include deaths related to illegal drugs and gangs? As we now the majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Roughly 29,000 per leaving ~11,000 firearm deaths that are not suicide. Of the 11,000 the vast majority is gang violence.
I usually watch the local news and 2-3 times a week there are reporting shootings. Very rarely is there a shooting outside an area that is overrun with gangs. When it is outside those areas, again it is typically gang members.
Unfortunately liberals policies since the 1960's has created the inner city drug problem.
Did you just say liberal policies have created inner city drug problems?
I'd ask you to back that up but I know exactly who I'm talking to.
Wouldn't leaving out whites do the same? What exactly is the significance of including racial demographics?Demographics should be accounted for as well. If you exclude blacks, it is significantly less.
To me it indicates less desperation, more general prosperity, and less depression.Curious that the gun suicide rate in the UK is so low, even when expressed per-gun. Brits just don't go out that way, apparently. I wonder if that's partly cultural, that different cultures have different traditions of self-annihilation?
The next logical question: What do Americans do about these disturbing numbers? If the answer is to ban all guns and disarm everyone, then I would ask how exactly we can possibly accomplish that without starting a civil war?
Wouldn't leaving out whites do the same? What exactly is the significance of including racial demographics?
Yes but deaths are deaths. Many gangs are Hispanic (edit: he only mentioned blacks), and isn't the mob just a white gang with a more palatable, romanticized name?around 80% of those murders are gang related (at least it was 5 years ago)...taking that number into accounts puts things into a significantly different perspective...
Yes but deaths are deaths. Many gangs are Hispanic (edit: he only mentioned blacks), and isn't the mob just a white gang with a more palatable, romanticized name?
The solutions have been offered many times and have been rejected by the NRA and by gun nutters alike and the politicians who are beholden to them. At this point any meaningful gun control has to come from them.
Don't hold your breath.
So in the meantime, a moment of silence and a prayer will be all I will offer (considering I'm non religious and the silent type, it will be literally the least I can do). I'm all out of fucks to give.
If the only option is a civil war than so be it. I'll be sitting back watching gun nuts fighting the strongest military in the world.
If you actually think our military would obey orders to go house to house and disarm the American people then you need to check yourself. Most of our military will tell you straight up they fight to protect the safety and rights of Americans, and are ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment.The solutions have been offered many times and have been rejected by the NRA and by gun nutters alike and the politicians who are beholden to them. At this point any meaningful gun control has to come from them.
Don't hold your breath.
So in the meantime, a moment of silence and a prayer will be all I will offer (considering I'm non religious and the silent type, it will be literally the least I can do). I'm all out of fucks to give.
If the only option is a civil war than so be it. I'll be sitting back watching gun nuts fighting the strongest military in the world.
The ubiquity of guns gives them an uncontrollable nature. The possibility of control seems more remote, strangely with every shooting. Fear is some powerful motivation as is hunting apparently. With the military and the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturers have a quad-fecta. All corners are covered. The lack of control increases profits, and money talks louder than the murdered, even 5 year olds. The only option is resilience. [end from my post in another thread]The next logical question: What do Americans do about these disturbing numbers? If the answer is to ban all guns and disarm everyone, then I would ask how exactly we can possibly accomplish that without starting a civil war?
If you actually think our military would obey orders to go house to house and disarm the American people then you need to check yourself. Most of our military will tell you straight up they fight to protect the safety and rights of Americans, and are ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
Maybe if you could legally repeal the 2nd Amendment you might have a chance of getting the military to enforce it, but getting the political and public will to do so is impossible. The American public has soundly rejected the idea of an outright ban on civilian gun ownership, which is why I'm shocked it gets suggested so often like it's the only logical thing to do.
Can you please enlighten us as to what these solutions are? I have asked in two separate threads about what are possible solutions to getting guns out of the hands of criminals (which commit around 80% of the gun crimes in this country) are and neither one has received a legitimate response....I am asking in all seriousness and will be disappointed if your response is to just google it...
The ubiquity of guns gives them an uncontrollable nature. The possibility of control seems more remote, strangely with every shooting. Fear is some powerful motivation as is hunting apparently. With the military and the 2nd amendment, gun manufacturers have a quad-fecta. All corners are covered. The lack of control increases profits, and money talks louder than the murdered, even 5 year olds. The only option is resilience. [end from my post in another thread]