wealth inequality, not guns.

[gejohnston]

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Violence is driven by socioeconomic and cultural factors, not the mere presence of firearms. The statistics clearly show this, and the very same statistics manipulated by so-called "gun control advocates" irrefutably contradicts their agenda's premise when put into proper context. Worse yet, the obsession over gun control sidelines the urgency needed to address issues like poor education and dismal economic prospects for those living in the most destitute and violence-stricken neighborhoods in our country.

snip

Despite both nations being disarmed and having almost no "gun-related homicides," according to UN statistics*, Japan and the UK still have an astronomical gap in homicide rates. Why? A visit to either country reveals an entirely different culture, education system, infrastructure, and socioeconomic paradigm. This is why despite Japan having a much larger population, even total homicides are lower than the comparatively more violent but less populated United Kingdom - with homicide rates in the UK nearly 3 times higher than those in Japan.

According to the UN's study, which includes the most recent annual data available, Japan, with a population of roughly 130 million, had a mere 506 homicides over the stretch of a single year. Conversely, the UK, with less than half of Japan's population (53 million) had 722 homicides. The rates per 100,000 people for Japan and the UK are 0.4 and 1.2 respectively. The UK, despite being an unarmed population, and having virtually no gun violence, still has 3 times the murder rate than the nation of Japan. Those that are murdered in the UK or Japan, are just as dead as any human being murdered by a gun in the United States. And clearly, this indicates that the presence of guns, or their banning, is not a significant factor driving homicides and violence.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-end-gun-debate-forever.html

On the flip side, "armed to the teeth", though not as much as us, countries like Finland, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and maybe Iceland are very safe.

[Bay Boy]

1. Does Island = Ireland? n/t

[gejohnston]

2. Iceland, my bad.

[jimmy the one]

3. wizards & gizzards

johnston's blog: The UK, despite being an unarmed population, and having virtually no gun violence, still has 3 times the murder rate than the nation of Japan.

I thinks johnston's blog author doubles as a wizard or magician, observe how he creates the illusion that UK & Japan are both equally unarmed (suggesting firearms), when the UK has 10 times higher the gun rate than japan. UK has a handgun ban, japan restricts all.
True, england/wales has 3 times the overall murder rate than japan, but also 10 times the gun rate; & Eng/W (UK) ranks 88th of the ~178 countries in the world for gun rate, while japan ranks 164th.

2007 guns/capita, 2012 intentional homicide charts
country ....# guns per cap .. world rank ... homicides/100k
England/Wales.. 6.2 ........... 88 ....... 1.2
japan .................. 0.6 ...........164 ....... 0.4
USA ................... 88.8 ............ 1 ....... 4.8
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

johnstons' blog: Despite both nations being disarmed and having almost no "gun-related homicides," according to UN statistics*, Japan and the UK still have an astronomical gap in homicide rates. Why?

Uh, mr blog author, 3 times the murder rate is not considered 'astronomical', it's considered thrice, not even an order of magnitude (10x) which is generally considered the start point for considering something 'astronomical'. What is true, oddly enough for blog author, is that the UK has an astronomically higher (10x) gun rate than japan.

blog: UK vs. Japan: 2 Unarmed Societies, 2 Vastly Different Homicide Rates.. UN's study, Japan, with a population of roughly 130 million, had a mere 506 homicides.. Conversely, the UK, with less than half of Japan's population (53 million) had 722 homicides. The rates per 100,000 people for Japan and the UK are 0.4 and 1.2..

There's nothing astronomical in that comparison between UK & Japan. (Note to jenoch, jump on blog author's use of 'mere', wouldja?)

Those that are murdered in the UK or Japan, are just as dead as any human being murdered by a gun in the United States. And clearly, this indicates that the presence of guns, or their banning, is not a significant factor driving homicides and violence.

You didn't actually prove that whatsoever.

johnston: On the flip side, "armed to the teeth", though not as much as us, countries like Finland, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, and maybe Iceland are very safe.

Let's compare all 5 'armed to the teeth' countries (iceland negligible), with USA:
USA has ~300 million guns...
Finland 3 million guns, Norway 2m, Canada 8m, Switzerland 3m = 16 million guns.
USA has approx 285 million more guns. What is USA then? armed to the gizzard?

[gejohnston]

4. so, what about Japan and Iceland?

Let's compare all 5 'armed to the teeth' countries (iceland negligible), with USA:
USA has ~300 million guns...
Finland 3 million guns, Norway 2m, Canada 8m, Switzerland 3m = 16 million guns.
USA has approx 285 million more guns. What is USA then? armed to the gizzard?

since you didn't adjust for population, no.

You under counted the number of guns in each of these countries.

thinks johnston's blog author doubles as a wizard or magician, observe how he creates the illusion that UK &

Japan are both equally unarmed (suggesting firearms), when the UK has 10 times higher the gun rate than japan. UK has a handgun ban, japan restricts all.
True, england/wales has 3 times the overall murder rate than japan, but also 10 times the gun rate; & Eng/W (UK) ranks 88th of the ~178 countries in the world for gun rate, while japan ranks 164th.

and Iceland ranks 15th and is lower than them all. Since UK banned handguns in 1997 and machine guns in 1937, why are most if not all UK gun murders involve pistols and automatic weapons? Why do Europeans use machine guns more than the US? Until 1977, It was easier for a Canadian to legally own a machine gun than a handgun there or a machine gun here, yet their machine gun crime is just as non existent as it is today, why?

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Yeah, ok.

So, 300 million guns in the US and 3 million in Norway is a direct comparison. Ok. Makes sense to me. Let's just ignore the per capita rate, since Finland has less than 6 million inhabitants, and we have around 310 million. Derp.

I'm also curious why you and the author seem content to talk about homicide rates, rather than firearm homicide rates. Because the presence of guns makes it... more... likely that one might be choked to death? Or stabbed? Bleh.


"I thinks johnston's blog author doubles as a wizard or magician, observe how he creates the illusion that UK & Japan are both equally unarmed (suggesting firearms), when the UK has 10 times higher the gun rate than japan. UK has a handgun ban, japan restricts all. "

Most firearm related murders in the US are committed with handguns.
This is also true of the UK, but you can't tell because you don't break it down by number. Let alone by guns versus all other murders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

"In fact, the most common weapon used in a violent crime in England and Wales is not a gun - but a knife.

There are four times more knife-related killings as firearms-related killings."

Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146

Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)


Pretty much nothing you criticized made any sense, similar correlation errors by the author in the OP notwithstanding.

[jimmy the one]

6. in cod we trust

I wrote:Finland 3 million guns, Norway 2m, Canada 8m, Switz 3m = 16 million guns.
-- johnston challenged: You under counted the number of guns in each of these countries.

No didn't undercount, I used valid estimates; here is a listing:
Norway 1.4 million guns; Switz 3.4m; Finland 2.4m; Iceland 0.1 (90,000) negligible
Canada 10.0 million, while other recent canadian estimates range from 7 - 11 million.
.. Thus I 'undercounted' only for canada, but within range of other valid estimates, & actually over counted for norway & finland, with switz on the mark (rd'd down);
Your challenge gets flushed, rated a nitpick, since my total for the 5 countries was 16 million & my list produces 17 million, within estimate's moe.
Apology due but not expected, your tapdance imminent; I brought earplugs this time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

I wrote: What is USA then? armed to the gizzard?
johnston: .. since you didn't adjust for population, no.

Stupid remark to a metaphorical question. The question I posed asked whether USA the 'country' was armed to the gizzard, not what percent of americans. I wrote it, I define it. Compared to USA 310 million guns, norway has 3 million etc, those 5 countries ~17 million guns, thus america is comparatively armed to the gizzard with a conus full of guns.
Let's see, hitler with his maybe 20 million guns & 30% firearm ownership rate comes up against tiny luxembourg with 100,000 guns but a HIGH 75% gun owner rate, he goes: Ooops, better stay away from luxembourg they have twice the gun owner rate that we do.

atheist: Pretty much nothing you criticized made any sense, similar correlation errors by the author in the OP notwithstanding

The main point was to rebut 'correlation errors' & hyperbole by the blog author, who is obviously enthralled by 2nd amendment mythology.
Nothing you wrote was really relevant, some stats from the home office, red herrings your tangential remarks.
I believe canada still has it's moratorium on north atlantic cod fishing tho, sniff, seems canadians don't believe in cod anymore. You'd fit in well what with that & the red herring fisheries.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. What is wrong with you that you can't even reply to individuals?

Why would you reply to me with 75% shit meant for someone else, and not address any of my points?

We agree on one point though, the author of that article has a correlation/causation problem that has not been addressed.

(Your objection to the UK/japan stat comparison is still bullshit, as handguns are basically illegal in both places, UK's more permissive laws around long guns (rifles, shotguns) isn't even a statistical blip in their homicide rate. Both nations do not permit handguns except in incredibly rare circumstance, and they have different, but still-existing handgun murder rates.)

[jimmy the one]

8. bonzai

atheist: Why would you reply to me with 75% shit meant for someone else, and not address any of my points?

I'll post the way I prefer, not to please you or anyone else; yours was the last post in the thread, & not excessively narrow yet, which happens the more a post is replied to down to ridiculous spacing which I don't care for so avoid. I also prefer posting at the end of a thread not in the middle where it gets ignored by almost everyone else, including some gunnuts who get shot down & go into hiding. Sue me.

ath: (Your objection to the UK/japan stat comparison is still bullshit, as handguns are basically illegal in both places, UK's more permissive laws around long guns (rifles, shotguns) isn't even a statistical blip in their homicide rate. Both nations do not permit handguns except in incredibly rare circumstance, and they have different, but still-existing handgun murder rates.)

The sentence above is the first you even mentioned japan on this thread, I'm supposed to read your mind? Suddenly you start on a UK/Japanese comparison & blame me for not being psychic? You were comparing US with UK, not mentioning japan anywhere.

ath: and they {UK, Japan} have different, but still-existing handgun murder rates

Ladedah, of course they're 'different', what's your point? MY point was that UK has ten times higher firearm rate than japan & thrice the murder rate, to rebut blog author who blamed UK's murder rate being 3x japans murder rate due to culture, not guns.

my link: 1 In the United Kingdom, annual handgun homicides total
2008: 4 2007: 2 2006: 3 2005: 3 2004: 2 2003: 3 2001: 1
2 In the United Kingdom, annual long gun homicides total 2010: 5 2009: 3
2008: 4 2007: 6 2006: 7 2005: 7 2004: 8 2003: 3 2001: 11
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

As you see, UK longguns are apparently used more in most years, & it's 'handguns' which don't post the blip in homicide stats. There is another category which comprises most UK gun murder, that of 'other gun' which I am uncertain (there is a separate 'undetermined' cause as well, but can't believe 'other' means air rifles/zipguns).
In the United Kingdom, annual gun homicides (due 'other') total
2008: 24 2007: 14 2006: 41 2005: 31 2004: 42 2003: 35 2002: 27 2001: 29

(no breakdown for japan) In Japan, annual firearm homicides total
-2008: 1 2002: 47 2001: 56 1997: 34 1996: 36 1995: 42
In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total
2008: 32 2002: 31 2001: 41 1999: 45 1998: 33

In the United Kingdom, annual handgun suicides total
2010: 1 2008: 4 2007: 1 2006: 2 2005: 1 2003: 5 2002: 4 2001: 1

[AtheistCrusader]

9. When you reply to ME with stuff for HIM you ensure that he doesn't know anyone's responded to him.

It's the online equivalent of intentionally turning your back on someone that you were talking to and speaking to a nearby bystander, with info meant for the original party to the convo. It's insulting, and not how you hold a conversation.

There is no per-post fee on DU. If you want to respond to him, respond to him, not me. That way you've at least done the courtesy of notifying him that someone has responded to him.

"The sentence above is the first you even mentioned japan on this thread"
That is precisely why I used the word 'Still'. I was not pressing the US/UK comparison any further, again, because of correlation problems. You raised the comparison in response to Johnston.

"MY point was that UK has ten times higher firearm rate"
Firearm murder rate? Firearm ownership rate? Firearm(s) per owner rate? Can you be less specific? (Comparing the two nations myself, I presume you mean firearm ownership rate)

"& thrice the murder rate"
Thrice the total murder rate, or firearm murder rate? I objected upthread due to the loose language used herein for precisely this reason. Do you imagine the presence of firearms drives up the non-firearm murder rate? What is your point here?

I would accept 'other' as possibly Any Other Weapon type classification that we use in the US, possibly illegally sawed off shotguns, illegal fully automatic weapons, machine pistols, zip guns, even air rifles. Sure.

[gejohnston]

11. that is only the registered guns

Germany estimates there are four unregistered guns for every registered gun. Australia estimates only 20 percent of semi automatics and pump actions were turned in.

[jimmy the one]

12. wrong again batman

johnston: that {5 country gun estimate} is only the registered guns

The tapdance cometh; however, wrong again batman, reg'd guns are less and included:

Finland, link in previous post, gunpolicy: Number of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Finland is 2,400,000
Number of Registered Firearms The number of registered guns in Finland is reported to be 1,580,000

Norway: Number of Privately Owned Firearms The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Norway is 1,320,000
Number of Registered Firearms The number of registered guns in Norway is reported to be 1,229,436

johnston: Germany estimates there are four unregistered guns for every registered gun. Australia estimates only 20 percent of semi automatics and pump actions were turned in.

So rather than cite 'other' guns in any of the 5 countries, johnston cites germany & australia. What about uganda, any stats?
Well johnston, this specious nitpicking of yours has gone on long enough, other guns wouldn't've added appreciably to the country's total guns; sure there might be extra added illicit guns but for my comparative armed to the gizzard remark, citing the number of privately owned guns was close enough for intents & purpose.
Apology or retraction due, but not expected, just more tapdance.

[gejohnston]

13. making a vaild or relevant point is due

but has been demonstrated here, the number of guns in private hands are irrelevant to the country's murder rate or level of social decay. In short, I disproved the faux scholarship of Kellermann, Bellesiles, etc.

[jimmy the one]

14. bedazzled

rather than admit he made an error, johnston performs a dazzling tapdance: .. making a vaild or relevant point is due but has been demonstrated here, the number of guns in private hands are irrelevant to the country's murder rate or level of social decay. In short, I disproved the faux scholarship of Kellermann, Bellesiles, etc.

Dazzling johnston, I'm bedazzled, but I don't care what you think is tangentially irrelevant or which authors you dislike, I just want to remind you that you blatantly erred in saying I posted only 'registered gun' statistics:

how johnston erred: that {5 country gun estimate} is only the registered guns
I replied: wrong again batman, reg'd guns are less & included (in my stats):
my sources.. The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Finland is 2,400,000.. The number of registered guns in Finland is reported to be 1,580,000
.. The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Norway is 1,320,000 .. The number of registered guns in Norway is reported to be 1,229,436

[gejohnston]

15. never met

Either one. One was exposed and disgraced by his peers, the other by his betters. I have no opinion of either one personally.

[jimmy the one]

10. study hall needed

ath: It's the online equivalent of intentionally turning your back on someone that you were talking to and speaking to a nearby bystander, with info meant for the original party to the convo. It's insulting, and not how you hold a conversation.

drama queen, what spin to conflate a spontaneous live conversation to message boards where hours to days can take place between replies, which can be given in depth thought & attention; I'll post the way I see fit, if a couple inattentive posters can't follow the thread or posts, couldn't care less.
(Note the other 'inside reply' was becoming too narrow so I posted to OP to broaden).

I wrote: "MY point was that UK has ten times higher firearm rate"
ath: Firearm murder rate? Firearm ownership rate? Firearm(s) per owner rate? Can you be less specific?

I explained it all in a preceding post, why don't you reread them, & if you can't keep up with the class, enroll in something else.

"& thrice the murder rate" -- Thrice the total murder rate, or firearm murder rate? I objected upthread due to the loose language used herein for precisely this reason. Do you imagine the presence of firearms drives up the non-firearm murder rate? What is your point here?

Again, you're not keeping up with the class, & I'm not gonna go over things already discussed just to update a lax student. Reread the OP, & readdress your concern to johnston, or rather his blog author.

I would accept 'other' as possibly Any Other Weapon type classification that we use in the US, possibly illegally sawed off shotguns, illegal fully automatic weapons, machine pistols, zip guns, even air rifles.

I inadvertently conflated 'undetermined cause' with 'undetermined firearm', so I presume 'other' means undetermined firearm or airgun/lesser gun which caused the death. The only error I've detected so far.