And now Finland

[Gillette]

I've seen lots of people awake at 1:30 AM. While it is possible the folks killed were asleep at the time, there's nothing in the Wiki article that indicates that, nor is there anything in any of the English language to indicate that. I'm skeptical, though open to someone correcting me with further evidence.

As for Rwanda, I doubt the machete killings were carried out that way. Why bother rounding them up with guns and not kill them with the guns?

How would you react to a violent thug with a knife slashing people at random? Most people I know would panic and run, hoping that they could outrun him. Not fight him. Could you outrun him?

The article says it was 1:30AM in 1938 in a small rural village in Japan. It doesn't mention if it was a Saturday night or not but since he had cut the power lines the night before my assumption is that the nightlife was minimal.

To save on ammunition. It's not as if they had the option to head to the nearest store to buy more if they ran out. Any people attempting to run would likely have been shot keeping the rest scared and immobile.

Your last point supports my assumption that guns were used to herd people, with the machete being used only for the executions. If only knives were being used people would scatter minimizing the numbers killed.

 

[chico8]

There are no statistics which positively correlate weapons with crime. There are plenty of assumptions about that, but no real numbers. Here are some real numbers. The rate of firearms homicides (that is, gun murders per 100,000 polulation) in the US exceeds the rate for all homicides in Canada. (Aha! It must be all those guns in America!) But down at the other border, the rate of knife homicides in Mexico exceeds the US homicide rate for all weapons (including, of course, guns). (Oops, maybe the guns have nothing to do with it. Bummer.)

Guns have everything to do with it. Countries that have strict controls on them have far fewer gun related deaths. The most striking statistic in those countries is how few children are killed by guns. Guns kill.

 

[braumeister]

To save on ammunition. It's not as if they had the option to head to the nearest store to buy more if they ran out. Any people attempting to run would likely have been shot keeping the rest scared and immobile.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. When the government is on your side, ammo is cheap. Even in poor African countries.

 

[SurferGirlCA]

Several posters have mentioned this, but I think Spoiled Princess raised it first. I, too, never get the if-someone-wants to-kill- they-will-find-a-way-to-kill-so-trying-to-regulate-the-sale-of-firearms-is-pointless argument. Someone going on a killing spree with a knife or a baseball bat is far less likely to achieve anywhere near the kill rate as someone using a firearm. Someone using a rifle or shotgun is also going to have to work harder than someone using a semi-automatic weapon.

I don't have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning firearms (I do), but I think there should be more stringent regulations, including thorough background checks and longer waiting periods. Unfortunately, the NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington and it continues to take a any-gun-law-is-a-bad-gun-law stance and applies pressure to politicans accordingly (the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was allowed to expire in 2004 and attempts to revive it in the Republican-controlled Congress failed).

It's also sad to think that this is one aspect of contemporary American culture we may have spread to other parts of the world.

 

[headbang8]

I'm a liberal. And I am against gun control.

I have no problem sacrificing some personal liberty if it's for the greater good--after all, if it's for the greater good, I'm going to benefit as well.

But a quick search suggests, to my eye, that gun control laws make very little difference. No reason to sacrifice the right to own a gun.

The info you can trace to objective sources seems to support the null hypothesis--here's one, from Simon Fraser University in Montreal, on the effect of Canada's 1977 and 1991 gun-control legislation.

Is there a positive correlation between an armed populace and deterred crime? Many advocates for gun ownership make a case that's prima facie pretty convincing.

Stories of innocent citizens protecting their homes and women standing off rapists are powerful. Consistently, criminals report that they will pick a different target if they think a potential victim is armed. This MIT-Journal article quotes the figures. The article also cites that New Jersey and Hawaii enacted strict gun control in the seventies only to see crime rates soar.

Jason refers us some very persuasive statistics that show states with concealed-right-to-carry laws have seen crime reduced by between five and thirteen percent over the period of the analysis.

Others, of course, point to states like Pennsylvania, where loosened concealed-right-to-carry laws have, it seems, been accompanied by soaring violence in Philadelphia.

OK, I'm an ordinary schmuck. I dunno who's right. But it seems to me there are some examples of dreadful argument on both sides.

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical mistake made by both sides of the argument. That something happened after an event doesn't mean the event caused it.
• Few studies control for all the variables.

This post about the Pennsylvania situation from a pro-gun blog, is very, very smart. In the end, what he really argues is for the null hypothesis. Unwittingly, he supports Rawbone8's point.

Gun laws are uniform across Pennsylvania. But Pittsburgh has a gun violence rate on the national average, whereas Philadelphia's is much higher. Both cities have problems with poverty and crime.

But what he doesn't point out when comparing Pittsburgh and Philadelphia is this. Allegheny County (Pgh) is demographically one of the oldest in the country--I should know, many of the aging geriatrics are my relatives. The average age is 40 vs 38 for PA as a whole.

Philadelphia is younger--average age 34. And Camden across the river in NJ has an average age of 27. One of the youngest in the country.

Here's a hypothesis. Guns don't kill people. Young men do.

I'm surprised that in this august group, no one has yet quoted Freakonomics. In it, the authors claim to have looked at crime statistics and controlled for everyting they could. The single biggest factor, they determined, in lower crime rates was Roe vs. Wade. The fewer unwanted, unloved, young men in the population, the lower the crime rate. Mayor Giuliani took credit for reducing the crime rate in NYC in the 90s, and for other cities following suit. He may equally have pointed to the fact that NY had legal abortions before the rest of the country.

Most of the studies of crime rates quoted by both sides of the argument are fairly dated--dated to the 1990s, when the echo-boom population of young men was aging to a more peaceful stage of their lives. No matter what approach a jurisdiction took, crime would be falling.

Boston and Richmond both instituted programmes that specifically targeted young men. They enforced existing gun laws and kept track of recidivists. Both cities report success at higher rates than the 5 to 13 percent that pro-gun advocates cite.

This is not a question of the right to bear arms. To me, it's a question of how we fail young men. Treat them like shit, tell them that violence solves problems, send them off to war to be killed, make sure they're unloved, and then wonder why they have hearts filled with hate. And that they don't think a human life is worth much.

Give them somewhere else to belong apart from a gang.

When grannies shoot up their knitting circles with the frequency that young men shoot up their high schools and colleges, then universal gun control might be justified. But that ain't so.

ON the other hand, is universal armed paranoia the answer? Even if we reduce murder by, say, ten percent--as the figures you've quoted suggest can be achieved through greater gun ownership, Jason-- it would still be almost three times the rate of murder in the UK and Canada. Almost four times the rate in Germany, Ireland or Switzerland. Eight times the murder rate in Japan.

Unless I've made a slip with the calculator, my quick reckoning suggesrt that 43 Americans in every million will die of murder--that's up there with Bulgaria, India and Uruguay. (Interestingly, Finland has a conparatively high murder rate, at 28 per million compared with 14 for the UK and Canada and five for Japan)

Even if it were possible, getting rid of guns ain't the answer. Making sure that young men have a secure and nurturing place to grow up is likely to make a greater difference. If saying so makes me a bleeding heart, then so be it.

Sorry for another long headbang-style post.

Figures from City-data and Nationmaster.

 

[Gillette]

Headbang, don't ever apologize for your long posts.

You are thorough, eloquent and insightful. Thank you.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Here's a hypothesis. Guns don't kill people. Angry young men do.

This is not a question of the right to bear arms. To me, it's a question of how we fail young men. Treat them like shit, tell them that violence solves problems, send them off to war to be killed, make sure they're unloved, and then wonder why they have hearts filled with hate. And that they don't think a human life is worth much.

I added the red font "angry" because it seems just a bit more complete to me that way. Regardless, that's another fine, thoughtful post from hb8 and I think there's something to it.

BigD, when he was still here, once suggested that the USA should go back to the ethic of Code Duello where angry young men who felt disrespected could (and did) legally challenge each other to duels with pistols or sabers to satisfy their honor. I sometimes wonder whether the ongoing plague of violence by angry young men isn't just a continuing manifestation of that ancient ethic but now without any of the controls or formalities.

 

[odd_fish_9]

I, too, never get the if-someone-wants to-kill- they-will-find-a-way-to-kill-so-trying-to-regulate-the-sale-of-firearms-is-pointless argument. Someone going on a killing spree with a knife or a baseball bat is far less likely to achieve anywhere near the kill rate as someone using a firearm.

Unless they go for a bomb, or arson.

The last notorious "killing spree" I remember here in New England was with knives. The first would-be victim survived because he had a gun, and the assailants fled when they saw it. The other victims had no weapons.

Someone using a rifle or shotgun is also going to have to work harder than someone using a semi-automatic weapon.

You don't know what "semi-automatic weapon" means, do you?

 

[Drifterwood]

Gun free for all seems like an anachronistic ideology to me. The circumstances of then and now are completely different.

However I am a respecter of tradition and culture, but why not have a balance. Proper licenses to ensure that idiots don't get hold of them, and maybe you should be a homeowner or over a higher age than the current level, have no criminal record of drugs or violent behaviour, have a certificate from your doctor etc etc

 

[odd_fish_9]

I may be wrong here but I believe rifles and shotguns require more frequent reloading which would allow more time for potential victims to escape.

Yes, you are wrong.

 

[Drifterwood]

My shotguns have two barrels - so in my case, you are wrong. Equally they have a leeser killing range.

 

[headbang8]

BigD, when he was still here, once suggested that the USA should go back to the ethic of Code Duello where angry young men who felt disrespected could (and did) legally challenge each other to duels with pistols or sabers to satisfy their honor. I sometimes wonder whether the ongoing plague of violence by angry young men isn't just a continuing manifestation of that ancient ethic but now without any of the controls or formalities.

Code duello or more money for Head Start. Hmmm...it's atoss up, I admit.

 

[SurferGirlCA]

Unless they go for a bomb, or arson.

I missed the killing spree by arson wave, sorry. I was talking about someone going out armed with any type of weapon to individually attack others. The notion that a knife or a tire iron is likely to be just as deadly as a firearm is one I don't buy.

The last notorious "killing spree" I remember here in New England was with knives. The first would-be victim survived because he had a gun, and the assailants fled when they saw it. The other victims had no weapons.

I think a guy killed a few people at a pizza place in NYC earlier this year when he discharged about 100 rounds in the place. Maybe New England doesn't claim NYC, though.

You don't know what "semi-automatic weapon" means, do you?

A weapon that automatically reloads. I was differentiating those from shotguns and rifles which have a manual loading mechanism.