[Spliffdaddy]

Comparing gun deaths in countries where gun ownership is legal reflects the fact that the USA has fewer gun deaths than other countries.

In other words, if the citizens of France had a similar percentage of gun owners as the USA - then the French would be capping each other at a rate of 4X that of the USA.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Comparing gun deaths in countries where gun ownership is legal reflects the fact that the USA has fewer gun deaths than other countries.

In other words, if the citizens of France had a similar percentage of gun owners as the USA - then the French would be capping each other at a rate of 4X that of the USA.

Because the French are better shots?

But it's a rather pointless argument to make.

Anyway, I'm curious though, MacNStein, what type of situation would it take for you to get out your gun and use it on someone on your property? Do people get shot much in these situations? Would you trust everyone in your shoes act properly and responsibly?

[goMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Two years ago there were a rash of burglaries in this area. Everyone around me who didn't own guns and didn't have signs, were robbed. Coincidence? I sincerely doubt it. Why? Because a robber will go for the easy mark. It's much like nature, where the weaker herd animal will get picked off by predators, and the stronger more capable animals are rarely bothered. It's just common sense.

And yes, I am better with a gun than they are. Hell, I'm better with a gun than everyone in my city's police dept. I know, I target practice with them.

Armed against natural disasters? Nice straw-man you have there.

Dude... your argument makes no sense in the least. By putting up a sign saying that you are armed, you are just making sure anyone breaking into your house knows you're armed, meaning they'll just arm themselves and probably shoot you on sight. You'd be much better off without the sign because than at least anyone breaking into your house would be surprised.

Not only that, but by putting a sign up you're saying your paranoid about someone stealing your stuff, meaning you probably have something valuable in your house, making you more of a target.

I just assume at any moment anything I own could be gone for any reason. That's the way life is. Most Americans are strangely unaccepting of this fact of life.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Rubbish. Chicago is the US murder capital. Link Other top murder cities include St. Louis, Detroit, New York and Washington, DC.

So the South doesn't have the highest violent crime rate compared to other regions of the US? Which is highest? Are you saying it's the Midwest? Northeast? You can list cities all you want, I've been talking regions all along, and you know it. Let's hear it, Mr. Rubbish. Which region?

[Spliffdaddy]

California is not considered a 'southern' state. So you need to add their crime to that of northern (non-Confederate) states.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
California is not considered a 'southern' state. So you need to add their crime to that of northern (non-Confederate) states.

Right, California is not included. It's the "old south," from TX/OK over to SC/VA/FL, as the FBI reports define it. They also have West, Northeast, and Midwest. So which one is the highest if it's not the South?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So the South doesn't have the highest violent crime rate compared to other regions of the US? Which is highest? Are you saying it's the Midwest? Northeast? You can list cities all you want, I've been talking regions all along, and you know it. Let's hear it, Mr. Rubbish. Which region?

It's not the south, but regions aren't the point anyway. the point is that violent crime is highest throughout the country in urban areas. Coincidentally, those urban areas are the most liberal areas, and the areas with the strictest gun control laws. For example, New York City and Washington, DC both lead the country with the strictest gun control laws and some of the highest murder rates.

Rural areas regardless of region are far safer than the cities. They also tend to be gun-friendly. I'm not saying that is necessarily cause and effect, but it is correlation. And since you were the one who began with asserting ridiculously overbroad and unsupported correlations as cause and effect, I'd like to know how you explain the failure of gun control laws in liberal cities?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not the south,

Yes it is, and it's very well known and robust to differing methodologies and measures. I posted a link on the previous page to a book entirely devoted to the question of why the South has more violent crime than other regions. The statistics are extremely easy to find. Here's one example from the FBI.

The South recorded a violent
crime rate of 600 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants, and
the West had a rate of 532. The Northeast showed a rate
of 468, and the Midwest reported a rate of 449.

That's from 1999. Here's another FBI report from 2002. It has violent crime broken down by region. Check it out if you want, it shows the same pattern. Here's one from the NRA, just for a balanced set of citations, with a nice graph and everything.

In fact, the South has for decades had the highest violent crime rates in the nation, and the relationship between the regions` violent crime rates has remained fairly constant.

but regions aren't the point anyway.

Regions aren't the point? What the hell is wrong with you. It was my point. I posted that the South had the highest crime rates, and you said that was wrong. You made another point about cities and guns laws. Great! But don't say I'm wrong when I make a factually accurate statement.

the point is that violent crime is highest throughout the country in urban areas. Coincidentally, those urban areas are the most liberal areas, and the areas with the strictest gun control laws. For example, New York City and Washington, DC both lead the country with the strictest gun control laws and some of the highest murder rates.

I've never disagreed with that. Not once. It's absolutely true. But it doesn't refute the fact that the South has both more guns and more crime as a region of the country. And again, the rural/urban distinction does not hold in the South. The South has the highest rural crime rates in the country. I suspect it's partly because of the prevalence of guns in rural Southern areas, but I'm sure it's due to other factors as well. Have at it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
[B] Regions aren't the point? What the hell is wrong with you. It was my point./B]

Yes, and it is trite. The south is no more of a gun culture than the west. And probably a lot less of one than the streets of LA, or southeast DC. It's just that liberals like you love to use the south as your favorite whipping boy.

Now answer my question. Why is it that liberal cities that banned guns didn't see a drop in armed crime? If gun control is the answer, why is it that it is so ineffective?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by goMac:
Dude... your argument makes no sense in the least. By putting up a sign saying that you are armed, you are just making sure anyone breaking into your house knows you're armed, meaning they'll just arm themselves and probably shoot you on sight. You'd be much better off without the sign because than at least anyone breaking into your house would be surprised.

Not only that, but by putting a sign up you're saying your paranoid about someone stealing your stuff, meaning you probably have something valuable in your house, making you more of a target.

I just assume at any moment anything I own could be gone for any reason. That's the way life is. Most Americans are strangely unaccepting of this fact of life.

*shakes head* That really explains why my neighbors were robbed and I wasn't. I'm talking from practical experience in this, something you don't have. You can speculate all you want, but that's all it is, speculation. What you've said may be a fact of your life, but that doesn't mean it's what is right for me, or that I even want to live my life the way you do (I most assuredly do not).

See, it's all too simple, I don't get robbed. Yes, several years ago I had a break in (before I put up any signs), an unarmed teen looking for drug money. I caught him, cuffed him, and held him face-down at gunpoint until the police arrived... all the while telling him how lucky he was that I was feeling generous and had decided to let him live. Informed him that he should thank me for not splattering his brains all over my wall (he did thank me, several times). I did stay in contact with him. He was convicted, served his time (18 months), and now he's out again. After he was released, I coordinated for him to get his GED and helped him find a good job. Now he's married, has two children, and is becoming more than he ever thought he could be. I do fine work.

What you don't understand is, I put up signs because I'm quite serious, about more than you would imagine. They're not to ward off the burglars, but to protect them. It's probably a moot point by now, the would-be criminals (the ones around here) know of me and know that I'm willing and able to kill them if they break into my home (having an awesome state-of-the-art security system doesn't hurt either). I'd shoot them down, call the police, have the bodies carted off, and be back to sleep within a couple of hours. The next day would be a bitch though, what with the cleaning and all.

Yeah, being the softy that I am, I'd try to spare them if I could, but the likelyhood they'd just end up dead is pretty high... and it would be an absolute certainty if they're armed. Especially with Kim and Sarra living here now. It's my job to protect them, and I take that job very seriously.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, and it is trite. The south is no more of a gun culture than the west. And probably a lot less of one than the streets of LA, or southeast DC. It's just that liberals like you love to use the south as your favorite whipping boy.

Now answer my question. Why is it that liberal cities that banned guns didn't see a drop in armed crime? If gun control is the answer, why is it that it is so ineffective?

No we're not moving on until I know that it's clear to you that you were inaccurate on a simple empirical point. I'm not discussing anything with you until I know that you can acknowledge basic facts without struggling like a trapped dog for post after post. You still haven't acknowledged the basic facts. If you can do that, then I'll continue, because the next empirical point is that the rural-urban divide doesn't hold in the South.

[Spliffdaddy]

[goMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*shakes head* That really explains why my neighbors were robbed and I wasn't. I'm talking from practical experience in this, something you don't have. You can speculate all you want, but that's all it is, speculation. What you've said may be a fact of your life, but that doesn't mean it's what is right for me, or that I even want to live my life the way you do (I most assuredly do not).

See, it's all too simple, I don't get robbed. Yes, several years ago I had a break in (before I put up any signs), an unarmed teen looking for drug money. I caught him, cuffed him, and held him face-down at gunpoint until the police arrived... all the while telling him how lucky he was that I was feeling generous and had decided to let him live. Informed him that he should thank me for not splattering his brains all over my wall (he did thank me, several times). I did stay in contact with him. He was convicted, served his time (18 months), and now he's out again. After he was released, I coordinated for him to get his GED and helped him find a good job. Now he's married, has two children, and is becoming more than he ever thought he could be. I do fine work.

What you don't understand is, I put up signs because I'm quite serious, about more than you would imagine. They're not to ward off the burglars, but to protect them. It's probably a moot point by now, the would-be criminals (the ones around here) know of me and know that I'm willing and able to kill them if they break into my home (having an awesome state-of-the-art security system doesn't hurt either). I'd shoot them down, call the police, have the bodies carted off, and be back to sleep within a couple of hours. The next day would be a bitch though, what with the cleaning and all.

Yeah, being the softy that I am, I'd try to spare them if I could, but the likelyhood they'd just end up dead is pretty high... and it would be an absolute certainty if they're armed. Especially with Kim and Sarra living here now. It's my job to protect them, and I take that job very seriously.

All the houses around me have had break ins. My house never has. I don't have a gun or a sign. Explain that.

[goMac]

And another point you guys seem to miss...

If a criminal wants to break into your home without problem... hes probably going to break in when you're not home, right? In which case your gun probably won't do much good. Your gun will probably actually just get stolen by the criminal.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
No we're not moving on until I know that it's clear to you that you were inaccurate on a simple empirical point. I'm not discussing anything with you until I know that you can acknowledge basic facts without struggling like a trapped dog for post after post. You still haven't acknowledged the basic facts. If you can do that, then I'll continue, because the next empirical point is that the rural-urban divide doesn't hold in the South.

The rural/urban divide doesn't hold the South? So southern rural counties have identical violent crime rates as the cities? You are high.

Let's be specific. My family in Louisiana is from a rural part of DeSoto Parish, about 45 minutes from Shreveport. Are you seriously going to tell me there is as much violent crime there as in downtown Shreveport, let alone New Orleans or Baton Rouge? They closed the police force down where my family lives, because there was not enough work to do!!

You know it isn't true that "the rural-urban divide doesn't hold in the South." There isn't anywhere in the south or anywhere else in the country where violent crime comes remotely close to the rates in urban areas.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by goMac:
And another point you guys seem to miss...

If a criminal wants to break into your home without problem... hes probably going to break in when you're not home, right?

Exactly!! The fact that there might be an armed resident will discourage burglaries of occupied homes.

At no point in this thread has anyone asserted that the primary point is prevention of property loss. This is about the defense of life and limb. Your life and limb isn't at stake if you aren't at home.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Even if you look regionally within the US, the places with the most violent crime, the south, also have the most guns. They are also far more likely to use the death penalty than other places, and in general have more of a tough anti-crime stance. Obviously something isn't working.

OK, BRussel: Let's go back to this statement and see what makes sense, because I don't think even by your terms, this argument holds water.

First, fine, as strangely devided by the FBI, what they call the "south" is both their biggest region, and the one with the most violent crime. Here are the regions as defined by the FBI. Notice that they are not equal in size.


As the FBI says:

The Southern Region, the most populous section of the country accounting for 35.8 percent of the total U.S. population in 2002, had 41.4 percent of the total violent crimes, an estimated 590,086 offenses.

FBI

Another thing worth noting is that the regions are a bit bizarre. For example, the District of Columbia is included in the South.

SOUTHERN STATES

Delaware Alabama
District of Columbia Kentucky
Florida Mississippi Georgia Tennessee Maryland North Carolina Arkansas South Carolina Louisiana Virginia Oklahoma West Virginia Texas

Link Nobody else does that. Moreover, Maryland isn't really a southern state and Oklahoma is iffy too.

That's a problem because the differences you are trying so hard to see within these regions is very small, and a major outlier like DC can have a significant effect. For example, the "south" (as defined by the FBI) had 571 per 100,000 violent crimes in 2002, but DC had 1632.9 per 100,000. That skews the average. So does Maryland's 769.8 per 100,000.

Compare that to the lowest region as defined by the FBI, the Northeast, which had 416.5. But that excluded the District of Columbia. If those FBI regions conformed to more normal definitions, DC would be in the Northeast column, not the South, and so would Maryland. The South's overall numbers would then come down more in line with states like Virginia -- 291.4 violent crimes per 100,000, Mississippi, 343.3 per 100,000, or Alabama, 444.2. Link

Now lets take a look at some other of those FBI regions. The Western States according to the FBI includes not only low crime states like Oregon -- 292.4 per 100,000 (almost exactly the same as southern state Virginia), but also high crime states like Arizona -- 552.9 per 100,000, California, 593.4 per 100,000, or New Mexico -- 739.5 per 100,000. Compare that figure with Florida, which had 770.2 per 100,000 and you can see that sweeping statements about regions are meaningless.

Now lets look at the next part of your assertion. You say that the Southern states have the most guns, and are the most likely to have the death penalty. First of all, the District of Columbia has no death penalty, but recall DC's statistics for violent crimes tops the chart -- 1632.9 per 100,000. Compare that to next door Virginia, which not only has the death penalty, but is also second in the country for imposing it. Virginia has 291.4 per 100,000.

Texas tops the country for imposing the death penalty. Its numbers of violent crimes in 2002 are 578.6 per 100,000. New Mexico, which you will recall had 739.5 per 100,000 violent crimes in 2002 has not executed anyone in 41 years. cashed link. So I don't see a correlation there.

Next issue, you assert that the numbers of guns are higher in the South than elsewhere in the country. I don't know how to prove or disprove that except to point out that nationally, the numbers of guns in circulation has certainly gone up in recent years (sales are healthy, almost certainly outstripping the rather slow rate at which guns wear out). However, nationally, violent crime has been falling:



If there is a correlation between number of guns in circulation, you would expect the trend to go the other way, but it doesn't.

Moreover, if you take the time to look here at this compendium of state gun laws, I don't think you will be able to find a clearly defined difference in gun laws by region, sufficient to support your sweeping statement. I'd also like to know how you explain the fact that gun-friendly North Dakota has 78.2 violent crimes per 100,000 whereas gun-banning Chicago is the "murder capital of the US."

[Spliffdaddy]

So, therefore, fewer guns = more crime.

[DBursey]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Exactly!! The fact that there might be an armed resident will discourage burglaries of occupied homes.

The fact that there might be an occupant will discourage burglaries of occupied homes. A typical thief doesn't seek to confront a homeowner, armed or otherwise.

[DBursey]

Let's put the question into international perspective for our gun-toting pals:

Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List

The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.

Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.

Gun Deaths per capita (1994 stats):

� U.S.A. 14.24
� Brazil 12.95
� Mexico 12.69
� Estonia 12.26
� Argentina 8.93
� Northern Ireland 6.63
� Finland 6.46
� Switzerland 5.31
� France 5.15
� Canada 4.31
� Norway 3.82
� Austria 3.70
� Portugal 3.20
� Israel 2.91
� Belgium 2.90
� Australia 2.65
� Slovenia 2.60
� Italy 2.44
� New Zealand 2.38
� Denmark 2.09
� Sweden 1.92
� Kuwait 1.84
� Greece 1.29
� Germany 1.24
� Hungary 1.11
� Ireland 0.97
� Spain 0.78
� Netherlands 0.70
� Scotland 0.54
� England and Wales 0.41
� Taiwan 0.37
� Singapore 0.21
� Mauritius 0.19
� Hong Kong 0.14
� South Korea 0.12
� Japan 0.05

[Troll]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So, therefore, fewer guns = more crime.

Here's the top ten of murders with firearm per capita. US in position 8, the first Western country on the list. The UK is in position 32 (according to Nationmaster.com). Total murders with firearms per capita:

1. South Africa 0.74 per 1000 people
2. Colombia 0.52 per 1000 people
3. Thailand 0.31 per 1000 people
4. Zimbabwe 0.04 per 1000 people
5. Mexico 0.03 per 1000 people
6. Costa Rica 0.03 per 1000 people
7. Belarus 0.03 per 1000 people
8. United States 0.02 per 1000 people
9. Uruguay 0.02 per 1000 people
10. Lithuania 0.02 per 1000 people

Don't think that English people don't commit as many crimes. They actually commit MORE crimes per capita. They're just less violent. As for Denmark ... Total crimes per capita:

1. Dominica 112.79 per 1000 people
2. New Zealand 108.12 per 1000 people
3. Finland 102.15 per 1000 people
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
5. Chile 90.00 per 1000 people
6. United Kingdom 86.04 per 1000 people
7. Montserrat 83.49 per 1000 people
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people
9. Netherlands 80.84 per 1000 people
10. South Africa 80.02 per 1000 people

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by goMac:
All the houses around me have had break ins. My house never has. I don't have a gun or a sign. Explain that.

Luck.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The rural/urban divide doesn't hold the South? So southern rural counties have identical violent crime rates as the cities? You are high.

Let's be specific. My family in Louisiana is from a rural part of DeSoto Parish, about 45 minutes from Shreveport. Are you seriously going to tell me there is as much violent crime there as in downtown Shreveport, let alone New Orleans or Baton Rouge? They closed the police force down where my family lives, because there was not enough work to do!!

You know it isn't true that "the rural-urban divide doesn't hold in the South." There isn't anywhere in the south or anywhere else in the country where violent crime comes remotely close to the rates in urban areas.

Look here for example.

High Southern homicide rates challenge the popularly-held belief that murders are highest in densely populated urban areas where crowding and poverty break down traditional social ties and values. Southern homicides have been typically rural.

I couldn't find any good Bureau of Justice Statistics data on the internet with the right comparisons, but Nisbett talks a lot about this in his book I cited earlier and has analyses showing that the in the South, the urban-rural pattern that you see in the rest of the country does not hold.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, BRussel: Let's go back to this statement and see what makes sense, because I don't think even by your terms, this argument holds water.

First, fine, as strangely devided by the FBI, what they call the "south" is both their biggest region, and the one with the most violent crime. Here are the regions as defined by the FBI. Notice that they are not equal in size.

Unbelievable. Pathetic. Disingenuous.

It doesn't matter that it's the largest area. We're talking about rates. And here's a page showing the country broken down into smaller categories. It's still very clear. The only three regions above the national average are the three southern regions. Gun homicides are on the same page, and they show the same thing. Do it any way you want. Look at state rates, and guess which states have the highest rates.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Look here for example.

I couldn't find any good Bureau of Justice Statistics data on the internet with the right comparisons, but Nisbett talks a lot about this in his book I cited earlier and has analyses showing that the in the South, the urban-rural pattern that you see in the rest of the country does not hold.

I wouldn't call that a good link to rely on. For example:

Led by Louisiana -- with a rate of 17.5 murders per 100,000 population in 1996 -- the South's murder rate was almost double that of the Northeast.

Yup, Louisiana's murder rate is still high. Not as high as the 1996 that website relies on, but still high. According to the FBI it was 13.2 per 100,000 in 2002. Link. But does that pattern hold for all of the south? No it does not.

For example, Virginia is 5.3 per 100,000, Florida 5.5, Texas 6.0. It goes down to West Virginia with 3.2 per 100,000.

Let's compare: Indiana is 5.9, California, 6.8, Illinois 7.5, New Mexico 8.2, Nevada 8.3, Maryland 9.4, Puerto Rico is 20.1, but the grand prize is, once again, the District of Columbia with 46.2 murders per 100,000! These are all FBI statistics, not some advocacy book or website based on a New York Times op-ed.

So, many parts of the south have fewer murders than many other non-southern states. But of course, it's OK to talk sweepingly of the south as if it is a monolith?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Unbelievable. Pathetic. Disingenuous.

It doesn't matter that it's the largest area. We're talking about rates. And here's a page showing the country broken down into smaller categories. It's still very clear. The only three regions above the national average are the three southern regions. Gun homicides are on the same page, and they show the same thing. Do it any way you want. Look at state rates, and guess which states have the highest rates.

Obviously, you didn't read my whole post. The FBI includes states in "the South" that don't belong in the South. Washington, DC, Maryland, and Delaware aren't in the south.Delaware brings the FBI's "South" region down a bit, but Maryland and especially DC spike it upward. On the other hand, keeping them out of the Northeast column depresses the Northeast's numbers. That's a statistical artifice, not something to hang a cultural argument on.

The bottom line is that the differences between these regions are small anyway, far smaller than the differences between individual states.

Since you didn't read down this far, I will repeat myself:

Now lets take a look at some other of those FBI regions. The Western States according to the FBI includes not only low crime states like Oregon -- 292.4 per 100,000 (almost exactly the same as southern state Virginia), but also high crime states like Arizona -- 552.9 per 100,000, California, 593.4 per 100,000, or New Mexico -- 739.5 per 100,000. Compare that figure with Florida, which had 770.2 per 100,000 and you can see that sweeping statements about regions are meaningless.

Actually, what is notable about your charts that you link to is that the nation moved very much in tandem. Nowhere really stands out as bucking the trend. Gun-homicides went up in the 90s, then came back down again.



This makes it even more apparent:

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Exactly!! The fact that there might be an armed resident will discourage burglaries of occupied homes.

At no point in this thread has anyone asserted that the primary point is prevention of property loss. This is about the defense of life and limb. Your life and limb isn't at stake if you aren't at home.

Ok... lets try and break it down for you..

Criminal who doesn't want to worry about you - Will watch your house, and break in when you leave

Criminal who has a gun - Will break into your house and try to shoot you if you try to shoot him.

Guns don't discourage people from breaking into homes. It just makes them find other ways of doing it. And not only that, the criminal will probably have a gun if he wants to deal with people who have guns. If you got a bazooka to start killing criminals with guns breaking into your home, criminals would probably start buying bazookas too. It's nothing but a good old fashioned arms race which neither side will ever win.

Edit: And yes, it does happen extremely rarely, but why would anyone break into your house just to kill you? It is about property loss because thats what people who break into your home are after.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wouldn't call that a good link to rely on. For example:

Yup, Louisiana's murder rate is still high. Not as high as the 1996 that website relies on, but still high. According to the FBI it was 13.2 per 100,000 in 2002. Link. But does that pattern hold for all of the south? No it does not.

For example, Virginia is 5.3 per 100,000, Florida 5.5, Texas 6.0. It goes down to West Virginia with 3.2 per 100,000.

Let's compare: Indiana is 5.9, California, 6.8, Illinois 7.5, New Mexico 8.2, Nevada 8.3, Maryland 9.4, Puerto Rico is 20.1, but the grand prize is, once again, the District of Columbia with 46.2 murders per 100,000! These are all FBI statistics, not some advocacy book or website based on a New York Times op-ed.

So, many parts of the south have fewer murders than many other non-southern states. But of course, it's OK to talk sweepingly of the south as if it is a monolith?

God. First of all, that was a link stating that southern violent crime is rural rather than urban, which you've been denying. I note that you ignored that.

Second, the FBI murder rates and violent crime rates you cite show exactly what I've been saying. Look at it however you want. Look at the top 10, it's mostly southern states. Look at the bottom half - the states with the lowest violent crime or murder rates - there aren't any southern states. Yes there are some non-southern states that are high too, like Maryland and Nevada. So what? Do you expect every single state in the South to be huddled at the top in a neat little row, or it's not a true regional difference? Please. It's like saying that men's average height is five inches taller than women's, and you saying "but I know one tall female, so you're wrong and I'm right, nyah-nyah-nyah!"

[goMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Luck.

Exactly my point.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Obviously, you didn't read my whole post. The FBI includes states in "the South" that don't belong in the South. Washington, DC, Maryland, and Delaware aren't in the south.Delaware brings the FBI's "South" region down a bit, but Maryland and especially DC spike it upward. On the other hand, keeping them out of the Northeast column depresses the Northeast's numbers. That's a statistical artifice, not something to hang a cultural argument on.

The bottom line is that the differences between these regions are small anyway, far smaller than the differences between individual states.

Again, look at it however you want. The page I linked, which you've reproduced here, shows exactly what I've been saying, but broken down even further into 9 regions since you didn't like the way the other one was done. It still shows that the only three regions with higher rates of violent crime than the national average are the three southern regions.

Actually, what is notable about your charts that you link to is that the nation moved very much in tandem. Nowhere really stands out as bucking the trend. Gun-homicides went up in the 90s, then came back down again.

That might be absolutely fascinating if we were, anywhere in any of the previous posts, talking about trends over time. Or teen gun homicides for that matter.

Look, if you had simply acknowledged from the beginning that the conventional wisdom is that the South has more violent crime, but then gone on to make a different argument, perhaps looking at specific states or something, I'd be with you. But you don't. You deny deny deny, and then flail around citing trends over time and teen gun homicides even when it's utterly transparent that they don't support anything you've been arguing.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
Don't think that English people don't commit as many crimes. They actually commit MORE crimes per capita. They're just less violent.

No. We just kill people with other weapons (knifes, axes, bare hands, chip forks)... ...which means that the weakest physically will always come off worst (unlike with gun deaths where there's an equality between granny and thug).

Did those gun death figures include intruders killed in the act of burglary? I'll wager they did.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
God. First of all, that was a link stating that southern violent crime is rural rather than urban, which you've been denying. I note that you ignored that.

Second, the FBI murder rates and violent crime rates you cite show exactly what I've been saying. Look at it however you want. Look at the top 10, it's mostly southern states. Look at the bottom half - the states with the lowest violent crime or murder rates - there aren't any southern states. Yes there are some non-southern states that are high too, like Maryland and Nevada. So what? Do you expect every single state in the South to be huddled at the top in a neat little row, or it's not a true regional difference? Please. It's like saying that men's average height is five inches taller than women's, and you saying "but I know one tall female, so you're wrong and I'm right, nyah-nyah-nyah!"

They aren't huddled anywhere. There is a big range among all regions, and some quite striking variations among fairly close neighbors. For example, low-crime Virginia, which is next to astronomical crime Washington, DC, and moderately high crime Maryland on one side, and very low crime West Virginia on the other.

Basically, you made an overbroad generalization based on little more than bias and the rather odd way that the FBI lumps states together. The statistics simply does not support your assertion. But then again, most sweeping statements by liberals about the South are wrong.

And if you were talking about the assertions in this link, you need to find something that isn't all based on a New York Times op-ed.

[TETENAL]

Weapons facilitate killing. The easier it is to kill, the more killings there will be. Simple.

The formula might not be true for responsible and trained owners, but few are. And too many are emotionally unstable, drunken dorks. There are too many of the latter category in Germany to allow everybody to own a gun.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They aren't huddled anywhere. There is a big range among all regions, and some quite striking variations among fairly close neighbors. For example, low-crime Virginia, which is next to astronomical crime Washington, DC, and moderately high crime Maryland on one side, and very low crime West Virginia on the other.

Basically, you made an overbroad generalization based on little more than bias and the rather odd way that the FBI lumps states together. The statistics simply does not support your assertion. But then again, most sweeping statements by liberals about the South are wrong.

Uh-huh. Every way you look at it, by region, by smaller divisions of regions, or by states, shows that the South has higher violent crime than other regions. But to you "the statistics simply does (sic) not support your assertion."

And if you were talking about the assertions in this link, you need to find something less transparently partisan, and that isn't all based on a New York Times op-ed.

You do know that the National Center for Policy Analysis is a conservative think tank, don't you?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You do know that the National Center for Policy Analysis is a conservative think tank, don't you?

Do I care? They still had zero support for the assertion other than a 1998 op-ed in the NYT.

Remember, you are arguing that the South uniquely has no difference in violent crime rates between inner cities and suburban or rural areas. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by goMac:
Ok... lets try and break it down for you..

Criminal who doesn't want to worry about you - Will watch your house, and break in when you leave

Criminal who has a gun - Will break into your house and try to shoot you if you try to shoot him.

Guns don't discourage people from breaking into homes. It just makes them find other ways of doing it. And not only that, the criminal will probably have a gun if he wants to deal with people who have guns. If you got a bazooka to start killing criminals with guns breaking into your home, criminals would probably start buying bazookas too. It's nothing but a good old fashioned arms race which neither side will ever win.

Edit: And yes, it does happen extremely rarely, but why would anyone break into your house just to kill you? It is about property loss because thats what people who break into your home are after.

Let me ask you a question. Do you have a lock on your door? Why?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by goMac:
Exactly my point.

Yes, you were lucky.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No. We just kill people with other weapons (knifes, axes, bare hands, chip forks)... ...which means that the weakest physically will always come off worst (unlike with gun deaths where there's an equality between granny and thug).

Did those gun death figures include intruders killed in the act of burglary? I'll wager they did.

For that reason I wish all guns were just gone, done away with, never to come back... `cause I'm wicked awesome with a sword (many many years of western fencing and kendo).

However, since that can't happen, I'll hang on to my guns.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Did those gun death figures include intruders killed in the act of burglary? I'll wager they did.

In the course of arguing with BRussell, I came across this FBI page that includes the number of justifiable homicide cases for the years 1998 to 2002. Click on the link and scroll down to Table 2.17 (it's at the bottom).

I'll summarize, about 200 felons a year in the US are killed by citizens (i.e. not by cops) during the commission of a felony. Not all the justifiable homicides used guns.

Interestingly, the numbers killed in justifiable homicides has gone up, which violent crime generally has gone down. In 1998 there were 196 justifiable homicides, in 2002 it was 225.

These numbers also don't include felons wounded, but not killed, nor those subdued or scared away without being killed. I don't know what those numbers are, but I'd assume they are higher.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Let's put the question into international perspective for our gun-toting pals:

Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List

What's with those crazy Fins and Estonians? Why are they so high up the list?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do I care?

No, I've long since realized that you don't care one bit. You implied that it was a liberal group, which you just made up because it sounded good to you, when in fact it was a conservative group.

They still had zero support for the assertion other than a 1998 op-ed in the NYT.

Remember, you are arguing that the South uniquely has no difference in violent crime rates between inner cities and suburban or rural areas. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

That article in the NYT, as well as my source for stating that, is based on the work of Nisbett, whose book I cited earlier. I don't believe you can get the BJS stats broken down on the web by both region and urban-rural, but Nisbett has done that kind of analysis. Right now I can only find indirect references to his work, such as this one:

Provocative work focusing primarily on regional variations in
rural American violence has been conducted by Nisbett and Cohen (1996), who
observed that high homicide rates in the South are almost entirely the result of
very high rates among white rural males. For females and for minority males,
there are only minor differences between homicide rates in the South and in
other regions of the country. Nisbett and Cohen argue that these high rates are
the result of a “culture of honor,�? in which violence is an accepted response to
an affront to one’s home, family, or person. They build a persuasive argument
that the culture of honor can be traced to the type of agricultural activity in
which the region’s ancestors engaged. Nisbett and Cohen and others (e.g.,
Fischer 1989) make a powerful case for incorporating community size, regional
history, race, and gender into analyses of violence in America. Their work is a
good example of the utility of incorporating variations among rural areas in
explanations of crime.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That article in the NYT, as well as my source for stating that, is based on the work of Nisbett, whose book I cited earlier. I don't believe you can get the BJS stats broken down on the web by both region and urban-rural, but Nisbett has done that kind of analysis. Right now I can only find indirect references to his work, such as this one:

OK, so this is an appeal to authority. I have never heard of this psychologist, and I haven't read him. Your quote calls them "provocative" and says that they are one of the few to do that kind of work. Anyone can point to a study somewhere or another that came to some conclusion. But the fact is, you have nothing quantified or objective that you can point to to compare to the cold statistics from the FBI, which say quite clearly that accross the country, cities have more violent crime than rural areas. Your abstract says 26 times as high.

The problem with the contrary conclusion is that it simply clashes with my experience living in the south, and that of my family living there. Louisiana, for example, has a high murder rate, but it is mostly three cities -- New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport (and maybe Monroe and Lake Charles, which is a pit). Nobody where my family comes from even locks the door. So whatever else is going on, there isn't much danger in that rural area from people breaking and entering. And breaking and entering is pretty much all we have been discussing.

Since we can't get any further with fascinating sociological study, how about explaining how come it is that cities that have banned guns still have high murder rates?

[Athens]

The problem with Stats is they are population based and not based on location. For example if you have a city with say 4 million people that has a murder rate of 4 per 100 000 thats a total of 40 Murders. Now if you have a smaller city of 1 million that is the same area in size as that larger city with a murder rate of 6 per 100 000, thats a total of 10 murders. Its murder rate is technically higher but it still has less murders then the bigger city so people there will prob feel safer even though the rates are higher. And of course the people in the bigger city seeing more murders will think its unsafe even though the rate is lower then the smaller city. Stats don't mean much. Washington, Miami are to extreme examples that affect the data for the south.

Another interesting point, Canada and the US border each other, for the most part we are the same culture except we have a different way of thinking and are more like Europe for social programs, the way we deal with medical, drugs and such and look at the HUDGE different in Murder rates on that country chart posted further up.

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Let me ask you a question. Do you have a lock on your door? Why?

I have a lock on my door at school. Don't actively use it. Never had anything stolen really, cept for a friend who came to take a soda.

The problem with your argument is a lock doesn't require human intervention, and they certainly don't kill people. You lock your door and then you don't need to do anything else. And a burglar can't use a lock against you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by goMac:
I have a lock on my door at school. Don't actively use it. Never had anything stolen really, cept for a friend who came to take a soda.

The problem with your argument is a lock doesn't require human intervention, and they certainly don't kill people. You lock your door and then you don't need to do anything else. And a burglar can't use a lock against you.

Maybe I should rephrase the question. Do your parents have a lock on your house?

[goMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Maybe I should rephrase the question. Do your parents have a lock on your house?

Sure. They did. And like I said, locks are different. Locks won't kill anyone. Criminals carry a gun because they want to shoot you if you have one. Having a lock doesn't increase your chances of getting shot, because a criminal isn't worried about getting killed by a lock. They are worried about getting killed by you, hence the gun, hence why they will shoot you if they see you with a gun.

Also, locks admittedly don't do much good. All the person has to do is go around and break a window. Locks are not at all a deterrent to people who want to break into your house. Just like if you own a gun, a criminal will find a way around the problem. Criminals aren't stupid, if they were it would be fairly easy to stop crime.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol

youngsters.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol

youngsters.

Standard right wing reply. Dodge the point. Point out something unrelated but still damaging. Repeat.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
No. We just kill people with other weapons (knifes, axes, bare hands, chip forks)... ...which means that the weakest physically will always come off worst (unlike with gun deaths where there's an equality between granny and thug).

Did those gun death figures include intruders killed in the act of burglary? I'll wager they did.

Yes, you're right. Around 8% of murders in the UK are with guns. Compared with 66% in the US.

Although your chances of being burgled are higher in the UK, the chances of your being the victim of violent crime are lower.

Burglaries per capita:
1. Australia 22.13 per 1000 people
2. Dominica 18.62 per 1000 people
3. Denmark 18.49 per 1000 people
4. Finland 16.87 per 1000 people
5. New Zealand 16.62 per 1000 people
6. Estonia 16.52 per 1000 people
7. United Kingdom 13.91 per 1000 people
8. Poland 9.44 per 1000 people
9. South Africa 9.22 per 1000 people
10. Canada 9.11 per 1000 people

16. United States 7.23 per 1000 people

Murders per capita:
1. Colombia 0.63 per 1000 people
2. South Africa 0.51 per 1000 people
3. Jamaica 0.32 per 1000 people
4. Venezuela 0.32 per 1000 people
5. Russia 0.19 per 1000 people
6. Mexico 0.13 per 1000 people
7. Lithuania 0.10 per 1000 people
8. Estonia 0.10 per 1000 people
9. Latvia 0.10 per 1000 people
10. Belarus 0.09 per 1000 people

15. United States of America 0.04 per 1000 people

46. United Kingdom 0.01 per 1000 people

Assaults per capita:
1. South Africa 12.51 per 1000 people
2. Montserrat 10.67 per 1000 people
3. Mauritius 8.90 per 1000 people
4. Seychelles 8.69 per 1000 people
5. United States 7.70 per 1000 people
6. New Zealand 7.63 per 1000 people
7. United Kingdom 7.50 per 1000 people
8. Zimbabwe 7.39 per 1000 people
9. Canada 7.25 per 1000 people
10. Australia 7.15 per 1000 people

Rape per capita
1. South Africa 1.23 per 1000 people
2. Seychelles 0.79 per 1000 people
3. Australia 0.79 per 1000 people
4. Montserrat 0.77 per 1000 people
5. Canada 0.74 per 1000 people
6. Jamaica 0.48 per 1000 people
7. Zimbabwe 0.44 per 1000 people
8. Dominica 0.34 per 1000 people
9. United States 0.30 per 1000 people
10. Iceland 0.25 per 1000 people

13. United Kingdom 0.14 per 1000 people

What's weird is that Americans feel more safe than most!

Perception of Safety (Burglary)
1. Finland 84%
2. Austria 82%
3. Sweden 79%
4. United States 78%
5. Denmark 75%
6. Norway 68%
7. Canada 66%
8. Switzerland 64%
9. Netherlands 62%
10. United Kingdom 58%

Perception of Safety (Walking in the Dark)
1. Sweden 85%
2. United States 82%
3. Canada 82%
4. Finland 81%
5. Netherlands 81%
6. Denmark 81%
7. Japan 78%
8. Austria 78%
9. Belgium 77%
10. Switzerland 77%
11. France 77%
12. United Kingdom 70%

Which says to me that a lot of this in the mind.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:

What's weird is that Americans feel more safe than most!

Perception of Safety (Walking in the Dark)
1. Sweden 85%
2. United States 82%
3. Canada 82%
4. Finland 81%

This one is easy to explain. Americans don't walk in the dark. The only place anyone walks at night is to and from their cars -- and thanks to the personal injury lawyers, parking lots are all well lit.