I'd rather explain my own arguments thanks.

http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads ... hs2012.pdf

bbauska, I think the Australian chart has some errors in its exectuion.
Here's the same international data. and a little more perspective.

Research has shown that when other factors are held constant, gun death rates rise in proportion to the rate of gun
ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada
and in comparable industrialized countries

doesn't answer the question, nice dodge though.

Do you know what the word correlation means Tom?

Yes I sure do, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Both are similar but both are also quite different.
You failed to answer why Canda is higher yet instead you persisted on showing us how more violence happens in homes where a gun is owned. Do you know the word correlation? How did your reply answer the question, how did it correlate to the question posed?
You did not answer the question asked, plain and simple.



also, you mentioned the shooting on a Texas college campus and you purposely attempt to muddy the waters there as well, anything that will support your position even if facts get in the way.

An interesting incident in a State which allows concealed carry weapons

How more misleading can you be?
This college is a gun free zone, this may in fact be an argument against your position.
* a gun free zone that obviously didn't work , allowing only the bad guys to be armed
* would the shooting have occurred if he had to worry about others shooting him in return?
* at least 5 shots were made, only 3 people were injured ...seems like this person is not well educated in the use of a hand gun. (but then criminals will never obey such laws now would they?)

bbauska wrote:Sass,
RickyP makes that argument.

Now explain why Canada is more violent per # of guns than the US?

I'll speculate, because we can't know.

Many Americans are collectors of guns. I know people who have hundreds of guns in an extensive collections. (Some might call them arsenals, but they're usually collections.) Most of these guns are rarely, if ever, fired. Collectors usually have a handful of favorites, or functional guns that are actually used, but most of the collection just sits. Are Canadians such active collectors? If not, that would help to explain why the measurement violence per gun is not all that helpful.

A more useful measurement, IMO, would be violence by gun against percent of households with a gun.

Tom: maybe you didn't read this response to bbauska

bbauska, I think the Australian chart has some errors in its execution

I think he's made a faulty observation. I can't defend his faulty observation. However;
The link I posted quite clearly illustrates that the rate of gun deaths in Canada are lower than in the US... And the households with guns also lower....

You Might want to actually look up the colleges "gun free zone policy". It doesn't impact people who have concealed carry permits... Even students.

However, the efficacy of "gun free zones" is limited to what can be enforced. Unless every visitor to a campus or building goes through metal detectors and/or are frisked .... you're right that simply proclaiming a gun free zone is pretty lame.
In Texas, a gun free zone, that still allows those with a concealed carry permit, and which also isn't enforced with searches - like Lone Star, is also pretty lame.
Tom

a gun free zone that obviously didn't work , allowing only the bad guys to be armed

Actually, until the shooter pulled his gun and fired he was a good guy..... That's the problem with allowing an easily used lethal weapon into the hands of an impulsive person. They tend to flip the switch from good guy, to bad guy, with ease.

* would the shooting have occurred if he had to worry about others shooting him in return?

Maybe he was worried about the other guy shooting back? It doesn't seem to bother a lot of shooters that there may be armed people in the room. After all, in Texas, with concealed carry , one can never know for sure...

* at least 5 shots were made, only 3 people were injured ...seems like this person is not well educated in the use of a hand gun. (but then criminals will never obey such laws now would they

Are you suggesting that only people who are trained in the use of firearms, and pass certification should be allowed to own them? Why, isn't this a limitation on the 2nd amendment?
Maybe that wouldn't work either. There are a lot of instacnces here trained police officers have fired multiple roundswithout striking their intended target.


.

rickyp wrote:http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf

bbauska, I think the Australian chart has some errors in its exectuion.
Here's the same international data. and a little more perspective.

Research has shown that when other factors are held constant, gun death rates rise in proportion to the rate of gun
ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada
and in comparable industrialized countries

What do you think the errors in it's exectuion [sic] are?

Yes, Canada has less people, and less guns. According to that chart though, there are more fatalities per person per gun than the US.

wow, think about it, we have more murders in warm weather than in cold, so we can then "correlate" that in Canada (where it is colder longer) the gun problem there is even worse than in the USA!?

I am sure RickyP has an answer and will get to it. I have a hypothesis, but since I am not in Canada, I will let the expert has his first shot.

Ok, here's the thing. Bbauska sees a graph that quite clearly shows (more so than the ones of US States that I produced), a correlation between rate of gun ownership and rate of death from firearms, both measured per 100,000 people.

But as that's not really helpful to the argument that guns are good, he spots that the rate of death from firearms per gun is lower in the US than in a few other countries. (not 'per person per gun' - just 'per gun')

Here's a little pair of questions though:

If the US reduced its rate of gun ownership and as a result the rate of firearms death went down proportionately, how much of an improvement would it be to get down to Canada's rate?

If, however, Canada managed to improve the death rate per gun to that of the USA (and let's for argument say without affecting the gun ownership, how much of an improvement would it be?

Just to help, the answer to the first question is a reduction in the death rate per 100,000 people from c9 to c5. Which is a reduction of 4 per 100,0000, about 40% (and so about 12,000 fewer dead Americans).

And the answer to the second question is a reduction in the death rate per 100,000 people from c5 to c3.5. Which is a reduction of 1.5 per 100,000 and about 30%.

And that brings us to a third question - what if the US reduced it's rate of gun ownership to that of Canada and the rate of deaths per gun remained the same?

It would go down from c. 9 to c.3,5 - a reduction of 5.5, about 60% and 17,000 fewer dead Americans.

However, if you read the link Ricky provided to the same graph, you would actually see that the data that was used was out of date, and had been updated since. Meaning that Switzerland - one of the countries bbauska highlighted - actually does a bit better than the US on deaths per gun.

And also, on both links, when you take out suicides, leaving the gun homicide rate, you get a different graph. Canada ends up pretty much on the same 'line' that would be drawn to the US datapoint. Switzerland and FInland are below it.

It's pretty simple. More guns, more murders using guns. And yet clearly it does need people to research it, because the 'common sense' brigade try to rationalise it away as not a problem.

Deaths per gun is a silly way of looking at things anyway. Nobody is saying that guns in and of themselves cause murders, just that the presence of guns in great abundance will generally lead to more gun-related deaths. Of course there isn't going to be a direct linear relationship between gross number of guns and overall number of deaths. The key metric would be number of gun owners, and even then there will inevitably be other factors in play. Somalia probably has similar rates of gun ownership to the US (not that it will be easy to get the data) but the murder rate there is off the chart.

Which is why I asked about Canada after RickyP posted his data set, not Switzerland. (always the compromisor, I am,,,)

The issue is not gun ownership, which is Constitutionally mandated here in the US. Sass, and Freeman say they don't want to removed that right (at least right now), so the percentage of gun ownership is not being argued. That is unless you want to remove the right to own guns.

So to answer the question asked of me earlier... Is the loss of 12,000 Americans worth the right to own guns?

Yes, it is. Freedom means that much to me.

1) You mentioned Switzerland, Canada and Finland at first. I was giving you the courtesy of a more complete answer. More fool me. I still spent some time looking at the Canadian figures, btw

2) Gun ownership is not 'Constitutionally mandated'. The right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed. There is a clear difference between those terms. Not sure what Sass and Freeman would say, but I would indeed say that you can restrict the numbers and kinds of guns available and still abide by the Constitution (or better yet, agree to amend it as the US Constitution has been several times in the past), that would likely reduce gun deaths.

3) "That is unless you want to remove the right to own guns." All rights are conditional. Not everyone should have the right to assault weapon ownership.

4) 2Is the loss of 12,000 Americans worth the right to own guns?

Yes, it is. Freedom means that much to me." Well, freedom is worth a lot, but is it worth the lives of others? (I'm guessing you don't anticipate being one of those 12,000 any time soon).

Most other Western countries are no less 'free' than the USA, by the way. Your national propaganda machine is very powerful at building the mythos, but that doesn't make it true.

geojanes wrote:Every weapon has a purpose. I would argue that handguns have very little to do with keeping a repressive gov't in check, or revolution or anything geopolitcal. Rather, see what Lynyrd Skynyrd says.

Right, and for the woman trapped in a closet with an intruder trying to get through the door, the only salvation was . . . not government.

It was a handgun.

If a government does not have the right to regulate bedroom behavior, then what right does it have to tell me how I may defend myself within my own home if my life or the life of my family is at stake?

Liberals seem to think that rapists, murderers, and otherwise violent criminals can/should ONLY be taken on by the police. That is preposterous.