One for the Americans - Keep and bear arms.... and get shot.

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by gobbyidiot, Oct 15, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From this week's New Scientist -

    "Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

    While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates".

    If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail......
  2. Interesting, I've owned Firearms since 1981 and never been shot, or shot at and live in NYC. Nor do I feel a sense of empowerment from owning them, more a sense of responsibility.

    As to the Study

    South Philly? of those 677 how many were Gangbangers, Drug related, Mob related, Motorcycle gang related? Philly is the Beirut of the eastern seaboard.

    There was an eye opening documentary by Louis Theroux on philly last year but I cant find a link to it except this

    If you think Chavs are bad try Phillys street culture
  3. I've seen this before. You know the old saying 'Lies, damn lies, and statistics'. It's very fitting here.

    I'm sure it came from this bunch of lunatics originally:
  4. What he said. In such studies I have found it useful to actually drill down into the data if possible since such numbers can so often be skewed on way or the other. In a battle of the studies I prefer the work of Professor Lott who established that "more guns =less crime.

    Also in Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence,, in no less than the usually liberal Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Professors Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.” In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world’s highest murder rate.

    To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia’s extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

    More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

    For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary’s murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria’s, but Austria’s gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary’s. “Norway,” they note, “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands,” in contrast, “has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) … yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian.”

    Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, “murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced.” As the authors note, “strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world.”

    Citing England, for instance, they reveal that “when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime.” By the late 1990s, however, “England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns.” As a result, “by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.” In America, on the other hand, “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s.”

    Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that “the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world,” where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

    Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

    The reason that gun ownership doesn’t correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. “Ordinary people,” they note, “simply do not murder.” Rather, “the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership” in their society.

    Therefore, “banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates.” According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, “there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive.” Also
  5. No offence mate, but i'd be interested to see exactly where that information comes from when thats stated - theres no source given for where it comes from, hence i'm not quite sure on the reliability of that.

    Not that i'm saying its untrue, i'd just like to know what source shes using to state that both Russia and the UK have higher death rates due to firearms than the US. Primarily as I could say that cream cheese on crackers is better than pizza, but if I don't back it up with some source that agrees with that, it may not be accurate. See what I'm getting at?
  6. Fair point--I will see if I can find anything on it. Surely though anything from "Hahvaaad" must be accurate--I mean the LEADER OF THE WORLD went there. :D
  7. Damn, I keep forgetting that. Or as my mate refers to him, a secret Latino. Why? He lives in a house that ain't his own, and says he's gonna change but never does.

    Badum-tish. :wink:
  8. so, in america, people who routinely carry firearms (cops, criminals, the insane) are more likely to get shot than people who dont carry firearms (nurses, teachers, dentists)? makes sense. did we really need a report to tell us that people who are at risk of getting shot tend to carry guns?

    The Register - Packing Heat Gets You Shot, say profs
  9. It isn't "as a result" - there is no correlation between the two as the firearms that were banned were those held for target shooting, owning a firearm for personal defence reasons let alone carrying it in public has been effectively impossible due to Government Policy (not law) since the 1950s.

    The growth in violent crime started in the fifties and has grown ever since.

    I'm all for good, decent honest persons being armed for self defence.

    My "target shooting" ten shot Remington 870 does me quite nicely though.
  10. Here is the pdf of the article itself-it appears to be heavily footnoted.

    Gun Article
  11. Ah, Philly- a place where the crowd a boos and throws snowballs at Santa, aims laser pointers at baseball players trying to stare down 95mph fastballs and a judge (a former marine and cop) started convening his court in the basement of the stadium to save time and money. My favorite story though- when Phillies fans booed when a ceremonial first pitch rumbled over home plate- the pitcher was the first person in the United States to receive a hand transplant, and yes, he threw with the transplanted hand.
  12. I've had this argument with the likes of Ctauch before. Your argument is comparing apples and oranges. UK violent crime figures includes everything down to common assault- which doesn't even require the actual use of force, only a credible threat. The US (FBI) figures, for example, don't count anything less severe than assault with a deadly weapon.
  13. I also have many textured memories of Philly having been stationed as the Guard Officer at the Marine Barracks at the old Navy Yard at "the foot of broad." As I would go for training runs through South Philly on the weekend I would marvel at the funerals and weddings in the Italian quarter--straight out of Central Casting for a mob movie. Until the casket or the happy couple emerged, you could never tell which event was which!
  14. JumpinJarhead said:

    Thanks for the kind comments about Harvard (I think). Associating it with The Chosen One seems a bit like "damning with faint praise".

    I will say, based on my time there at Kennedy School of Gov't, that Harvard has rigourous peer review for articles published in Harvard journals at all of the component schools.

    Also, when I was at KSG they offered several statistics course. I took the less rigourous course and it was still a tough course. I recall the professor saying the first day that he did not expect to turn us into expert statistical scientists, he just wanted us to learn how to determine of someones statistics were bullshit. At several points in the course, to illustrate illegitimate massaging of statistics to meet a political agenda, he deconstructed CDC reports and several were on gun control, an issue dear to the hearts of some at CDC. Interestingly, the anti-gun bias at CDC seems to be among the civilian staff. I do not recall any anti-gun articles from members of the USPHS Commissioned Corps.

    (note for non-US Arrser's, the Public Health Service here includes a corps of commissioned officers. They wear uniforms similar to USN and have the same rank structure. Also, for the walt hunters, yes they get medals and ribbons. IMHO officers who will deploy at a moments notice to one of the earth's hell holes into the middle of an Ebola outbreak deserve medals)
  15. I might also point out that the country's social model makes a big difference, for instance, without doing anything more than skimming this forum I would hazard Norwegian guns are in the hands of predominantly rural owners who don't experience anything like the hazards of Philadelphia.

    Likewise one might ask how effective gun control legislation was in the USSR before accepting it as valid...