Attention Where did the Mesa cop shooting thread go?

[Alistair]

 

[Alistair]

Take from the numbers what you will

 

[NotHardUp1]

Gun deaths percentages do not tell the tale due to the great disparity between states like California and New York versus much less populated states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.

Six in ten rural statistic is translated as 60% of 20% of the national population. If the population is 350 million, then all the guns would be rural, and we know that is not true. The true data is hard to get.

The maps of population and gun deaths would be insightful.

 

[NotHardUp1]

[STRIKE]My post above should begin with "Gun." Apologies.[/STRIKE]

Additionally, the murder rate would surely be a relevant correlation, as the guns are certainly the most common mode of murder. The map below shows that murder isn't prejudiced toward the rural areas so much. It is reasonable to assume that rural gun ownership is indeed about hunting, sporting, and vermin control primarily, with few occasions to use in security situations.

It should be informative to read up on how population density in the US civilization may contribute to both violence and gun crime.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Murder by absolute numbers, not per capita:

Source and some data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/

 

[KaraBulut]

Hmm... then I wonder why the difference in how urban and rural gunowners are viewed?

I think that the urban gun owners rarely tell anyone about their guns or brag about them...

Country folks seem proud of guns and like to be part of a club that is actually very political and has little to do with guns IMO....

No. Country people have shotguns and fewer rifles for hunting. Urban people are more likely to have hand guns..

Maybe urban guns are more often used for crime?

After the Sandy Hook shootings where 20 elementary school children and 6 teachers were killed by one gunman, the Obama adminstration made some proposals like increased background checks. Urban police organizations made statements in favor of the additional screening; several rural sheriffs' organizations made statements in opposition. This highlighted the difference between how rural law enforcement views guns vs how guns are viewed in urban areas. It's something that needs to be researched.

Underneath all of this are some stereotypes that Americans have about guns and gun ownership. Alistair founds some of the charts from FBI reports, NORC and Pew research that show the real numbers.

Plainly, put most Americans believe that the typical handgun owner is black and lives in large cities where crime is rampant and the police are helpless to stop gun deaths. The other stereotype is that handguns are in the cities and long guns are in rural areas where guns are needed for hunting. These are stereotypes portrayed on television shows and in the media. Unfortunately, these are incorrect stereotypes.

Most guns in American are owned by white men who live in the Southeastern US. That's what is reflected in the chart in post #59. According to the Pew research, 46 percent of adults in rural areas said they owned a gun 28 percent of adults in the suburbs said they owned guns, and 19 percent of those in urban areas said they owned a gun.

A scary fact: 50% of the guns in American are owned by 3% of the population. These "super-collectors" are largely white men and they live in rural areas of the Southeastern US.

That chart in post #60? There's something to know about those numbers: Two out of every 3 gun-related deaths in the US is a suicide. This is why per-capita gun deaths are higher in states like Montana. White men in rural and suburban areas are killing themselves at higher rates and since they have a lot of guns, they typical shoot themselves.

Murders and robberies that involve guns are higher in urban areas but not the urban areas that most people believe. Rates are significantly higher in the Southeastern US where the guns are- New Orleans, Birmingham, Memphis, Houston, Miami all had higher gun deaths than LA, NYC, Seattle and Boston.

There's also some evidence that the perceptions about guns in cities have to do with higher crime rates in the cities for things like robberies even though not all of these robberies involve guns (which is why the chart in post #64 could be misleading - murders and murders by gun are different statistics). There's also some distortion because crimes are more likely to be reported in cities- statistics from the CDC estimate that about 1/3 of rapes, robberies and domestic violence in rural areas are never reported to the police or the police do not file reports on them.

Most of the people in the Pew research said they own guns for protection- this was true in the cities, in the suburbs and in rural areas and it was a reason cited by about 60-70% of people in all areas of the US. People don't buy long guns for protection; they buy handguns.

Someone should research the difference in attitude between urban and rural law enforcement toward gun laws. The statistics say that most of the guns are in rural areas. Violent crime in the cities is higher but not all violent crime involves guns. It may be that law enforcement in general is subject to the same stereotypes about gun ownership, race and urban violence that most of us are subject to.

 

[Zeno Lorea]

It should be informative to read up on how population density in the US civilization may contribute to both violence and gun crime.

It should be even more informative read up on how population density should contribute to gun crime in the USA but not in the EU. Why would that be? Ah, yes, of course. Gun control laws.

 

[Alistair]

It should be even more informative read up on how population density should contribute to gun crime in the USA but not in the EU. Why would that be? Ah, yes, of course. Gun control laws.

What would be interesting to see in the EU is if they just find different means of committing the crimes, because of the gun laws.

 

[peeonme]

What would be interesting to see in the EU is if they just find different means of committing the crimes, because of the gun laws.

I would venture to say that when it comes to the heat of the moment fight or argument that few lives are lost in the EU, it's not that easy to kill a person without a gun.

 

[HoodedRat]

^
^
In Britain if someone is going to mug you, for example, they don't really need to pull a gun on you as almost no British people are armed. A knife will suffice. If British people were armed to the teeth with defensive weaponry the criminals would have to arm themselves too. But, no doubt, we will end up like the US in the not to distant future.

I have never been in fear of guns in the UK until relatively recently. Due to te continued threat Islamic terrorism, we nowadays occasionally see armed police patrolling the city centre here. It is a very depressing sight to see gun-toting cops on the streets of England.

 

[Telstra]

^ In Paris, i saw guns carried by soldiers everywhere now.

 

[peeonme]

^
^
In Britain if someone is going to mug you, for example, they don't really need to pull a gun on you as almost no British people are armed. A knife will suffice. If British people were armed to the teeth with defensive weaponry the criminals would have to arm themselves too. But, no doubt, we will end up like the US in the not to distant future.

I have never been in fear of guns in the UK until relatively recently. Due to te continued threat Islamic terrorism, we nowadays occasionally see armed police patrolling the city centre here. It is a very depressing sight to see gun-toting cops on the streets of England.

My point was in what we call second degree murder. In America most deaths by fire arms are caused by acquaintances or family members. At one time we exchanges a few insults, maybe threw a punch or two, now it's grab a gun.

As for the knife, I have had a few pulled on me, I am glad that they weren't guns.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Underneath all of this are some stereotypes that Americans have about guns and gun ownership. Alistair found some of the charts from FBI reports, NORC and Pew research that show the real numbers.

Those are the guns with declared owners. How many are there not declared?

Plainly, put most Americans believe that the typical handgun owner is black and lives in large cities where crime is rampant and the police are helpless to stop gun deaths. The other stereotype is that handguns are in the cities and long guns are in rural areas where guns are needed for hunting. These are stereotypes portrayed on television shows and in the media. Unfortunately, these are incorrect stereotypes.

Most guns in American are owned by white men who live in the Southeastern US. That's what is reflected in the chart in post #59. According to the Pew research, 46 percent of adults in rural areas said they owned a gun 28 percent of adults in the suburbs said they owned guns, and 19 percent of those in urban areas said they owned a gun.

So, how does the gun ownership paragraph tie to the handgun statement. The two do not appear correlated.

And, that statement borders on propaganda. Most people who own guns never use them to harm other people. See how that works? It's empirically true, yet absolutely irrelevant. If gun ownership were the source of violence instead of an enabling factor for the few who enact violent crimes, then the statement would be useful and have bearing.

A scary fact: 50% of the guns in American are owned by 3% of the population. These "super-collectors" are largely white men and they live in rural areas of the Southeastern US.

For that to be scary, there needs to be correlation of that gun ownership and a significant rate of abuse of the guns. How many of that assumed 3% are convicted of some gun crime? 100% of homes have sharp knives, and the homes with the most sharp knives are not the ones involved in knife crimes. I'm actually for gun control, but the appellation of "scary" mixed with a disjoint stat, colored by race, doesn't come across as anything but speculative or pejorative.

-That chart in post #60? There's something to know about those numbers: Two out of every 3 gun-related deaths in the US is a suicide. This is why per-capita gun deaths are higher in states like Montana. White men in rural and suburban areas are killing themselves at higher rates and since they have a lot of guns, they typical shoot themselves.

Are gun related deaths synonymous with "murder"? The chart is labelled murder. Although suicide remains illegal in most places, it is not usually classed a murder, is it?

Murders and robberies that involve guns are higher in urban areas but not the urban areas that most people believe. Rates are significantly higher in the Southeastern US where the guns are- New Orleans, Birmingham, Memphis, Houston, Miami all had higher gun deaths than LA, NYC, Seattle and Boston.

Gee, I don't think many of the folks I know think if Seattle and Boston as murder hubs. Likewise, Miami and Houston and New Orleans have been well known.

Memphis and Birmingham are relatively lower population cities, like Albuquerque, so the per capita rates look really bad and are per capita, but absolute numbers are not so high.

Chicago is the murder capital of the country but is missed in your list of the notorious, plus DC.

There's also some evidence that the perceptions about guns in cities have to do with higher crime rates in the cities for things like robberies even though not all of these robberies involve guns (which is why the chart in post #64 could be misleading - murders and murders by gun are different statistics). There's also some distortion because crimes are more likely to be reported in cities- statistics from the CDC estimate that about 1/3 of rapes, robberies and domestic violence in rural areas are never reported to the police or the police do not file reports on them.

Who estimates 1/3 of robberies are not reported? Domestic crimes and rapes, absolutely, and all over, but one would think there is little incentive to not report a robbery unless the victim was robbed of illicit goods, like a doper not reporting stolen proceeds, stolen goods, etc.

Most of the people in the Pew research said they own guns for protection- this was true in the cities, in the suburbs and in rural areas and it was a reason cited by about 60-70% of people in all areas of the US. People don't buy long guns for protection; they buy handguns.

I've never owned a gun, but I have many times heard people counsel others to buy a shotgun for neophytes to use because they do not have to have the accuracy.

I'm also for gun control, and pretty strict, but I also believe the stats are distorted by both sides in the debate, and intentionally.

Someone should research the difference in attitude between urban and rural law enforcement toward gun laws. The statistics say that most of the guns are in rural areas. Violent crime in the cities is higher but not all violent crime involves guns. It may be that law enforcement in general is subject to the same stereotypes about gun ownership, race and urban violence that most of us are subject to.[/QUOTE

I'd believe that. It was also stated on the murder site that only about 73% of murders were committed with guns. My hat's off to those of you out there who are willing to get more involved than the impersonal firearm.

Still need to see direct correlation to the high ownership relevance to criminal acts with the same.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

^
^
In Britain if someone is going to mug you, for example, they don't really need to pull a gun on you as almost no British people are armed. A knife will suffice. If British people were armed to the teeth with defensive weaponry the criminals would have to arm themselves too. But, no doubt, we will end up like the US in the not to distant future.

I have never been in fear of guns in the UK until relatively recently. Due to te continued threat Islamic terrorism, we nowadays occasionally see armed police patrolling the city centre here. It is a very depressing sight to see gun-toting cops on the streets of England.

It actually took a bunch of mass shootings in the 80s and 90s for gun laws to really change in the UK (Hungerford and Dunblane for example). Prior to that it was pretty easy to have guns including the Type 56 semi automatic rifle used in that.

 

[KaraBulut]

Those are the guns with declared owners. How many are there not declared?

Actually, no. Depending on which set of statistics you're looking at, the data can be from either interviews/surveys of the public or from analysis of gun sales/permits.

So, how does the gun ownership paragraph tie to the handgun statement. The two do not appear correlated.

Most of the analysis looking at gun ownership doesn't distinguish between long guns, semiautomatic weapons and handguns. Why? Because in many US states, you don't need a gun permit or a background check to buy a long gun. To get that analysis, you have to look at gun sales and even that has been intentionally made opaque by lobby groups for gun manufacturers and gun dealers.

If gun ownership were the source of violence instead of an enabling factor for the few who enact violent crimes, then the statement would be useful and have bearing.

Here's a newsflash: areas that have a high number of opiates in circulation also have high rates of death from overdose. Surprised?

Well, then you shouldn't be surprised that areas with the highest number of guns have the highest number of gun-related deaths (self-inflicted or otherwise). People with a mission to injure and kill will use the most efficient means available to them. It's both common sense and supported in the research.

How many of that assumed 3% are convicted of some gun crime?

The statisticians made no such correlation. Their analysis was to show that while the numbers show that there are more guns in circulation in the US than there are people, the distribution (demographically and geographically) is not uniform across the US population.

Are gun related deaths synonymous with "murder"? The chart is labelled murder. Although suicide remains illegal in most places, it is not usually classed a murder, is it?

Look again. The chart in post #60 says "deaths" not "murder". There's a big problem with guns and suicide in the US that no one talks about. It's important to know that the chart is not implying "murders" because 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Gee, I don't think many of the folks I know think if Seattle and Boston as murder hubs. Likewise, Miami and Houston and New Orleans have been well known.

It doesn't matter what "folks" thing. Researchers look at all urban areas when analyzing crime statistics from the FBI.

Memphis and Birmingham are relatively lower population cities, like Albuquerque, so the per capita rates look really bad and are per capita, but absolute numbers are not so high.

Per capita rates are the most objective measure.

Chicago is the murder capital of the country but is missed in your list of the notorious, plus DC.

I left Chicago out of the list because, even though it has a high murder rate compared to other large cities, statistically it's not as bad as the cities that I mentioned. It's an example of how the media shapes our perceptions about "the gun problem".

The population of Chicago is 2.7 million. In 2016, they had 762 homicides (28.2 per 100,000 people).
Birmingham Alabama has a population of 212,000. In 2016, they had 104 homicides (49.1 per 100,000 people).

How many reports are on the nightly news about Birmingham?

For the record, the state of Alabama is listed as #3 on the list of states with the highest homicide rates.

Who estimates 1/3 of robberies are not reported? Domestic crimes and rapes, absolutely, and all over, but one would think there is little incentive to not report a robbery unless the victim was robbed of illicit goods, like a doper not reporting stolen proceeds, stolen goods, etc.

That is an FBI and DOJ statistic.

I've never owned a gun, but I have many times heard people counsel others to buy a shotgun for neophytes to use because they do not have to have the accuracy.

It depends on what you're buying it for. If it's for self-defense then a handgun is going to be your most efficient option for protecting yourself. If accuracy is an issue, then the person should either go to a firing range with instructors or they shouldn't be shooting a gun.

I'm also for gun control, and pretty strict, but I also believe the stats are distorted by both sides in the debate, and intentionally.

That's why I tend to favor stats from KFF or the FBI. I do look at other interest groups' reports- like the NRA or the Brady Campaign- but I usually go to look at the original data where possible. Objectively, both the NRA and Brady have good numbers but they are both selective in which numbers they include in their promotional materials.

 

[opinterph]

I've never owned a gun, but I have many times heard people counsel others to buy a shotgun for neophytes to use because they do not have to have the accuracy.

It depends on what you're buying it for. If it's for self-defense then a handgun is going to be your most efficient option for protecting yourself. If accuracy is an issue, then the person should either go to a firing range with instructors or they shouldn't be shooting a gun.

Accuracy can become a difficult prospect when you find yourself in a state of alarm and your “fight or flight response” (AKA: hyper arousal, acute stress response) kicks in. Even with previous instructor training on a firing range, that little wiggle in your nervous wrist can make it quite challenging to send the missile where you want it to go. It becomes more complicated in the case of a moving target. Hence, the shotgun is sometimes recommended for personal protection in the home. Just knowing that precision in your aim isn’t a major factor (should you decide it is necessary to point and pull the trigger) might actually help you keep calm during whatever emergency your senses are reporting to you. Remaining calm is quite possibly the most valuable tool to help you through those situations – even better than having a gun in your home.

 

[NotHardUp1]

It still remains prejudicial to term "scary" for gun ownership. There must be a correlation between the owning of many guns and the commission of crime or violence for that to be reasonably scary. As I said, knives are common weapons of harm too, but simply owning many knives does not predispose one to think of using them to stab people. Guns indeed have common uses that do not involve offensive actions.

Likewise, post 60 reads "deaths," but 64 plainly describes "murder."

And per capita may be "objective," but there is more to the incidence of violent death than mere demographic rates per 100,000. The types of ridiculous murders such as drive by shootings in big cities just rarely happen in the hinterland. I lived and worked near Memphis in the 80's. The crime there is very, very different from the surrounding areas. There were cases where a driver might stop at a red light and the window would be broken and the driver robbed. That never was reported in the surrounding area. There is a quality of anonymity in the city that fosters a degree and type of violence that would be much more timid in the areas where you might be found and served cold justice.

I might suspect domestic violence to be worse in less urban areas due to the victims, mostly women with children, to simply have no place to go and fewer shelters, although that has improved some of late.

Gun violence is a scourge in America to be sure, but one of the things that perpetually helps to defeat the reforms necessary is the zero sum statistical warfare from the left that equates gun ownership with motivation to harm. Gun ownership has been high for a couple of centuries, but not the violence that we see now.

 

[opinterph]

It still remains prejudicial to term "scary" for gun ownership.

One man’s scary is another man’s comfort.

There must be a correlation between the owning of many guns and the commission of crime or violence for that to be reasonably scary.

Some people accumulate large collections of guns as a countermeasure to help themselves and their friends survive a period of extensive civil unrest that they perceive to be a distinct possibility at some point in the future. Those guns are not “in circulation.” They are being held in storage.

 

[KaraBulut]

...Even with previous instructor training on a firing range, that little wiggle in your nervous wrist can make it quite challenging to send the missile where you want it to go. It becomes more complicated in the case of a moving target. Hence, the shotgun is sometimes recommended for personal protection in the home.

We're in the weeds here but the trauma statistics show pretty much equal lethality between smoothbore scattershot and handguns when then the caliber, capacity and force are sufficient.

I've heard some opinions about using shotguns for shear "knockdown" value but that assumes you're going to be shooting from a close range (which generally you don't want when dealing with an assailant) and when there's little chance of collateral damage from the shot (which in a home is always a concern). Most of the experienced weapon owners that I know have handguns for home protection because they are easy to retrieve and they believe that the higher capacity will result in a situation where the interloper will hit the ground with little likelihood of getting back up. Handguns also lessen the likelihood that other people in the home or nearby furry family members will be harmed.

Having seen a fair share of gunshot wounds of all types over the years, the only thing that I would observe is that buckshot is messy but is more likely to be lethal at close range (but unfortunately the buckshot it also very likely to pass completely through).

This is probably where the non-American members are recoiling in horror that Americans know this kind of stuff.

 

[HoodedRat]

This is probably where the non-American members are recoiling in horror that Americans know this kind of stuff.

I think many non-Americans recoil in horror at the whole concept of American gun-culture.