Now, let me point out again -- as anti-hand gun and anti-assault weapons as I am -- a very small percent of gun owners shoot people. Those who do shoot other people almost always use hand guns. [Of course, mass murders with rifles or assault weapons are an egregious exception.] A large share of hand gun deaths are among young minority males, generally in urban areas, who often are at least relatively poor, may be involved in the drug trade, and may be involved in gangs. — Bitter Crank

I think actually the only statistic that is easy to point out to be a direct and obvious consequence of the huge amount of weapons among people are the gun accident statistics. Not surprisingly, the US leads the charts by all accounts in gun related accidents. So many people that anywhere else wouldn't have a gun and aren't at all interested in guns have guns that are loaded in their drawer. And above all, the gun is intended for protection if someone invades the home, not for hunting. The fact is that the small handgun is far more dangerous and accident prone than a rifle or a machine gun: you don't easily accidental point at yourself or another person a machine gun (if you had one).

There is a huge problem of circular causality/feedback loops in figuring this out.

More guns generally means more gun deaths in US states, but murder rates are highest in urban areas with more significant gun control. The correlation between homicides and guns for US states is very weak. Internationally, it can show up as negative fairly often because guns are expensive and poorer countries have more homicides.

Notably, some areas of the US have low homicide rates in line with Europe and high gun ownership (Vermont or North Dakota for example have firearms in 48/56% of homes respectively and a handful of murders a year out of populations a decent bit larger than Baltimore, Baltimore had 315 murders last year and a murder rate on par with the worst Central American states), so it's a complex relationship.

"The homicide rate in the US was 7.5 times higher than the homicide rate in the other high-income countries combined, which was largely attributable to a firearm homicide rate that was 24.9 times higher." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30817955/#:~:text=The%20homicide%20rate%20in%20the%20US%20was%207.5,in%20the%20US%20than%20in%20other%20high-income%20countries..

What do you think outlawing guns (like the UK does) would do to the US murder rate?
— Down The Rabbit Hole

I think the murder rate would go down. However, if I was not allowed to own a gun, I think my personal chances of being murdered by a bear or a person increases. So outlawing gun possession is not a solution for me. I would prefer a questionnaire requirement to own a gun with at least one question: "Do you want to buy this gun to shoot some people who disagree with your beliefs?" If someone is crazy enough to answer yes to that question, they should not own a gun.

I think my personal chances of being murdered by a bear or a person increases. — Ree Zen

A bear might kill you, but it would not be murder. The idea that owning a gun makes you safer is completely false, as the number of crimes or assaults prevented by use of a licensed firearm is dwarfed by the numbers of suicides, murders and other criminal acts committed with guns. See https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

I would prefer a questionnaire requirement to own a gun — Ree Zen

Here's what you have to do to own a gun in Japan:

1. Join a hunting or shooting club.
2. Take a firearm class and pass a written exam, which is held up to three times a year.
3. Get a doctor’s note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse.
4. Apply for a permit to take firing training, which may take up to a month.
5. Describe in a police interview why you need a gun.
6. Pass a review of your criminal history, gun possession record, employment, involvement with organized crime groups, personal debt and relationships with friends, family and neighbors.
7. Apply for a gunpowder permit.
8. Take a one-day training class and pass a firing test.
9. Obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want.
10. Buy a gun safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations.
11. Allow the police to inspect your gun storage.
12. Pass an additional background review.
13. Buy a gun.

Total Number of Gun Deaths Japan

2018: 9
2017: 23
2016: 25
2015: 20

Source: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan

I think the requirements to possess a firearm should be increased in the US, In Texas right now, there is no requirement to ask even the most basic questions and there isn't even any legislation on the table to change that. Any moves to introduce legislation to add requirements to gun ownership is often reacted to with outrage of Constitutional violations. On the other hand, sometimes the legislation introduced is seeking immediate major changes to current gun ownership laws. I think there can be a set of the most basic questions that at the very least should be required.

What is the primary reason the murder rate in the United States is almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Because the US is a democracy, duh.

Because the US is a democracy, duh. — baker

This made me laugh...

But then with you, it's possible you are serious.

I do try.

If memory serves, I heard that a background check must be done when buying in any state, and you cannot buy if you are a felon, domestic abuser, or mentally unstable? I guess this is what's called a federal law - it cannot be ignored by the states?

It's not that the relationship is complex. When you factor in black-market drug association, criminal history, cultural influence, mental illness, relationship issues, and accidents the "complex relationship" concept breaks down entirely. More guns and access to them does not correlate to gun deaths in any way that is significant. What positively correlates to gun deaths is all the reasons WHY humans choose to kill people and commit crimes with them. This has always been that simple.

Gun quantity by state: https://www.statista.com/statistics/215655/number-of-registered-weapons-in-the-us-by-state/#:~:text=Texas%20was%20the%20state%20with,least%2C%20with%204%2C887%20registered%20firearms.

Gun deaths by state, adjustable by year:https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

There is no correlation.

I'm guessing you're in one of the safest areas on Atlanta's crime map? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It's just that there a whole lot of gun related deaths in fairly small pockets, so dividing by counties, city limits, ZIP codes, or whatever arbitrary method is only going to reveal statistics for the generalized area, but residents of those communities are aware of the actual areas where those crimes are occurring.

In terms of correlating gun ownership to murder, I don't know if the data will bear that out because of the large gun ownership in more rural communities where the murder rate is low. That is, you won't necessarily see murder increase where gun ownership increases. It's an obvious statement to say that if we eliminate guns, we'll eliminate gun related deaths, but it doesn't necessarily follow that if we reduce gun ownership, we'll reduce gun related deaths. There are and always will be plenty of guns to go around for those intent on murdering. Stricter gun laws are a feel good way of addressing the problem, and it serves also for the left to piss off the right, but, as a matter of effective policy, it's not terribly effective.

Stricter gun laws are a feel good way of addressing the problem, and it serves also for the left to piss off the right, but, as a matter of effective policy, it's not terribly effective. — Hanover

I don't know. It's fairly common (in an emergency department) to see gun crime that started as a dispute and then escalated.

Without the ridiculously easy access to firearms, those crimes wouldn't be so bad.

Would it eliminate gun crime altogether? No. Would it save lives (including the lives of so many poor kids who were unlucky enough to have a gun in there hands when they were angry?). Yes.

I don't know. It's fairly common (in an emergency department) to see gun crime that started as a dispute and then escalated.

Without the ridiculously easy access to firearms, those crimes wouldn't be so bad.

Would it eliminate gun crime altogether? No. Would it save lives (including the lives of so many poor kids who were unlucky enough to have a gun in there hands when they were angry?). Yes. — frank

This seems like reason, and an many occurences you're right. But, frankly, the correlation between access and crimes is simply not there by and large. I posted some data in an above post if you want to have a look. For example California has consistently had greater gun crime than Texas. Texas.. That's just one comparison of many. It really boils down to individual incentive, just like everything else.

I agree there are factors other than availability, like gang activity. Intuitively, it just doesn't seem likely that availability is of no importance, though.

But by 'availability' I meant how easy it is to get one, not how many are owned.

But by 'availability' I meant how easy it is to get one, not how many are owned. — frank

It's easier for a criminal to steal a gun, than it is for me, a non-criminal to gain one. I must save the money through labor, then go through the proper channels of back groundchecks. This happens to be why I haven't been able to get one in the past few years. It isn't easy to get one. It's easy to break the laws, that criminals do not care about, to obtain one.

Sure. As I said, there is gun crime that just started as a regular old disputes. There weren't necessarily any criminals involved.

The existence of criminal activity is no reason to withhold efforts to help there.

Sure. As I said, there is gun crime that just started as a regular old disputes. There weren't necessarily any criminals involved.

The existence of criminal activity is no reason to withhold efforts to help there. — frank

Yeah, I'm with you 100%.

:grin: :up:

Because most of them are of them are undereducated and watch too many movies that valorize violence. Ever talk to these people? Well don't! No analytic skills at all. Cannot tell the difference between being angry about something and explaining it.

Guns laws? I want to say as the lunatic gun advocates do that people kill people, not guns. True enough. Put a gun in my hand and I tremble at the possibility. But then, gun prevalence and living in a culture of violence glorified in the media, this is a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts: Makes people into "gun believers", familiarizes the culture with guns and violence, and if one is brought up in this visceral assault on our humanity, then...well, "then" is the trouble.
Maybe there is an old Testament God and maybe the time nears to build that ark.

Well, there are a lot more of us than there are of them, and we all have guns.

There is a huge problem of circular causality/feedback loops in figuring this out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In truth I think something simply like a turf war of organized crime (or the lack of it being organized) or competition for the lucrative drug trade can be the real reason for the statistics.

Although gang membership is difficult to pinpoint, local authorities estimate that there are over 100,000 active gang members in the Chicago metropolitan area. Collectively, Chicago street gangs serve as the primary mid-level and retail-level distributors of drugs in the city and are responsible for a
significant portion of the city’s violent crime.
_ _ _

Disputes between rival gangs or individual members are a contributing factor in Chicago’s recent rise in violent crime, with the majority of incidents occurring on the South and West Sides of Chicago where gang presence is high. Local authorities in Chicago have attributed much of this rise to the fracturing of Chicago’s street gangs into multiple factions that lack hierarchical authority. This fracturing has been the result of decades of internecine warfare among and within gangs, as well as the removal of many key leaders through incarceration or death. Consequently, previously agreed upon gang rules or social mores have dissolved and internal discipline has eroded. As a result, much of the violence in Chicago has become less controlled by gang leaders and more disorganized.

Very apt observations. There are "random shootings" but more often than not, the shooter and the target know each other. Gangs have taken territory seriously for a long time. Whether it's just the status of claiming 3 blocks as "theirs".

1957 Broadway Lyrics West Side Story. 1957 was nothing special in the history of gangs, of course. The 5 Points gangs in 19th century New York were bad news. Then there are the clans of Scotland, who were bloodthirsty gangs, designer plaids notwithstanding. Then the IRA, Sinn Féin, Royal Ulster Constabulary, the whole slug of Windsors, the KKK, KGB, CIA, etc.etc . etc.

RIFF
When you're a Jet,
You're a Jet all the way
From your first cigarette
To your last dyin' day.

When you're a Jet,
If the spit hits the fan,
You got brothers around,
You're a family man.

You're never alone,
You're never disconnected.
You're home with your own—
When company's expected,
You're well protected!

The Jets and Sharks didn't seem to be engaged in anything illegal, just brotherhood and turf-holding. And that produced reason enough to fight with knives and chains. Guns hadn't become de rigueur yet.

I think you're correct. Outside of gang members, there are also a large number of gang adjacent individuals who feel they can't trust/rely on police, and get dragged into the same sort of honor culture reciprocal violence. These organizations produce a shockingly high level of violence in Central America even with a much lower supply of fire arms per capita as well.

The hope is that the flare up in violence is actually a sign of gang's economic fundementals collapsing. Marijuana is legal for a large portion of the US population. Milder research chemicals, normally analogues of THC, as well as low potency drugs like kratom are sold over the counter at gas stations. Research analogs of all sorts of drugs from amphetamines, to benzodiazapines, to LSD are on regular sites. All sorts of illegal drugs can be easily procured through the mail via Tor sites, using cryptocurrency as a medium. Pornography, a substitute for prostitute, is hosted for free by hordes of opportunists. This is killing the cartels and gangs.

In a way, it's sort of a natural experiment showing how dumb prohibition was, as not only does this result in less violence, but it also allows people to have illicit substances lab tested for purity, something you still have to worry about with US pharmacueticals since the FDA allows a huge average variance in quality.

The quasi-conspiracy theory I'm going to lay on you is that gangs are part of a situation that was intentionally fostered: they built projects for black people to live in, allowed those communities to be inundated by drugs (there's more credibility to that than I would have thought : the FBI looked into it.). And refusing to do gun control not only reduces the population of black men, but makes sure a lot of them end up behind bars. For real, black men have the highest mortality rate in the US demographically.

I'm not saying it is all orchestrated. I'm saying the way choices are made is partly influenced by an interest in undermining progress for blacks. Maybe it's a leftover from the late 1960s?

The hope is that the flare up in violence is actually a sign of gang's economic fundementals collapsing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that is way too optimistic to think so. In truth only a rise in the economic prosperity and a functioning local economy in the society will dramatically alter crime. Then only those who genuinely want to be criminals are criminals.

The quasi-conspiracy theory I'm going to lay on you is that gangs are part of a situation that was intentionally fostered: they built projects for black people to live in, allowed those communities to be inundated by drugs (there's more credibility to that than I would have thought : the FBI looked into it.). And reusing to do gun control not only reduces the population of black men, but makes sure a lot of them end up behind bars. For real, black men have the highest mortality rate in the US demographically.

I'm not saying it is all orchestrated. I'm saying the way choices are made is partly influenced by an interest in undermining the progress for blacks. Maybe it's a leftover from the late 1960s? — frank

I genuinely think that drugs are a way to control the masses in the US as vodka has been a way to control the Russians. Only two Russian leaders have tried to take the vodka-bottle out of the hands of the Russian people. Both events lead to the collapse of the state (the leaders were Nikolai II and Gorbachev). It's not a deliberate written policy you will find somewhere. It's just a thing that leaders are happy with, because it makes any organizing of a social movement difficult.

Without all the description drugs, and the "undescribed" drugs you too would have a revolution.

And don't get your hopes on it being a revolution that you would want to see, @Frank.

The quasi-conspiracy theory I'm going to lay on you is that gangs are part of a situation that was intentionally fostered: they built projects for black people to live in, allowed those communities to be inundated by drugs (there's more credibility to that than I would have thought : the FBI looked into it.). And refusing to do gun control not only reduces the population of black men, but makes sure a lot of them end up behind bars. For real, black men have the highest mortality rate in the US demographically. — frank

It is a quasi-conspiracy.

Yes, they did build projects for black people to live in, and the initial experience of the residents was good. There was a flaw, however: too many families, too many children. Little children don't join gangs. When they get to be teen-agers, they do. The housing projects didn't spawn gangs, but they were infiltrated by nearby gangs who sold drugs, fought turf battles, and gradually turned the projects into a social disaster for the residents.

Was this inevitable?

No, but preventing this unfortunate outcome (which some cities, like New York, managed to prevent) required good advance planning and proactive policing and maintenance. Cities like Chicago failed.

The gangs proceeded the housing.

Gun manufacture is, of course, a perfectly legitimate capitalist activity. Gang members might buy some guns brand-new at gun shops, but are much more likely to acquire guns from a shadowy secondary market. Gang members are usually not gun nuts; quite often they use cheap hand guns, not the items that gun nuts desire. (I'm extrapolating here, sort of guessing.).

Adolescent male gang members behave like your typical adolescent male whose emotional control is not well developed. They are a touchy lot, kind of tetchy at times. Upset them and a spray of bullts is the result. Then too, gangs have a habit of more cooly settling scores with guns. But, as bad luck would have it, they aren't marksmen so there is quite often collateral damage.

The conspiracy isn't public housing, drugs, or guns. The "conspiracy" -- if you can call it that -- is 155 years worth of post-slavery economic, political, and social suppression of blacks. The substructure and superstructure of racial suppression has been reduced, but it hasn't been torn down the way the old housing projects have been. Groups subjected to ongoing suppression and marginalization tend not to do well. Some individuals escape, do OK, maybe flourish and excel, but a most don't.

All that is not critical race theory, that's just conventional history. If the Brooklyn Bridge was a conspiracy, most Brooklynites and New Yorkers played no part in it, even if they benefitted from its construction. Same thing with racial suppression. Most whites were not part of the conspiracy, even if they were OK with the results.

Would suppose the aftermath of slavery and later Jim crow laws is the biggest driver. A gigantic lower class construed. Also the home of the rap culture. The symbolic defeat of the hope for a fair race and the biggest driver for glorification of crime worldwide. All the making of the guys who really were racists.

But of course, gun laws, lack of social welfare, immigration on an uncomtrolled scale, drugs do not help.

The cure - the fair race as the vision. The ruthless meritocracy with comfortability strictly doled out according to personal merit. And no fast lanes from birth. No mommies asking offspring what they want to do with life. All in the same race and all work office/factory/hospital hours until same age retirement. If you want to talk justice, are you ready to walk that walk? Crime would be pretty hard to commit in a community like that, wouldnt it?

The conspiracy isn't public housing, drugs, or guns. The "conspiracy" -- if you can call it that -- is 155 years worth of post-slavery economic, political, and social suppression of blacks. — Bitter Crank

Partly it's also about poverty being this vicious cycle: poverty creates poverty. If some region is poor, it likely will stay poor. Active entrepreneurial people will move to bigger places where there are jobs and it's the old and the poor with not much to offer that will stay. The smart investments will likely go somewhere else. For this to happen you don't need racial or ethnic differences or divides. You being from the poor neighborhood can be a stigma. That city dwellers look down on the country folk and the countryside dweller being suspicious about the city slickers is actually quite universal. When you add ethnicity and race to mix, the issues just become more ugly.

What you say here is absolutely true. It is also true that various entities and 'forces' put poor blacks where they ended up as much as that was possible, and structured housing and other policies on the "No Exit" principle.

So, a lot of white people ended up at the bottom too, as per your description, When groups that could be identified (like Asians, Mexicans, effeminate swishy gays, blacks, etc.) they also were subjected to policy limitations, plus the processes you describe.

I don't think you can reduce it all to the economy either. The correlation between economic growth and income and violence is also very weak. It can show up as stronger in the US, but only if you restrict your dataset to urban areas. There are many poor areas with low crime (often rural areas) and wealthier areas high crime (often suburban exclaves).

Some of the US's poorest counties have violent crime rates below the national average. Many aren't their own reporting units due to low population, so you'll see websites that list them as high crime based on demographic projection models, but these models turn out to be way off. These a large gaps, less than $25,009 average incomes vs $75,000.

The same thing is even more apparent internationally, particularly comparing poor nations in East Asia to Central America.

Income inequality is a much better predictor of violent crime. Which suggests to me that it is more of a social relationship factor. It's less about absolute privation and more about how people see themselves. Hence, you can have the Amish, who don't have heat, refrigeration, K-12 education, or modern tools, who beat the average on crime, farm productivity, debt, small business success, etc. and even out earn the average for surrounding communities in some cases.