Gun Violence is Not Homogeneous. Why Do We Look for a Homogeneous Solution?

This one got me thinking about violence, gun violence, how we measure these things, etc.

Measuring deaths, gun deaths, gun violence, etc. is fraught with problems. It is measured differently in different places. Why then, do we here all these things interchangeably? I will concede some of what follows may fall victim to this mix and match.

Why do parts of the US have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world while other parts have some of the highest? Maine has a lower homicide rate per 100,000 than Finland or France. Louisiana is on track with places like Russia or Uganda.

A place like Chicago skews the state of Illinois. Illinois skews the whole US. Newfoundland is safer than Luxembourg. But Northwest Territories makes Angola and Iraq seem tranquil and loving. What are you up to Canada?

New Hampshire has relatively relaxed gun laws and low homicide rates. California has relatively restrictive gun laws and high homicide rates.
Utah and Missouri have similar gun laws but very different homicide rates. Does this demonstrate a low correlation between gun law and gun deaths?

The study concludes mental illness, suicide, gang violence, and domestic violence are all important factors that drive gun violence. Misses adds history, residential mobility, and cultural heterogeneity also play a role.

The author suggests narrow, tailored approaches to the different problems in different locations with different populations. Example: Older men in the US lead in gun suicides. Women are endangered more by certain men with guns. Youths in urban areas are more prone to gun violence. These three examples require very different approaches.

I readily admit I do not have all the answers. I am simply trying to demonstrate the problem is complex and not as straight forward as the MSM might lead one to believe.

"We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves." - Libresco

References:
"No such thing as an American homicide rate" mises.org...

"I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise." www.washingtonpost.com... c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.a85d51ec3dc0

"The Mass Shooting Fix" fivethirtyeight.com...

"Does Ethnic Heterogeneity Make Homicide Worse in the Americas?" mises.org...

"List of countries by intentional homicide rate" en.wikipedia.org...

"Gun Deaths In America" fivethirtyeight.com...

a reply to: ABNARTY

Not done reading yet. Just wanted to throw a thumbs up your way really quick. ps, first.



I am in, lets do it that way.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Why is a poor solution the only one offered?

Perhaps the reason lies in the fact that inner cities are rittled with people that do nothing other than leech from the system and/or commit crime to survive. To live outside of a city would not be possible, therefore they congregate and multiply. You know the ones... and it is the same way in every big city. The thing is, to address the facts is to be a racist or a bigot, and we cannot have that.

The next issue is the system keeping this problem in place. Big business hip-hop (likely a branch of the leftist/globalist and ultimately anti-white agenda) and other forms of mass media like CNN are complicit in creating a toxic culture that is soaked up like a drug and mimicked. Cannot turn on the TV, open a magazine, open a social media ap, without this toxic culture being forcefed to the witness.

Accept our differences. We are not all the same and that's okay. To pretend we are all alike and everyone's individual/collective interpretation of living 'should be tolerated' is destroying the USA from within.

a reply to: ABNARTY

The melting pot experiment has been an abject failure. The US is too diverse, too fractured, and has far too many conflicting priorities and values for any homogeneous solutions to work for any of our major issues, be they violence, welfare, health care, or education. Unless and until we accept the fact that success and failure are part of the diversity of Americans, in all things, we'll never stop spinning our wheels.

a reply to: ABNARTY

You also have to factor in the times guns are used in self defense situations and not I'm talking just fatalities, but times guns were used to stop or prevent violence.

As you state in the OP, some of the places with the most restrictive gun ownership laws have the highest homicide rates. As the number of guns in the U.S. has risen, the homicide rate with guns has declined. There is more to the picture.

a reply to: pavil

Absolutely there is more to the picture.

The second reading outlines the authors frustration trying to nail it down. Folks want a simple causality. Here, we do not have one.

a reply to: chadderson

Urban areas worldwide tend to have higher homicide rates.

Why do you think that is?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm not convinced it's an abject failure just yet.

I am convinced the solutions for the US are unique and complex. Our politicians most likely are not up to it.

Maybe that's why I am tired of endless comparisons to Denmark or Japan or whatever.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I believe it "is" because the ease of city life attracts and permits bad company.

Be bad enough, in high enough concentration, and create one's own "no go zone" for outsiders and their law enforcement.

a reply to: chadderson

I agree. Any animal in high concentration tend to get sporty.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Aye, but with the human aspect that "sportiness" can be fanned and fueled by social engineering... to hideous ends.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Here's how it really works:

Everyone is different. Our lives are different.

Each of us individually makes choices every day.
Anything can happen. 99% of us are good people and make the right decisions when faced with the choice to do violence or to refuse to do violence.

So these shootings are randomized because we are all capable of creating a new reality every day. We all make different decisions and can change at the drop of a hat.

So therefore yes, in the end, statistics and ratings are generally bogus and give a very misleading perspective. In fact, the only real value of such things comes after we realize how very little accuracy or value such statistics offer to begin with.

In other words, 99% of the ideas we gather by viewing statistics are inaccurate and misled. Yes I employed a statistic when saying that on purpose.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I have hunch that if you look at the rates of incarceration, i.e., how long of jail/prison sentences people receive for similar charges state to state, you will get a correlation to the longer the sentences, the more homicides. Just a guess, haven't done the research myself. Great OP, S&F.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I think the best point in favor of gun control is taking a look at automatic weapons. We haven't outright banned them, but they are heavily restricted. Despite all the gun violence in the country, automatic weapons aren't the culprit. Clearly, the idea of making more lethal guns too expensive to use in a crime works. I see no reason why the same logic can't be applied to other existing weapons.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ABNARTY

The melting pot experiment has been an abject failure. The US is too diverse, too fractured, and has far too many conflicting priorities and values for any homogeneous solutions to work for any of our major issues, be they violence, welfare, health care, or education. Unless and until we accept the fact that success and failure are part of the diversity of Americans, in all things, we'll never stop spinning our wheels.

This idea conflicts with the notion that anyone can succeed and do anything they put their mind to. If that is true, then we have no meaningful differences and it merely boils down to what society allows you to do.

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: ABNARTY

You also have to factor in the times guns are used in self defense situations and not I'm talking just fatalities, but times guns were used to stop or prevent violence.

As you state in the OP, some of the places with the most restrictive gun ownership laws have the highest homicide rates. As the number of guns in the U.S. has risen, the homicide rate with guns has declined. There is more to the picture.

The number of guns in the US is not the metric you want. The percent of the population that are gun owners is the correct measurement. For example, the US currently has more guns than people in it, but only a small fraction own guns. The average gun owner owns 5 guns, but even that doesn't tell the true story because for every 4 people who own 1 gun, there's someone who owns 20.

32% of Americans own guns. 25% of Americans own 80% of the guns in the country, another 7% or so own the remaining 20%.

It is not well distributed, more guns doesn't necessarily create any more armed americans, or even meaningfully increase the firepower of the "good guys".

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm not convinced it's an abject failure just yet.

I am convinced the solutions for the US are unique and complex. Our politicians most likely are not up to it.

Maybe that's why I am tired of endless comparisons to Denmark or Japan or whatever.

Then come up with ideas and fix it. If you think the system is broken, come up with a better system and debate it's merits through reason and evidence, or accept that maybe the system isn't as broken as you think.

a reply to: ABNARTY

Measuring deaths, gun deaths, gun violence, etc. is fraught with problems. It is measured differently in different places.

The intent in the mass media is to instill word association: Gun-violence, Gun-crime, and Gun-deaths, are conditioning so people think of guns as the problem, instead of criminals.

Further: Proponents of gun control use the word "Gun" or "Guns" to mean all guns, generally.

Don't fall into their Jingoistic trap. Proper terminology is Firearms (civilian) or Small Arms (military) generally, then specific categories like rifle, shotgun, pistol, and revolver.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
The study concludes mental illness, suicide, gang violence, and domestic violence are all important factors that drive gun violence. Misses adds history, residential mobility, and cultural heterogeneity also play a role.

The author suggests narrow, tailored approaches to the different problems in different locations with different populations. Example: Older men in the US lead in gun suicides. Women are endangered more by certain men with guns. Youths in urban areas are more prone to gun violence. These three examples require very different approaches.

Aha! This something I touched on just a night or so ago in another thread about gun ownership, and the NRA's stance, which is crime driven. aka, get rid of the crime, that's why we need guns.

The FBI has the stats, which will not be complete anyway, that seems to show that so much of the killings are from people who know each other, domestic or social, and gangs, and all things in between. Thing is, crime will not go away, it's everywhere in all it's forms, while the Feds stats suggest that crimes of passion happen all too easily when guns are readily available at the moment. Maybe that's because guns are so impersonal, all you need to do is pull the trigger, and you won't feel a thing. In contrast some of the things that came back was, Oh well..if there's no gun, people will start running you over with a car, or truck, or similar as if, when that too does happen anyway, but just so much rarer.
Thing is, where or how is the follow up to baldy stats that are incomplete anyway, why does the Federal government not insist on all police departments giving them a properly ordered statistic on gun killings, all murders, all crime events to give the talking heads something concrete to go on in the first place.

a reply to: ABNARTY

I completely agree with your OP. This is not a black and white situation...

While it's true that less guns mean less gun murders....no amount of laws will eliminate guns, and no amount of laws will deter criminals (that's why they're criminals and not "law abiders.")

There is no one solution that will be 100%, and as your post indicates there is no "cure all" to eliminate mass-shootings in all cases. Once we can recognize this as a nation, maybe we can find a way to reduce gun violence and mass shootings without trampling over those who legally own weapons and would only use them as a last resort in self defense.