Gun control in the USA

robindch · 17-12-2012 05:45PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I mentioned the incident in China as an example of the fact that crazy people will use any weapon that they can get and not just a gun.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the fact that the chinese nutter didn't manage to kill anybody? Do you think it might be linked to the idea that he wasn't able to get a gun? And what about the guy who showed up outside my kid's school in Dublin last month? Do you think that would have ended up with nobody hurt if he'd had access to a gun?

norrie rugger wrote: »

I came to this thread because the idea that gun control will stop mass killings in America is stupid in the extreme.

Nobody has claimed that reducing the availability of lethal weapons will "stop mass killings". We're talking about reducing the level and severity and the incontrovertible evidence from every other country that's banned them begs suggests that control will reduce both.

And also out of interest, are you a member of the NRA or a similar organization?

nagirrac · 17-12-2012 06:24PM

There are three problems here and all of them need to be addressed.

1. How society deals with children with mental health issues is the core issue imo and the most difficult to address. From reports this guy was possibly on the autism spectrum. I have seen personally how society (in the US at least) deals with these children, even the high functioning ones. They are ostracized, picked on and bullied, are taken out of school and become loners. Their lives revolve around legal and illegal drugs and violent video games (sorry to the gamers, it is a factor for these individuals, remember they have little or no empathy to begin with). Why are we surprised when we provide no proper health care to these individuals that a small percentage snap?

2. The second is the media and how they sensationalize these cases. Before further gun control laws there should be a law that makes identifying such killers illegal and any media outlet breaking the law should be shut down. The safety of broader society should trump free speech in this type of occurance. You have to ask the question why does someone who has decided to kill themselves also decide to take out a large number of people with them. As suggested in intelligent articles by Roger Ebert and others after years of being a "nobody" to society they want to be a "somebody".

3. Stricter gun control is also important but is the most difficult to implement, especially in the US. The best that can be done is strict background checks and a ban on certain types of weapons. Clearly individuals who have mental disorders should have no access to guns and there appears to have been a massive error of judgement in this case. However, you simply cannot take away the right to own arms to protect oneself and one's family. There is a huge deterrant to criminals knowing that if they break into a home they are likely to get a bullet through the head.

All 3 need to be addressed. I would start with 2 as it is easy to implement and may actually be the most effective. Lets at least take away the ability to become famous by these acts.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 06:25PM

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the fact that the chinese nutter didn't manage to kill anybody? Do you think it might be linked to the idea that he wasn't able to get a gun?

As we are trading examples, do you think these examples where access to guns was severely restricted didn't stop the rampage killers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Europe

This guy seemed to have no problem obtaining weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

And what about the guy who showed up outside my kid's school in Dublin last month? Do you think that would have ended up with nobody hurt if he'd had access to a gun?

You think it is hard to get a hold of a gun in Ireland? Do you not read the news?

Nobody has claimed that reducing the availability of lethal weapons will "stop mass killings". We're talking about reducing the level and severity and the incontrovertible evidence from every other country that's banned them begs suggests that control will reduce both.

I see. And the countries that haven't banned them such as the Czech Republic where they haven't had massacres despite gun rights?

robindch · 17-12-2012 06:38PM

^^^ Madsl, would you like to reply to any of the questions I asked?

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 06:51PM

robindch wrote: »

And also out of interest, are you a member of the NRA or a similar organization?

Just to clear this one up, no.

As I mentioned earlier, gun control is fine but the type they are mentioning is banning of certain gun types and I do not see the point in that. I just feel that the gun control is not enough nad that the mental helth aspect is much more important.

China guy? who knows why he did not but you have to admit that it would seem strange that he did not kill someone. Plenty of lunatics have emptied clips into crowds of people and only injured.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 07:02PM

OK.

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the fact that the chinese nutter didn't manage to kill anybody?

The victims got lucky. There are more rampage killings in Asia than any other continent including the Americas combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Asia
The death toll by Melee weapons (knives etc) in China by rampage killers is suprising. All these are non-firearms recent Chinese rampages killers.

Qiu Xinghua, killed 11 in 2006
Shi Yuejun killed 12 in 2006
Zhang Yimin, killed 10 2010
Zhou Yuxin, killed 10 in 2011
Li ? killed 9 in 2012
Yang Mingxin, 1998 - killed 9
Qin Changcheng, 2011 killed 9
Yan Jianzhong, killed 9 in 2011

I guess your example doesn't really prove much.

Do you think it might be linked to the idea that he wasn't able to get a gun?

Very clearly NO. As demonstrated by the list above.

And what about the guy who showed up outside my kid's school in Dublin last month? Do you think that would have ended up with nobody hurt if he'd had access to a gun?

I couldn't say. Maybe. What is he had a bomb? What if a dragon plucked him off the ground...conjecture doesn't help much.

And also out of interest, are you a member of the NRA or a similar organization?

Are you asking me that now. None of your damn business to be honest, but to answer, I wouldn't join the NRA if a very large calibre was held to my head.

Now.

Care to answer my questions above?

H3llR4iser · 17-12-2012 07:17PM

nagirrac wrote: »

...However, you simply cannot take away the right to own arms to protect oneself and one's family. There is a huge deterrant to criminals knowing that if they break into a home they are likely to get a bullet through the head...

Yes you cant, and it's not even a right - nobody other than law enforcement personnel should ever be permitted to carry or even own a gun.

The argument about having a gun being a "deterrent" for criminals is the stupidest I ever heard and, quite amusingly, one the very NRA uses as a justification: such a situation would simply escalate the violence and make crimes more ruthless. The mugger that today holds somebody at gunpoint to get the valuables would simply shot his/her victim dead and loot the body in a "he/she may carry a gun" scenario; And no, there's no "fighting back" because unless the wannabe criminal is a perfect idiot, he/she will easily manage to catch the victim unaware.

As for the "gun enthusiast" reasons to own a gun, it's very simple: I like airplanes because they fly, not because of their shape or colors. I like sports cars because they're powerful and go fast, not because of the size of their tires. Some people like guns because they kill people, as simple as it is - and in the case of the US, we're talking about households having nothing less than an arsenal.

oldrnwisr · 17-12-2012 07:20PM

nagirrac wrote: »

1. How society deals with children with mental health issues is the core issue imo and the most difficult to address. From reports this guy was possibly on the autism spectrum. I have seen personally how society (in the US at least) deals with these children, even the high functioning ones. They are ostracized, picked on and bullied, are taken out of school and become loners. Their lives revolve around legal and illegal drugs and violent video games (sorry to the gamers, it is a factor for these individuals, remember they have little or no empathy to begin with). Why are we surprised when we provide no proper health care to these individuals that a small percentage snap?

Sorry nagirrac but as much as I agree with your other two points I have to take issue with this one.

First of all, with regard to the mental health issue, despite recent events, mental health problems don't go very far in explaining rampage killers, particularly adolescent rampage killers.

This study, for example, found that only 23% had a documented psychiatric history and only 6% were found to be psychotic at the time of the killings. While these teens may have been marginalised and exhibited anti-social behaviour, there's no indication that actual psychiatric or mental health disorders (e.g. autism, dissociative personality, etc.) play a significant part in rampage killings.

Offender and Offense Characteristics of a Nonrandom Sample of Adolescent Mass Murderers

Secondly, with regard to the video games, while there have been meta-analyses linking violent video games to aggressive behaviour and decreased prosocial behaviour, there have been many conflicting studies and there is no current conclusive evidence of a causal link between video games and violent behaviour.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 07:28PM

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Yes you cant, and it's not even a right -

The US Constitution and the individual states Constitution beg to differ.

The argument about having a gun being a "deterrent" for criminals is the stupidest I ever heard and, quite amusingly, one the very NRA uses as a justification: such a situation would simply escalate the violence and make crimes more ruthless. The mugger that today holds somebody at gunpoint to get the valuables would simply shot his/her victim dead and loot the body in a "he/she may carry a gun" scenario; And no, there's no "fighting back" because unless the wannabe criminal is a perfect idiot, he/she will easily manage to catch the victim unaware.

Yes. I'd much rather investigate a breaking glass noise downstairs late at night with a spoon rather than a shotgun for fear of escalating the situation.

In 83.5% (2,087,500) of successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first. Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics - National Crime Victimization Survey (2005).

As for the "gun enthusiast" reasons to own a gun, it's very simple: I like airplanes because they fly, not because of their shape or colors. I like sports cars because they're powerful and go fast, not because of the size of their tires. Some people like guns because they kill people, as simple as it is - and in the case of the US, we're talking about households having nothing less than an arsenal.

What utter nonsense. You might as well say I like planes because they fly into buildings, I like cars because they run over pedestrians. A ridiculous logic fail.

nagirrac · 17-12-2012 07:52PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry nagirrac but as much as I agree with your other two points I have to take issue with this one.

First of all, with regard to the mental health issue, despite recent events, mental health problems don't go very far in explaining rampage killers, particularly adolescent rampage killers.

Fair point, but it depends on how you define mental health. To me anyone who gets to the point where they are willing to kill themselves, let alone take others with them, does not have a healthy mind. How they get to that point is the question.

The article imo supports my point that it is mental heath in a general sense that is the root cause: "a majority were "loners", depressive symptoms and antosocial behavior predominate, 50% were bullied, abuse drugs or alcohol and indulge in violent fantasies".

How are children who are perceived as "different" and ostracized and bullied getting to the point of suicide or mass murder is the compelling question. I would suggest that society at large is somewhat responsible by demanding that every child conform to being "normal" and rejecting those that do not fit their view of normal. I will give you one example. I know personally of a case with a highly functional 8 year old autistic spectrum child where a parent handed birthday party invitations to every other member of their class and excluded that child. What do you think the impact of that act was on that child, not just at that moment but perhaps for the rest of their lives?

The Black Oil · 17-12-2012 07:56PM

nagirrac wrote: »

It is a mental health issue and I would even go further and say it is the existing stigma around mental health that is a significant part of the problem. While physical ailments are generally quickly diagnosed and treated there is a reluctance among parents and society in general to help those that are having psychological issues. Everyone wants their child to be "normal" and resist accepting their child has a "mental health" issue. When kids are seen to be "different" they are ostracised.

The second problem is when (often too late) help is finally provided it taks the form of adult level doses of anti-depressants.Nobody knows what the long term effect is of adult level doses of anti-depressants on teenagers, it is an experiment.

You don't need to look at the US to see the problem, the sharp rise in suidice among the young in Ireland is part of the same issue. Remember that these horror rampages are first and foremost suicides, they just happen to take lots of people with them. Modern western consumerist and materialist society, led by the US, is completely failing when it comes to rasing their children in a loving and nurturing environment. People are too busy chasing the $ to notice that their kids are suffering. I see it all around me and frankly anyone who does not see it has their head in the sand.

The answer is not just controlling guns, the answer is getting back to a community based society where people actually give a fcuk about their own and other people's children.

No question that there is a stigma, that is definitely true. However, it is so, so easy to invoke the 'society is in moral decline' card, but it's a soundbite, imo, and little more.

Parents may go through some denial at first (sometimes due to their own issues), but it's also possible that they accept the problems their children and do try to make things as normal as possible whilst adapting to the difficulties. I don't think you should be so quick to presume they're so selfish they can't see the suffering, then again, sometimes kids are good at hiding things and communication can become strained. I don't know how common it is for teens with difficulties to be prescribed anti-depressants, maybe more problematic in the US than it is here?

When I was in school (10+ years ago) we had talks from external agencies and so forth. Topics ranged from sex education, chastity proponents, an acupuncturist, the Guards, a prison governor, to domestic violence against men. Not one talk on mental health. That picture, and the conversation around mental health, has changed largely for the better, though I'll grant you that there is still a huge amount of work to be done, and our suicide figures are shocking. There is a a lot amount of good will and energy out there. Headstrong, Reachout...there are many, many organisations active in this field trying to change things and engage with young people and to change perceptions. Are they all doing it effectively? Perhaps not. Is the mental sector a little overcrowded with voluntary groups? Again, perhaps yes, but maybe this is a symptom of the gaps in our existing mental health system. Almost every day on Twitter I hear about fundraising events for Pieta House. A lot of this is ordinary people...now money alone isn't the answer, but I think some of them are switched on to their local communities even if they may not have a good grasp on mental health. Unfortunately, sometimes community spirit can appear that is only visible in a crisis, but there is a lot of good work going on outside of these times. I don't know where you are looking, but I think you need to look harder.

nagirrac wrote: »

1. How society deals with children with mental health issues is the core issue imo and the most difficult to address. From reports this guy was possibly on the autism spectrum. I have seen personally how society (in the US at least) deals with these children, even the high functioning ones. They are ostracized, picked on and bullied, are taken out of school and become loners. Their lives revolve around legal and illegal drugs and violent video games (sorry to the gamers, it is a factor for these individuals, remember they have little or no empathy to begin with). Why are we surprised when we provide no proper health care to these individuals that a small percentage snap?

We don't fully know that he was autistic, at least one autism group is urging caution in this respect and again you have drifted into making sweeping claims. Not all autistic kids end up how you describe, and I'm sure some have interests that don't relate to video games or drugs. Yes, many are bullied, teased and have trouble coping and may require regular support, but many also manage to integrate in school, even if they may not do it in a traditional way. All of this must be looked at on a case by case basis and not in a way that might only serve to reinforce negativities and stereotypes about particular conditions. We don't know why he shot the school psychologist, maybe we never will, but if he was seeing her, he may have had some professional support. If so, that unfortunately probably made her a more likely target. I don't disagree with your view on the media saturation of these awful events.

A ban on its own is not the answer, though I would think that a ban on certain weapons (or maybe control is a better word) might reduce some of the incentives people have to carry out particular attacks. Nor can Michael Moore or certain others on the airwaves really offer us much, and I'm growing a little tired of the 'guns don't kill people, people do' view, but America obviously has some deep soul searching to do. It is sad to think that they have to put 5 year olds through lockdown drills. Presumably that used to be only for the external threat from the Cold War. Now it's the internal threat, from locals, that appears more likely. Very sad.

I don't really see how arming teachers is the answer, either. That is a reactionary move and by the time the teacher draws a gun, it's too late. Yes, they may be able to stop it, but it's a touch Hollywood, and a stop gap. People often talk about early intervention in autism and mental health (trying to keep these two issues separate), so that's where our energies should be focused...watching for warning signs before any escalation.

Wibbs · 17-12-2012 08:05PM

nagirrac wrote: »

Clearly individuals who have mental disorders should have no access to guns and there appears to have been a massive error of judgement in this case.

The problem is N, that in this case the firearms were his mothers.

nagirrac · 17-12-2012 08:08PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem is N, that in this case the firearms were his mothers.

..and the error of judgement was they were in the house and he clearly had access to them.

Knasher · 17-12-2012 08:08PM

nagirrac wrote: »

There is a huge deterrant to criminals knowing that if they break into a home they are likely to get a bullet through the head.

If you look at the burglary rate of the US and UK, then the UK appears to have a higher rate. However this is primarily due to differences in what is considered burglary in the US and UK legal systems, the UK having a much wider definition. Correcting to use the same definition shows a much higher rate in the US. This is despite burglars having a very significant risk of getting shot in the US.

http://www.copinthehood.com/2011/09/burglary-in-uk.html

nagirrac · 17-12-2012 08:23PM

Knasher wrote: »

If you look at the burglary rate of the US and UK, then the UK appears to have a higher rate. However this is primarily due to differences in what is considered burglary in the US and UK legal systems, the UK having a much wider definition. Correcting to use the same definition shows a much higher rate in the US. This is despite burglars having a very significant risk of getting shot in the US.

http://www.copinthehood.com/2011/09/burglary-in-uk.html[/QUOTE]

Burglars can only get shot if the owner is at home. The only statistics that count in this discussion are what are the relative number of break ins to domestic households where the home is occupied. Most petty thiefs and criminals are smart enough to break in when the home is unoccupied. A criminal with the mindset to break into an occupied home is a different kettle of fish and one who needs the deterrant of a likely bullet to the head.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 08:30PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem is N, that in this case the firearms were his mothers.

That can happen here too, if the gun owners are not careful about locking the gun cabinet or leaving the keys accessible to others

MadsL · 17-12-2012 08:52PM

Knasher wrote: »

If you look at the burglary rate of the US and UK, then the UK appears to have a higher rate. However this is primarily due to differences in what is considered burglary in the US and UK legal systems, the UK having a much wider definition. Correcting to use the same definition shows a much higher rate in the US. This is despite burglars having a very significant risk of getting shot in the US.

http://www.copinthehood.com/2011/09/burglary-in-uk.html

Only 40% of property crimes were reported to the police in 2010 in the US. compared to 70% in UK.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
vs
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224

sfakiaman · 17-12-2012 10:11PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The gun ownership and gun homicides murder map of the world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?fb=native[/QUOTE]

Interestingly if we compare two similar and neighbouring countries from the site linked to by Bannasidhe we find the following statistics.

Eire - 8.6 Firearms per 100 population
Homicides by firearm 0.48 per 100,000
42% homicides by firearm.

N. Ireland - 21.9 firearms per 100 population
Homicides by firearm .28 per 100,000
4.5% by firearm.

And firearms are licenced for personal protection in N. ireland and absolutly not in Eire.

It would be interesting to see a suitably qualified person conduct 'value free' socialogical research into the reasons for the above in disparity in two closely related countries.

FISMA · 17-12-2012 10:34PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

...and which was used in the aurora shootings

Not too many in the main stream media reported the fact that the shooter in this case passed by several theaters closer to home than the one where he carried out murder.

In fact, the theater where he rampaged had notices forbidding citizens that could legally carry concealed weapons to do so on the theater premises.

Albeit, impossible to know why he chose where he did, one is left to wonder whether an unarmed crowd was a determining factor in his choice of location.

robindch wrote: »

No. At the time the US Constitution was drafted, ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Read back a bit further to the English Common Law where "Highlanders" and "Catholics" were forbidden to: keep arms at home or bear them on their person outside of the home.

If interested, read or listen to the Supreme Court questions and comments in the Heller case. Fascinating insight into what was going on back then.

robindch · 18-12-2012 12:11AM

MadsL wrote: »

There are more rampage killings in Asia than any other continent including the Americas combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Asia

This is not surprising, given the population of Asia has been, over the period quoted by the article (back to 1887, and I'll be kind and ignore the 1852 outlier), between four and ten times the combined population of the Americas. And that's ignoring the completely different social conditions that pertained over that time and those states.

A much more useful comparison to modern, prosperous USA (murder rate 4.2 murders per 100,000 inhabitants per year, guns aplenty to whoever wants them) is modern, prosperous Western Europe (murder rate 1.0 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, guns heavily restricted). Full details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So, we see a US murder rate close to four and a half times that of Western Europe. If you wish to expand to just "Europe" and the "Americas", that rate increases to 3.5 versus 15.4, even higher than the murder rates for states at similar levels of social development.

Would you like to try again with some different stats?

MadsL · 18-12-2012 12:22AM

robindch wrote: »

This is not surprising, given the population of Asia has been, over the period quoted by the article (back to 1887, and I'll be kind and ignore the 1852 outlier), between four and ten times the combined population of the Americas. And that's ignoring the completely different social conditions that pertained over that time and those states.

A much more useful comparison to modern, prosperous USA (murder rate 4.2 murders per 100,000 inhabitants per year, guns aplenty to whoever wants them) is modern, prosperous Western Europe (murder rate 1.0 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, guns heavily restricted). Full details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

So, we see a US murder rate close to four and a half times that of Western Europe. If you wish to expand to just "Europe" and the "Americas", that rate increases to 3.5 versus 15.4, even higher than the murder rates for states at similar levels of social development.

Would you like to try again with some different stats?

Yes, because following your logic Europe is the worst place for rampage killers.

Murders are not the same as rampages and there is a whole host of other factors at play in the murder rate (organised crime, domestic violence, gang activity, drug laws and the like)

Rampages are not uncommon place in this low murder rate, heavily gun restricted Western Europe. Or do you have a short memory?

Wikipedia lists 99 events in Europe and a similar number in the Americas (includes South America and Canada) at 117. Given the combined population of the Americas is three times (910,720,588) Europe's 300 million, it gives a 'rampage rate' of three times the Americas rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

robindch · 18-12-2012 12:22AM

FISMA wrote: »

robindch as posted wrote:

Hence the relatively-rarely quoted preamble to the second amendment to the Constitution which says that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State " which pauses for a comma, then proceeds with the bit that the gun-lobby disingenuously quotes on its own, namely "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

robindch as quoted wrote:

No. At the time the US Constitution was drafted, ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Read back a bit further to the English Common Law where "Highlanders" and "Catholics" were forbidden to: keep arms at home or bear them on their person outside of the home.

I don't quite understand what your response has to do with what I wrote, particularly given that I drew specific attention to the habit of the NRA and other gun-lobbyists in deleting the vital supporting condition.

So, here again is what the US Constitution says on the right to carry (but not to own) weapons:

US Constitution wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Feel free to slice and dice it as you wish, but it does not permit unrestricted ownership, and instead only allows that owners hold guns only for the purpose of being members of a well-regulated militia whose only purpose is the security of a free state, neither of which conditions pertain in modern America.

robindch · 18-12-2012 12:50AM

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, because following your logic Europe is the worst place for rampage killers.

Not really. Have you ever studied statistics? Anyhow, as you haven't replied to my point, I'll assume you've conceding that the US has a much higher homicide rate than Europe.

Now, onto what you've quoted in your recent post -- rampages in Europe here and the Americas here. Again the figures are much the same:

MadsL wrote: »

Wikipedia lists 99 events in Europe and a similar number in the Americas (includes South America and Canada) at 117. Given the combined population of the Americas is three times (910,720,588) Europe's 300 million, it gives a 'rampage rate' of three times the Americas rate.

The Europe statistics go back to 1540 (587 dead), while the the USA stats go back to 1863 (690 dead). I'll be charitable and just use the European figures back to 1863 (573 dead).

The current population of Europe is 850m (here) while the population of the USA is 310m (here). For the sake of this calculation, I'll assume that the population ratios have remained constant.

So, 850/310*690/573 = a murder rate in the USA of 3.3 times that in Europe. Given that the US population started from a much lower figure, and probably a lower reporting rate, than Europe, it's fair to concede that the murder rate in the USA as calculated by these stats is probably higher than 3.3, making them broadly consistent with the figures calculated from the earlier stats:

Namely, that the USA is between four to five times as murderous as Europe.

nagirrac · 18-12-2012 01:11AM

While no unjustified murder is acceptable in a civilized society, the reality is the numbers being quoted above are in the very low noise compared to civilians killed in wars between countries and murders perpetrated on their own people by governments. If you want to look at those statistics over the same period then the USA looks very civilized compared to Europe. Historically people have far more to worry about (by many orders of magnitude) from their own governments than from random killers.
All murder is murder.

MadsL · 18-12-2012 01:12AM

robindch wrote: »

Not really. Have you ever studied statistics? Anyhow, as you haven't replied to my point, I'll assume you've conceding that the US has a much higher homicide rate than Europe.

Now, onto what you've quoted in your recent post -- rampages in Europe here and the Americas here. Again the figures are much the same:The Europe statistics go back to 1540 (587 dead), while the the USA stats go back to 1863 (690 dead). I'll be charitable and just use the European figures back to 1863 (573 dead).

The current population of Europe is 850m (here) while the population of the USA is 310m (here). For the sake of this calculation, I'll assume that the population ratios have remained constant.

So, 850/310*690/573 = a murder rate in the USA of 3.3 times that in Europe. Given that the US population started from a much lower figure, and probably a lower reporting rate, than Europe, it's fair to concede that the murder rate in the USA as calculated by these stats is probably higher than 3.3, making them broadly consistent with the figures calculated from the earlier stats:

Namely, that the USA is between four to five times as murderous as Europe.

I assume I'd be insulting you if I pointed out that the Americas is not the USA, but rather the entire continent. And in fact by counting body count instead of number of incidents all you have shown is that rampage killers in the Americas are more efficient when they do attack, rather than being more likely to do so.

Mark Hamill · 18-12-2012 01:52AM

MadsL wrote: »

I assume I'd be insulting you if I pointed out that the Americas is not the USA, but rather the entire continent.

When you extract the data just for the US (89 incidents, out of the 117 on the wiki page) you get 519 deaths. 850/310*519/573 ~ 2.5. So not a big difference to what Robindch calculated.

Incidentally, these wikipages don't include school place or work place rampages, so I looked at these (they are single world wide tables, so I separated out the US and Europe and added the deaths):

Schoolplace: US has 18 incidents, 182 deaths. Europe has 15 incidents, 108 deaths
850/310*182/108 = 4.62 as many deaths in school massacres in the US.

Workplace:US has 20 incidents, 138 deaths. Europe has 4 incidents, 23 deaths
850/310*138/23 = 16.45 as many deaths in disgruntled workplace massacres in the US.

And, as Robindch said, none of these are corrected for social conditions or change in population over time. You can also do this for the number of incidents of each type (ie the US's 89 incidents scale up to 244, when you correct for the population difference, making them ~ 2.5 times more likely to have an incident than Europe), but the idea is the same.

jackofalltrades · 18-12-2012 02:38AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First of all, with regard to the mental health issue, despite recent events, mental health problems don't go very far in explaining rampage killers, particularly adolescent rampage killers.

From the article you quoted:

A majority were described as “loners” and abused alcohol or drugs;
almost half were bullied by others, preoccupied with violent fantasy, and violent by history. ..Depressive symptoms and historical antisocial behaviors were predominant

I'd say mental health issues are a significant issue among the rampage killers in the study.

This study, for example, found that only 23% had a documented psychiatric history and only 6% were found to be psychotic at the time of the killings. While these teens may have been marginalised and exhibited anti-social behaviour, there's no indication that actual psychiatric or mental health disorders (e.g. autism, dissociative personality, etc.) play a significant part in rampage killings.

Given that mental health issues are under-diagnosed, especially among men, the figure of 23% would in reality be a lot higher.

MadsL · 18-12-2012 08:24AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When you extract the data just for the US (89 incidents, out of the 117 on the wiki page) you get 519 deaths. 850/310*519/573 ~ 2.5. So not a big difference to what Robindch calculated.

So the US has produced 10% fewer 'standard' rampage killers than Europe? Thanks for confirming that.

Incidentally, these wikipages don't include school place or work place rampages, so I looked at these (they are single world wide tables, so I separated out the US and Europe and added the deaths):

Schoolplace: US has 18 incidents, 182 deaths. Europe has 15 incidents, 108 deaths
850/310*182/108 = 4.62 as many deaths in school massacres in the US.

So just 20% more school attacks in the US.

Workplace:US has 20 incidents, 138 deaths. Europe has 4 incidents, 23 deaths
850/310*138/23 = 16.45 as many deaths in disgruntled workplace massacres in the US.

Well, finally we get to an overwhelming figure. Five times as many incidents.

But lets add up the number of incidents:
US 89+18+20 = 127 incidents
Europe 99+15+4 = 104 incidents

So just over 20% more likely to have an incident than Europe, not the skewed result you are claiming. You understand why your "number of deaths" weighting is as absurd as counting the number of passengers killed in plane crashes when assessing an airline's safety record.

And, as Robindch said, none of these are corrected for social conditions or change in population over time. You can also do this for the number of incidents of each type (ie the US's 89 incidents scale up to 244, when you correct for the population difference, making them ~ 2.5 times more likely to have an incident than Europe), but the idea is the same.

I see you missed showing your working there, half-mark.

Bannasidhe · 18-12-2012 10:01AM

It really boggles my mind that what we appear to have here is an argument where:

Group A is proposing that restrictions should be placed on the sale of guns and greater regulation be introduced. I have not seen (perhaps I missed it) anyone say Ban Guns Outright.

Yet that is what they are being accused of

.

Group B is insisting guns are not the problem and advocating that things remain the same. It's mental health service provision - that is the problem. Guns themselves are not the issue.

Yes, mental health is obviously an issue- what sane person would arms themselves and go into a public place and murder strangers for no apparent reason other than rage/anger/sense of isolation -in short murderous tantrums?
But - does that mean they should be facilitated by having easy access to high powered weapons?

Police said Lanza was armed with hundreds of bullets in high-capacity magazines of about 30 rounds each for the Bushmaster AR 15 rifle and two handguns he carried into the school, and had a fourth weapon, a shotgun, in his car outside

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1217/breaking1.html

People like to point to Brevik ignoring that Brevik was acting out of a political ideology. Brevik was not having a tantrum - he was engaging in a political action, in this he is closer to McVeigh than Lanza.

Lanza, like so many of his ilk, was committing suicide and intent of taking innocent people who were somehow 'at fault' for his ****ty life with him. He did not have to plan this in detail - he just had to get his mother's high powered weapons and go off on a shooting spree. No effort involved.

Restricting access to guns will not stop determined crazies - no one said it will But it will restrict their access.
No one should be able to just pick up a weapon like an AR 15 and 2 handguns ( a Sig Sauer and a Glock according to the reports I read) and hundred of bullets in their family home. This is insane and I cannot understand how anyone can not only justify this but argue that it is not a problem.

This strikes me as as 'Cars are not the problem = Bad drivers are the problem ergo there is no need to regulate the use of cars by testing/licences/restrictions on horse power etc as most drivers are careful and competent.' argument.

Can one person give me a reasonable argument why anyone should be able to casually get their hands on the type of weapons Lanza used?

magicbastarder · 18-12-2012 10:14AM

MadsL wrote: »

The death toll by Melee weapons (knives etc) in China by rampage killers is suprising. All these are non-firearms recent Chinese rampages killers.

Qiu Xinghua, killed 11 in 2006
Shi Yuejun killed 12 in 2006
Zhang Yimin, killed 10 2010
Zhou Yuxin, killed 10 in 2011
Li ? killed 9 in 2012
Yang Mingxin, 1998 - killed 9
Qin Changcheng, 2011 killed 9
Yan Jianzhong, killed 9 in 2011

I guess your example doesn't really prove much.

worth taking into account that china has over four times the population of the states. so the eight rampages in china would scale to two in the states; maybe about 19 deaths.

Gun control in the USA

Comments