You can view the full video after the cut.
[Via DemandAPlan.org]
Oct 1st 2012 By: Joseph Hughes
Parting Thought: Aurora Shooting Survivor Stars In Gun Control Ad [Video]
You can view the full video after the cut.
[Via DemandAPlan.org]
Add a Comment
When the point is made that the United States has the highest rate of gun violence, it often isn't clarified in any meaningful way. What violence are we referring to? Generally, most of the data cited doesn't actually clarify the numbers in a meaningful way. Let's review a few for context.
First off: yes, the US has a high rate of homicides AND gun violence. It is FAR, however, from the worst in the world. What most people who say that mean amongst the richest nations of the world, according to reported statistics. We can't really trust the reported statistics for some nations, particularly oppressive regimes or those mired in propaganda.
Next, let's look at some numbers: in the UK, the rate of homicides by firearm per 100,000 citizens is....0.1. Incredibly low. In 2009, only 41 people were killed by guns in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, however, it was only 5 deaths...but because of the population difference, that means 0.3 per 100,000, triple the rate of the rest of the UK. How about the US? In 2009, there were 9960 homicides committed by firearm in the United States. Murdertown, USA, right? Well, yes and no. The rate per 100,000 is 3.2. Ten times higher than Northern Ireland. Hideous number, isn't it.
Or is it?
It's 'Better in the Bahamas', or so the jingle goes....except for homicide by firearm, which has a 15.4 per 100,000 rate with 52 homicides by firearm in 2009. The current 'leader' is Honduras, with a whopping 68.5 per 100,000 citizens, with over 5000 homicides in 2010....that's more than half that of the United States. Of course, we're totally lacking a few dozen nations that either can't or won't report those statistics, including active war zones, states in crises or other reasons.
Now, that only includes homicide by firearm. If you factor in NON-firearms related homicides, the numbers get even more complex. That UK statistic goes from 0.1 per 100,000 to 1.2 per 100,000. Still very good, but not quite as wide a margin from the adjusted US rate of 4.2. Honduras, by the way, jumps to 96.1.
For reference, in terms of overall 'intentional homicide' statistics, the United States ranks 108 on the UNCODs list. The high availability of guns in the United States DOES make incidences of firearms being involved in homicides disproportionately high...but that doesn't necessarily translate into the number of homicides also being incredibly high.
You can argue for or against gun violence, but keep in mind that the statistics are not simple rankings and that it's a much more complicated debate than people seem to think.
I think all of your points and stats hold water - except for the referencing of Northern Ireland. Belfast was practically a war zone for 30 years with armed solders on the streets 24/7. It's hardly a like-for-like comparison with mainland Britain/USA/Canada/France/etc, so I don't think it does your argument any favours by including it.
October 03 2012 at 5:25 AM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyThere needs to be more talk about folk-control policies. I'm terribly fat and don't have a clue on how to stop my fork from telling me to continue binge eating.
October 02 2012 at 1:41 PM Report abuse Permalink -3 rate up rate down Reply
Thad
1 reply to Thad's comment
What the folk are you talking about?
October 02 2012 at 2:21 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyI think he's comparing his fork to a gun and blaming the owner, not seeing that his metaphor is flawed horribly. Food doesn't equal gun violence.
October 02 2012 at 2:35 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate downIf the majority of U.S. citizens do not believe that guns themselves are the problem (and that includes registered Democrats like myself), why would either candidate embrace gun control as an issue?
October 02 2012 at 12:55 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply
Thad
I think you've gotten to the heart of it: it doesn't matter what the facts say or what the candidates themselves believe, it's about what they can stand to get the most votes on.
Which is why, yes, neither party is willing to discuss gun control.
Abe Simpson: [Bart finds Grampa's gun] That's my old Smith and Wesson. If you're gonna play with it, be careful, 'cause its loaded.
Marge Simpson: [Walking in] Argh! Bart, put that down! Guns are very dangerous and I won't have them in this house.
Abe Simpson: [Marge takes the gun away] How can you have a house without a gun? What if a bear came through that door?
The "what if a bear came through that door" quote always reminds me of when gun owners talk about straw scenarios of what if a mass shooter starts attacking them, or they get mugged by armed men that are also trying to kill them, etc, etc.
October 02 2012 at 12:32 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down Reply
Nasty Noah
1 reply to Nasty Noah's comment
Lets hope they doing nothing about gun control and more people get licenses to carry concealed weapons then we wont have these problems.
October 02 2012 at 11:23 AM Report abuse Permalink -3 rate up rate down ReplyBecause more people will be shot? I don't see how this will fix things.
October 02 2012 at 12:23 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down Reply
Darkflame
1 reply to Darkflame's comment
It baffles me why people cant at least agree to ban semi-automatics and above.
That said, I am also from the UK, the idea that having a gun makes you "safer" is alien to us.
That said, with the saturation of guns in the US comparisons to the UK are pointless - its just too different. I think Sweden would be better model for the US to follow.
They all have to own a gun there, and be trained to use it, but they cant carry it in public without special permission.
That combination seems to result in massively less shootings;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
It's complicated, but there are several reasons.
1) There HAVE been bans.The 1994 semi-automatic weapons ban was in effect for 10 years, for example. Several states have specific bans, such as NY, CA and NJ.
2) Semi-automatic weapons are rarely used in firearms homicides, There has been no substantive evidence that banning them actually had or has an impact, according the ATF. In the US, the number of homicides is the lowest it's been since the mid-1970s. Violent crime is also at a low...and both of these figures are absolute numbers against a population that is nearly 30% larger. In other words, the actual violent crime and homicide rate has dropped even more than what those numbers might suggest.
3) To actually BAN those weapons, you would have to reclaim all of the weapons already sold, which might mean forcibly taking guns from citizens that were legally purchased and owned. This is a complicated rights issue.
There are other issues, besides. My personal inclination is that a belief that once a right is taken away, it's very hard to get it back. Thus, personal liberties should be guarded very judiciously.
Here in the UK we have very low gun crime, it's almost non-existent. This is because it's incredibly difficult for a member of the public to gain a firearms license - it involves proving to the authorities that you have a genuine reason for owning one (i.e. you are a game hunter or a farmer). Most significantly, self-defence is not considered a valid reason for owning a gun by the authorities. Heck, even our police officers don't carry guns (except at airports and some other high-risk locations).
I understand that your constitution sets out an individual's right to bear arms. But doesn't that particular passage explain that the right to bear arms is in order to have a well regulated militia? That makes sense, considering when your constitution was written, the USA was a newly independent colony, with no professional army of it's own - so the arming of a citizen militia, to defend the newly independent colony from us nasty Brits, or another foreign power like France or Spain makes sense. But a couple of hundred years on, it seems like an irrelevant line to have in there.
Jake
That's a misconception from people who skim over the U.S. Constitution without taking the time to properly understand it. What the Second Amendment does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that ALL CITIZENS have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner OR INDIVIDUALLY in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.
October 02 2012 at 1:49 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down Reply
Thad
While I'm inclined to agree, the Supreme Court has ruled pretty broadly on the Second Amendment, far beyond the idea of militias.
Ironic, of course, that it's the self-proclaimed "constructionists", the ones who claim to rule on the law from the exact perspective that the Framers had in the eighteenth century, who insist on redefining the Second Amendment in completely different terms from its original intent.
Sorry, I don't buy that at all. If the passage actually read something like this:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in protection of themselves and in the security of a free state, shall not be infringed."
Then fine - a cold reading of that sentence, without any political bias, makes it clear that owning a weapon for self-defence is allowed.
But it doesn't. In fact, the actual passage reads:
"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"
Notice how the sentence starts by defining the actual subject, namely the "well regulated militia" and how having one is "necessary to the security of a free state". Obviously a well-regulated militia is only necessary up to the point where you can afford to employ, train and arm a professional army (and last time I checked the USA had a pretty impressive and well-funded armed forces) - hence you no longer need or have the militia being refereed to - thus the right to bear arms is void . To suggest that the term militia somehow describes an everyday man on the street in 21st century America is pure right-wing pro-gun nonsense.
I'm, sure if your founders jumped in a time machine and saw the confusion their wording had caused in modern day American gun law, they'd happily re-edit the passage into something less easy to misinterpret.
Jake
This is a common misconception by people who skim over the Constitution without taking the time to understand it. What the Second Amendment does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia". While not well defined in modern terms, it is somewhat broader than just able-"bodied": implicit is also "able-minded" and "virtuous". In other words, persons might be excluded who were physically able to bear arms but who were mentally or morally defective. Defense of the "state" includes self-defense and defense of one's family and friends who are, after all, part of the state, but by establishing the defense of the state as primary a basis is laid for requiring a citizen to risk or sacrifice his life in defense of the state and is thus a qualification on the implicit right of self-defense, which is considered to prevail in situations in which self-sacrifice is not called for.
October 02 2012 at 1:50 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyI'm going to be that annoying foreigner (Irish born Australian DOUBLE Foreigner) who points out that gun violence isn't an issue any where else except the USA.
The weirdest thing, from an external perspective, is that no one really seems to know why exactly it is that you guys shoot each other like crazy (and are also the global world leaders in accidentally shooting yourselves and your families). Looking at all the different factors in terms of crime rates, economic factors, media violence and all that stuff, not to mention access to fire arms and the laws controlling them, comparatively Australia should have just as much (if not more, we drink a lot), gun crime. But in 2008 there were only 19 shooting homicides. In fact we had almost ten times as many gun related suicides at 170 in 2008.
I can only guess, and totally guessing here, that it's a cultural thing and the fetishising of fire arms. You guys have gun shows, they're huge business things. We don't have gun shows because no one would go, I think majority Aussies would find a gun show boring. Apologies for being annoying and foreign.
David Bitterbaum
1 reply to David Bitterbaum's comment
I'll just say...you know what, I don't want to be involved in a screaming match. I'm not that big on guns but I'm not anti-gun. I do find it interesting many people who may be against gun control or have no opinion on it suddenly want gun control once their lives are affected by gun violence. The Brady Bill came about from a republican who was harmed during the attempted assassination of Reagan. That's all I've got to say...
October 01 2012 at 11:17 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down Reply
David Bitterbaum
Well "came about" is a bit of a misnomer, it was named in honor of him and he of course supported it, with a foundation that works against gun violence now.
October 01 2012 at 11:18 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyYou want to end gun violence then society needs to turn against the gangsta culture that glorifies violence and abuse. After that is a combination of legalizing a lot of currently illegal drugs and going loud on/bringing to justice all the barbaric drug cartels operating in US territory.
October 01 2012 at 7:31 PM Report abuse Permalink -4 rate up rate down ReplyAside from the start about you being counter-counter-culture or something (also, gaming and comic culture glorifies violence and abuse), and the fact tackling 'gangsta' culture also has implications of racism involved, I have a huge problem with your last part.
"After that is a combination of legalizing a lot of currently illegal drugs and going loud on/bringing to justice all the barbaric drug cartels operating in US territory."
Using violence against the cartels doesn't work, and if you mean taking the fight to the cartels within Mexico that is the worst idea possible. Best case scenario, you push the drugs into Central America and make it their problem now.
Decriminalizing drugs (as you stated) and creating injection sites for safe use are the best ways to combat the illegal drug-trade in America. Seeing as the cartels operate out of over two hundred major US cities, it's cause for alarm in America.
Another great way to lose the power of the cartel is gun control. A lot of illegal guns in Mexico come from America. So creating gun control would dis-empower the cartels, which would as you claim, end gun violence.
But that's not the point of all of this. While I'm sure reducing drugs would also reduce some gun related crimes, it won't fix children shooting themselves or their friends with mummy and daddy's gun, nor would it stop teenage kids buying a whole arsenal of weapons and doing a shootout at their schools. But those deaths are avoidable with gun-control. How about that?!
Actually, the more I think about it, I think I have a larger problem with the first part of your plan. But so many of those reasons should be obvious enough.
Gangsta culture is bad for society and is not limited to any one race. Guys like you need to get over your fear of criticizing such things and start shaming it. Toxic culture is toxic.
Secondly, read the post. I said we need to bring the cartels to justice in America. That means no invading Mexico or anywhere else. Or is it not enough of a crime for you when they mutilate a town full of innocent people and hang the still dripping skins over the railing and the severed heads over the side of a bridge?
But that has to be Mexico's problem. The way we can help is purely to fix our own problems, thus getting rid of a large chunk of their own power. Things such as legalizing drugs and gun control.
Also, mind if I twist your words for a sec?
"Comic culture is bad for society and is not limited to any one race. Guys like you need to get over your fear of criticizing such things and start shaming it. Toxic culture is toxic."
Comics have shown to be racist, sexist, and overly violent. Let's get rid of them. It's corrupting our youth, etc, etc...
If you want to weaken violence, abuse, and narcotics within society you have to make those things redundant. Give more power to women, non-cis/hetro and ethnic minorities, reform the education system, equalize the distribution of wealth, adopt a better voting system. Until that happens, you get rid of your 'gangsta' culture and watch it crop up again, and again, and again.
Culture doesn't appear out of thin air, it's here because of the environment that creates it. And so far, the environment hasn't changed enough to un-create it. You don't like the culture? Too bad, some people do. For some people it's a calling, a place they can feel at home in. Being a part of nerd culture, I thought you would have realised that by now.
Follow Us
Most Popular Posts
Features
The 11 Best Comics of 2011
A countdown of the must-read books of the year.
56 Comments