World Comparison

[jillio]

Jillio, is this man you referring to?

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It´s interesting to read both links.


After 2002, it look like that Bush Admin. weak or change Bill Brady´s Gun law into Bush´s Gun law?

Yes, that's the one. Actually, the Bush administration simply let the ban expire.

 

[Lighthouse77]

oh btw, because the VT shooter was very mentally ill, he would have just made bombs or set the place on fire instead if he couldn't access to guns. and those things are just as bad. His number one focus was killing a large number of people in one day and I don't think he cared how he did it. that's why we take mental illness seriously.

 

[jillio]

Jillio - Since you have stated your qualification and knowledge in statistic background numbers of time, surely you should know that the correlation of weapon bans and high firearm restrictive laws that may contributed to a reduction in gun-related deaths is INCONCLUSIVE.

Please read a peer-reviewed paper called The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation. Christopher S. Koper and Jeffrey A. Roth - the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found that



that statement bothers me as you are using Virginia Tech & Northern Illinois University as a cheapshot for your personal agenda.

1. 2 guns used in Virginia Tech massacre - Walther P22 pistol and Glock 19 pistol
2. 4 guns used in Northern Illinois University massacre - a Remington 870 shotgun, a 9mm Glock pistol, 9mm Sig Sauer, and .380 Hi-Point pistol
3. The guns used at VT and NIU ARE NOT classified as Assault Weapons therefore even if Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect, this will not prevent VT and NIU massacre.
4. Children's Defense Fund: 2008 Gun Report - right... lovely... you're using extremely BIASED statement and data from ANTI-GUN organization with deep anti-gun agenda.

Ironic.... Illinois is considered as one of the most gun-restrictive states in America and yet.... this happened.

Actually, yes, I do have a statistical background. And correlation is not inconclusive.

What exactly does my using a website with a stance for gun restriction have to do with the validity of the numbers reported. Those numbers come from government websites. And how is my using a website with a particular political stance regarding guns any different than your using one with an oppostite stance?

Given the fact that the numbers reported by Children's Defense Fund come directly from the data gathered by the U.S. government, there is no bias contained in the numbers. They only report the exact numbers, they do not draw a conclusion based on those numbers.

I don't need to read a peer reviewed paper in order to post the numbers as reported by the U.S. government regarding the number of deaths by gunfire. A peer reviewed paper is useful only if one is making an interpretation of those numbers, or running additional statistical testing on those numbers, or doing empirical research involving a different set of numbers.

I am not using the Virginia Tech shooting as a cheap shot for anything. It is a documented part of history. It was mentioned in the post I made, not by me, but as a direct quote that was drawing a comparison between the way the media handles the reports of mass shootings compared to the number of individual gun deaths in the U.S. It has absolutely nothing to do with how the weapons used are classified. The number of people who died during these incidents, however, are included in the statistics for the number of people loosing their lives as the result of gunfire in the United States.

So, instead of attempting to support your argument with emotion and personal insults, how about you stick to the actual numbers of deaths in the U.S. from gunfire every year compared to the number of deaths from gunfire every year in other Westernized countries?

 

[jillio]

I'll answer that question about drug but I will not debate any further with you on gun issue because it's just repeat repeat repeat. What's the point? Why do you want to upset your lavender flowers?


You should review old threads about drug laws and our news. We have already debated about it. You should know that our Drug Laws are very very strict. You should know that we spent BILLIONS on it and yet - it produced MEDIOCRE result. Many police officers, legislators, and even Obama do not like this drug law.


right...... and???? Looks like you failed to see the point in this issue. let me educate you - in drug war/crime (both drug addicts and drug dealers), there are ILLEGAL GUNS involved. Drug Dealers use ILLEGAL GUNS to fight with other drug dealers (or other people) hence GANG DRUG WAR. Drug Addicts use ILLEGAL GUNS to rob people to get money to buy drugs.

How do we protect ourselves from these drug criminals (drug addict/dealer)? We use LEGAL GUNS to protect ourselves from them who have ILLEGAL GUNS.

Exactly how many people such as yourself are killed by drug dealers/addicts every year in the U.S.? The vast majority of gun deaths are totally unrelated to drug activity...particularly those involving children.

Here is the breakdown of numbers again:

12,352 murders, 17,002 suicides, and 789 accidents.

Futher, we have the highest rate of death and injury by firearms of all Westernized countries. Why is that?

 

[Lighthouse77]

don't count suicides. they are allowing assisted suicides now, and some will just use noose or carbon monoxide if they don't have access to guns. Their number one focus is killing themselves and I really don't think withholding guns will stop them.

A close friend of mine killed herself with a gun, but another close friend killed himself with over dosage. it was terrible.

 

[jillio]

don't count suicides. they are allowing assisted suicides now, and some will just use noose or carbon monoxide if they don't have access to guns. Their number one focus is killing themselves and I really don't think withholding guns will stop them.

A close friend of mine killed herself with a gun, but another close friend killed himself with over dosage. it was terrible.

These are suicides that are done using guns only, not all the suicide statistics. It is a breakdown of the number of total deaths from gunfire. Someone who shoots themselves has died as the result of gunfire. To make it more clear:


12,352 murders using guns, 17,002 suicides using guns, and 789 accidents resulting in death from guns. Nor is this a discussion of drug laws. The intent of this thread is to discuss the number of deaths in the various Westernized countries that can be attributed to guns.

 

[Lighthouse77]

why count it? these people wanted to kill themselves. one way or another.

 

[jillio]

why count it? these people wanted to kill themselves. one way or another.

Because the fact of the matter is they used guns. To remove those statistics is like saying, "Well, we will report the number of deaths from cancer every year, but we will leave out lung cancer, because we don't like the fact that it raises the number of deaths". If you have to manipulate the numbers to get them to agree with your position, you have an extremely weak argument to begin with.

 

[Lighthouse77]

well, I understand, but people killing themselves is not the reason to ban guns. It is what they chose for themselves. It is the same with prescriptions. We do not ban them out of fear that someone would overdose to commit suicide.

 

[jillio]

well, I understand, but people killing themselves is not the reason to ban guns. It is what they chose for themselves. It is the same with prescriptions. We do not ban them out of fear that someone would overdose to commit suicide.

We may not ban prescriptions, but we regulate the heck out of them. The DEA has control over all scheduled substances. A doctor has to abide by prescribing practices as set forth by the DEA when prescribing controlled substances. If he/she doesn't, he/she can loose their prescription privileges, their medical license, and do jail time.

 

[Lighthouse77]

regulate them does not work. I've see how people save their pills.. and they get a month supplies too and sometimes that's all it take. they regulate them because of addiction, not suicide.

 

[jillio]

regulate them does not work. I've see how people save their pills.. and they get a month supplies too and sometimes that's all it take. they regulate them because of addiction, not suicide.

Well, I suppose that is an argument for another thread. This is about gun deaths.

 

[Jiro]

Actually, yes, I do have a statistical background. And correlation is not inconclusive.

so do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly source that will back your claim? No?

All you gave me is some non-profit organization whose sole mission is.... "CDF is the foremost national proponent of policies and programs that provide children with the resources they need to succeed. We champion policies that will lift children out of poverty; protect them from abuse and neglect; and ensure their access to health care, quality education, and a moral and spiritual foundation."

yea go figure :roll:

What exactly does my using a website with a stance for gun restriction have to do with the validity of the numbers reported. Those numbers come from government websites. And how is my using a website with a particular political stance regarding guns any different than your using one with an oppostite stance?

Given the fact that the numbers reported by Children's Defense Fund come directly from the data gathered by the U.S. government, there is no bias contained in the numbers. They only report the exact numbers, they do not draw a conclusion based on those numbers.

First of all - I have a problem with the way Children's Defense Fund worded it - "According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3,006 children and teens were killed by firearms in 2005, the first increase since 1994 and the first rise in gun deaths since Congress allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004. When 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech and five at Northern Illinois University, the public was outraged. Yet every four days we have the equivalent of a Virginia Tech tragedy that passes unnoticed. Our gun violence epidemic robs parents of their children, wastes our human potential, and drains resources from our health care system."

Secondly - that statement is MISLEADING and SHAMELESS... to even combine VT/NIU together with Assault Weapons Ban along with emotionally-charged statement when the massacres have NOTHING TO DO with Assault Weapons Ban. The data from government site is UNBIASED and NON-OPINIONATED. Children's Defense Fund used the data and worded it with anti-gun agenda in mind.

I don't need to read a peer reviewed paper in order to post the numbers as reported by the U.S. government regarding the number of deaths by gunfire. A peer reviewed paper is useful only if one is making an interpretation of those numbers, or running additional statistical testing on those numbers, or doing empirical research involving a different set of numbers.

Actually yes you do. This peer-reviewed paper just basically disproved your post along with empirical research and data. Sorry that you refused to read it. Sorry that you rather read stuff from Children's Defense Fund site than a peer-reviewed paper written by 2 researchers whose backgrounds are in criminology, juvenile violence, gun violence, policing, research & statistical methodology, federal laws & programs, etc. And you? You do not have ph.d yet and you do not have such a background to make such conclusive correlation.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Roth

Dr. Roth is associate director for research at the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania. He is currently principal investigator of one project to develop understanding of the juvenile crime drop that began in 1993 trends and another to help Philadelphia's Department of Human Services implement performance-based contracting for its foster care provider agencies. Previously, he directed the Congressionally mandated impact evaluation of the 1994 assault weapons ban, as well as studies of the Clinton Administration's COPS program to put 100,000 police officers on the street, Maryland's HotSpots Communities Program, Detroit's Handgun Intervention Program, youth violence in the District of Columbia, and Baltimore's Comprehensive Communities Program. Previously, as study director of the National Academy of Sciences panel on violence research, he co-edited the Academy's four-volume report Understanding and Preventing Violence. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from Michigan State University.

Dr. Christopher S. Koper

Christopher S. Koper is a senior research associate with the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology and a scholar-in-residence with the Firearm and Injury Center at Penn. He holds a Ph.D. in criminology and criminal justice from the University of Maryland and has worked for the Urban Institute, the Crime Control Institute, the University of Maryland, the Police Foundation, and the National Institute of Justice. Dr. Koper has written or coauthored dozens of reports and journal articles relating to firearms issues, policing, research methods, white-collar crime, and other topics. He has served as principal investigator or as a senior analyst and writer for several federal research grants and was a recent recipient of a Domestic Public Policy Fellowship from the Smith Richardson Foundation. In projects for the U.S. Department of Justice, he has evaluated a number of federal laws and programs, including the assault weapons ban, regulation of gun dealers, and the effort to add 100,000 police officers to the nation's communities through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. In addition to making numerous presentations before academic groups such as the American Society of Criminology and the National Research Council, Dr. Koper has conducted several briefings for high-ranking officials and other staff of the U.S. Department of Justice. His writings on federal policies such as the assault weapons ban and the COPS program have also appeared or been cited in mainstream and specialized media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, the Baltimore Sun, and Law Enforcement News. Dr. Koper's current projects include studies of illegal gun markets, police strategies for reducing gun violence, and juvenile crime trends.

Their publications - link

I am not using the Virginia Tech shooting as a cheap shot for anything. It is a documented part of history. It was mentioned in the post I made, not by me, but as a direct quote that was drawing a comparison between the way the media handles the reports of mass shootings compared to the number of individual gun deaths in the U.S. It has absolutely nothing to do with how the weapons used are classified. The number of people who died during these incidents, however, are included in the statistics for the number of people loosing their lives as the result of gunfire in the United States.

if Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect - it will not prevent VT and NIU massacres. Again - your post was misleading. You bolded the statement from Children's Defense Fund to augment your argument. Using a tragic story to support the agenda in a wrongful, misleading way is cheap shot and shameless.

So, instead of attempting to support your argument with emotion and personal insults, how about you stick to the actual numbers of deaths in the U.S. from gunfire every year compared to the number of deaths from gunfire every year in other Westernized countries?

emotion and personal insults? and exactly where did I do that in this thread? As far as I'm concerned - I believe I'm being practical and objective. I'm looking for practical and logical solution. I have provided peer-reviewed scholarly paper written by 2 EXPERTS in this field and explained with common sense, logical mind, and practical sense. My posts #22 & #38 is an example of it. You have provided me with what? a non-profit organization with agenda?

If you have any better suggestion in dealing with this situation, do please tell me.

 

[PowerON]

Blame UK who bitching on people during the Thirteen Colony, they stole their home, they rape their women, they took children to be solider.

That's why "Right to keep and bear arms" in amendment been create as US born.

 

[Jiro]

Well, I suppose that is an argument for another thread. This is about gun deaths.

actually - it's quite pertinent. Lighthouse is making a relevant comparison and example of what works, what doesn't work. Look at Northern Illinois University massacre. The shooter was able to "save up" the guns and bullets for a while.... in the state of Illinois - known for its highly-restrictive gun policy.

Now since you mentioned Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech. Do you think we should ignore a section of FERPA - that the schools should reported certain confidential medical information to government?

 

[Jiro]

We may not ban prescriptions, but we regulate the heck out of them. The DEA has control over all scheduled substances. A doctor has to abide by prescribing practices as set forth by the DEA when prescribing controlled substances. If he/she doesn't, he/she can loose their prescription privileges, their medical license, and do jail time.

huh? ever heard of NyQUIL or Advils? You don't really need prescription drug to commit a suicide. When we buy prescription - it's usually 30 pills per bottle. One can just simply take'em all. That's something DEA & doctors cannot regulate.

To regulate guns is to deny the innocent, law-abiding citizens a means of protecting their own life and their children from the harm inflicted by thugs. That's why Supreme Court struck down DC's gun ban law. That's why Supreme Court struck down a portion of Brady Bill. Both were unconstitutional.

Please explain to me that despite of DC's decades-long gun ban law, why the crime rates in DC was so high?

 

[Lighthouse77]

right, and my point is that we need to deal with the root of the problem. Suicides, mental illness, anger management etc. Because one way another, they will use something that result death

 

[jillio]

so do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly source that will back your claim? No?

I have data from the CDC directly, Jiro. Any peer reviewed article on the topic will use the same data I have used. There is no interpretation involved, there is no new data being generated or used, there is no empirical study being conducted. There is simply the numbers citing the number of giun deaths. Obviously, you are confused regarding the purpose of peer review and articles.
All you gave me is some non-profit organization whose sole mission is.... "CDF is the foremost national proponent of policies and programs that provide children with the resources they need to succeed. We champion policies that will lift children out of poverty; protect them from abuse and neglect; and ensure their access to health care, quality education, and a moral and spiritual foundation."

And the non-profit organization is using hard data collected by the CDC. What part of that do you not understand? The data does not change no matter who uses it. The data is composed of hard and fast numbers.
yea go figure :roll:
Obviously, you are looking for interpretation. Something to back up your claim. Interpretation is not necessary. The numbers are there. They cannot be disputed.

First of all - I have a problem with the way Children's Defense Fund worded it - "According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3,006 children and teens were killed by firearms in 2005, the first increase since 1994 and the first rise in gun deaths since Congress allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004. When 32 people were killed at Virginia Tech and five at Northern Illinois University, the public was outraged. Yet every four days we have the equivalent of a Virginia Tech tragedy that passes unnoticed. Our gun violence epidemic robs parents of their children, wastes our human potential, and drains resources from our health care system."

What exactly is your problem with the way it is worded? There is no untruth in that statement. The number of deaths can be substantiated. The timing of the increases can be substantiated.
Secondly - that statement is MISLEADING and SHAMELESS... to even combine VT/NIU together with Assault Weapons Ban along with emotionally-charged statement when the massacres have NOTHING TO DO with Assault Weapons Ban. The data from government site is UNBIASED and NON-OPINIONATED. Children's Defense Fund used the data and worded it with anti-gun agenda in mind.

How is it misleading? It makes a statement plain and true. The number of children's deaths is substanitated through the CDC. The timing of the deaths is substatiated through the data collection by the CDC. You are confusing their comparison of the media representation of the VT incident and single childhood deaths with a comparison of the circumstances surrounding the incidents. It is clear to anypone who reads it that the comparison is regarding media exposure, not the circumstances. Nor did they state anywhere that the VT incident had anything to do with the assault weapons ban. They clearly stated that the incidence of childhood deaths increased following the expiration of the ban on assault weapons. The ban was not even mentioned in relation to the VT incident. Please read what is written.

Actually yes you do. This peer-reviewed paper just basically disproved your post along with empirical research and data. Sorry that you refused to read it. Sorry that you rather read stuff from Children's Defense Fund site than a peer-reviewed paper written by 2 researchers whose backgrounds are in criminology, juvenile violence, gun violence, policing, research & statistical methodology, federal laws & programs, etc. And you? You do not have ph.d yet and you do not have such a background to make such conclusive correlation.

Well, you are mistaken about the purpose of a peer reviewed paper. A peer reviewed paper is not intended as proof of anything. It is simply a report regarding research findings. It is an interpretation of the same data I supplied, and nothing more. And I did read it. It is about theroretical application, not proof of anything.

You are also incorrect regarding my degree. Really, you need to start focusing more on the topic, and less on attempting to insult me. Shall we discuss your educational background?

I haven't made the correlation. The data has. Correlation is only substanitated through data.Dr. Jeffrey A. Roth


Dr. Christopher S. Koper


Their publications - link


if Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect - it will not prevent VT and NIU massacres. Again - your post was misleading. You bolded the statement from Children's Defense Fund to augment your argument. Using a tragic story to support the agenda in a wrongful, misleading way is cheap shot and shameless.

That is nothing more than supposition on your part. Data still indicates that childhood deaths by firearms increased following the expiration of the ban on assault weapons. Can't deny the hard data, Jiro. What tragic story are you referrring to? And your constant personal attacks and insults, rather than discussing the topic at hand is what is cheap and shameless. Obviously you are attempting to provoke so you can fulfill your prophecy of Liebling's thread being closed. A rather cowardly way to attend to a debate.

emotion and personal insults? and exactly where did I do that in this thread? As far as I'm concerned - I believe I'm being practical and objective. I'm looking for practical and logical solution. I have provided peer-reviewed scholarly paper written by 2 EXPERTS in this field and explained with common sense, logical mind, and practical sense. You have provided me with what? a non-profit organization with agenda?

Where? Several instances in this post alone. And again, you are misinterpreting the use of a peer reviewed theoretical application. This thread, in case you missed the title, is a comparison of the number of gun deaths in various countries. It has absolutely nothing to do with criminolgy theory or sociological theory. In fact, there are any number of theories that could be provided as an explanation for the data. However, the data itself remains the same. The numbers are there. You cannot deny them, you cannot distract from them, you cannot dispute them.

If you have any better suggestion in dealing with this situation, do please tell me.

I have not seen where you have offered even an explanation of the data, let alone a solution to the problem indicated by the data. However, if you wish to do so, I suggest you start another thread devoted to sociological and criminological theory as applied to the data. That is not the purpose nor the intent of this thread.

 

[jillio]

actually - it's quite pertinent. Lighthouse is making a relevant comparison and example of what works, what doesn't work. Look at Northern Illinois University massacre. The shooter was able to "save up" the guns and bullets for a while.... in the state of Illinois - known for its highly-restrictive gun policy.

Now since you mentioned Northern Illinois University and Virginia Tech. Do you think we should ignore a section of FERPA - that the schools should reported certain confidential medical information to government?

No, it isn't. The number of successful suicides committed through overdose has virtually no bearing on the total number of deaths attributed to firearms.

I think you are a bit confused regarding FERPA legislation.

 

[Twinkletoes]

I am a gun owner.

The reason why I have a gun is quite simple: I live in a wilderness area where things can go "bump in the night" and it's a nice piece of extra security to have.