ABC
The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found.
A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88
guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more
than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.
Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06
gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both
the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.
Drs. Sripal Bangalore, who works at NYU Langone Medical Center, and
Dr. Franz Messerli of St. Luke’s Medical Center studied the statistics
of guns per capita and gun deaths. They used firearm injury data from
the World Health Organization and guns per capita data from the Small Arms Survey to put together a list of 27 developed countries.
They said they carried out their study because of what they said are
seemingly baseless claims on either side of the gun control debate.
“I think we need more of what I would call evidence-based discussion
and not merely people pulling things out of their hats,” Bangalore said.
“We hear time and time again about these shootings, especially in the
last year or so. A lot of claims are made…so we wanted to look at the
data and see if any of this holds water.”
They concluded that more guns do not make people safer.
So that part about you avoiding sharing "gun death" studies- you didn't really mean that, huh?
ReplyDeleteIf you remember, and I know you do, in one of the last discussions about this, we kinda stumbled onto another way of looking at it. It's summed up in the final sentence of the post.
DeleteNo, the last sentence of this post is exactly the problem with studying "gun deaths". You don't know if people are safer unless you look at murder/violent crime. That's why you conceded and said this:
DeleteMikeB: "I don't remember it quite like that, TS. I thought I got your point about the "gun murder" trick right away, but I wouldn't swear to it. In either case I have you to thank for that. I often see gun control arguments that contain that flaw and I avoid them now."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/11/more-proof-that-gun-friendly-states.html?m=1
Additionally, you are breaking your own rule with a country to country comparison in the first place:
DeleteMikeB: "2. comparisons with other countries are inadmissable- new rule."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/04/guns-in-home-and-suicide-rates.html?m=1
So by your own statements, we're not supposed to make comparisons to other countries, and it's a "trick" to use "gun deaths", but it's all good in this case because they concluded with "guns don't make us safer". What the H, Mike?
The first gotcha quote preceeds the time I mentioned when I started asking about guns making us safer.
DeleteThe second quote is non-applicable when the topic of discussion is a comparative list of countries.
Ate you trying to tell me that you only started asking if guns make us safer less than 15 months ago? Really? With this being as obviously wrong as it is, do I even need to bother with a gotcha?
DeleteMikeB: "The second quote is non-applicable when the topic of discussion is a comparative list of countries."
Now you're trying to claim this was just a rule about staying on topic? Nope. This next gotcha dispels that easily:
MikeB: "The comparison between one country and another is always faulty."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-truth-about-australias-gun-laws.html?m=1
Always faulty, you said.
Of course I've always questioned whether guns make us safer, but it developed as part of this gun-deaths vs. murder rates discussion rather later.
DeleteThe other one is a really good gotcha. Good for you, TS. If you spent as much time in straight-up arguing, you'd be a more formidable opponent. But you spend half your time looking through the archives for inconsistencies in order to "win" minor points, often taking things out of context and always derailing the discussion. In this case we were talking about comparative gun-death rates, not whether or not I have ever disparaged such comparisons.
MikeB: "Of course I've always questioned whether guns make us safer, but it developed as part of this gun-deaths vs. murder rates discussion rather later."
DeleteWhat does that even mean? How would that change anything? Ok, I see I'm back to the beginning with you. Answer this: how does the "gun death" metric answer the question of whether or not we're safer?
I always knew you'd go back to "gun deaths". It's your one true love (plus no other stat will have you),
You sound like such a crybaby. We're not back to anything. I get it, the murder rate thing. But what you've never been able to explain is how your stats make sense, the ones that say there's no correlation between gun death rates and murder rates. There seems to be a pretty good correlation in South Korea as well as in all the developed countries except the US. How is that?
DeleteThe stats don't make sense to you because you can't be objective. You've made up your mind.
DeleteStats which defy reason and logic need to be questioned.
DeleteAnd question them you have. You’ve questioned and questioned and then questioned them some more. But you’ve yet to come up with an answer for why they are wrong.
DeleteInteresting. Russia's homicide rate is vastly higher than that of the U.S., according to National Public Radio (a source that one would hope will not cause Mikeb to shriek about "jingoism").
ReplyDeleteThe most recent homicide statistics for Russia show that there were 21,603 killings in 2009.
According to the FBI, the United States had 13,636 homicides in 2009 with a population that is more than twice as large.
Granted, Russia doesn't break homicides down by method, so it's theoretically possible that the more-than-triple homicide rate in Russia is the result of stabbings, bludgeonings, stranglings, poisonings, etc. Of course, to argue that is to give up arguing that restricting access to guns meaningfully restricts the ability to commit homicide.
Your other option, Mikeb, is to argue that Russia isn't a "developed" country--that the half-owners of the International Space Station are primitive, backward rubes (despite the fact that when the U.S. needs to move astronauts to or from the station these days, they have to hitch a ride with the Russians). Is that how you wanna play it, Mikeb?
I would imagine the writers of this poll did not include Russia on the list. I guess it's debatable. And it would be contrary to your usual jingoism to argue that they are. So, how do you want to play it?
DeleteAnd it would be contrary to your usual jingoism to argue that they are.
DeleteAs it happens, Mikeb, "[my] usual jingoism" is a myth, a fantasy, perhaps even a lie, although that's a term I use vastly less promiscuously than some.
So, how do you want to play it?
I don't need to "play" anything. I've shown a developed country with a vastly higher homicide rate--and (coincidentally?) vastly fewer guns--than seen in the U.S. I reckon my game is done--victoriously.
Obviously your idea of whether Russia is a developed country is different than that of the authors of this study.
DeleteObviously your idea of whether Russia is a developed country is different than that of the authors of this study.
DeleteIn that mine is correct, and theirs is pure, unadulterated, idiotic bullshit? Yeah--I suppose that is a significant difference.
I hate it when you guys make me go to Google with your lying made-up bullshit. You should try it, Kurt, instead of just making up disagreeable arguments. Russia is considered a developing country. Look it up.
DeleteI already did some research, Mikeb. I see that Russia has the 9th largest economy in the world. I've already mentioned that it is among the greatest space powers in the world (arguably ahead of the U.S., at the moment). It's a "great power," an industrialized nation, and a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. I realize that some still manage to come to the conclusion that all this is somehow insufficient to qualify Russia as "developed," but that sounds like agenda-driven ax-grinding to me.
DeleteThe OECD defines "Developed Countries" (DCs) in a way that excluded all former soviet block countries- no matter how successful they are. Former USSR is it's own classification. I'm guessing this is because of different economic origins. See below:
Deletehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Factbook_list_of_developed_countries
Of course, when you look at the list, we see that Mike is back to the same problem. The OECD considers Mexico and South Africa to be DCs.
You mean Mexico counts as a developed country? Plus it has very strict gun laws? That certainly complicates things.....
DeleteYeah, how could Mexico be there. Wouldn't that ruin the whole thing?
DeleteYep, it ruins the whole thing for you. South Africa even more so.
DeleteOh, and I just noticed this tidbit from the article (my bold emphasis added)
ReplyDeleteA study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.
Get that? "[M]ore than any of the other 27 developed countries" that "they studied." That means, of course, that they are not claiming to have studied all developed countries, so perhaps they aren't calling Russia "undeveloped." No, it seems that Russia was excluded for some other reason.
Could that other reason be something along the lines of "doesn't fit the desired narrative"? Yes--yes, I believe it very plausibly could be.
I think you're reading conspiracies where there are none. Af course an inveterate liar would naturally see lies even where there are none.
Delete