"Bowling for Columbine" question.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-06-30 05:39am

I am going to try to keep this brief. I just have two questions.

1. Are Moore's statistics on gun murder in the U.S. vs the rest of the industrialized world correct?

2. If so, WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY FUCKING GUN MURDERS HERE?

What do you think?

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2004-06-30 05:46am

1.- I remember something of a 7,7 murders for every 100.000 people as an average for the USA (with a 17 for 100.000 in southern States like Louisiana). In contrast, Spain which is by far the most violent country in the EU (we have lots of mobs from South America and Eastern Europe, in addition to other things) has 3,5 for 100.000.

2.- I strongly believe that the main reason is that having a helluva lot of guns (with most of them held by violence-prone people) means that you will use them a lot more than those with less guns.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-06-30 05:49am

Interesting. Moore pointed out how the American media does a great job of keeping us Americans paranoid; evertime we turn on the evening news we see violence.

There was a great quote in it: "If guns keep people safer, America would be one of the safest places in the world. It's not, it's just the opposite."

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-30 05:49am

Well guns are more common here so you'd have more gun-related murders.

If people don't have guns to murder with, they'll use knives and blunt objects.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-06-30 05:50am

Shinova, are there any statistics to back that up?

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2004-06-30 05:52am

Shinova wrote:If people don't have guns to murder with, they'll use knives and blunt objects.

However, it is a lot more exhausting killing somebody with a knife that pressing a trigger. And considering that the ocurrence of somebody going nuts because he has been fired and start firing at everybody within range seems to be far higher in the States, I think that guns should be strictly controled.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-30 06:36am

Superman wrote:Shinova, are there any statistics to back that up?

Back what up? It's common sense. We have a constitutional law that allows civillians to carry guns (usually), more guns in circulation, more gun-related murders in proportion to total murders.

The second one's even more just common sense.

Also it's probably a cultural thing over here in the US. Compared to Japan, where social order is tighter so murders are much less frequent.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-06-30 06:41am

Back what up? It's common sense.

Shall we go over the notion of "burdon of proof?" It's not your little "common sense" argument. Let me ask again, do you have and statistics to back this up?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-06-30 06:43am

Maybe I have to clarify. This is what I am asking you about.

If people don't have guns to murder with, they'll use knives and blunt objects.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-06-30 07:25am

Shinova wrote:Well guns are more common here so you'd have more gun-related murders.

If people don't have guns to murder with, they'll use knives and blunt objects.

No they won't, as it's much easier to incapacitate people with those up close and personal, as a result of the method of killing being changed, murders would become more infrequent.

I'm sure people would protect themselves with knives and blunt objects, but there wouldn't be as many kills, as you would have to put more effort and mental concentration into beatign someone to death or stabbing them to death. A person who had incapacitated someone sufficiently would likely give it up there and flee.

If it did stay the same, however, that would mean the US is scarier than previously thought. An extremely violent culture.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-30 08:01am

Murders would be harder to do, granted, but won't mean they suddenly drop down.

Especially gang-related crimes. No guns? They'll just kill each other with other things.

Domestic violence, the same.

The mix-matched culture and social aspects play more into violence in the US than the presence of guns, from what I can tell.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-30 10:40am

Superman wrote:I am going to try to keep this brief. I just have two questions.

1. Are Moore's statistics on gun murder in the U.S. vs the rest of the industrialized world correct?

2. If so, WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY FUCKING GUN MURDERS HERE?

What do you think?

1 - Yes
2 - Violence among blacks and hispanics. Way out of whack with that of whites and asians.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-06-30 10:49am

Shinova wrote:Well guns are more common here so you'd have more gun-related murders.

Canada has as about as many guns per person as the US, and their murder rate is much lower. Hell, I think Swiss citizens are required to own guns, and they have an extremely low gun murder rate.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-30 10:54am

There's a city near where I live, Kennesaw, that actually requires gun ownership as well. They should be practically drowning in gun violence if more crime is the necessary consequence of increased gun ownership, but it has a ridiculously low crime rate.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2004-06-30 11:36am

Andrew J. wrote:
Shinova wrote:Well guns are more common here so you'd have more gun-related murders.
Canada has as about as many guns per person as the US, and their murder rate is much lower. Hell, I think Swiss citizens are required to own guns, and they have an extremely low gun murder rate.

My understanding is that the Swiss have required military and reserve service - so each member has their own firearm (mainly rifles, officers might have pistols).

One of the most interesting articles was in National Geographic a long time ago about the "hidden" Switzerland. They showed how heavily militarized they are - mortars located in fake tree stumps, hidden airfields, mountain fortresses, etc... They define neutrality as "making it too damn expensive to invade" (they also don't involve themselves in world affairs except indirectly - look at how few organizations they belong too. )

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-06-30 11:43am

Superman wrote:I am going to try to keep this brief. I just have two questions.

1. Are Moore's statistics on gun murder in the U.S. vs the rest of the industrialized world correct?

2. If so, WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY FUCKING GUN MURDERS HERE?

What do you think?

1. Kinda Sorta.

From David Hardy's site:

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. ( Jörg Altmeppen has emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in 1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the languages in which I can only curse.).

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:

<snip>

After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Moore isn't lying, but he is being selective on which data he presents.

2. We don't have a lot of gun murders here if you look at the rate. 11,000 sounds like a hell of a lot until you consider that the US has 285 million people. The firearm homicide rate (raw number was 11,384) during 2001 was only 3.98 per 100,000 according to the CDC's WISQARS database. The non firearm homicide (raw number 8960) rate that same year was 3.14 per 100,000. We have a non gun homicide rate that is higher than those countries' total homicide rate.

Also, as Joe wrote, the murder rate among blacks is extemely high at over 22 per 100k compared to 4 per 100k among whites, and that black rate is largely caused by the inner city gang culture.

If avoiding murder is your goal, don't get involved with gangbangers.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-06-30 02:47pm

Shinova wrote:Well guns are more common here so you'd have more gun-related murders.

Moore stated that Canada had just about as many guns, and a very small percentage of gun murders per year. I don't know how accurate that is, however.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-30 02:54pm

An apples-to-apples comparison of Canadian and American federal crime stats still leaves the US with several times the per-capita rate of gun murder as compared to Canada. Moore blames economic injustice and media sensationalism for it, and I do think he has a point. It's easy to just blame blacks, but the problem is probably more related to impoverished ghetto areaas than race.

In America, the rich are richer, and the poor are poorer.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-06-30 02:55pm

Here's the data for 2001 broken down by race:
Source: US CDC's WISQARS database.

Firearm homicide:

White:
Number of homicides: 3085
Rate per 100,000: 1.56

Black:
Number of homicides: 5790
Rate per 100,000: 16.23

Hispanic Origin:
Number of homicides: 2123
Rate per 100,000: 5.70

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non firearm homicide:

White:
Number of homicides: 4843
Rate per 100,000: 2.44

Black:
Number of homicides: 2287
Rate per 100,000: 6.41

Hispanic Origin:
Number of homicides: 1208
Rate per 100,000: 3.24

Interesting that whites (who have the highest percentage of gun ownership) use weapons other than guns for the majority of homicides.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-06-30 03:06pm

Darth Wong wrote:An apples-to-apples comparison of Canadian and American federal crime stats still leaves the US with several times the per-capita rate of gun murder as compared to Canada. Moore blames economic injustice and media sensationalism for it, and I do think he has a point. It's easy to just blame blacks, but the problem is probably more related to impoverished ghetto areaas than race.

In America, the rich are richer, and the poor are poorer.

He does have a point. Black homicide rates weren't always this high, so that disqualifies race as a factor.

Other than the 'Welfare Reform' segment, though, he fails to explore why the rate is higher among blacks. Poverty is a factor but its not the only factor as there are many more poor whites than poor blacks. The inner city black 'gangsta' culture is more to blame than anything else, and that evolved from the breakdown of the black family. The late NY Senator Moniyhan back in the 60's predicted that something like this would happen.

Moore stated that Canada had just about as many guns, and a very small percentage of gun murders per year. I don't know how accurate that is, however.

Canada has a low homicide rate period compared to the US.
The US non gun rate is higher than Canada's total rate.

As far as 'just as many guns' goes, that's bullshit plain and simple. About 40%+ of the US population owns at least one gun (numbers are estimates because no one knows for sure) and there are about 250 million firearms in circulation in the US.

Canada's gun ownership rate is about 29% and they have nowhere near 250 million guns.

Moore also fails to note that most Canadian gun owners own shotguns and rifles. Handguns are not that common in Canada. Handguns make up about 50 million of the 250 million firearms in the US.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-06-30 03:47pm

Being able to live off welfare without ever having to try to get a job was a big factor for why it was pretty bad back in the day here imo. People that were just living off welfare without nothing to do during the day would be on the street all day. Since it was made so that you couldn't just live off welfare without ever trying to even find a job, it's gotten a lot better here. I remember back when, even the police were afraid to be at flatbush. Of course, this also could have been due to the police force being tripled over the past decade

.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-30 05:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:An apples-to-apples comparison of Canadian and American federal crime stats still leaves the US with several times the per-capita rate of gun murder as compared to Canada. Moore blames economic injustice and media sensationalism for it, and I do think he has a point. It's easy to just blame blacks, but the problem is probably more related to impoverished ghetto areaas than race.

In America, the rich are richer, and the poor are poorer.

More to the point, the War on Drugs is at fault. There were poor black neighborhoods in northern cities as early as thr 20's, and while the crime rate was higher than in rich areas, they weren't war zones like they are today.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-06-30 06:54pm

RedImperator wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:An apples-to-apples comparison of Canadian and American federal crime stats still leaves the US with several times the per-capita rate of gun murder as compared to Canada. Moore blames economic injustice and media sensationalism for it, and I do think he has a point. It's easy to just blame blacks, but the problem is probably more related to impoverished ghetto areaas than race.

In America, the rich are richer, and the poor are poorer.
More to the point, the War on Drugs is at fault. There were poor black neighborhoods in northern cities as early as thr 20's, and while the crime rate was higher than in rich areas, they weren't war zones like they are today.

The War on Drugs, isn't entirely to blame either. Drugs just played into a whole lot of other pre-existing social problems and are as much a side effect as a cause.

The simple fact that most of said northen cities also had a lot of business and life drained out of them by the Suburban Migration. That took a lot of the prosperous heart of those cities. With most businesses gone the inner cities began their death spiral as most of them couldn't. and some still can't, provide the basics well enough to make prosperity possible. With no unskilled jobs and no education, a lot of the problem is simple poverty. And add to that a whole host of family/lifestyle issues and you get a bunch of people that are utterly unequipped to deal with the real world on society's terms. The simple family life problems typical of so many inner city kids and families contributed alot to the rise of the gang culture. That's what's caused the absolutely war zone atmosphere in the inner cities.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-06-30 08:37pm

ArmorPierce wrote:Being able to live off welfare without ever having to try to get a job was a big factor for why it was pretty bad back in the day here imo. People that were just living off welfare without nothing to do during the day would be on the street all day. Since it was made so that you couldn't just live off welfare without ever trying to even find a job, it's gotten a lot better here. I remember back when, even the police were afraid to be at flatbush. Of course, this also could have been due to the police force being tripled over the past decade .

are you blaming welfare for crime? if so germany would be a hellhole since about 10% are unemployed and living on welfare.

Shaidar Haran · Post by **Shaidar Haran** » 2004-06-30 10:04pm

salm wrote:
ArmorPierce wrote:Being able to live off welfare without ever having to try to get a job was a big factor for why it was pretty bad back in the day here imo. People that were just living off welfare without nothing to do during the day would be on the street all day. Since it was made so that you couldn't just live off welfare without ever trying to even find a job, it's gotten a lot better here. I remember back when, even the police were afraid to be at flatbush. Of course, this also could have been due to the police force being tripled over the past decade .
are you blaming welfare for crime? if so germany would be a hellhole since about 10% are unemployed and living on welfare.

And how many of them will be on that the majority of their lives and as like as not are second or third generation recipients? It's one thing to have people on welfare, another to have a parasitic under-class.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Bowling for Columbine" question.

"Bowling for Columbine" question.

Re: "Bowling for Columbine" question.

Re: "Bowling for Columbine" question.