How many more guns do we need to be safe?

[faithful_servant]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
I want to ask those who think we need more guns to be safe. How many? According to the chart on the article above the USA already owns 48% of all the civilian owned guns in the world and yet we seem to be the leader of the countries that have had mass shootings. We seem to be easily the most dangerous country to live in that isn't involved in a civil war, although the far right would have you think we are involved in one with our own government. That to me is their way for them to sell more guns to their paranoid groupies. So does having more guns than any other country in the world made us safer and will more guns yet make us even safer. PS, I am not advocating any gun laws or taking guns away. As I have said in the past with over 300 million guns in this country we are far too late for any gun control.

Given that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 public schools in America, I'd say that we need at least 1,000,000 more (that would be about 10 for every school).

 

[faithful_servant]

I hereby nominate this the Partisan Post of the day. Who seconds it?

Seriously though...What exactly are Republicans holding the country back from?

Free Twinkies!!!!

<just trying to match the level of intelligence in SOD's post>

 

[danielpalos]

This issue requires leadership. We may need to ask Kentucky for a Kentucky Colonel, to help out.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Your profile states you live in Bonner's Ferry, ID. There were two murders there last year - one in January, and the other in May. Also, here's a page showing that the rates for rape and assault are both close to the national average (and burglary's significantly above the national average)...but I don't put a whole lot of stock into it since the same page doesn't reflect either of the two murders above.

So...I have no doubt that you feel safer there, but then it's normal for people to become accustomed to their surroundings over a period of time, and so even high-crime areas can feel "normal" to them.

Ah yes, Dante, forgot about him. Ok, one murder in 15 years. :shrug:

As for the other one in January, that murder was done in Lincoln County Montana along the Yaak River. A good 70 miles away I believe. They just happened to be caught in Bonners.

But even if you counted both of them just because one set of the perps happened to be caught here...2 murders in 15 years. Still doesn't come close to NYC does it?

 

[Ikari]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
I want to ask those who think we need more guns to be safe. How many? According to the chart on the article above the USA already owns 48% of all the civilian owned guns in the world and yet we seem to be the leader of the countries that have had mass shootings. We seem to be easily the most dangerous country to live in that isn't involved in a civil war, although the far right would have you think we are involved in one with our own government. That to me is their way for them to sell more guns to their paranoid groupies. So does having more guns than any other country in the world made us safer and will more guns yet make us even safer. PS, I am not advocating any gun laws or taking guns away. As I have said in the past with over 300 million guns in this country we are far too late for any gun control.

Guns won't make anyone automatically safe. Nor does having guns garantee any amount of safety. In fact, by allowing guns, you have to accept that there will be a non-zero amount of gun crime. On some level, I don't think the argument is necessarily tied along lines of being safe, but rather that of freedom.

 

[blackjack50]

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
I want to ask those who think we need more guns to be safe. How many? According to the chart on the article above the USA already owns 48% of all the civilian owned guns in the world and yet we seem to be the leader of the countries that have had mass shootings. We seem to be easily the most dangerous country to live in that isn't involved in a civil war, although the far right would have you think we are involved in one with our own government. That to me is their way for them to sell more guns to their paranoid groupies. So does having more guns than any other country in the world made us safer and will more guns yet make us even safer. PS, I am not advocating any gun laws or taking guns away. As I have said in the past with over 300 million guns in this country we are far too late for any gun control.

At least the same number of guns that we have protecting politicians and the 1% elites. If not more.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Ah yes, Dante, forgot about him. Ok, one murder in 15 years. :shrug:

As for the other one in January, that murder was done in Lincoln County Montana along the Yaak River. A good 70 miles away I believe. They just happened to be caught in Bonners.

But even if you counted both of them just because one set of the perps happened to be caught here...2 murders in 15 years. Still doesn't come close to NYC does it?

Bonner's Ferry has 2564 residents. Two murders in one year equals a rate of about 78 per 100,000. New York City's homicide rate is just under 4 per 100,000.

In other words, regardless of how safe you personally feel, you're about 19.5 times MORE likely to be murdered in Bonner's Ferry than in NYC. If we don't count the other murder that happened 70 miles away, then one is "only" about ten times more likely to be murdered in Bonner's Ferry than in NYC.

But wait! You say that 2017 is an outlier? Fair enough - I'll go with that. But that still doesn't explain away the rape and assault are at about the national average, and burglary's significantly above the national average. In fact, I'd say that the one thing that prevents your neck of the woods from being much more violent is that you probably have a relatively low level of poverty in the area, for as far as I can tell, poverty is (along with ease of availability of firearms) one of the two greatest predictors of gun violence, which itself comprises the great bulk of homicides.

 

[EnigmaO01]

There are actually very few areas of the US where I would consider as being "dangerous". Most of those areas being in a few select cities. Outside of those select few areas the vast majority of the US is pretty safe. For example the area that I live in hasn't seen a single murder in over 15 years at least. And only 8 rapes since 2002.

City-Data.com

You forgot to include public schools.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Bonner's Ferry has 2564 residents. Two murders in one year equals a rate of about 78 per 100,000. New York City's homicide rate is just under 4 per 100,000.

In other words, regardless of how safe you personally feel, you're about 19.5 times MORE likely to be murdered in Bonner's Ferry than in NYC. If we don't count the other murder that happened 70 miles away, then one is "only" about ten times more likely to be murdered in Bonner's Ferry than in NYC.

But wait! You say that 2017 is an outlier? Fair enough - I'll go with that. But that still doesn't explain away the rape and assault are at about the national average, and burglary's significantly above the national average. In fact, I'd say that the one thing that prevents your neck of the woods from being much more violent is that you probably have a relatively low level of poverty in the area, for as far as I can tell, poverty is (along with ease of availability of firearms) one of the two greatest predictors of gun violence, which itself comprises the great bulk of homicides.

Look further into it. 8 rapes in 15 years going by that link I gave. What would be the ratio of rapes in NYC over the same time period?

You also point out that Bonners doesn't even have 3k Residents, the link that we both gave is X per 100 thousand. How do you compare 3k to 100 thousand? So in order to get a more accurate reading let's put NYC more on par with Bonners. In order to do that lets go by 1000 instead of 100,000. To do that you divide the population size by 1000. Which for NYC equals to 8,500. Then do the same for Bonners which equals out to 2.5. Then you take those numbers and divide them again by the total number of occurrences. So going by this: Police Department City of New York in 2016 there were 1,438 rapes that equals out to 5.9 rapes per 1000 people in NYC. In Bonners there was 1, which equals out to 2.5 rapes per 1000 people.

If you're wondering about the math and making the rates per 1000 look here Here. This is the template I followed.

So NYC: 5.9 rapes per 1000.
Bonners Ferry: 2.5 per 1000.

Note: I did round the numbers for NYC from 8.538 million to 8.500 million. And Bonners from 2,564 to 2,500 just to make the math a bit easier.

Amazing the difference when you go from 100,000 to 1,000. Particularly since one particular city doesn't even have 100,000.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You forgot to include public schools.

?? What about em?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Look further into it. 8 rapes in 15 years going by that link I gave. What would be the ratio of rapes in NYC over the same time period?

You also point out that Bonners doesn't even have 3k Residents, the link that we both gave is X per 100 thousand. How do you compare 3k to 100 thousand? So in order to get a more accurate reading let's put NYC more on par with Bonners. In order to do that lets go by 1000 instead of 100,000. To do that you divide the population size by 1000. Which for NYC equals to 8,500. Then do the same for Bonners which equals out to 2.5. Then you take those numbers and divide them again by the total number of occurrences. So going by this: Police Department City of New York in 2016 there were 1,438 rapes that equals out to 5.9 rapes per 1000 people in NYC. In Bonners there was 1, which equals out to 2.5 rapes per 1000 people.

If you're wondering about the math and making the rates per 1000 look here Here. This is the template I followed.

So NYC: 5.9 rapes per 1000.
Bonners Ferry: 2.5 per 1000.

Note: I did round the numbers for NYC from 8.538 million to 8.500 million. And Bonners from 2,564 to 2,500 just to make the math a bit easier.

Amazing the difference when you go from 100,000 to 1,000. Particularly since one particular city doesn't even have 100,000.

The standard reference for rates in populations is per 100,000 in pretty much any official law enforcement or census rating you care to check.

That, and your math is wildly wrong. You divided NYC's population by 1000, but you did not divide the events by 1000...which means that you effectively magnified the rate of rape in NYC by 1,000. That's simple math - in any such equation as the one you presented wherein you need to find the common denominator, you have to multiply (or divide) the entire number, not just the denominator.

That being said, according to the FBI, the rate of rape in NYC for 2016 was 23.1 per 100,000. Bonner's Ferry, OTOH, would (if adjusted to the common denominator of 100,000) have a rate of roughly 40 per 100,000 (using your numbers of 1 rape out of roughly 2500 residents). If we use what you suggested - per 1,000 residents - then Bonner's Ferry would have a rate of 0.4 per 1000 (because as you divide 2500 by 2.5 in order to reach 1000, you ALSO must divide the 1 rape by 2.5, which equals .4) By the same token, NYC would have a rate of 0.23 per 1000.

In other words, even though Bonner's Ferry had only 1 rape, the difference in populations is such that one is nearly twice as likely to be raped in Bonner's Ferry as in NYC. Sorry, but that's math.

P.S. The FBI's reference shows NYC as having 4,569 rapes for 2016, which is just over three times that of the reference you presented...meaning, of course, that if I were to use the numbers you presented, the rate of rape in NYC would be closer to 8 per 100,000, or .008 per 1000...both of which are MUCH lower than that of Bonner's Ferry.

 

[Lursa]

There are actually very few areas of the US where I would consider as being "dangerous". Most of those areas being in a few select cities. Outside of those select few areas the vast majority of the US is pretty safe. For example the area that I live in hasn't seen a single murder in over 15 years at least. And only 8 rapes since 2002.

City-Data.com

Yup. And I avoid them whenever possible. And if stuck in or near them, it's unlikely I'd have my cc firearm (like on my way to the airport)

 

[Gaius46]

There are actually very few areas of the US where I would consider as being "dangerous". Most of those areas being in a few select cities. Outside of those select few areas the vast majority of the US is pretty safe. For example the area that I live in hasn't seen a single murder in over 15 years at least. And only 8 rapes since 2002.

City-Data.com

Yeah but I bet you've got more than your share of serial cow tippers.


Point is well taken though. As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, mostly in the context of refuting any causality between gun control and gun crime rates, the US is a such a large country with such a widely disparate crime rate that treating it as a single entity and trying to draw any meaning conclusions regarding crime and firearms is futile. Some of the lowest crime areas also have some the of most relaxed gun laws and vice versa.
For every Chicago or Detroit I can point to a Rutland Vermont, where my wife and I have a vacation home. Since 2002 there have been a total of 3 murders. Vermont, for those who don't know, has arguably the laxest gun laws in the nation. You don't even need a permit to carry concealed.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The standard reference for rates in populations is per 100,000 in pretty much any official law enforcement or census rating you care to check.

That, and your math is wildly wrong. You divided NYC's population by 1000, but you did not divide the events by 1000...which means that you effectively magnified the rate of rape in NYC by 1,000. That's simple math - in any such equation as the one you presented wherein you need to find the common denominator, you have to multiply (or divide) the entire number, not just the denominator.

That being said, according to the FBI, the rate of rape in NYC for 2016 was 23.1 per 100,000. Bonner's Ferry, OTOH, would (if adjusted to the common denominator of 100,000) have a rate of roughly 40 per 100,000 (using your numbers of 1 rape out of roughly 2500 residents). If we use what you suggested - per 1,000 residents - then Bonner's Ferry would have a rate of 0.4 per 1000 (because as you divide 2500 by 2.5 in order to reach 1000, you ALSO must divide the 1 rape by 2.5, which equals .4) By the same token, NYC would have a rate of 0.23 per 1000.

In other words, even though Bonner's Ferry had only 1 rape, the difference in populations is such that one is nearly twice as likely to be raped in Bonner's Ferry as in NYC. Sorry, but that's math.

P.S. The FBI's reference shows NYC as having 4,569 rapes for 2016, which is just over three times that of the reference you presented...meaning, of course, that if I were to use the numbers you presented, the rate of rape in NYC would be closer to 8 per 100,000, or .008 per 1000...both of which are MUCH lower than that of Bonner's Ferry.

So the provided article that I gave you is wrong in how to calculate the rate per 1000? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Rob Larrikin]

I want to ask those who think we need more guns to be safe. How many?

The truth is civilians need no guns to “be safe”.

The 2nd amendment wasn’t talking about every person, they were talking about the militia being armed. Civilians in those days needed guns to hunt with and defend themselves against Indians, bears, wolves, thieves, etc. and they needed no constitution to point that out.

Nowadays the world is very different, and civilian guns have become superfluous. Cell phones are far more powerful, and there are thousands of tools, materials, devices, appliances, services, gadgets and gizmos that protect us nowadays.

Gun nuts think their guns are vital for survival, but tens of millions of Americans will tell you that is a myth, since they have no guns and survive perfectly well.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

So the provided article that I gave you is wrong in how to calculate the rate per 1000? Is that what you're saying?

You didn't follow the directions in the article. Here's what it says:

Divide the population size by one thousand. In the example, 250,000 divided by 1,000 equals 250, which is called the quotient, the result of division.

Divide the number of occurrences by the previous quotient. In the example, 10,000 divided by 250 equals 40.

You DID divide the population size by one thousand...but you did NOT divide the number of occurrences by the same amount by which you divided the population size - you didn't divide the number of occurrences at all. Sorry, but this isn't going to work out for you, because math is not a matter of opinion.

 

[EnigmaO01]

?? What about em?

You're really not that dense are you?