77% of gun homicide victims are men.

[Bonobo]

That's nearly 8 out of 10.

Wow, I knew that men faced the threat of physical abuse, beatings and muggings at levels that were likely higher than women, but I never realized it was so out of proportion.

It is true that of the smaller proportion of women that are killed by guns are the victims of their partners -but I can't imagine it matters terribly much to the victims and their families who they are killed by.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. I find it highly unlikely that men are at higher risk for physical abuse.

Not impossible since I have not seen the numbers you appear to be sourcing from, but highly unlikely.

[Bonobo]

3. I don't know about you...

But when I was at school, boys got beat up a lot. By peers and by teachers, by bullies and by parents.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. So your source is your singular high school experience?

[Bonobo]

9. For the murder percentage? Not at all. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

11. No, for the argument that men are more likely to suffer physical abuse.

[Bonobo]

14. Well the domestic violence stats are quite close themselves.

And when you add the frequency of fights and beatings (a form of physical abuse), it is a reasonable guess that men face more violence on the whole than women.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. Can you source these claims for me?

[Bonobo]

19. Which claims in particular? nt

[Gravitycollapse]

21. You are claiming that the aggregate of all possible forms of physical abuse...

would reveal that men are more likely to suffer from physical abuse than women. I assume you have sources for that claim and are not merely forming such a belief based on what happened when you were 16.

[Bonobo]

24. Here you go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
(The above claims 40% of domestic violence victims are men)

The number 33% is offered up by many groups as well.

The below suggests the number is roughly equal:
Surveys find that men and women assault one another and strike the first blow at approximately equal rates.
(Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126 (5), 651-680.
Dutton, D., Kwong, M., & Bartholomew, K. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 150-160
Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4), 251-269.
Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseky (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.)

HOWEVER:
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm
The National Family Violence Survey (NFVS) found nearly equal rates of assault (11–12 percent) by an intimate partner among both men and women. If so-called "minor" violence such as pushing and shoving is excluded, the rate is around 3 percent — more than twice the rate found in NVAWS.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/?tool=pubmed
The women’s movement brought initial attention to the problem of partner violence directed at women and to the need for funding to address that problem. Much of the initial research on IPV was conducted with severely abused women and supported the assumption that IPV is primarily perpetrated by men against women. Data is mounting, however, that suggests that IPV is often perpetrated by both men and women against their partner.
It is also becoming recognized that perpetration of IPV by both partners within a relationship is fairly common. This phenomenon has been described with terms such as mutual violence, symmetrical violence, or reciprocal violence. Here we use the terms reciprocal and nonreciprocal to indicate IPV that is perpetrated by both partners (reciprocal) or 1 partner only (nonreciprocal) in a given relationship. Reciprocity of IPV does not necessarily mean that the frequency or the severity of the violence is equal or similar between partners.

[HiPointDem]

25. men are overwhelmingly the main victims of violence, and mostly from other men. men are

more likely to do violence, and more likely to receive violence. not sure why that would be surprising to anyone.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. The National Crime Victims Survey has been collecting victimization data for 20 years.

Their NVAT reporting tool indicates that with the exception of one year (2009) men have always been more likely to be victims of violent crime.

NVAT > custom tables > personal victimization > select victimization type > violent victimization > first variable = sex > generate results

[pnwmom]

2. And what percent of people who commit gun homicides are men?

It's probably a case of mostly men shooting other men.

[Bonobo]

4. Why on earth does that matter?

[pnwmom]

13. Why should you expect that the rates of men and women being shot to death should be the same?

It's no mystery why more men die from gun violence. Men are more likely to shoot guns and to get shot at.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval. In contrast to men, who killed nonintimate acquaintances, strangers, or victims of undetermined relationship in 80% of cases, women killed their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member in 60% of cases. When men killed with a gun, they most commonly shot a stranger or a non-family acquaintance.

[Bonobo]

15. Why should you care less if men are the primary victims of gun violence

simply because the people shooting have the same types of genitals?

[Gravitycollapse]

18. Not sure it's a matter of caring less more than seeing that violence is male dominated...

And is a clear function of patriarchal institutions and the idealized male machismo.

[Bonobo]

22. Well then it is a wash since men are the primary victims.

Since my friends at DU are unlikely to be the perpetrators of gun killings, it seems reasonable to point out to them that they nevertheless face the overwhelmingly larger chance of being the victims.

I think some of the responses are perilously close to blaming the victims.

On an individual tragedy level, the talk of patriarchy fails rather badly to be any comfort to the dead.

[Gravitycollapse]

23. That's more a condemnation of general male stupidity and self-destruction than anything else.

That the block of male aggressors is so stupid that they cannot even attack those they wish to target and become distracted by themselves to their own demise.

The target of male aggression is the philosophical woman. In other words, those who are not seen as "real men." The last thing I'm sure a lot of these men hear before taking a bullet to the skull is the word "bitch," "pussy," "faggot" or "queer." Idealized male machismo destroying itself because it stupidly confuses itself for someone else.

[Bonobo]

26. Nice subject for an ivory tower dissertation perhaps.

But my OP says that 8 out of 10 of the victims of gun deaths are going to be men.

Blaming the Patriarchy just isn't going to cut it.

Men suffer greater proportional damage due to violence -the innocent as well as the guilty.

Please do not blame victims for sharing the same genitals with the majority of the criminals.

[Gravitycollapse]

29. I'm blaming male aggressors, not men. There is a difference.

And the difference is that I'm not victim blaming. I'm recognizing the stupidity inherent in male dominated institutions (ie. nearly every institution) and the idealized male machismo.

[pnwmom]

32. Men as a group "suffer greater proportional damage" and they inflict greater proportional damage.

You want us to feel sorry for men as a group because a greater proportion of men have been killed
BUT you don't want us to blame men as a group because a greater proportion of men are killers.

Logically, you can't have it both ways.

[Bonobo]

33. At the level of the individual

Your statement comes off as victim-blaming. In the genocide in Africa, one could use the same logic to feel no sympathy for the victims of violence since both perps and victims are African.

[pnwmom]

34. I'm not saying men deserve no sympathy. I'm saying they don't deserve any extra sympathy.

You seem to think they do.

Once again, gun deaths of men are NOT out of proportion to the rate of the USE of guns by men -- except in the other direction. Men are more likely than women to die from gunshots -- but they are even MORE likely than women to be the killers.

[Bonobo]

35. I really don't understand

I do not see sympathy as the issue. Men face an outsized threat of being the victims of gun and other violence. Period.

If you have a son, he faces this threat and my bringing up that fact does not require you to offer or not offer sympathy based on the issue of whether more men commit violence.

I am describing the nature of the life that men face. It is not a contest.

[pnwmom]

38. There is a very simple thing men can do to sharply reduce the chance of being a victim

of gun violence.

Far more people are killed in their homes by gun accidents than by violent intruders with guns. So the best thing for a man to do, if he's concerned about being a victim of a gun, is NOT TO OWN ONE.

[Bonobo]

39. Do you have statistics to back that up?

You claim more men are killed in gun accidents than as victims shootings. Can you provide stats for that?

[pnwmom]

41. Yup. This is common knowledge, really (except among NRA members), but I googled for you anyway.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.

"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."

Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children.

SNIP

[Bonobo]

43. That does not support your claim that more men are killed by household accidents than by crime

You: Far more men are killed through household accidents with guns than by gun violence.

Nothing in your link suggests that to be the case.

[pnwmom]

44. Yes, I misspoke. Accidents PLUS suicides kill far more men in their homes than intruders do.

But the fact remains that the single best way for a man to avoid dying of gun violence is not to own a gun.

[ManiacJoe]

45. True, but that particular judging criteria is quite limited in its usefulness.

But the fact remains that the single best way for a man to avoid dying of gun violence in his own home is not to own a gun.

Fixed it for you.

[pnwmom]

46. The single best way to reduce the chance of a gun death OVERALL

is not to own a gun, because most deaths by gun are caused by suicides and accidents.

[ManiacJoe]

51. Both of which are easily mitigated.

Proper storage is a good thing.

[LanternWaste]

48. Is victim-blaming worse than or better than using false equivalences to engender an effectual point?

Is victim-blaming worse than or better than using false equivalences to engender an effectual point?

[Bonobo]

50. Did you hiccup? nt

[pnwmom]

20. Women are far more likely to get killed than they are to kill.

I don't know what the point of these comparisons is supposed to be, but women come out on the losing side, not men.

[HiPointDem]

27. dunno about that. women are most likely to kill men. and men are most likely to kill men.

ergo, men come out worse.

[Bonobo]

28. There is no point.

And that is why I don't understand that you felt the need to point out that 77% of men being killed is somehow ameliorated by the fact that the killers also have penises.

You came onto the thread and said it as if it somehow changes the equation in some way.

[pnwmom]

30. What would satisfy you? 50% of the victims being women?

So EVEN MORE of the dead would be women even though so few are shooters themselves?

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Bonobo]

31. That's not very fair. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. This only matters if one assumes that because the victims are men, they deserved what they got. n/t

[pnwmom]

55. It matters as much as the OP's view that men are somehow more victimized

because a higher percentage of them are killed by guns.

What would be "fair"? For half of the deaths to be of women, even though women are far less likely to kill anyone by any means?

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. "somehow"?

Last edited Mon Jun 24, 2013, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Men are more often the victims of violence, especially homicide, especially homicide by gun.

No "somehow" about it.

Fair is acknowledging that they are victims, not quasi-victims because they are men like their attackers.

[BainsBane]

5. That's all?

No details about how those guns are used? Whether they are used in self defense, suicide, accidental shootings?

[Bonobo]

7. I think the percentage tells a pretty important story.

If you want more details, I invite you to do your own research.

[BainsBane]

12. I did yours for you

TABLE 6
Victim/o ender relationship, by victim sex,
1980–2008
Victim/o ender relationship Male Female
Total 100% 100%
Intimate 7.1% 41.5%
Spouse 4.0 24.1
Ex-spouse 0.2 1.9
Boyfriend/girlfriend 3.0 15.5
Other family 10.9% 16.7%
Parent 2.0 4.1
Child 3.6 7.5
Sibling 1.8 1.2
Other family 3.5 3.9
Acquaintance/known 56.4% 29.9%
Neighbor 1.6 1.7
Employee/employer 0.2 0.2
Friend/acquaintance 46.2 22.8
Other known 8.3 5.2
Stranger 25.5% 11.9%
Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. The percentages of
victim/off ender relationships are based on the 63.1% of homicides from
1980 through 2008 for which the victim/off ender relationships were known.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

[Recursion]

8. And nearly all of them are poor

The bulk of America's violence problem is poor men harming poor men.

[BainsBane]

10. details

I don't know why this should be so difficult to find.

Males were nearly 4 times more likely than females to be
murdered in 2008 ( gure 15).
 Th e homicide victimization rate for both males and females was
at its highest in 1980—16.1 homicides per 100,000 for males
and 4.5 homicides per 100,000 for females. By 2008, the rates for
both groups had fallen, reaching 8.5 homicides per 100,000 for
males and 2.3 homicides per 100,000 for females.
Homicide o ending rates for both males and females followed
the same general pattern as homicide victimization rates
 Males were 7 times more likely than females to commit murder
in 2008 ( gure 16).
 Th e off ending rate for females has declined from 3.1 off enders
per 100,000 in 1980 to 1.6 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.
 Th e off ending rate for males peaked in 1991 at 20.8 per 100,000,
then fell to a low of 11.3 per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

[Bonobo]

17. Oh, I never said they were hard to find. nt

[BainsBane]

36. 65% of women who are gun homicide victims are killed by partners

and it certainly does matter. It means those women had for a long time lived in terror in their homes. It means the children either saw or know their father killed their mother. Do you really think that doesn't matter? SMH

[Bonobo]

37. Yes I think it matters.

I think that it is terrible to be killed by a domestic partner and it is also terrible to be killed by a stranger simply because you have been targeted for your male gender as is the case for many victims of gang violence.

[BainsBane]

40. targeted for their gender

I think is not accurate. That would mean they are killed for being male. Firstly, men are 7x more likely to kill than women, and men are 4x more likely to be victims than women. So in the case of gang violence, these are male on male crimes, but not completely random males. For example, upper middle class boys and young men from the burbs are not targeted. Young boys and men in the inner cities can be coerced into joining gangs and are killed through inter-gang rivalry. There is no evidence they are targeted because they are male. They are more often targeted for being in rival gangs. Then there is the fact that 1/2-2/3 of those homicides are self-inflicted, as gunners love to point out (as though they shouldn't count). Those lives certainly do count, and they are one of the greatest hazards of gun proliferation, by they are overwhelmingly men killing themselves. You mistake effect for motivation.

You will also note that young black men are disproportionately victims of gun violence.

[Bonobo]

42. In Chicago these days, you are, by default, a gang member based on where you live.

And for sure, they are targeted because they are boys. Blaming them for being in gangs does not work because it is not their choice.

[BainsBane]

47. "blaming them for being boys"

What an absurd charge. Evidently expecting you to read or use reason is out of the question. Why do you suppose so many men are determined to wipe their own gender off the planet? That is what you are saying. You are accusing men of misandry in killing other males simply because they are male, which apparently is the motivation behind suicide as well. Suicide kills more men that any other form of homicide.

Have you ever been to Chicago? It sounds like you haven't. Everyone is not a gang member. There are prosperous neighborhoods and poor ones, and many little girls are killed as well.

That boulder sized chip on your shoulder must get awfully heavy.

[Bonobo]

49. I lived in Chicago, so ummm, yeah.

I never said everyone in Chicago is a gang member but I probably should have phrased more carefully.

[BainsBane]

56. So relieved that Oprah and Vince Vaughn aren't in gangs

That would really be rough.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Not surprising.

Most men who are shot also have prior criminal records are or actively involved in crime. Criminal organizations are not exactly known as bastions of equal opportunity.