Obama, urging gun control, says 'shame on us' if people forget Newtown victims - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40098831]But guns are the common denominator.[/QUOTE] Well, maybe. But remember, the majority of gun violence in the U.S. is not school shootings and we would see a blanket decrease in violent crime as a whole if efforts were made to improve impoverished, dilapidated areas like Detroit. Gun owners keep their guns, violence goes down - seems like a win-win, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40098826]I'd personally love for Detroit to be a desirable city to live in. I don't think anyone who lives there really [I]wants[/I] to.[/QUOTE] I don't get it.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;40098872]I don't get it.[/QUOTE] Detroit being a shitty place to live in means it harbors a lot of violent types. It's poor living conditions is one of the root causes of violence in the first place.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40098892]Detroit being a shitty place to live in means it harbors a lot of violent types. It's poor living conditions is one of the root causes of violence in the first place.[/QUOTE] It's also worth mentioning that they have very restrictive gun laws there. It's basically the perfect example of how guns aren't the root of the problem, it's the poor living conditions/general poverty.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40098928]It's also worth mentioning that they have very restrictive gun laws there. It's basically the perfect example of how guns aren't the root of the problem, it's the poor living conditions/general poverty.[/QUOTE] But of course someone's going to point out that restrictive gun laws work for some other place, and now we're right back into the same damn logic we see in every other thread about the subject.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;40098795]This is just a hunch obviously, but I'm pretty sure it's both more socially desirable and cost beneficial to study and address the underlying causes of gun violence, which we don't know at all, rather than blindly ban guns and hope it has a positive effect.[/QUOTE] But that is just it. It's not 'gun violence' per say. Its just violence, its crime, its domestics. It only becomes 'gun crime' when people have access to guns. It not exclusive to the United states, or any country. The simple fact is that Americans are no more prone to violence and violent crime than most western nations. Yet they suffer in my opinion suffer an unacceptable homicide rate. And the evidence that the availability and saturation of firearms is a [I]root cause[/I] of this is compelling. Of course its more complicated than this, of course there are a hundred other things people can do to help improve things but it irks me when people flat out deny this relationship. [editline]30th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40098928]It's also worth mentioning that they have very restrictive gun laws there. It's basically the perfect example of how guns aren't the root of the problem, it's the poor living conditions/general poverty.[/QUOTE] Its hardly a perfect example when anyone can drive in a load of stolen guns from cross the state-line.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40098964]But that is just it. It's not 'gun violence' per say. Its just violence, its crime, its domestics. It only becomes 'gun crime' when people have access to guns. It not exclusive to the United states, or any country. The simple fact is that Americans are no more prone to violence and violent crime than most western nations. Yet they suffer in my opinion an unacceptable homicide rate. And the evidence that the availability and saturation of firearms is a [I]root cause[/I] of this is compelling. Of course its more complicated than this, of course there are a hundred other things people can do to help improve things but it irks me when people flat out deny this relationship.[/QUOTE] And I respect that and agree with you, I'm just saying that sometimes the way you carry yourself in threads like these can be viewed as being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate and it gets people angry.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;40098974]And I respect that and agree with you, I'm just saying that sometimes the way you carry yourself in threads like these can be viewed as being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate and it gets people angry.[/QUOTE] I guess its easy to become polarised in an issue like this. I mean, I used to shoot regularly, and was toying with the idea of owning a rifle my self for a while. So its not like I don't 'get' the idea of owning firearms.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40098964]The simple fact is that Americans are no more prone to violence and violent crime than most western nations. Yet they suffer in my opinion suffer an unacceptable homicide rate. And the evidence that the availability and saturation of firearms is a [I]root cause[/I] of this is compelling. [/QUOTE] Whoah, easy there. That's not true. [url]http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/[/url] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html[/url] [url]http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome[/url] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/madrusski/USviolent-crime-rate-and-private-firearm-ownership-1981-2007_zpsffe1439d.png[/img] Now, I'm not saying that crime increased do to gun bans, I'm saying that guns don't have a clear effect on violence.

Registration, control, and higher expectations, responsibility and effort required by those wanting to own a gun is obviously what's needed when it comes to firearms themselves. But with people wanting to maintain status-quo [I]AT BEST[/I] that's not gonna happen there. The other part is the healthcare sector [B]BUT[/B] [I]THERE[/I] there's also a alarmingly high amount of people insisting of maintaining status-quo (or even worse), not to mention a prison system focusing of punishing instead of rehabilitation. There's a fuckload of problems in the US, but no-one wants to [I]REALLY[/I] do anything about any of them. It's sickening.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40098928]It's also worth mentioning that they have very restrictive gun laws there. It's basically the perfect example of how guns aren't the root of the problem, it's the poor living conditions/general poverty.[/QUOTE] How do you know that the strict gun laws aren't already put into place as result of the poverty? Do you think that in a crime-ridden area, the better course of action would be to make the availability of firearms even [I]greater?[/I] I see this argument all the time and I'm sure there's some merit to it, but I can't help but feel unsatisfied every time I read it because I think it conflates cause with effect.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;40099083]Whoah, easy there. That's not true. [url]http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/[/url] [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html[/url] [url]http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome[/url] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/madrusski/USviolent-crime-rate-and-private-firearm-ownership-1981-2007_zpsffe1439d.png[/img] Now, I'm not saying that crime increased do to gun bans, I'm saying that guns don't have a clear effect on violence.[/QUOTE] Well the first and second articles are completely bogus. The Daily Mail for obvious reasons, violent crime and homicide fell after the bans. Obviously the reported statistics from 'gun crime' go up when you make something illegal. If you outright ban smoking, illegal smoking is going to go up 249452%. Not to mention that [I]all[/I] incidents regarding guns, the threat of guns, toy guns, bb guns all came under the unified gun crime statistics after the ban. My friend accidentally shot himself in the arm while messing around with an air rifle, the police recorded that as a gun statistic as is 'text book'. First lets look at the Australian case: [url]http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf[/url] There is a clear reduction of nearly all crime after the bans. And lets follow up this with a snippet from The Economist. (yes again) [quote]Opponents of gun controls may respond with familiar flurries of statistics. In Hartford, for instance, several pro-gun demonstrators cited the same talking point, claiming (falsely) that home invasion rates soared in Australia after that country banned the most powerful forms of guns in 1996, following a mass shooting. Actually, home break-in and robbery rates have fallen sharply in Australia since 1996, as have gun-death rates, with no corresponding rise in other forms of homicide. The most recent Australian crime statistics may be found here[the study I posted], and set out the historical trends clearly.[/quote] And I can't access the last article, but its not looking good. As for the graph. [img]http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-8f6adf03cbf552c061c59253cde60aec-mauserfig11.png[/img] yes homicide is falling but so is the number of house holds with firearms. [img]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_gun_ownership.jpg[/img] Is there a connection? Maybe, maybe not. EDIT: Bonus UK post ban graphs. [img]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resources/graph1_tcm119-24124.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resources/graph3_tcm119-24126.jpg[/img] They dropped like a rock after the ban. But again I'm always dubious on relying solely on graphs.

There's also a reduction in violent crime rate in the US, and around the same year too, 1996. Hell, the same happened in my country in South America, and guns have been heavily restricted since the 1970's. The problem is that the data is so contaminated with outside factors (growth, development, technology, whatever) that it's impossible to draw a solid conclusion from it, other than "we don't really know what's going on", which is my point of view.

I do wonder what happened in 1996 that was so brilliant enough to turn crime on its head throughout the western world. Maybe it was the explosion of ecstasy and electronic music :v: [url]http://thedea.org/statistics.html[/url] There certainly is a strong correlation!

I remember reading a paper by Stephen Levitt arguing that the main cause of crime reduction was legalized abortion, 20 or 15 years early. [editline]30th March 2013[/editline] Or it's just that the 90's where so cool that people just didn't bother killing each other.

Certainly wasn't the Spice Girls.

[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;40099092]How do you know that the strict gun laws aren't already put into place as result of the poverty? Do you think that in a crime-ridden area, the better course of action would be to make the availability of firearms even [I]greater?[/I] I see this argument all the time and I'm sure there's some merit to it, but I can't help but feel unsatisfied every time I read it because I think it conflates cause with effect.[/QUOTE] Actually that's exactly what I'm saying. The gun laws are put into place as a result of the poverty and the crime rate and they have little if any effect.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;40099403]I remember reading a paper by Stephen Levitt arguing that the main cause of crime reduction was legalized abortion, 20 or 15 years early.[/QUOTE] This is one of the main arguments in Freakonomics

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40099388]I do wonder what happened in 1996 that was so brilliant enough to turn crime on its head throughout the western world. Maybe it was the explosion of ecstasy and electronic music :v: [url]http://thedea.org/statistics.html[/url] There certainly is a strong correlation![/QUOTE] I was wondering the same thing, actually. Globally, crime rates peaked in the early 90s, and have dropped hard since then. I think Doom is the reason.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40082956]yes just like they did in the UK and Australia :downs: Of wait, it actually worked. And things are better now than they have ever been.[/QUOTE] I shot you down last time you bought this shit up. And the time before that. I live in Australia Violent crime wise, things are actually about as bad as they've been in a while. If you actually look at the statistics you think support your argument (they dont), you would see firearm homicide and other crimes were already on a downward trend. In fact the only really notable thing the bans and buybacks in Australia did was reduce the amount of firearm suicides - and its not like thats really significant, all it means is instead of blowing your brains out you're looking for alternative suicide methods. Australia never had a large amount of firearm homicide to begin with.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40099797]and its not like thats really significant, all it means is instead of blowing your brains out you're looking for alternative suicide methods.[/QUOTE] We've been over this.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40099196]Well the first and second articles are completely bogus. The Daily Mail for obvious reasons, violent crime and homicide fell after the bans. Obviously the reported statistics from 'gun crime' go up when you make something illegal. If you outright ban smoking, illegal smoking is going to go up 249452%. Not to mention that [I]all[/I] incidents regarding guns, the threat of guns, toy guns, bb guns all came under the unified gun crime statistics after the ban. My friend accidentally shot himself in the arm while messing around with an air rifle, the police recorded that as a gun statistic as is 'text book'. First lets look at the Australian case: [url]http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf[/url] There is a clear reduction of nearly all crime after the bans. And lets follow up this with a snippet from The Economist. (yes again) And I can't access the last article, but its not looking good. As for the graph. [img]http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-8f6adf03cbf552c061c59253cde60aec-mauserfig11.png[/img] yes homicide is falling but so is the number of house holds with firearms. [img]http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_gun_ownership.jpg[/img] Is there a connection? Maybe, maybe not. EDIT: Bonus UK post ban graphs. [img]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resources/graph1_tcm119-24124.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.statistics.gov.uk/resources/graph3_tcm119-24126.jpg[/img] They dropped like a rock after the ban. But again I'm always dubious on relying solely on graphs.[/QUOTE] Except Australia had increases in assault, rape, and B&E after the ban, Britain has a terrible violent crime rate and gun crime is up more than 80%, Canada has had absolutely nothing productive done through gun control, and that means that we wasted $2 billion on useless registration initiatives, and despite the number of guns in the US being at an all time high the US violent crime AND homicide rates are still down. It's also interesting to note that comparing America to America in 1910 and Britain to Britain in 1910, you note an increase in homicide rate in Britain since 1910 (0.8-1.6), but a very dramatic decrease in homicide rates in the US since 1910 (7.8-4.6). In Canada as well, when the first licensing system for guns was introduced in the '70s, we saw peak suicide rates at around 18. In 1992, before the current ridiculous legislation was proposed, hanging overtook firearms as the primary form of suicide in Canada, and has remained such. Since the ban on guns, comparing about 1990-now with suicide rates, they've gone from 12 to 11, no significant reduction is present.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;40099428]Actually that's exactly what I'm saying. The gun laws are put into place as a result of the poverty and the crime rate and they have little if any effect.[/QUOTE] my mistake I'm so used to hearing anti-gun control rhetoric on this forum that I misinterpreted your post as saying that gun control itself is one of the causes of higher violent crime rates.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;40081972]But 'responsible gun owners' are what the whole civilian arms industry is built to service, the one that disappears half a million 'legal' firearms into the black market every year, or gives the NRA such potency. Being a 'responsible gun owner' is like being a 'casual racist' amongst friends, you still perpetuate a problem.[/QUOTE] I'm Dutch and I own an air rifle. Am I part of the problem?