America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns.
167 replies, posted
OK so who is right?
We have a stack of studies saying we do have more fun crime and a stack of studies saying we don't have more fun crime
[QUOTE=Sableye;48574947]OK so who is right?
We have a stack of studies saying we do have more fun crime and a stack of studies saying we don't have more fun crime[/QUOTE]
If you set out with the intent to demonize 1/3 of the US population as either criminals waiting to happen or already criminals then you're going to look at the numbers and see proof that guns are the problem. Otherwise you're going to see that ownership rates and murder rates don't correlate reliably enough to say that one is the cause of the other. There are ancillary factors that anti-gun studies never look at because it clouds the waters and damages their argument.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48574929]It happens when guns alone aren't causing murders. There are other factors at play but people advocating to ban guns don't want to admit that guns are not the problem. The numbers make that clear enough.[/QUOTE]
Not really, DCs murder rate went DOWN after they instituted gun ownership regulations in line with Maryland's own rules
People also point out Chicago but fail to realise that Illinois has super lax gun laws so anyone could just drive 30 minutes load up, go back to the city, DC happens to be inside a state with its own reasonable laws
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48574955]If you set out with the intent to demonize 1/3 of the US population as either criminals waiting to happen or already criminals then you're going to look at the numbers and see proof that guns are the problem. Otherwise you're going to see that ownership rates and murder rates don't correlate reliably enough to say that one is the cause of the other. There are ancillary factors that anti-gun studies never look at.[/QUOTE]
Nobody's demonising anybody; the simple fact of the matter is that humans are fundamentally short sighted and impulsive, and when they have access to an object that puts death on the other side of the squeeze of a finger it's much easier for people to find themselves doing something stupid when tempers or emotions flare.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48574966]Not really, DCs murder rate went DOWN after they instituted gun ownership regulations in line with Maryland's own rules
People also point out Chicago but fail to realise that Illinois has super lax gun laws so anyone could just drive 30 minutes load up, go back to the city, DC happens to be inside a state with its own reasonable laws[/QUOTE]
Illinois doesn't have "super lax gun laws." At least not compared to surrounding states and others in the Midwest.
[QUOTE=Sonador;48574658]I think he more means people are directly going to blame guns for people killing themselves and not the mental anguish or trauma that made them seek to acquire one. Yeah, it's much quicker to off yourself with a gun, but taking away the gun doesn't make the hurting stop.[/QUOTE]
I think it's stupid to consider throwing the whole graph out because of suicides, I don't have a specific figure but I can't believe that the number of gun related suicides in the US would be enough to skew the total number of gun related deaths, its probably at most 2-3% of that graph, plus other countries are already including their suicide rates as well
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;48574983]Illinois doesn't have "super lax gun laws." At least not compared to surrounding states and others in the Midwest.[/QUOTE]
They're much more lax compared to Chicago's laws, while Maryland and DC had relatively similar laws.
[QUOTE=Explosions;48574884]Isn't it also true that the US has much higher rates of poverty than other "rich countries"?[/QUOTE]
If we just go by GINI coefficient, the UK and the US are a lot closer than the US and Brazil. Obviously that's an imperfect measurement, but there you go. I haven't read the study, so I won't really comment on that, I'm just saying comparing Brazil and the US isn't really the same as comparing the US to the UK. The UK has a homicide rate of ~1 (per 100000) while the US stands at 4.7. The gun homicide rate is 0.05 and 3.55 respectively, so obviously the majority of homicides are done with guns in the US, while the opposite is true in the UK. Keeping the survival rate of gun violence in mind, wouldn't the murder rate drop simply from people not having guns?
I'd say that's hard to put down to a couple of GINI points between countries with similar GDP per capita. Obviously there are loads of other factors, but I simply can't see gun ownsership not being a major one. All numbers are from Wikipedia.
Let me say that I follow Forgotten Weapons fairly closely on Youtube, before anyone accuses me of having an irrational hatred of guns.
Are you satisfied with just reducing deaths from attempted murder or would you rather reduce the attempted murder rate? Removing firearms from the equation isn't going to do the latter, but what it will do is punish a third of the US population for crimes committed by an exceedingly small percentage of people.
[QUOTE=Riutet;48574917]District of Columbia gun ownership: 3.6 percent. Gun murders per 100k: 16.5.
Maine gun ownership: 40.5 percent. Gun murders per 100k: 0.8.
How does this even happen?[/QUOTE]
Tensions are a lot lower in rural areas. The U.S. Census Bureau classified Maine as the most rural state in 2010 (Source: [url]http://bangordailynews.com/2012/03/26/business/census-maine-most-rural-state-in-2010-as-urban-centers-grow-nationwide/[/url] ) so naturally less murders.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48575003]If we just go by GINI coefficient, the UK and the US are a lot closer than the US and Brazil. Obviously that's an imperfect measurement, but there you go. I haven't read the study, so I won't really comment on that, I'm just saying comparing Brazil and the US isn't really the same as comparing the US to the UK. The UK has a homicide rate of ~1 (per 100000) while the US stands at 4.7. The gun homicide rate is 0.05 and 3.55 respectively, so obviously the majority of homicides are done with guns in the US, while the opposite is true in the UK. Keeping the survival rate of gun violence in mind, wouldn't the murder rate drop simply from people not having guns?
I'd say that's hard to put down to a couple of GINI points between countries with similar GDP per capita. Obviously there are loads of other factors, but I simply can't see gun ownsership not being a major one. All numbers are from Wikipedia.
Let me say that I follow Forgotten Weapons fairly closely on Youtube, before anyone accuses me of having an irrational hatred of guns.[/QUOTE]
Of course. Gun ownership is a very obvious cause of the higher homicide rate in the US. Anyone who disagrees is lying or obfuscating or is just ignorant.
The problem with concluding that guns should be banned/removed from the US is that there are numerous cases where high gun ownership rates do not seem to cause the same spike in homicides. The existence of Switzerland proves this, as well as many areas of the US where gun ownership is quite a bit higher than average yet the homicide rate is extremely low.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48574741]Just because you have a ban doesn't mean you don't have guns.[/QUOTE]
That's my point. Gun control/ban isn't going to decrease the number of guns.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;48575036]That's my point. Gun control/ban isn't going to decrease the number of guns.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to propose a gun ban in the US, it'd be pretty (very) hard to enact.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48575022]Are you satisfied with just reducing deaths from attempted murder or would you rather reduce the attempted murder rate? Removing firearms from the equation isn't going to do the latter, but what it will do is punish a third of the US population for crimes committed by an exceedingly small percentage of people.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to reduce deaths from attempted murder if possible. Gun banning in the US is unfeasible though due to the amount of people against it and the amount of guns in circulation, even if it was ideal (which it isn't because of the amount of rural areas and people who use guns for hunting). Better gun control would obviously help but there are a lot of lobbies against it because more gun control means less gun sales.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;48575036]That's my point. Gun control/ban isn't going to decrease the number of guns.[/QUOTE]
It would in the long run once the ones currently in circulation fall into disrepair (and no amount of illegal firearm purchase/exchange will ever make up for the sheer quantity that occurs legally thanks to the machinery of capitalism).
[QUOTE=Sableye;48574992]I think it's stupid to consider throwing the whole graph out because of suicides, I don't have a specific figure but I can't believe that the number of gun related suicides in the US would be enough to skew the total number of gun related deaths, its probably at most 2-3% of that graph, plus other countries are already including their suicide rates as well[/QUOTE]
This entire post had literally nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted
[QUOTE=Explosions;48575033]Of course. Gun ownership is a very obvious cause of the higher homicide rate in the US. Anyone who disagrees is lying or obfuscating or is just ignorant.
The problem with concluding that guns should be banned/removed from the US is that there are numerous cases where high gun ownership rates do not seem to cause the same spike in homicides. The existence of Switzerland proves this, as well as many areas of the US where gun ownership is quite a bit higher than average yet the homicide rate is extremely low.[/QUOTE]
I considered mentioning Switzerland, but the way I understand it, firearms are generally procured differently, and you can't get a handgun without a permit, nor sell one without a contract. Honestly, that's what I would like to see imposed in the US - know who has the gun at what point in time to make straw purchases more risky (especially if you need a clean criminal record as in Switzerland (do you need that in the US? I assume not, as it would appear that you do not need a permit in most (or at many) states)).
Switzerland often gets brought up by gun proponents, but the regulation and the fact that many owners have been in the military seems to be ignored.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48575100]I considered mentioning Switzerland, but the way I understand it, firearms are generally procured differently, and you can't get a handgun without a permit, nor sell one without a contract. Honestly, that's what I would like to see imposed in the US - know who has the gun at what point in time to make straw purchases more risky (especially if you need a clean criminal record as in Switzerland (do you need that in the US? I assume not, as it would appear that you do not need a permit in most (or at many) states)).
Switzerland often gets brought up by gun proponents, but the regulation and the fact that many owners have been in the military seems to be ignored.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree. I think it's nuts that, in some areas, it's easier to get and use a gun than it is to drive a car.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48575100]I considered mentioning Switzerland, but the way I understand it, firearms are generally procured differently, and you can't get a handgun without a permit, nor sell one without a contract. Honestly, that's what I would like to see imposed in the US - know who has the gun at what point in time to make straw purchases more risky (especially if you need a clean criminal record as in Switzerland (do you need that in the US? I assume not, as it would appear that you do not need a permit in most (or at many) states)).
Switzerland often gets brought up by gun proponents, but the regulation and the fact that many owners have been in the military seems to be ignored.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't mind this but as we've seen in NY and a couple other places in the US, a registry leads to total confiscation in no time. They get gun owners to support it by saying "we'll just make it the law that this can't be used to confiscate guns" - then they just change the law so that they can. It's dumb as fuck, bait and switch type shit and I'll never support a registry law for that reason.
[QUOTE=download;48574608]Eh, there is some evidence that a very small number of people will talk themselves out of it they take time to prepare a suicide such as finding some rope or driving to a bridge.
It's been a while since I looked a the data but I think it was a very small number. Also not really relevant to the overall gun debate. It's more in the "treating depression" area.[/QUOTE]
You can do things like make someone eat a load of salt to make them throw up pills if they try to OD, you can't really make someone throw up a bullet from their head
A gun ban in the US simply would not work on multiple levels. You're going to get whoever you appoint to seize the weapons slaughtered, you're going to provide armed criminals with targets, you're going to cost tens of thousands of people their jobs, and at the end of it all, most people will probably elect to stay armed, even if it means they're now doing so illegally.
I still say that the best defense to gun crime is to educate the populace about guns and self defense tactics against them. Part of my training in being an armed guard is learning techniques to disarm armed assailants - be it handgun or shot/long gun in a variety of ways and how and when to do it. It's surprisingly simple. There's also something to be said about educating people on how not to be a target.
Honestly, though, I think that guns aren't really influencing our crime [I]rate.[/I] The US has a lot of non-firearm related crime as well - I just think we're seeing what happens when you happen to have a lot of crime and a lot of guns on the same nation.
The argument about guns and suicide is a little flimsy, too. Guns aren't much in the way of much faster or easier than your main food groups. Think about it - if you're going to hang yourself, you have to tie the noose and the act of killing yourself is as simple as kicking the chair out from under you. If you're going to OD, you're going to have to acquire the pills somehow and the act of killing yourself is as simple as swallowing. If you're going to shoot yourself, you have to acquire, load, and charge the gun, and the act of killing yourself is as simple as pulling the trigger. In any act of suicide, there's planning, preparing, and pulling some sort of proverbial trigger. Guns are much more likely to be ultimately fatal, but they're not necessarily easier - and to be honest, if I killed myself, I'd prefer the quick and much less painful way out if I'm ultimately going to kill myself with no recourse, having sought help or otherwise.
I was going to ask why Argentina is so far up there in the second graph, but remembered that there are people dedicated to building these things en-masse:
[t]http://www.nuevodiarioweb.com.ar/fotos/notas/2015/02/21/tmb1_587192_20150221080517.jpg[/t]
Not as fancy as a cheap Hi-Point or even a Sten made at a metalshop, but it gets the job done I suppose
[QUOTE=Explosions;48575033]Of course. Gun ownership is a very obvious cause of the higher homicide rate in the US. Anyone who disagrees is lying or obfuscating or is just ignorant.
The problem with concluding that guns should be banned/removed from the US is that there are numerous cases where high gun ownership rates do not seem to cause the same spike in homicides. The existence of Switzerland proves this, as well as many areas of the US where gun ownership is quite a bit higher than average yet the homicide rate is extremely low.[/QUOTE]
You can't really compare Switzerland to US though. (I don't know why Americans always do this) But the difference in culture is one of the many huge things that set these two countries apart. They have a good GDP in that place, lesser problems, lesser poverty.
Its just too different to be compared on such a basis.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48575638]You can't really compare Switzerland to US though. (I don't know why Americans always do this) But the difference in culture is one of the many huge things that set these two countries apart. They have a good GDP in that place, lesser problems, lesser poverty.
Its just too different to be compared on such a basis.[/QUOTE]
But that's precisely one reason you [I]can[/I] compare Switzerland to the US. People don't kill each other with guns in the US because they have guns. They kill each other for a variety of other reasons. Guns make it easier, sure, but the gun isn't the [I]cause.[/I] That's why in parts of the US you see very high firearm ownership rates with very low crime rates and in other parts you see very low firearm ownership rates with very high crime rates. The issue is societal.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48575661]But that's precisely one reason you [I]can[/I] compare Switzerland to the US. People don't kill each other with guns in the US because they have guns. They kill each other for a variety of other reasons. Guns make it easier, sure, but the gun isn't the [I]cause.[/I] That's why in parts of the US you see very high firearm ownership rates with very low crime rates and in other parts you see very low firearm ownership rates with very high crime rates. The issue is societal.[/QUOTE]
The cause is societal (since you need a reason to kill somebody in the first place, which wouldn't exist in an ideal society), but the presence of guns is why these causes lead to so many deaths.
[QUOTE=_Axel;48575675]The cause is societal (since you need a reason to kill somebody in the first place, which wouldn't exist in an ideal society), but the presence of guns is why these causes lead to so many deaths.[/QUOTE]
So attack the problem rather than the symptom.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48575803]So attack the problem rather than the symptom.[/QUOTE]
That easy access to weapons exacerbates the issue is a problem as well.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;48575241]I was going to ask why Argentina is so far up there in the second graph, but remembered that there are people dedicated to building these things en-masse:
[t]http://www.nuevodiarioweb.com.ar/fotos/notas/2015/02/21/tmb1_587192_20150221080517.jpg[/t]
Not as fancy as a cheap Hi-Point or even a Sten made at a metalshop, but it gets the job done I suppose[/QUOTE]
How.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48574670]Usually taking away the easy methods makes people think twice, even about suicide.[/QUOTE]
Frankly it's easier to find a tall building and jump off it than get a gun here.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;48575839]How.[/QUOTE]
Very simply. Pipe with pin that makes shell go boom.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48575022]Are you satisfied with just reducing deaths from attempted murder or would you rather reduce the attempted murder rate? Removing firearms from the equation isn't going to do the latter, but what it will do is punish a third of the US population for crimes committed by an exceedingly small percentage of people.[/QUOTE]
Except if you were to institute basic fucking reforms like background checks anytime a gun is purchased or hell even a fucking gun registry (don't give me that bullshit about "They'll be confiscated immediately", if the law was instituted federally no they won't, the outcry alone would be enough to stop Lawmakers from even considering that), then that wouldn't hurt the 3rd of the populace but would significantly fucking help the crime rate.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48575887]Except if you were to institute basic fucking reforms like background checks anytime a gun is purchased or hell even a fucking gun registry (don't give me that bullshit about "They'll be confiscated immediately", if the law was instituted federally no they won't, the outcry alone would be enough to stop Lawmakers from even considering that), then that wouldn't hurt the 3rd of the populace but would significantly fucking help the crime rate.[/QUOTE]
I agree there should be a mandatory background check for every firearm purchase, but it's not going to significantly stop crime. Having your name on a list isn't going to stop you from killing someone, at best all it would do is possibly help law enforcement track the subject if the gun isn't stolen. And if a felon fails a background check to buy a gun, which they already aren't allowed to do, hes just going to not go to a gunstore and buy a pistol from a gangster somewhere.
It might help but it won't significantly reduce crime rate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.