> less handguns = less deaths.
This does not follow. Take Brazil for example. 60k homicides per year, and guns are pretty much forbidden.
Of course, criminals don’t seem to care.
This does not follow. Take Brazil for example. 60k homicides per year, and guns are pretty much forbidden.
Of course, criminals don’t seem to care.
Brazil compared to US is so poor and with shitty corrupted police. US police prides itself on being the best most sophisticated in the world i dont se a reason why they would have problems doing same job as police in europe. They would have it in fact much easier.
Also the fact that Brazil has gun problems even when guns are prohibited does not mean that it would be better if they were allowed and everyone would carry one. What is this logic wtf.
A proof by contradiction only requires one single example.
> Brazil compared to US is so poor and with shitty corrupted police
That's true but completely unrelated to gun ownership. The police has to deal with people who don't care about gun ownership laws.
> Also the fact that Brazil has gun problems even when guns are prohibited does not mean that it would be better if they were allowed and everyone would carry one. What is this logic wtf.
Criminals can be absolutely sure that citizens won't be able to protect themselves.
How about this: Criminals can expect not to be shot when they try to pull something, thus they don't have to shoot first. If the amount of criminals trying to pull something does not go up or down (which I expect but don't know) the whole criminaling might become less deadly.
This doesn't seem to match reality, at least in my country.
If the ban didn't actually lessen the number of handguns, then we don't have the left hand side of the implication! These are two things:
ban on handguns -> less handguns
less handguns -> fewer deaths
Someone argued that the second is true, and you seem to refute it by saying the first isn't. So maybe you aren't talking about the same thing. I'm going to argue that the second thing isn't controversial. What's difficult and possibly controversial is whether item #1 is possible in Brazil, or the US (where guns are already common).
My take on it is this:
stricter laws + wait 2 or 3 generations -> fewer guns.
fewer guns -> fewer deaths.
So the stricter gun laws can't be considered the sole explanation for fewer deaths.
> "Violent crime without firearms went down, maybe it was just people getting less violent."
> "Violent crime without firearms went up, people are going to be violent with or without guns."
I didn't argue against cherry picking (which I'm also against) I was arguing against the parent opposing something entirely different than the post he was responding to. I divided the implication into two.
The guns-to-deaths implication isn't clear cut either, but less so than the laws-to-guns one.
My argument is that this is mostly cultural, which is why it's so hard to measure. The reason being that gun culture both creates a cliate of many guns, but also the other way around (many guns means people are more likely to use/buy guns). Comparable societies (such as US vs rest of western world).
By "more guns" I include not just more guns sold/owned but "more guns in circulation" i.e. number of guns on streets, in cars, in bedside tables, as opposed to in gun safes.
A lot of countries with lots of guns have mostly locked up rifles and very few handguns. That blurs these statistics.
It's interesting to me that a lot progressive, popular armchair analysis of the issue advocates for strict gun laws, and at the same time advocates for loose drug laws. What are the inherent differences between both problems that most people use to reconcile the cognitive dissonance?
All guns were legal at one point. Buy backs, fewer sales etc mean fewer legal and illegal guns in circulation (unless you see an increase in illegal smuggling and manufacturing - but obviously that's a problem you need to address first then). There will always be demand for weapons, legal or illegal. Just like with drugs. If you don't want people to buy illegal drugs or illegal guns, you only need to keep supply so low that prices are too high for most.
The problem for the US is that there are already so many guns, that effective legislation is problematic. For any legislation to be effective you'd first need to lower the amount of guns in society - because as you say otherwise there are too many guns that flow into the "illegal gun pipeline". So it's a chicken and egg problem. The questoin is: is it really an ok solution to say "we can't change regulation to something that would mean less guns in society because we have too many guns"?
> It's interesting to me that a lot progressive, popular armchair analysis of the issue advocates for strict gun laws, and at the same time advocates for loose drug laws
I think progressives mostly argue for looser drug laws for USE, not sale, apart from possibly also legalizing a few drugs. I don't think many progressives argue for lower penalties for drug smuggling, manufacturing and sales. The big difference between gun ownership and drug use in that context is that gun ownership would be a choice. If you are conservative you might argue that using drugs, being gay etc. is also a choice - but that's the philosophical side of it - I won't go there.
as well, drugs are "the product" to a large semi-captured audience, but guns don't share this sort of situation. it's not clear that "illegal guns" and "illegal drugs" share much in terms of the market behavior.
most progressive drug reform isn't necessarily for legalized production and sale (perhaps it is for some libertarian progressives) - rather it's focused on decriminalizing most end-user behavior so they can both work with police without fear and have much improved access to help getting sober.
It might also lead to less guns also in the hands of those who don't care about laws. For example because fewer guns can make them a lot more expensive and/or more risky to aquire illegaly.
One can't simply argue that "A law against X only affects those who care about laws!". That's always the case. Seatbelt laws leads to fewer deaths - among those who care about seatbelt laws. A ban on smoking in restaurants leads to fewer people who care about bans smoking in restaurants...
That was my point too: that it's not really a good argument to argue against laws because they are uneffective against criminals who don't care about them.
Laws against child abuse are only effective on people who care about child abuse.
Laws against plane hijacking are only effective on people who care about laws on plane hijacking.
What's the difference?
However these cases are fundamentally different. Only criminals abuse children, hijack planes or commit murder.
Guns, on the other hand, are not only used by criminals. They can be used by citizens for their own protection, to prevent crimes. For example, consider a woman preventing a rape attempt by using her gun. Or the recent case of the Texas church, which could have resulted in many more deaths if not by the actions of an armed citizen.
When you forbid gun ownership, then only criminals will have access to them. You remove access for regular people but keep it for criminals who would already have access to them anyway.
> They can be used by citizens for their own protection, to prevent crimes. > For example, consider a woman preventing a rape attempt by using her gun. Or the recent case of the Texas church, which could have resulted in many more deaths if not by the actions of an armed citizen.
Right. And in countries with fewer guns that citizen wouldn't have been there with his gun - but on the other hand the chance that someone has a semi auto high velocity gun at a church service in the first place is almost zero. There are just 3 societies here: one where everyone has guns, one where only the criminal has a gun, and one where almost no one has a gun. I prefer the last, even if there is a small number of people that have a gun and I don't (I also live in that kind of country so I know it works pretty well). To put this another way: if seeing someone next to me in church had brought a gun would make me feel safer than before because "good they can protect me if a madman starts shooting" then something is already wrong.
One can't argue with that you can stop an individual criminal with a gun. What you can argue about is (for example) whether owning a gun uts you at more risk of being shot than not owning one. Or whether, for society as a whole, guns cause or prevent violence as a net effect. I also think it's problematic to begin by categorizing people into "criminals" and "others" and assuming only people form the criminals group will commit crimes. One has to assume anyone can be a criminal tomorrow.
> but on the other hand the chance that someone has a semi auto high velocity gun at a church service in the first place is almost zero
Indeed, but w.r.t gun restrictions, I don't see this guy thinking "Going for a spree kill today... oh wait, guns are forbidden! Guess I'll stay home and watch something on Netflix instead". My point being, someone with the intention to kill will find a way to get a gun, with or without gun ownership restrictions.
So in my view, the such a law does nothing against the bad case, but prevents the good case (i.e. someone being prepared for the low-probability event).
> then something is already wrong
Well, that's the thing, something is always wrong. I live in a country where criminals regularly commit crimes while carrying assalt rifles. Heck, they carry their rifles even in open space parties: https://s03.video.glbimg.com/x720/6261094.jpg
I don't know in which country you live but I'm sure it has less wrong things than in Brazil. However, here they will kill you even if you don't react, so I see no benefit in removing from citizens even the chance of trying.
Incidentally, in 2005 we had a referendum about the prohibition of guns. The majority vote was against the prohibition, and yet the government ignored the result and prohibited them anyway.
I think the problem here is: what makes a person even think about the concept of a mass shooting? What makes it even enter someones head? This is obviously very hard to provide any facts on, but I think it's an athmosphere in society. If you are wronged/crazy/whatever - why are guns even a thought? Or put another way: why doesn't this happen anywhere else - regardless of gun concentration? It has to be either genetic, environmental (lead in the water??), or cultural. There is no fourth option. And I don't think it's genetic. I think people are just as evil and crazy all around the world, but elsewhere people are much less likely to be mass shooters regardless of whether they have guns.
So I completely agree - the problem isn't that the individual criminal had a gun. The problem is that guns permeate society in such a profound way that guns are the go-to idea in so many situations. And that can either be seen as good/inevitable/bad - but it's certainly "different".
Similar thing: why does a fight escalate to a shooting? Why does someone being stopped by a police car escalate to shooting (regardless of whether the driver had a gun)? Because one person (for example the police officer) was afraid the other might have a gun, so pulled a gun. Now you have potentially dangerous situation, regardless of whether the driver had a gun (doubly so if he does, obviosly). Fear is the big driver.
I think perhaps I can express my opinion on why fewer guns is good this way: for shootings to stop, you need to get the gun out of the peoples heads not out of their hands. But you can't just magically make people belive that no one has a gun so they don't need one. You can't magically make police officers calmly approach any vehicle in any neighborhood without worrying that there might be a gun in the vehicle. For that to happen you have to actually lower the odds of there being a gun there.
> I don't know in which country you live
Sweden. And my opinions on most things political assume "stable/functioning/non-corrupt public institutions". I think things can be very different if you aren't so lucky.
I think this is a misguided perception:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/...
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from...
But anyway, thanks for the thoughtful conversation!
The USA has a homicide rate of 4.88 per 100,000. of which 3.60 are from firearms.
It's also interesting to note that the USA has the highest homicide rate of all "first world" nations, trailing close behind wonderful places like Kyrgyzstan and Somalia. The next highest "first world" nation, Canada, is 1.68 (1/3 of the USA), of which 0.38 are from firearms.
The USA has the most lax firearm laws of the three I mentioned, and also has a high proportion of homicides perpetrated using firearms. Canada has somewhat stricter laws and a considerably lower rate from firearms. Brazil has extreme gun control, but still a very high rate from firearms.
The link between gun control and violence seems inconclusive to me. However, the base propensity for violence is definitely tied to the culture.
The USA has 101 guns per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 15.696 per 100,000.
The Bahamas has 5.3 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 29.81.
Canada has 30.8 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.68.
Norway has 31.3 per 100 resdents and a homicide rate of 0.56.
Finland has 34.2 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.60
Serbia has 58.21 per 100 residents and a homicide rate of 1.13
In other words, it's all over the map.
Or is it just that gun control, like drug legalization, is an emotional topic and not a rational one?
"Two common proxies for gun availability are used, the percentage of suicides with a firearm, and the"Cook index," the average of the percentage of suicides with a firearm and the percentage of homicides with a firearm."
"In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates."
So, if I'm reading this correctly, gun availability is calculated by percentage of deaths by firearm, and using that info they determine that gun availability leads to a higher homicide rate? Also no control variables? Why?
Using such source numbers, it's a foregone conclusion. If you use percentage of firearm deaths as a proxy for gun ownership, you will by definition have a strong correlation between gun ownership and deaths.
Accidental gun deaths will however drop by a lot. Thousands of people die every year from that (including 1300 children according to a random headline I quickly googled). These are silly and preventable deaths.
Finland, Norway, Austria, France, Iceland, Germany, Switzerland - seven of the top 20 nations when it comes to guns per capita.
It's the nature of the gun laws, not the forbidden or not forbidden aspect, that plays a far larger role.
Most importantly we have strict storage laws (you can't drive around with a gun in your car every day, you can't have a gun in next to your bed etc- you have guns in your gun safe, period).
And the reason behind why all this works is because there is a broad acceptance that a gun is a hunting tool or sports equipment, not a tool for self defense, nor a tool for ensuring that government stays in line (we use pitchforks and cobblestone for that).
Gun laws are both the cause and effect of such a mentality. You can't have strict gun laws in a place where people believe guns are essential for self defense and defense of democracy. And vice versa. For the US to end up with sane (yes) gun laws, the water needs to be slowly heated. Generations of tightened gun laws, amnesties etc. Just starting with a ban on just a few types of weapons + adding safe storage requirements would go a long way.
I think those who want to keep responsible gun ownership also need to realize they have a lot to win from stricter regulation. With the current culture of short-sighted and reactive legislation, the next ban will be rammed through congress after the next terrible shootout - and that's not the law gun advocates want. I think they are mistaken if they believe they can just use the NRA as a roadblock to keep people buying AR's at gun shows forever. I don't think the political climate a generation from now allows that.
The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. It's not a loophole. It's simply the case in most states in the US for private sales you're allowed to sell your gun to another person without checking with the federal government first, something that's not true of dealers.
> A deliberate or accidental provision in tax law that allows an individual or corporation to be exempt from some provision. Most loopholes are deliberate and are created to ensure that the law is not draconian, to please a lobbyist, or for some other reason.
Sure, you can call it the "private sale loophole" if you want. Go for it. The agonizing over the semantic merits of the "gun show" part of the term is the same tactic as turning any gun argument into a debate over "clip vs. magazine" or "there's no such thing as an assault rifle" stuff - intentional missing of the point to derail a necessary conversation. Might even call that "dishonest rhetoric".
People advocating stricter gun laws have been open about their intentions - it's obvious that such people just want to live in a safer society. Gun advocates just assume they're liars and really just want to come for their guns.
This is in EU country and I believe quite a few other countries are on similar level.
The difference is in the quality of the society.
Try Europe.
What gun you can buy is different story. Anything more powerful than a pistol or hunting riffle is more or less no-go.