Gun free zone

[FirstAscent]

So, the U.S. has high crime and many guns. That's enough for you? You don't stop to consider things like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against terrorism, the fact the U.S. has constantly been at war around the globe for decades, poverty levels, education, decline of the family, etc?

Did I not mention the benefits of starting with a clean slate a few posts back? That would indicate that everything bears worth looking at. And if we analyze everything in context, the conclusions very might well result in less firearms plus other policies (possibly changed) will result in less violence and less gun deaths.

Don't lose sight of the fact that less deaths is an important goal, both in comparison to our past, and in comparison to other nations. The US is indeed unique (apparently in a bad fucking way), and I'm not seeing it as a model that other nations might want to copy.

Fair enough. As long as the solution doesn't involve forcing law abiding citizens to disarm, I think there is certainly progress to be made.

But that's what the other nations do. And it works.

If you force law abiding citizens to disarm, you obviously have a group which is armed to enforce this. Now you've created two distinct classes of people. History has taught me that this will lead to more death.

Is this what is happening in the better performing countries on the list? Are you certain that the root cause of your fears is disarming the public - or perhaps there were other mitigating circumstances?

[bitster]

 Sacrificing yours and others rights in the name of security leads down a negative path.  

[FirstAscent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

Of course I'm interested in reducing crime. Before we start taking away more freedoms, we should work on ending some of the failed policies that contribute to crime.

End the war on drugs This is probably the number one step in reducing crime across the board.

End the war on terrorism. Close military bases around the world. Bring the troops home to be fathers and mothers instead of soldiers. This would be a fantastic second step.

End welfare. It's obviously creating a class of people that don't produce and end up living a life of crime in our revolving door justice system.

While some aspects of your suggestions might lead to better results, are those the solutions employed by the better performing countries in the list?

Do other nations around the world spend similar amounts of money on the war on drugs compared to the U.S.? Welfare? How many military bases do these other countries have around the world? Troops abroad?

Some nations have very strict laws on drugs. Some nations have much better government provided safety nets for people. No country operates a military organization like the US. In other words, it's not as correlative as you might think.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

Of course I'm interested in reducing crime. Before we start taking away more freedoms, we should work on ending some of the failed policies that contribute to crime.

End the war on drugs This is probably the number one step in reducing crime across the board.

End the war on terrorism. Close military bases around the world. Bring the troops home to be fathers and mothers instead of soldiers. This would be a fantastic second step.

End welfare. It's obviously creating a class of people that don't produce and end up living a life of crime in our revolving door justice system.

While some aspects of your suggestions might lead to better results, are those the solutions employed by the better performing countries in the list?

Do other nations around the world spend similar amounts of money on the war on drugs compared to the U.S.? Welfare? How many military bases do these other countries have around the world? Troops abroad?

Some nations have very strict laws on drugs. Some nations have much better government provided safety nets for people. No country operates a military organization like the US. In other words, it's not as correlative as you might think.

Oh, but the number of guns are as correlative as you might think?

Yeah - they're pretty damn correlative, actually. Especially when you factor in the nature of the laws regulating firearms and ammunition. Switzerland is always cited by the pro gun crowd, almost as if they didn't bother actually educating themselves on the restrictions imposed on ownership.

[fornit]

@holliday

i agree with ending the war on drugs etc...
but you might want to notice that the other countries with the highest gun rates and still very low homicide rates have extensive welfare programs?
especially the scandinavian countries are known for excellent public education and welfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

in my opinion, the most important factor in capital crimes is poverty and an even distribution of wealth is key to low crime rates. i dont give a fuck about communism btw, but in my opinion the empiric evidence clearly suggests that not redistributing wealth is the single largest mistake any highly developed country can make. the resulting impact on crime, productivity and living quality in general is so grave that it costs way more than the actual welfare programs, despite the fact that they are beyond fucking expensive.

regarding guns, personally i just dont trust all people all the time. everybody around me having guns just makes me nervous, despite the fact that i have no trouble handling guns myself.

[Richy_T]

I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.

I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.

I agree completely. That's how I got here from being a gun control advocate.

And the process from A to B was... ?

Step 1 was probably moving from the UK and getting out of the all-pervasive and general unthinking acceptance that "guns are bad".  It's accepted as a fact of life by many, including the media there (I see it in the media here too. Person robbed at knifepoint? There's a picture of a gun behind the newsperson).

Step 2 was likely getting into internet discussions about guns (you can possibly still find some of them) where the gun rights advocates said things which made me stop and think and question why I held my beliefs, the logical basis and the logical consequence. From there, it is easy to research other arguments, reports and statistics. Gun control is antithetical to my core beliefs, is based on an incorrect view of reality and would fail to achieve the goals I was hoping for even if enacted.

[notme]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

It is also not clear that less guns will.  The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored.  I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

It is also not clear that less guns will.  The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored.  I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does.

Instead of hoping there's no obvious take away from the data, might it be better if you took a long detailed look at the nations which show preferable results regarding assaults and deaths, and engage in some discovery? I think so. Perhaps you could try as well, instead of engaging in dismissal. Or do you want your gun(s) that badly?

[conspirosphere.tk]

(Luckily) it's a pointless debate:

Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/1

WHY THE GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT IS DOOMED
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1237.html

[FirstAscent]

(Luckily) it's a pointless debate:

Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/1

WHY THE GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT IS DOOMED
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1237.html

Links servicing your views are kind of silly. Instead, I suggest you take a deep look at the policies employed in other nations as a starting point.

[notme]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

It is also not clear that less guns will.  The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored.  I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does.

Instead of hoping there's no obvious take away from the data, might it be better if you took a long detailed look at the nations which show preferable results regarding assaults and deaths, and engage in some discovery? I think so. Perhaps you could try as well, instead of engaging in dismissal. Or do you want your gun(s) that badly?

Since about of the quarter of the meat I eat is harvested with a rifle, yes, my guns are important.

And good job dismissing my points by calling them a dismissal instead of addressing them.

[FirstAscent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

It is also not clear that less guns will.  The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored.  I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does.

Instead of hoping there's no obvious take away from the data, might it be better if you took a long detailed look at the nations which show preferable results regarding assaults and deaths, and engage in some discovery? I think so. Perhaps you could try as well, instead of engaging in dismissal. Or do you want your gun(s) that badly?

Since about of the quarter of the meat I eat is harvested with a rifle, yes, my guns are important.

And good job dismissing my points by calling them a dismissal instead of addressing them.

The only points I saw from you were speculation about why gun control wouldn't work, rather than an analysis of where it clearly works.

[caveden]

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US.
What was your point again?

Let's just stop comparing different places in what concerns violence, shall we? Otherwise I could just compare New Hampshire with Washington DC, for example.
A less error prone approach would be comparing the same region before/after laws that made it harder/easier for honest people to acquire guns. And even that approach is not perfect as there are too many other variables that may influence it.

As long as you're not doing any harm to others, owning tings is a right, be it guns, drugs or whatever. Stop being a control freak and let people live their lives in peace.

[notme]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

2. Every country on the list has less assault deaths per capita than the US except for three countries.

3. Every country on the list has less assaults or threats per capita than the US except for four countries which have rates only marginally greater than the US.

4. Most all countries on the list have gun deaths per capita 5 to 10 times less than the US.

5. Most all countries on the list have assault deaths per capita nearly 5 times less than the US.

Now, what should be done to improve these numbers in the future such that the US is more competitive with the other nations. Or are you not interested in that? From the data in the table, it does not appear that more guns will yield the desired results.

It is also not clear that less guns will.  The points made by Holliday regarding the violent example of our government and the decline of the family can't be ignored.  I'm sure superficially you understand coorelation does not imply causation, but you seem to be arguing that it does.

Instead of hoping there's no obvious take away from the data, might it be better if you took a long detailed look at the nations which show preferable results regarding assaults and deaths, and engage in some discovery? I think so. Perhaps you could try as well, instead of engaging in dismissal. Or do you want your gun(s) that badly?

Since about of the quarter of the meat I eat is harvested with a rifle, yes, my guns are important.

And good job dismissing my points by calling them a dismissal instead of addressing them.

The only points I saw from you were speculation about why gun control wouldn't work, rather than an analysis of where it clearly works.

So you refuse to address my point because I don't agree it clearly works anywhere?

Show me an example of where it works, and prove it is because of gun control and not other factors.

Regardless, I don't hunt humans.  I hunt deer, turkey, bear, and vermin (mostly to protect crops and prevent property damage).  If you'd rather send me money each month for food maybe I'll give up farming (and my guns) and eat someone else's produce.  But wait, how will they control the vermin so that their crops survive until harvest?

[FirstAscent]

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US.
What was your point again?

Developed nations. Not developing nations. You're a hack. Stop that.

[notme]

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US.
What was your point again?

Developed nations. Not developing nations. You're a hack. Stop that.

Developed the kind of cancer we have in America.  There is nothing wrong with agriculturally based society.  It doesn't need "developed".  Sure, basic infrastructure and healthcare is important, but they don't need the kind of eternal distraction most Americans live in.  They can actually stand to sit still without getting fidgety.  To take that away from them in pursuit of a "higher standard of living", as defined by consumerists, is the greatest sin we can commit.

[conspirosphere.tk]

(Luckily) it's a pointless debate:

Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/1

WHY THE GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT IS DOOMED
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1237.html

Links servicing your views are kind of silly. Instead, I suggest you take a deep look at the policies employed in other nations as a starting point.

The first link says -with some telling authoritative data backing- that one thing is whatever policy on guns, and a completely different thing is what ppl actually do and own, in the US and elsewhere, regardless of the law.

[Richy_T]

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US.
What was your point again?

Developed nations. Not developing nations. You're a hack. Stop that.

Quit cherry picking. Because developed nations tend to end up enacting gun control and because developed nations tend to have lower rates of violence does not mean that one implies the other.

[FirstAscent]

Let's start with some facts:

1. Every country on the list has less guns per capita than the US. Every country on the list has less gun deaths than the US, except for one, which is Mexico.

Every country in the world has less guns per capita than the US. Of the countries in this list, if I'm not mistaken, 97 have a lower homicide rate, while 108 have a higher homicide rate than the US.
What was your point again?

Developed nations. Not developing nations. You're a hack. Stop that.

Quit cherry picking. Because developed nations tend to end up enacting gun control and because developed nations tend to have lower rates of violence does not mean that one implies the other.

You're out to lunch, dude. It's not cherry picking. If we were talking about the environment in jet airliners, we wouldn't use data from open canopy biplanes, even though both are clearly aircraft.

[FirstAscent]

Instead, I suggest you take a deep look at the policies employed in other nations as a starting point.

Although I think you are missing the point by comparing one country to another (simply too many variables to make any meaningful conclusions), I picked Australia off the top of my head mainly because I know they have recently enacted more gun control.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf