All-purpose gun legislation thread

Alistair · 2013-01-27T06:20:56.000Z

What is your graph showing? England is as murder-prone as Minnesota? Is that the graph you meant to link?

The UK doesn’t have many lessons for places with guns, by virtue of… not having any guns. Of their 600 annual murders, about 50 are shootings. There’s not a lot you can infer from how that number changes.

Starlight · 2013-01-27T06:58:28.000Z

It’s also claiming a massive drop in the rates for America (halved…).

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1

UK 2009 - 1.2 per 100,000
USA 2009 - 4.4 per 100,000

(The 2009 rate is the last one with data for both there)

Strangely enough, without guns people tend to get hurt, but not killed. Odd that.

Alistair · 2013-01-27T08:35:45.000Z

That graph doesn’t show America though, just some states that compare with England. I’m not sure why.

Houngan · 2013-01-27T08:47:16.000Z

Alistair:

That graph doesn’t show America though, just some states that compare with England. I’m not sure why.

To illustrate that the UK isn’t unique murder-wise, just gun-murder-wise. The question was whether there would be a replacement effect if we magic wanded all the guns away. Read the quoted bit, then read the text, then look at the graph. All three are necessary for understanding.

Stepsongrapes · 2013-01-27T08:50:55.000Z

olaf:

I agree with you. If you could wave your magic democrat wand that made all guns go to heaven, we would all be safer. From guns. But not from evil. Or crazy. You would still be at risk from people with knives or bats or bombs or any other kind of weapon.

Gun control in the US, a country founded with guns, is not the answer. It will not work. It does not work. Places with restrictive gun laws still have gun crimes!

So yeah the best way to ensure you ‘have a chance’ when some evil/crazy fuck decides to murder people, is to be armed. Failing that, if you dont want to go out on a limb and get out of your comfort zone, having the populace armed actually helps you in those situations where a bad guy does bad things.

Others have already mentioned the replacement issue: it’s a completely strawman to set the bar as eliminating all “evil” or even homicides. Seriously, that’s 1st-grade level argumentation.

Founding the country, what? I guess knights are still common in England and the franciscas are still common in France, since that’s what those countries are founded on, right? Pray tell why that bit of history is an absolutely a barrier to change. Does the US have a gun culture? Absolutely, but that’s stating the obvious (again).

Basically, it comes back to the US having the highest gun homicide rate, by nearly double or more, over most (if not all) other industrialized nations. This is a piece of American exceptionalism that we should be exceptionally concerned about.

Malcolm_Tucker · 2013-01-27T09:08:36.000Z

Walter Yarbrough:

Gecko45, is that you?

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

Haha. No, it appears to have originated on operatorchan.com.

Stepsongrapes · 2013-01-27T09:28:43.000Z

Houngan:

To illustrate that the UK isn’t unique murder-wise, just gun-murder-wise. The question was whether there would be a replacement effect if we magic wanded all the guns away. Read the quoted bit, then read the text, then look at the graph. All three are necessary for understanding.

Because the UK, an island, is like Rhode Island? Ignoring major population centers seems kinda like a bad comparison. Homicide increases with population density. Providing a graph that ignores that seems like bad statistics, to me.

Nationally, I believe we’re more than double the UK in homicides.

Houngan · 2013-01-27T09:51:50.000Z

Stepsongrapes:

Because the UK, an island, is like Rhode Island? Ignoring major population centers seems kinda like a bad comparison. Homicide increases with population density. Providing a graph that ignores that seems like bad statistics, to me.

Nationally, I believe we’re more than double the UK in homicides.

Not my point at all, the question was about replacement effects, not a direct comparison between the UK and states in the US. The UK obviously had a replacement effect since their murder rate is still high relative to their gun ownership compared to the US. Obviously there are other factors, like density, that’s the point. The replacement wouldn’t be 100%, but it wouldn’t be 0% either.

Stepsongrapes · 2013-01-27T09:56:44.000Z

Houngan:

Not my point at all, the question was about replacement effects, not a direct comparison between the UK and states in the US. The UK obviously had a replacement effect since their murder rate is still high relative to their gun ownership compared to the US. Obviously there are other factors, like density, that’s the point. The replacement wouldn’t be 100%, but it wouldn’t be 0% either.

Um, agreed then. There would be a replacement effect somewhere greater than 0% and less than 100%. Devil’s in the details, of course.

Houngan · 2013-01-27T10:28:37.000Z

Stepsongrapes:

Um, agreed then. There would be a replacement effect somewhere greater than 0% and less than 100%. Devil’s in the details, of course.

One detail would be: What was the UK’s murder rate before the ban and after the ban? Did it decrease faster, slower, or the same as the US rate? Somebody else look something up for once.

Jason_McCullough · 2013-01-27T10:43:11.000Z

Stepsongrapes:

Homicide increases with population density.

Yes, but it’s not the only or the biggest effect. Mississippi has 2.5x the rate of Massachusetts.

Houngan:

The downside to removing all firearms is that you elevate the young, male criminal even higher on the food chain than he already is. Perhaps an emboldened criminal class would lead to fewer deaths but an even higher violent crime rate, once they assimilated the fact that there was no chance of retribution, again a la the UK.

…this must be the world where police do not exist? There’s plenty of countries with extremely low firearms ownership rates were the “young, male criminal” doesn’t run the country.

rhinohelix · 2013-01-27T14:09:39.000Z

Jason McCullough:

Yes, but it’s not the only or the biggest effect. Mississippi has 2.5x the rate of Massachusetts.

…this must be the world where police do not exist? There’s plenty of countries with extremely low firearms ownership rates were the “young, male criminal” doesn’t run the country.

So violent crime in the physical presence of police won’t change. In the moment, though, the thought of police coming to take the report isn’t going to be any deterrent; whether or not the victim might be armed is.

Stepsongrapes · 2013-01-27T14:57:57.000Z

rhinohelix:

So violent crime in the physical presence of police won’t change. In the moment, though, the thought of police coming to take the report isn’t going to be any deterrent; whether or not the victim might be armed is.

And yet, the remainder of the industrialized world somehow limps on by without collapsing in flames. Blanket statements aren’t going to get us anywhere.

Houngan · 2013-01-27T16:52:51.000Z

Jason McCullough:

Yes, but it’s not the only or the biggest effect. Mississippi has 2.5x the rate of Massachusetts.

…this must be the world where police do not exist? There’s plenty of countries with extremely low firearms ownership rates were the “young, male criminal” doesn’t run the country.

Whatever effect the police have is already built in to the numbers.

Jason_McCullough · 2013-01-27T19:03:02.000Z

I don’t understand what you guys are talking about then. Societies exist with virtually no firearm ownership and they aren’t run by criminals, even when cops aren’t round. So it can’t be as simple as “take away the guns and the criminals take over.”

rhinohelix · 2013-01-27T19:24:29.000Z

Jason McCullough:

I don’t understand what you guys are talking about then. Societies exist with virtually no firearm ownership and they aren’t run by criminals, even when cops aren’t round. So it can’t be as simple as “take away the guns and the criminals take over.”

We aren’t talking about hypothetical societies, or societies that have evolved with different cultures, levels of socio-economic differentiation and homogeneity, etc. Also, no one is talking about criminals “taking over”. We are talking about an increase in violent crime due to there being less concern on the criminals’ part of effective resistance. Think 1970’s actual New York, not Escape from New York.

Jason_McCullough · 2013-01-27T19:33:40.000Z

You should probably say things like “in the US removing all weapons would lead to criminals gaining power”, then, along with an explanation of why it’s somehow different.

Jason_McCullough · 2013-01-27T19:35:36.000Z

The Seattle gun buy-back this weekend turned some up some real gems.

rocket-launcher.jpg768×1024

Houngan · 2013-01-27T20:41:40.000Z

Jason McCullough:

I don’t understand what you guys are talking about then. Societies exist with virtually no firearm ownership and they aren’t run by criminals, even when cops aren’t round. So it can’t be as simple as “take away the guns and the criminals take over.”

Who said they would? I said that it would elevate young, male criminals higher up the food chain since they would logically be even more effective as the physical peak among an unarmed victim class. Who’s talking about them “taking over?”

Stepsongrapes · 2013-01-27T21:40:33.000Z

Houngan:

Who’s talking about them “taking over?”

Hint: scroll about 3 posts up. I think Rhino’s post bears little support for why guns in the hands of private citizens is the difference between NY today and NY in the 70s/80s. Or, more specifically, why gun control would lead to a return to that state.