|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 07 2014 12:16 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 10:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2014 10:12 Alex1Sun wrote:On November 07 2014 09:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 07 2014 07:41 Alex1Sun wrote:On November 07 2014 05:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 06 2014 17:49 Velr wrote:
Its the combination of These things:
Lack of social System/loads of poor People ---> Just look at your Ghettos. These do not exist to that extend anywhere else in the western world. Your GDP might be high, but that doesn't do shit for the people at the bottom. "Inequality" not "poverty"is "driving" people into crime.
Loads of Guns --> Its way more likely that guns are involved into "disagreements" in the US than damn near anywhere else, therefore there is a higher chance of someone dieing in "fights".
Stand your Ground/Cowboy mentality or in short "culture" --> In western europe we tend to call the Cops if we spot a Burglar/Intruder. Most of us wouldn’t have the gun to actually "stand our ground" nor would I be willing to shoot someone just becaues he tries to rob me. Armed robberies are also incredibly rare here, 99% of burglars just flee once spotted... Not sure about the inequality argument. Inequality has been rising and crime has been falling. Same for social systems. Crime was lower in the 50's and 60's and we mostly spent money on the military back then. I could see a relationship between crime and the disuse of mental hospitals though. That IS actually an interesting observation. As far as I know the recent rise of inequality in USA can be mostly attributed to stagnation of income for a median worker and hollowing out of the middle class. At the same time republicans claim that those near poverty now benefit from more welfare than ever. If this claim is correct, then murders seem to be correlated with the living conditions at the very bottom of the economic ladder rather than with inequality in general. This also appears to agree with low murder rate in European South, where despite rampant unemployment and substantial poverty, being poor and unemployed does NOT usually equal being homeless. The lowest 10% of earners here earn more here than the bottom 10% in Italy, and the living conditions of those at the very bottom have been improving with time. So I don't find the living conditions argument to be very powerful. That's what I mean. They have been improving, hence lower murder rate in USA compared to 90ies. Although I agree that this might be a weaker correlation compared to guns and overall mentality, hence a drastic difference from all other developed and several developing countries. Oh, ok. But then why would it rise from a pretty low point in the 50's and 60's through to the 90's? Ok, I agree, it does not seem to correlate with inequality or poverty in USA (although such correlations have been observed in some other places). I guess in USA it is a really complex issue and probably cannot be solved easily or quickly.
simple econometric correlations are not enough to explain any social phenomenon more complex than "smoking causes cancer." inequality and poverty is clearly the main 'cause' in the sense of providing fundamental causal source of development, but obviously gun violence may have to do with finer points of how an impoverished and neglected community develop.
|
Alright, couple points here that we need to address:
First, guns. While I am generally a fierce advocate for tighter gun control and regulations, for instance gun shows etc, all the Europeans coming into this thread talking about the gun statistics are making me cringe.
1) Gun control laws=/=higher homocide rate. Greater availability of guns only means that there's a higher incidence of gun-related homocides, as opposed to "substitute" crimes like stabbings. More guns=more gun related violence as opposed to other non-gun related forms of violence.
2) The primary reason there's a higher amount of homocides largely correlate to poverty governance and the safety net in this country, and particularly of the urban decay of inner cities after suburbanization following "white flight". That is, most of the homocides occur within inner cities, where social services have been neglected (and, while growing better, highly racialized [not that Europe is any better]), and economic opportunity for the working poor are slim to none. This has not been helped by the War on Drugs, which generally targeted African Americans since 1986 (ridiculously heavy weighting on crack cocaine vs powder cocaine sentencing, incentivizing the police to target users as opposed to suppliers).
When we talk about incarceration rates, read everything that was posted 2 pages ago <_<;
|
On November 07 2014 13:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Alright, couple points here that we need to address:
First, guns. While I am generally a fierce advocate for tighter gun control and regulations, for instance gun shows etc, all the Europeans coming into this thread talking about the gun statistics are making me cringe.
1) Gun control laws=/=higher homocide rate. Greater availability of guns only means that there's a higher incidence of gun-related homocides, as opposed to "substitute" crimes like stabbings. More guns=more gun related violence as opposed to other non-gun related forms of violence.
2) The primary reason there's a higher amount of homocides largely correlate to poverty governance and the safety net in this country, and particularly of the urban decay of inner cities after suburbanization following "white flight". That is, most of the homocides occur within inner cities, where social services have been neglected (and, while growing better, highly racialized [not that Europe is any better]), and economic opportunity for the working poor are slim to none. This has not been helped by the War on Drugs, which generally targeted African Americans since 1986 (ridiculously heavy weighting on crack cocaine vs powder cocaine sentencing, incentivizing the police to target users as opposed to suppliers).
When we talk about incarceration rates, read everything that was posted 2 pages ago <_<;
I haven't seen any data that that is true. Knifings are not perfect substitutes for shootings.
|
On November 07 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 13:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Alright, couple points here that we need to address:
First, guns. While I am generally a fierce advocate for tighter gun control and regulations, for instance gun shows etc, all the Europeans coming into this thread talking about the gun statistics are making me cringe.
1) Gun control laws=/=higher homocide rate. Greater availability of guns only means that there's a higher incidence of gun-related homocides, as opposed to "substitute" crimes like stabbings. More guns=more gun related violence as opposed to other non-gun related forms of violence.
2) The primary reason there's a higher amount of homocides largely correlate to poverty governance and the safety net in this country, and particularly of the urban decay of inner cities after suburbanization following "white flight". That is, most of the homocides occur within inner cities, where social services have been neglected (and, while growing better, highly racialized [not that Europe is any better]), and economic opportunity for the working poor are slim to none. This has not been helped by the War on Drugs, which generally targeted African Americans since 1986 (ridiculously heavy weighting on crack cocaine vs powder cocaine sentencing, incentivizing the police to target users as opposed to suppliers).
When we talk about incarceration rates, read everything that was posted 2 pages ago <_<; I haven't seen any data that that is true. Knifings are not perfect substitutes for shootings.
The majority of gun homicides in the United States are a result of the war on Drugs. The fbi published statistics a few years ago showing 70%+ were the result of gang related violence. Also, when you adjust for population there isn't much of a difference in the rate of gun homicides between usa and other countries. Further, the rate has been steadily declining for decades.
You also should take into account the rate of armed robbery and home invasions which tends to increase when countries restrict guns and is quite low in the USA compared to other countries with gun control.
Not to mention the majority of gun homicides in the USA occur in states like new york and california where gun control laws are very strict. While, the states with the least amount of gun control have the least amount of gun homicides.
|
On November 07 2014 14:04 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:On November 07 2014 13:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Alright, couple points here that we need to address:
First, guns. While I am generally a fierce advocate for tighter gun control and regulations, for instance gun shows etc, all the Europeans coming into this thread talking about the gun statistics are making me cringe.
1) Gun control laws=/=higher homocide rate. Greater availability of guns only means that there's a higher incidence of gun-related homocides, as opposed to "substitute" crimes like stabbings. More guns=more gun related violence as opposed to other non-gun related forms of violence.
2) The primary reason there's a higher amount of homocides largely correlate to poverty governance and the safety net in this country, and particularly of the urban decay of inner cities after suburbanization following "white flight". That is, most of the homocides occur within inner cities, where social services have been neglected (and, while growing better, highly racialized [not that Europe is any better]), and economic opportunity for the working poor are slim to none. This has not been helped by the War on Drugs, which generally targeted African Americans since 1986 (ridiculously heavy weighting on crack cocaine vs powder cocaine sentencing, incentivizing the police to target users as opposed to suppliers).
When we talk about incarceration rates, read everything that was posted 2 pages ago <_<; I haven't seen any data that that is true. Knifings are not perfect substitutes for shootings. The majority of gun homicides in the United States are a result of the war on Drugs. The fbi published statistics a few years ago showing 70%+ were the result of gang related violence. Also, when you adjust for population there isn't much of a difference in the rate of gun homicides between usa and other countries. Further, the rate has been steadily declining for decades. You also should take into account the rate of armed robbery and home invasions which tends to increase when countries restrict guns and is quite low in the USA compared to other countries with gun control.
Not to mention the majority of gun homicides in the USA occur in states like new york and california where gun control laws are very strict. While, the states with the least amount of gun control have the least amount of gun homicides.
Please provide statistics to back that up.
Who cares about the rest of it? We are talking about whether knives are perfect substitutes for guns. Lord Tolkien asserts that homicide rates are unrelated to guns because anything can and will be be used to kill in place of a gun. Using knives or baseball bats or frying pans is a simple substitute for using guns, and those things are a perfect substitute for a gun in all instances when guns are used to kill people. Like in a gang battle for instance, or drive-by knifings, etc.
|
On November 07 2014 13:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 13:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Alright, couple points here that we need to address:
First, guns. While I am generally a fierce advocate for tighter gun control and regulations, for instance gun shows etc, all the Europeans coming into this thread talking about the gun statistics are making me cringe.
1) Gun control laws=/=higher homocide rate. Greater availability of guns only means that there's a higher incidence of gun-related homocides, as opposed to "substitute" crimes like stabbings. More guns=more gun related violence as opposed to other non-gun related forms of violence.
2) The primary reason there's a higher amount of homocides largely correlate to poverty governance and the safety net in this country, and particularly of the urban decay of inner cities after suburbanization following "white flight". That is, most of the homocides occur within inner cities, where social services have been neglected (and, while growing better, highly racialized [not that Europe is any better]), and economic opportunity for the working poor are slim to none. This has not been helped by the War on Drugs, which generally targeted African Americans since 1986 (ridiculously heavy weighting on crack cocaine vs powder cocaine sentencing, incentivizing the police to target users as opposed to suppliers).
When we talk about incarceration rates, read everything that was posted 2 pages ago <_<; I haven't seen any data that that is true. Knifings are not perfect substitutes for shootings.
They are not perfect substitutes, but are substitutes nonetheless. Guns do make homicides easier, for obvious reasons.
So does lax gun control (key issue here) increase homicide rates? Yes, but not to the degree that we're discussing. The issue is the flow of unregistered handguns into inter-cities already rife with violence and urban decay. They exacerbate an already extant problem.
Again, I'm generally a fierce proponent for greater control of guns and particularly handguns (which are the main problem: hunting rifles etc. are irrelevant in terms of homicide statistics), but to blame guns as the main reason why US homicide rates are so high is insultingly ignorant of the problems that intercity communities face (whilst the majority of the stats fall under).
The question of course is whether or not gun control can actually stem the flow of unregistered/illegal guns into intercity communities, and that part is much more uncertain. I would say yes if we're hitting the areas we should be, like gun shows, but there will be always be a black market in arms in this country, given how large our domestic small arms industry is (we can blame Europe and WWI for that :D ).
The better, long-term solution is to address the inter-generational poverty that besets these urban communities. Which requires a reform of the safety net, a rethink of poverty governance in this country, and an end to mass incarceration policies (including the War on Drugs).
|
I don't think they are substitutes at all. Without a gun people just don't commit murder very often.
|
On November 07 2014 15:29 IgnE wrote:
I don't think they are substitutes at all. Without a gun people just don't commit murder very often.
No, they're substitutes. They're not perfect substitutes at all, but if someone has the intent to commit homicide, they've still got a shitton of possible tools that aren't guns.
Killias, M.; Rindlisbacher, M. (2001). "Guns, violent crime, and suicide in 21 countries". Canadian Journal of Criminology
Note: guns are clearly strongly correlated with gun violence (duh), but the relationship between total guns and total violent crime is far less clear, and there was no clear correlation between total guns and total violent crime (again, substitution). There is a substitution effect, and there are a variety of factors which FAR MORE STRONGLY correlate to high homicide rates: see, poverty, mass incarceration, and the effects of the War on Drugs.
Abstract:
This research updates and extends former research conducted on this issue, based on the surveys of 1989 and 1992. In addition, data from the International Crime Victimization Surveys were used on total and gun-related robbery and assault (including threats). The results show strong correlations between the presence of guns in the home and suicide committed with a gun, rates of gun-related homicide that involved female victims, and gun-related assault. The profile is different for male homicides, total rates of assault, and generally, for robbery (committed with or without a gun). With the exception of robbery, most correlations were similar or stronger when all types of guns were considered, rather than handguns alone. No significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the issue of possible substitution effects. The study concluded that guns in the home were an important risk factor in suicide with guns, as well as a threat to women, especially female partners; whereas, guns' role in homicide of male victims and street crime (such as robbery) were much less prominent. Also, the usual focus on handguns may lead to underestimates of the role of other types of guns.
EDIT:
For a non-paywall academic paper:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Enjoy.
Also, stop making me argue FOR gun ownership, jebus. I'm pretty sure I'm more flamingly liberal than all of you. Even the Europeans. Unless someone else here would ideally like to see fully open, global borders and the end of all restrictions to labor mobility.
|
On November 07 2014 15:29 IgnE wrote:
I don't think they are substitutes at all. Without a gun people just don't commit murder very often.
Well I suppose human history from 5000BC to 1500AD was quite peaceful...ahem..
|
Yeah how did anyone kill anyone before guns were invented? You are so wise Wegandi.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 07 2014 15:42 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2014 15:29 IgnE wrote:
I don't think they are substitutes at all. Without a gun people just don't commit murder very often. Well I suppose human history from 5000BC to 1500AD was quite peaceful...ahem..
This post is cancer.
I recommend you go to chemo immediately.
|
@Lord Tolkien
I can't read your first study but I interpret it as saying, guns are a significant factor and we don't have enough evidence regarding all guns to say there's a statistical correlation between guns (whatever that means, does it mean gun owners? black market gun sales? total guns in the country?) and homicide. I read your second study as largely based off a comparison between the US in the 80s and a disintegrating, increasingly lawless USSR. While interesting, I don't know that if someone looked at the data from the last 20 years they would come to the same conclusions.
|
On November 07 2014 15:29 IgnE wrote:
I don't think they are substitutes at all. Without a gun people just don't commit murder very often. I'm glad we have all viewpoints represented in this thread. I have a lot more respect for people that genuinely believe this is statement at its heart, than those that pretend the second and third reasons for pro-gun control are the real reasons for its popularity (in some places).
|
On November 07 2014 16:33 IgnE wrote:
@Lord Tolkien
I can't read your first study but I interpret it as saying, guns are a significant factor and we don't have enough evidence regarding all guns to say there's a statistical correlation between guns (whatever that means, does it mean gun owners? black market gun sales? total guns in the country?) and homicide. I read your second study as largely based off a comparison between the US in the 80s and a disintegrating, increasingly lawless USSR. While interesting, I don't know that if someone looked at the data from the last 20 years they would come to the same conclusions.
No.
The corpus of criminology research states that gun ownership strongly correlates with gun-related homicides and suicides (obvious), but NOT with total violent crimes or total suicides, or else weakly.
If we look at a comparative historical comparison, increases in gun ownership in the United States DO NOT necessarily correlate with increases in homicides in the United States.
Ergo, gun ownership=/=the main causal factor behind high homicide (and suicide) rates. Violent crime rates in the US derive significantly from socio-economic factors, NOT just guns.
|
Violent crimes and suicides aren't exactly homicides are they? I see no reason to expect robberies would decrease without a gun. I would expect gang-related violence and other gun-related homicides to decrease. Your points are missing the mark because you keep using the term "violent crime." This is a narrow issue; I'm not saying that without guns people are angels.
|
On November 07 2014 17:12 IgnE wrote:
Violent crimes and suicides aren't exactly homicides are they? I see no reason to expect robberies would decrease without a gun. I would expect gang-related violence and other gun-related homicides to decrease. Your points are missing the mark because you keep using the term "violent crime." This is a narrow issue; I'm not saying that without guns people are angels.
Homicides are similarly correlated (that is, there is little correlation).
Gang-related violence and armed robberies increase when there are more people in poverty and lacking economic opportunity. It will happen with or without a gun. The rise in violent crime and homicides are all correlated with the end of the Civil Rights movement and suburbanization, AS WELL AS the true start of the War on Drugs in 1986.
Guns influence homicide, BUT IT IS A PROXIMATE CAUSE AT BEST TO THE PROBLEM. The Root Cause is urban decay and the state of inter-city communities, and the socio-economic factors keeping them in intergenerational poverty.
Again, the number of guns influence the number of gun-related violence (be it armed robbery, murders, WHATEVER), but OTHER FACTORS, primarily socio-economic, determine the amount of homicides, suicides, armed robberies, WHAT HAVE YOU.
It doesn't matter if I say violent crimes or not, as armed robberies and homicides all fall in the same category, and likewise SIMILARLY correlate with gun ownership. Like, that was the whole point of the second article, which focused expressly on murder and suicide. (Also, it doesn't matter if it's talking about Russia during a turbulent period, the whole point of her analysis was to show that increases in gun ownership does not correlate with increases in murders or suicides, and that localized events and socio-economic conditions are what influence murder and suicide rates, NOT gun ownership per se)
Pls, stop. I hate arguing for guns. Unless its in foreign policy. but you're literally giving me a headache with this obtuseness.
|
Hey man no one disputes the root problem. We are talking about whether people with access to guns kill more than those who do not.
|
On November 07 2014 17:40 IgnE wrote:
Hey man no one disputes the root problem. We are talking about whether people with access to guns kill more than those who do not.
They are more likely to use whatever's convenient, if that's a gun, then yes, it's more expedient. But neither does the absence of guns mean that we'll see a corresponding decline in murders/homicides.
Again, I'm entirely for stronger gun control measures, but pls.
|
Chinese have no access to guns and they live in squalor while records of new billionaires are being created there. Yet their homicide rates are much lower than the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
