|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 09 2015 07:03 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 20:38 Blackfeather wrote:On October 08 2015 10:29 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2015 08:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
And then you have the studies that say, owning a weapon actually increases your chances to get shot in your own home. So no, owning a gun for self defense is not a good thing. It increases your chances of getting killed. This is mainly because there are 2-3 gun suicides for every gun homicide (in the USA). No offense, but you know that's bullshit. If two people have weapons and one is a burglar, the possibility that the situation escalates is way higher than if only the burglar is armed. Killing people is after all a way bigger crime than robbing people and shooting people is a lot easier when you get the feeling that the other side is trying to kill you. Most intruder want money, not your life and the few nutballs that actually want your life (which is probably a number low enough that in ten lives you dont encounter a single one on average) aren't gonna be threatened much by you having a weapon anyways. Gun vs gun in close combat gives you a 50:50 chance on average. So maybe you will shy away the intruder, but odds are that the situation that is chaotic to begin with (most burglars want to intrude when nobody is at home) escalates and these odds are way higher than that the intruder is actually trying to kill you to begin with. No, I don't believe that's bullshit at all. The statistic varies every year, but there are about twice as many gun suicides as gun homicides in the USA. When you say having a gun in the house increases your chances of getting shot, it's true, but the greater part of the "gun-related deaths" rate you see quoted in the media is suicide. It's all well and good to tell people to take classes, to be responsible, to not shoot people in their house when they don't know what the target is (i.e. when it could be your family), to brandish a gun in the defense of their home and not necessarily fire it unless necessary. But you seem to be saying you would be safer if someone burgled you with a weapon and you were unarmed. I don't know that you're being honest about how you would personally feel in that situation, but I think you at least see why people want the option. The truth is if someone breaks into your house and has a gun, you don't know what their intentions are among burglary, kidnap, rape, torture, or murder. You assuming that an intruder is a harmless armed burglar is, I'm sorry, purely academic.
Yeah ofc I see why people want the option, being robbed is terrible and there's the (extremely slim) chance that it's not only about thievery/robbery.
But that doesnt change that it's the worse option on average and since we are talking about laws, the better option on average is the one to pursue. I'm just pointing out how absurd the "gun for self-defense" argument is, because self defense can get you killed in a situation that wouldnt get you killed else. It's actually more dangerous for the person who buys a weapon. It's not a plus for selling weapons, it's a point against it.
As I pointed out earlier in Germany the chance that the burglar is a murderer is less than 1:5800. Now the US and many other states have way higher homocide rates and as a result the chance is gonna be not as lopsided, but still having a shootout in the dark in your own house is statistically gonna be a lot more dangerous than just barricade yourself in one room, tell them that the police is on the way and hope they go away.
|
On October 09 2015 23:04 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 22:25 bardtown wrote:On October 09 2015 22:20 always_winter wrote:
As an avid proponent of increased gun regulation, I can't help but laugh at all of these experts on American culture and society.
Nice... argument? Input? Vapid little utterance? I had actually begun to address some of the expertise I was alluding to, then thought better of it as I realized these brave men and women are assuredly more well-versed in American life than myself, and wouldn't hesitate to rebuke any insight I offer with superior insight of their own. Such is the grace of TL politics. There could be the fact Switzerland is less populous than NYC; Canada less than the state of California. There could be the fact these gun cultures are far more homogenous and lack the intercultural nuances and social divides present in a nation as vibrantly diverse as the United States, so complex in their nature that even per capita comparisons fail to provide a glimpse into the larger picture. There could be the fact public opinion is not so black-and-white as Fox News vs MSNBC would lead one to believe, and the two-party system, while degenerative, does not prohibit overlapping ideologies and independent thought. I could even go a step further and suggest the belief that the dollar's corrupt hand is not only pulling the strings behind American politics, but global politics at large and although certainly more pronounced within the world's most significant player, it is an incredibly naïve assumption to believe corruption could be confined to a single market. But I'm not going to do that, and those facts are moot. I am a victim of my American upbringing, a pawn to my corrupt government and a dim light awaiting illumination by the enlightenment of the TL experts.
You're raising some good points, but stop acting like such a know-it-all. All you're going to be doing is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where people don't take your comments seriously, but because you come off condescendingly as opposed to misinformed. There's a level of tact that goes into successful persuasion and discussion, and so even if the facts are on your side, no one's going to listen if you come off sounding like a dick.
|
|
|
On October 09 2015 15:42 Kaethis wrote:
Repeating the same argument again. This way of thinking is statistically actually more likely to get your family killed. While it might turn the crazy axemurderer breaking into your house to paint the walls red situation into a 50-50 of being dead rather than everyone being dead it also turns the dude breaking into your house to steal your radio situation into a 50-50 chance of being dead. Which do you think is more common?
People don't break into fucking houses to kill people as a rule. If they do in your neighbourhood then a firearm isn't going to help you.
Doesn't matter if they break into your house with the intent to kill or not. Ever hear of fight or flight? Adrenaline is a powerful thing, and people are willing to do harm to you and your family to keep you quiet in order to avoid going to jail.
|
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower.
|
On October 11 2015 04:51 Broetchenholer wrote:
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower.
Not going to happen in our lifetime.
|
On October 11 2015 04:51 Broetchenholer wrote:
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower.
Criminals don't care about gun laws. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, but that didn't stop them. So you're just disarming the law abiding home owner that wants to defend his family.
It's not the odds that matter, it's the stakes that do. Also, you can't take statistics taken from the entire country and apply it to every situation. I'd understand if a family in a high crime neighborhood would be more interested in owning a gun than a family in a gated community. Gun ownership might not be the best choice for everyone, but you have no right to tell other people that they can't try to defend themselves.
|
On October 09 2015 23:04 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 22:25 bardtown wrote:On October 09 2015 22:20 always_winter wrote:
As an avid proponent of increased gun regulation, I can't help but laugh at all of these experts on American culture and society.
Nice... argument? Input? Vapid little utterance? I had actually begun to address some of the expertise I was alluding to, then thought better of it as I realized these brave men and women are assuredly more well-versed in American life than myself, and wouldn't hesitate to rebuke any insight I offer with superior insight of their own. Such is the grace of TL politics. There could be the fact Switzerland is less populous than NYC; Canada less than the state of California. There could be the fact these gun cultures are far more homogenous and lack the intercultural nuances and social divides present in a nation as vibrantly diverse as the United States, so complex in their nature that even per capita comparisons fail to provide a glimpse into the larger picture. There could be the fact public opinion is not so black-and-white as Fox News vs MSNBC would lead one to believe, and the two-party system, while degenerative, does not prohibit overlapping ideologies and independent thought. I could even go a step further and suggest the belief that the dollar's corrupt hand is not only pulling the strings behind American politics, but global politics at large and although certainly more pronounced within the world's most significant player, it is an incredibly naïve assumption to believe corruption could be confined to a single market. But I'm not going to do that, and those facts are moot. I am a victim of my American upbringing, a pawn to my corrupt government and a dim light awaiting illumination by the enlightenment of the TL experts.
When it comes to Switzerland, there could also be the fact that the association between swiss and guns is complete bullshit made up by republicans trying to defend guns; we don't actually own many guns in Switzerland, because the guns counted in those statistics are the ones we use for military service, which we do not get ammo for unless we actually are in the process of doing our military service. There are few gun owners in Switzerland, we have strict gun control, there is virtually no reason to expect a swiss person you meet to be armed.
But hey, it could also be culture and homogeneity and other bs, Occam and his razor were so mainstream after all.
|
On October 11 2015 05:37 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 04:51 Broetchenholer wrote:
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower. Criminals don't care about gun laws.
This argument has been debunked so many times in this thread that it's not even funny.
|
On October 11 2015 05:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:37 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On October 11 2015 04:51 Broetchenholer wrote:
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower. Criminals don't care about gun laws. This argument has been debunked so many times in this thread that it's not even funny.
It's actually funny you think that since one of the cornerstones of the anti-gun argument is that people in gun free zones get killed with guns. That, and the fact that there are already pretty strict laws against murder and yet criminals seem to ignore those too.
|
On October 10 2015 02:48 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 07:03 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2015 20:38 Blackfeather wrote:On October 08 2015 10:29 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2015 08:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
And then you have the studies that say, owning a weapon actually increases your chances to get shot in your own home. So no, owning a gun for self defense is not a good thing. It increases your chances of getting killed. This is mainly because there are 2-3 gun suicides for every gun homicide (in the USA). No offense, but you know that's bullshit. If two people have weapons and one is a burglar, the possibility that the situation escalates is way higher than if only the burglar is armed. Killing people is after all a way bigger crime than robbing people and shooting people is a lot easier when you get the feeling that the other side is trying to kill you. Most intruder want money, not your life and the few nutballs that actually want your life (which is probably a number low enough that in ten lives you dont encounter a single one on average) aren't gonna be threatened much by you having a weapon anyways. Gun vs gun in close combat gives you a 50:50 chance on average. So maybe you will shy away the intruder, but odds are that the situation that is chaotic to begin with (most burglars want to intrude when nobody is at home) escalates and these odds are way higher than that the intruder is actually trying to kill you to begin with. No, I don't believe that's bullshit at all. The statistic varies every year, but there are about twice as many gun suicides as gun homicides in the USA. When you say having a gun in the house increases your chances of getting shot, it's true, but the greater part of the "gun-related deaths" rate you see quoted in the media is suicide. It's all well and good to tell people to take classes, to be responsible, to not shoot people in their house when they don't know what the target is (i.e. when it could be your family), to brandish a gun in the defense of their home and not necessarily fire it unless necessary. But you seem to be saying you would be safer if someone burgled you with a weapon and you were unarmed. I don't know that you're being honest about how you would personally feel in that situation, but I think you at least see why people want the option. The truth is if someone breaks into your house and has a gun, you don't know what their intentions are among burglary, kidnap, rape, torture, or murder. You assuming that an intruder is a harmless armed burglar is, I'm sorry, purely academic. Yeah ofc I see why people want the option, being robbed is terrible and there's the (extremely slim) chance that it's not only about thievery/robbery. But that doesnt change that it's the worse option on average and since we are talking about laws, the better option on average is the one to pursue. I'm just pointing out how absurd the "gun for self-defense" argument is, because self defense can get you killed in a situation that wouldnt get you killed else. It's actually more dangerous for the person who buys a weapon. It's not a plus for selling weapons, it's a point against it.
What you said in bold actually isn't how I and many other people outside of the Twilight Zone and North Korea think governments should work. But that might be another conversation.
Anyway, what you're doing in this case isn't statistically right, I think.
Let me give you an analogy. Suppose for simplicity that almost everyone wore a helmet all the time when riding their bikes. Everyone except, say, 1-100 people. Those people report that they get their bike out maybe once a month and ride it around the park for a little bit without a helmet. These people report no injuries. The people wearing helmets are professional racers at high speeds, people who ride in the streets next to traffic, mountain bikers, etc. They report some injuries and even deaths.
If you took a cursory statistical glance, you would find that wearing a helmet was correlated with getting hurt or killed while riding your bike. You can see it would be foolhardy to use this to tell an individual that statistically wearing a helmet would make them less safe, though. (It's also the ecological fallacy. For example, it might statistically be safer to walk alone at night in the USA than in Brazil, but that's not a good suggestion to give the guy in Detroit, whereas someone outside their 5 star hotel in Rio de Janeiro probably doesn't need to worry. You have more insight with more information.)
On October 10 2015 02:48 Blackfeather wrote:
As I pointed out earlier in Germany the chance that the burglar is a murderer is less than 1:5800. Now the US and many other states have way higher homocide rates and as a result the chance is gonna be not as lopsided, but still having a shootout in the dark in your own house is statistically gonna be a lot more dangerous than just barricade yourself in one room, tell them that the police is on the way and hope they go away.
I addressed this earlier, but possession of a gun is not actually an obligation to discharge it. You can hide under your bed and still be armed.
I also haven't seen your actual stats, I don't know if you posted something that I missed, which would be more interesting than you repeating the claim that having a gun necessarily makes you more likely to get hurt by someone else.
The USA has about 1/5th the proportion of burglaries that happen when someone is at home as the UK does - because criminals in the USA are less likely to take the chance to begin with. So I'm skeptical when you say me, a non-criminal, having a gun in the house magically makes me more likely to get murdered.
On October 09 2015 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 07:03 oBlade wrote:On October 08 2015 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 08 2015 11:11 oBlade wrote:
The guns already exist, though. You have to accept the starting conditions of reality. It's all well and good to say "Japan is safer than the USA" but "Be more like Japan" isn't really a plan that we can use right now to make the USA a better place. And while the majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicide, there are countries with fewer to no guns that have (significantly) higher suicide rates, including Japan and Korea, also India, even Iceland's rate is a little bit higher, could you imagine a more peaceful country than that? I don't see why you're bringing up general suicide rates at all. Sure, gun numbers don't correlate to suicide rates. But reducing suicides and reducing gun violence are entirely separate things. I'm suggesting that there are aspects of these issues that aren't quantitative - at least, not at the depth of clickbait analysis. There's lots of things that could be analyzed except that the statistics don't exist. What's your reason for thinking there's nothing in common between suicide and gun violence? Because the issue at hand is non-suicide related gun violence, which is still magnitudes higher than any other 1st world democratic nation. Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Unless you're focusing on "reducing gun related suicides", which is an overly narrow and useless target group. In what way? Gun related suicides are more common than gun related homicides in the USA. "Because the issue at hand is non-suicide related gun violence, which is still magnitudes higher than any other 1st world democratic nation."
The thing is suicide is a form of violence, and with respect to guns in the USA, it happens to be the most deadly form. If by "at hand" you mean you personally want to gloss over firearm related suicides, which are a major aspect of gun ownership, that's fine, but you not talking about it doesn't affect the degree to which these issues are intertwined.
On October 09 2015 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 11:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:
And yes, Japan is an extreme that is hard to replicate due to their isolationist and xenophobic outlook. So maybe look at more comparable nations, like Australia, UK, Canada, Germany, etc. All of which have less guns, less gun violence, and lower suicide rates...and some of which have had much longer histories of war obsession and militarism than the United States. Okay, I'm on Wikipedia right now. The USA is 12.1 per 100,000, Canada 9.8, Australia 10.6, UK 6.2, Germany 9.2. Those are your examples. I don't see that the USA's suicide rate is significantly higher than those countries, or at least definitely not in proportion to how many more guns/gun owners there are in the USA. The UK seems a tiny bit more of an outlier from that group, but whatever. For reference, Sweden is 11.1, Norway is 9.1, Finland 14.8. Xenophobia is not really the reason Japan has almost no guns but the USA has so many. The difference is historical accident. And with respect to suicide, you wouldn't want to copy Japan in that way. Yes. My point exactly. Gun numbers are a factor in suicides, but the numbers are not directly correlated. So there is no single solution that will solve suicide rates and gun violence, so stop conflating the two.
The problems are related so long as people kill themselves with guns. To the extent you want to consider "gun violence" distinctly from "violence," why would you not want to look at "gun suicide" as a special case of suicide?
On October 09 2015 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:
And xenophobia is not the reason Japan has no guns, but the fact that they have such isolationist culture and policies, and the fact that Japan is an island, makes that level of gun control hard to replicate for a nation that shares borders. Which is why it's much easier to compare a nation like Canada, which shares a wide, very open border with the US and still maintains a fraction of the gun issues.
I mean Mexico also has a wide border with the USA, and they have the fewest guns (23 guns per 100 people in Canada versus 13 per 100 people in Mexico), but probably the worst gun violence. So the point I'm making that there are other factors (Mexico has a larger population than Canada, for example, despite both being very homogeneous countries) seems reasonable. Also, the UK, despite being an island like Japan, can't say they see as little violence (ignoring suicide for a second).
It seems like you've worked out beforehand what points of comparison to use. You don't mind comparing "first world" democracies to the USA, like Australia and Canada (very homogeneous states with low population) among others, because you know ahead of time that these countries have less violence. As though the "first-worldness" alone means that the societies are identical and the only difference is the prevalence of guns, so there couldn't be any other variables at work.
Yet countries with worse homicide problems, like Brazil, Russia, and Mexico, that have populations more comparable to the USA, don't enter into the picture? Why? Because those countries don't speak English? Because they weren't historically aligned with NATO? Because their GDP per capita is lower, so you expect them to be less civilized or something? whereas China, despite having a lower GDP per capita, not speaking English, and being super homogeneous, democratic status in question, has a quite low homicide rate. You can have a quite peaceful society without being a rich and powerful nation at the top of the first world.
The USA is a huge place and I think it admits to a more nuanced analysis. There are places like Chicago and D.C. which have stricter gun control but nonetheless suffer from above average rates of (gun) violence. Then there are places like NYC (one of the richest areas on the planet), which has stricter gun control, but is maybe more successful at decreasing crime. I have a feeling that the distribution of wealth (poverty) and organized/gang crime are root factors here.
Like imagine there was a little boy from Mexico on equipoliquido.net or something who wanted to know how the problems in his country arise and how they might be fixed, and someone went there and told him that clearly Mexico wasn't like first-world democracies? Is that info anything but useless to him?
|
oBlade, let me see if I can find something in your analogy that doesn't correlate with the actual situation. Your analogy presents a situation where a few people don't do something preventive and end up fine, while a bunch of others do something preventive and end up not fine. Now let's look at the actual situation: woops, it just so happens that it's a few people not doing something preventive and ending up not fine, while a bunch of others do something preventive and end up fine. That would appear to be the complete opposite situation. That's not a very good sign when it comes to the validity of an analogy.
oBlade, "It seems like you've worked out beforehand what points of comparison to use. You don't mind comparing "first world" democracies to the USA, like Australia and Canada (very homogeneous states with low population) among others, because you know ahead of time that these countries have less violence."
Of course we've worked out beforehand what points of comparison to use, that is the basis of a comparison. The United States gets compared with first world countries because it happens to be one. Mexico gets dismissed because it happens to have a drug cartel problem in which people drop faster than foreigners in a Kespa Cup. That sounds like a pretty good explanation for having a high gun violence crime. Now you need to find the same type of explanation for the USA, and since you can't really find it, you come up with things like homogeneity (because when I'm having problems with my non-white non-swiss non-frenchspeaking friends, of course I pull out my gun MUCH faster than when I'm having problems with my white swiss frenchspeaking friends).
It's absurd. But it gives me an idea for the next NRA slogan: "We're (still) safer than Syria!"
|
United States24613 Posts
On October 11 2015 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Now you need to find the same type of explanation for the USA, and since you can't really find it, you come up with things like homogeneity (because when I'm having problems with my non-white non-swiss non-frenchspeaking friends, of course I pull out my gun MUCH faster than when I'm having problems with my white swiss frenchspeaking friends).
The 'homogeneity' argument is probably not very well described here. The 'homogeneity' argument also is relevant to many other things besides guns. That's not to say that a homogeneous society is ultimately better, but it's not irrelevant when comparing countries in many respects.
|
On October 11 2015 08:25 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Now you need to find the same type of explanation for the USA, and since you can't really find it, you come up with things like homogeneity (because when I'm having problems with my non-white non-swiss non-frenchspeaking friends, of course I pull out my gun MUCH faster than when I'm having problems with my white swiss frenchspeaking friends).
The 'homogeneity' argument is probably not very well described here. The 'homogeneity' argument also is relevant to many other things besides guns. That's not to say that a homogeneous society is ultimately better, but it's not irrelevant when comparing countries in many respects.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that a homogenous culture leads to less violence, there is a giant leap between saying that and saying it leads to less gun violence, which is the issue it's being brought up for here.
|
On October 11 2015 05:54 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 05:43 kwizach wrote:On October 11 2015 05:37 SpeaKEaSY wrote:On October 11 2015 04:51 Broetchenholer wrote:
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower. Criminals don't care about gun laws. This argument has been debunked so many times in this thread that it's not even funny. It's actually funny you think that since one of the cornerstones of the anti-gun argument is that people in gun free zones get killed with guns. That, and the fact that there are already pretty strict laws against murder and yet criminals seem to ignore those too.
Yes, but making something illegal makes it harder to get it in almost any case.
If you try to get a gun in Germany, you will find out that that process is a lot harder than in the US, even if you ignore any laws.
Of course it doesn't work that well to have a "gun-free zone" when everyone around it has guns and there is no control at the edge of it. This says nothing about the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control. It is just another example of utterly weird US regulations.
In Germany we don't have gun-free zones. We have gun zones (well we don't call them that, but that is basically how it works). If you are legally allowed to own a gun (Which is most likely a hunting or sports rifle), you may still not carry it around at random places. Note how this kind of regulation makes it very hard for criminals to acquire guns, and if they do have one, makes it much harder to explain why they have it if someone notices. You need major criminal connections to get one illegally.
And criminals do care for laws. They ignore them when it appears subjectively beneficial to do so. Either because of the perceived low risk of getting caught, because of the perceived high reward, or because they think they have no other choice. A criminal does not simply ignore any and all laws. And if you make it harder to get a gun, more dangerous to get caught with one, and more likely that you will get caught with a gun, this greatly reduces the amount of people that will think it is worth to do so, even amongst criminals.
|
United States24613 Posts
On October 11 2015 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 08:25 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2015 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Now you need to find the same type of explanation for the USA, and since you can't really find it, you come up with things like homogeneity (because when I'm having problems with my non-white non-swiss non-frenchspeaking friends, of course I pull out my gun MUCH faster than when I'm having problems with my white swiss frenchspeaking friends).
The 'homogeneity' argument is probably not very well described here. The 'homogeneity' argument also is relevant to many other things besides guns. That's not to say that a homogeneous society is ultimately better, but it's not irrelevant when comparing countries in many respects. Regardless of whether or not you believe that a homogenous culture leads to less violence, there is a giant leap between saying that and saying it leads to less gun violence, which is the issue it's being brought up for here.
Okay, but the example you gave to try to illustrate your issue with homogeneity being invoked was not reasonable (what you put in parentheses)... that's primarily what I was responding to.
|
On October 11 2015 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:
oBlade, let me see if I can find something in your analogy that doesn't correlate with the actual situation. Your analogy presents a situation where a few people don't do something preventive and end up fine, while a bunch of others do something preventive and end up not fine. Now let's look at the actual situation: woops, it just so happens that it's a few people not doing something preventive and ending up not fine, while a bunch of others do something preventive and end up fine. That would appear to be the complete opposite situation. That's not a very good sign when it comes to the validity of an analogy.
The force of the analogy is only to show that statistical correlation is fickle. The example I used doesn't really matter except that it accessibly shows things aren't always what they appear. I can't really parse what your point is except that you believe wearing a helmet is "preventive" and owning a gun isn't. That's good to know, but the point of the analogy wasn't to convince people that everyone should buy guns, as you could see by the context; it merely was to caution against taking simple stats at face value.
On October 11 2015 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:
oBlade, "It seems like you've worked out beforehand what points of comparison to use. You don't mind comparing "first world" democracies to the USA, like Australia and Canada (very homogeneous states with low population) among others, because you know ahead of time that these countries have less violence."
Of course we've worked out beforehand what points of comparison to use, that is the basis of a comparison. The United States gets compared with first world countries because it happens to be one. Mexico gets dismissed because it happens to have a drug cartel problem in which people drop faster than foreigners in a Kespa Cup. That sounds like a pretty good explanation for having a high gun violence crime. Now you need to find the same type of explanation for the USA, and since you can't really find it, you come up with things like homogeneity (because when I'm having problems with my non-white non-swiss non-frenchspeaking friends, of course I pull out my gun MUCH faster than when I'm having problems with my white swiss frenchspeaking friends).
Homogeneity is not some kind of "gotcha" moment. I wasn't implying that. But racial inequality has historically been a problem in the USA. I daresay in another context you would be quick to agree with that.
As micronesia pointed out, your parenthetical comment wasn't right. It's missing the point that in homogeneous societies, controlling for other variables, people probably get into fewer scuffles with each other to begin with. Let alone that they would escalate more. You might still contest that, but that's the general idea. This is not an endorsement of homogeneity or something. It's just an observation that it's a factor among many beyond how many civilian guns are in the USA.
I am not suggesting that any one thing is the entirety of the problem, whether "homogeneity" which you latched onto or something else. You thinking that I'm focusing on one thing might be you projecting because you can't imagine someone not focusing on one thing only: guns themselves. I am suggesting that there are dimensions to these issues which are dismissed out of hand because the default position is that guns must be the root problem - even though in all instances of countries with higher violence (whether homicide or suicide) and fewer guns (all countries have fewer guns than the US), some other explanation is brought up:
-Mexico has fewer guns than the USA and more homicides (21.5 per 100k compared to USA 4.7) and firearm homicides specifically. The answer? It's home to some of the most brutal drug cartels in the world.
-Brazil has fewer guns than the USA and more homicides (25.2 per 100k) and firearm homicides specifically. It must be something about their society that engenders homicide.
-Russia has fewer guns than the USA and more homicides (9.2 per 100k). Their society is like that, too.
-Japan has almost no guns and many more suicides. Dismiss that as a cultural difference.
But it seems like when people consider the USA, these explanations vanish. It must chiefly be the guns themselves rather than the society in the USA's case, because on paper it's a "first world democracy." Like it follows that it has to be a paradise domestically.
On October 11 2015 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 08:25 micronesia wrote:On October 11 2015 08:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Now you need to find the same type of explanation for the USA, and since you can't really find it, you come up with things like homogeneity (because when I'm having problems with my non-white non-swiss non-frenchspeaking friends, of course I pull out my gun MUCH faster than when I'm having problems with my white swiss frenchspeaking friends).
The 'homogeneity' argument is probably not very well described here. The 'homogeneity' argument also is relevant to many other things besides guns. That's not to say that a homogeneous society is ultimately better, but it's not irrelevant when comparing countries in many respects. Regardless of whether or not you believe that a homogenous culture leads to less violence, there is a giant leap between saying that and saying it leads to less gun violence, which is the issue it's being brought up for here.
That wasn't exactly my point, but I'll criticize you for something else here. If homogeneity was correlated with less violence/homicides in general, why would you personally think gun violence specifically wouldn't follow suit?
Implicit in what you and many people say is the idea that gun violence is a problem per se and not just a face violence takes when guns are available. That's true sometimes (we can bicker about to what extent), but it's not true categorically, right, as we can see from all the places with fewer guns and more violence.
|
On October 11 2015 09:45 oBlade wrote:
Implicit in what you and many people say is the idea that gun violence is a problem per se and not just a face violence takes when guns are available. That's true sometimes (we can bicker about to what extent), but it's not true categorically, right, as we can see from all the places with fewer guns and more violence.
All i am arguing is, the availablity of fire arms has the downsinde of amplifying violence in the USA without having an upside. Well, not correct, it's an industry, that always counts for something. The american citizen has absolutely no benefit of having 320 million firearms in his country. If, completely hypothetical, all those guns would just vanish right now, your violence problem would be drastically reduced overnight.
Of course taking away all guns does not solve the underlying problems that create a lot of the violence. But it would be a start.
However, if we can't even find this common ground then there is no political solution.
On October 11 2015 05:37 SpeaKEaSY wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2015 04:51 Broetchenholer wrote:
And still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't. And if both parties don't have a gun, because you got rid of them some years ago, chances are even lower. Criminals don't care about gun laws. The overwhelming majority of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, but that didn't stop them. So you're just disarming the law abiding home owner that wants to defend his family. It's not the odds that matter, it's the stakes that do. Also, you can't take statistics taken from the entire country and apply it to every situation. I'd understand if a family in a high crime neighborhood would be more interested in owning a gun than a family in a gated community. Gun ownership might not be the best choice for everyone, but you have no right to tell other people that they can't try to defend themselves.
Uhm, what? You mean, the criminals that plan on killing themselves anyway do not care about laws meant to punish murder? Really? Maybe, just maybe, those criminals go to "gun free zones" because that is the place they hate. High schoolers tend to not shoot up hospitals, they tend to shoot up their highschool! Taking people that do an extended suicide run as an example of criminals that you have to protect yourself against is just ridiculous. Criminals that mug people or burglar homes do that out of economical reasons and yes, they do care about laws. Just look how many burglaries end with homicide and you know they do care about not murdering people.
And regarding your last sentence, of course i can't. A society can though. If a society wants to define rules for its members, usually the government writes those rules down and then they are binding for their members. I am not part of your society, but if there was a very strong majority of Americans that wanted to ban all weapons and the government would pass that law, then they had every right to tell you how you are allowed to defend yourself.
|
On October 11 2015 09:45 oBlade wrote:
Implicit in what you and many people say is the idea that gun violence is a problem per se and not just a face violence takes when guns are available. That's true sometimes (we can bicker about to what extent), but it's not true categorically, right, as we can see from all the places with fewer guns and more violence.
you can just turn your argument on its head you know. your point is not true categorically, right, as we can see from all the places with fewer guns and way less violence
|
On October 11 2015 08:43 Simberto wrote:
Yes, but making something illegal makes it harder to get it in almost any case.
If you try to get a gun in Germany, you will find out that that process is a lot harder than in the US, even if you ignore any laws.
Look at marijuana in the United States. It's illegal, but not particularly hard to obtain; any highschool student can get some with very little effort. What ends up happening is marijuana prices go up and then there's financial incentive for drug cartels to murder people. The decriminalization of marijuana in some states has probably done more to hurt the organized drug trade than the last several decade of the war on drugs.
Of course it doesn't work that well to have a "gun-free zone" when everyone around it has guns and there is no control at the edge of it. This says nothing about the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun control. It is just another example of utterly weird US regulations.
It's funny because places like NY will have incredibly strict gun laws and yet have high crime, while places like NH, UT and MT will have incredibly liberal gun laws and have little crime. And yet NY politicians seem to think they have the right to tell politicians in other states how to manage their gun laws, lol.
In Germany we don't have gun-free zones. We have gun zones (well we don't call them that, but that is basically how it works). If you are legally allowed to own a gun (Which is most likely a hunting or sports rifle), you may still not carry it around at random places. Note how this kind of regulation makes it very hard for criminals to acquire guns, and if they do have one, makes it much harder to explain why they have it if someone notices. You need major criminal connections to get one illegally
It's like that here in NY too, except people just ignore the laws. Some people do it because they're involved in criminal activity, others do it for their own protection because they would rather go to jail than end up dead.
And criminals do care for laws. They ignore them when it appears subjectively beneficial to do so. Either because of the perceived low risk of getting caught, because of the perceived high reward, or because they think they have no other choice. A criminal does not simply ignore any and all laws. And if you make it harder to get a gun, more dangerous to get caught with one, and more likely that you will get caught with a gun, this greatly reduces the amount of people that will think it is worth to do so, even amongst criminals.
Using that logic, more people should be armed, because it makes it more less beneficial for criminals because it's more dangerous for criminals to be caught robbing an armed home.
On October 11 2015 10:57 Broetchenholer wrote:
Uhm, what? You mean, the criminals that plan on killing themselves anyway do not care about laws meant to punish murder? Really? Maybe, just maybe, those criminals go to "gun free zones" because that is the place they hate. High schoolers tend to not shoot up hospitals, they tend to shoot up their highschool! Taking people that do an extended suicide run as an example of criminals that you have to protect yourself against is just ridiculous. Criminals that mug people or burglar homes do that out of economical reasons and yes, they do care about laws. Just look how many burglaries end with homicide and you know they do care about not murdering people.
James Holmes drove past many other movie theaters because he wanted to shoot at a theater that explicitly stated their no weapons policy. There are a number of campuses in the US that allow students/staff to carry weapons, how come we never hear about mass shootings at those schools?
And regarding your last sentence, of course i can't. A society can though. If a society wants to define rules for its members, usually the government writes those rules down and then they are binding for their members. I am not part of your society, but if there was a very strong majority of Americans that wanted to ban all weapons and the government would pass that law, then they had every right to tell you how you are allowed to defend yourself.
And then the Supreme Court would strike down that law because it goes against the Constitution (in theory).
You've just highlighted one of the downfalls of democracy in that it's tyranny by the majority. NY is a large state, and the upstate region is very different than the NY metro area. It's also a lot less densely populated than the NY metro area. So the people who have a much higher need for guns on a daily basis get outvoted by the people who don't want guns. Luckily the founding fathers in their wisdom gave us the 2nd Amendment, though the courts don't always give it the same treatment that they give the rest of the bill of rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
