Quote: The way our system is rigged, it slams the breaks on change, which is probably for the best with the American electorate which seems more prone to mood-swings than in other places.

I see what you mean. There is a hell of a lot of bandwagon jumping.

Quote:Now imagine if we had a parliamentary system? Every two years we'd have a new Prime Minister.

No need to have elections that frequently, we have them at 5 years max.

Nevertheless, I agree with your original point.

(August 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Hey, I own several guns. There a problem with that? Europeans live by this amusing mindset that if you take away the guns you'll take away the violence.

And, the facts seem to back them up in that.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTO...NSTAT.html

Quote:A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.

What were the rates before and after the countries in question "took the guns away"? In other words, are the difference in rates of violence a result of the presence of an implement of violence, or a result of something else?

As I recall, the rate of death-by-firearm was pretty damn low in both the UK and Australia prior to their gun bans. Can't say that I have any information on the other 20 countries.

The only conclusion I can draw from the above quote is that the USA is more violent than the other 22 countries, on average. There may indeed be a causal link to rate of firearm ownership - but that is not established in the above.

P.S. In the interest of heading off the kind of misunderstanding that occurred in another thread, I have no vested position on either the gun control or anti gun control side of the issue. I fully recognize that the USA has a violent crime problem that is out of line amongst other developed countries, and am interested in finding solutions that work, as opposed to those based on intuition or emotional appeal.

(August 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Hey, I own several guns. There a problem with that? Europeans live by this amusing mindset that if you take away the guns you'll take away the violence.

And, the facts seem to back them up in that.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTO...NSTAT.html

I'd like to see these stats adjusted to not account for suicides. Personally I think 2/3rds of gun related deaths being suicides says more for a need of better mental health care in the USA than it does for a need of more gun control.

(August 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Hey, I own several guns. There a problem with that? Europeans live by this amusing mindset that if you take away the guns you'll take away the violence.

And, the facts seem to back them up in that.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTO...NSTAT.html

Quote:A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.

Yep, taking away guns won't end violence but it might put a dent in the carnage. I'd be in favor of taking away all the guns and letting people go at it with knives and baseball bats. (Boy we're gonna need that Obamacare though.)

Just to be the dissenting voice here. Why wouldn't we expect a decrease in gun violence in countries which have stricter regulations placed on guns? Do we see a similar decrease in violent crimes et al, or have the thugs simply traded in their guns for knives and blunt objects? I was under the impression that the overall rate of violent crime in the US was similar to that of any developed country (barring homicide).

The tools of violent crime and the cause of violent crime don't have to be the same thing. I know, I know "guns make it easier"........but who here thinks that it's actually difficult to kill a human being...honestly? "You can just shoot someone from 50 feet away", well, ignoring that most violent crime (even involving firearms) happens at close proximity anyway "You could just as easily walk up and hit them in the head with a baseball bat". The level of security and prevention we have in this country for any crime, involving any weapon, is remarkably thin. There really isn't anything shielding people from this stuff, no matter what weapon the assailant chooses to leverage. I don't have an issue with felons, for example, not being allowed to purchase firearms. They demonstrated that they couldn't be trusted, clearly. I'm all for limiting access to concealed weapons -and I think that concealed weapons are a bad fucking idea overall, btw-, and you'd never hear me arguing against increased regulation on handguns. But personally, I'd like to be able to enjoy my hobby, a skill which I have spent considerable time developing (and a skill which I have never leveraged to commit a crime) in relative peace far removed from the watchful eye of the state. I haven't committed a (violent) crime involving a firearm, there is no reason to assume that I would commit such a crime, and so I fail to see why legislation regarding gun ownership would help prevent crime in my case in the first place. Seems a bit heavy handed to me, but I'm biased.

Quote: Personally I think 2/3rds of gun related deaths being suicides

More like half. But, of course, the same could be true of the other countries named as well.

And that still fails to account for the fact that blowing a hole in your head is a very effective way to kill yourself.

Quote:What were the rates before and after the countries in question "took the guns away"

You know, I can't find the phrase "took the guns away" anywhere in that article and I even used the search feature. I'll try again later when I've got more time.

But, somehow I keep getting the hint that you think the Hollywood version of everyone in early America walking around with guns on their hip is accurate. It isn't. Frankly, the Old West was a lot less violent than the New West.

This whole gun myth is similar to the xtian bullshit of how the country was founded on xtian values. It wasn't. Unlike guns - I don't even know what xtian values are.

(August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:What were the rates before and after the countries in question "took the guns away"

You know, I can't find the phrase "took the guns away" anywhere in that article and I even used the search feature. I'll try again later when I've got more time.

I was paraphrasing the post that you responded to. My apologies if I gave the impression that I was quoting either you or the article you quoted.

(August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But, somehow I keep getting the hint that you think the Hollywood version of everyone in early America walking around with guns on their hip is accurate. It isn't. Frankly, the Old West was a lot less violent than the New West.

I assure you I am under no such misconceptions. I'm only concerned about what's occurring in our time. Honestly, I can't see why you would think that of me - I've commented on this issue twice that I can recall, in this thread, and in another thread where I took no position on the politics of the issue, but commented only on another poster's ignorance of the particulars of one aspect of U.S. firearm law. For the record, I abhor violence, am appalled by the homicide rate in our country, and would like to see something done about it. What that "something" might be, I am undecided on.

Let me put what I was trying to say in another way. Before I would support any sort of legislation in this regard, I'd like to have a good reason to believe it would be effective - sort of a cost/benefit analysis. That could in part be accomplished by assessing the effectiveness of similar efforts in other countries, by comparing pre- and post- legislation homicide (and other violent crime) rates across the board. You'd also have to account for legitimate self-defensive uses of firearms as well.

Unfortunately, to date, the studies have largely been done by (or sponsored by) organizations with an axe to grind.

Quote:Hey, I own several guns. There a problem with that?

Mate you live in the US, I live in Australia. I could not care less if you blow your own fool head off.

My position; no urbanite civilian in a civilised society with effective rule of law needs a firearm. I gave up arguing against the fatuous,self serving justifications of US gun owners some time ago.

(August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I don't even know what xtian values are.

Let me help you with that:

1. Blood sacrifice makes everything better*.
2. The greatest crime is to think.
3. The greatest virtue is to believe what you're told (but only our beliefs, not those of another religion).
4. Aside from doubting the Holy Spirit, no crime is too great that it can't be forgiven by looking up in the sky and asking our skydaddy to pardon you.
5. No need to worry about caring for this planet. Jesus will come soon to destroy it all anyway.
6. We're morally superior to you heathen trash. We know this because morals come from Yahweh. You don't have Yahweh and therefore you're not moral.
7. Love is evil when the body parts are similar.
8. We can bully others and then whine "persecution" when anyone tries to stop us.
9. Using condoms is worse than the spread of AIDS
10. WAH! We're so persecuted!


* You know that whole part about washed-clean-with-the-blood-of-Jesus? Don't literally try to wash anything clean with blood. I tried that once. It didn't work very well. I guess it only works for Jesus.

(August 7, 2012 at 6:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Frankly, the Old West was a lot less violent than the New West.

(This segue on homicide / violent crime / gun control probably ought to be split off if discussion continues, and I'll do so if it does.)

Wanted to follow up on this. I had heard what you quoted before regarding the Old West being relatively less violent than the New West, but had never really looked into it. With my curiosity piqued, I went a-searching and found this:
Homicide Rates in the American West

The above data appears to support the notion that the Old West (mid-19th century and beyond) was a rough place by today's standards, at least in the communities and time periods studied. However, absent contradictory data, for now I'm willing to accept the source (Criminal Justice Research Center at Ohio State) at face value.

Now, with the lack of uniform crime reporting such as we have today, it is difficult to make direct comparisons to modern homicide rates (which, as national averages are not directly comparable). Regional and local rates are probably of more interest, but obviously take longer to dig up. I'm cautious about extrapolating any conclusions from the data presented beyond the communities and time periods covered.

Also found in the search was an article about a study of homicide rates in medieval Europe. This article is only tangentially related to the subject, but I found the explanations as to the stark difference in homicide rates in today's Europe vs. historically to be worth mentioning.

From the above article:

Quote:The most widely accepted explanation stems from the work of Norbert Elias, a sociologist who in the late 1930's introduced the idea of a "civilizing process," in which the nobility was transformed from knights into courtiers, bringing in a new set of manners, and the modern state spread its power over the populace.

Other factors cited as probable contributing factors toward reduction in homicide were public education, demographics, and social influences (as in the rapid increase in homicide in the latter half of the 20th century - which thankfully is now substantially lower [4.8/100K in 2010] than at the peak in 1980 [10.2/100K]).

I've been of the belief that violent crime is a complex topic, and is heavily influenced by education, demographics, economic opportunity, cultural values, social equality, and a host of other factors. Much of the developed world (particularly Europe) is very different than the United States. Legal access to firearms is only one of those differences, and in my view, solving the homicide problem in the USA depends on analyzing all of the contributing factors.

As an example, providing greater economic opportunity in the form of increasing minimum wage, providing universal access to health care, improving public education and increasing access to higher education will likely lead to much improvement.

Will more gun control help? Possibly, and that is certainly a debate that will occur. It is my view that without other necessary reforms, we cannot achieve what our peers in the international community have been able to accomplish.