Thread: "All in favor of gun control, raise your right hand!"

doesn't the government control enough shit yet?

No gun control. Supply all new borns with M-16s, please.

*sticks hands in pants*

Guns kill people. People should never ever die./sarcasm

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs. Thugs WILL have guns, period. Don't take away my right to shoot them when they come into my house or vehicle with the guns that they WILL have.

Gun control sucks, doesn't mean anyone should be able to grab an AK-47.

This thread just reminded me to get my pistol permit & buy a gun.

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs. Thugs WILL have guns, period. Don't take away my right to shoot them when they come into my house or vehicle with the guns that they WILL have.

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/004236.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5my1tWxwf4g

Guns are a deterrent.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

You do realize you are comparing a population of about 61 million to one of about 300 million, and aren't taking into account the over all murder rate of either country, right? Just because gun violence is down in the UK, it doesn't necessarily mean that violence in general is down. People are still offing each other, they are just doing it with knives, clubs, etc.. Last time I checked, There was no discernible drop in violence in the UK due to the ban on firearms.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Guns are not a deterrent.

Seriously, how can you make a comparison based upon 'crime rate'? That would depend entirely on the laws of that country, the efficieny of law enforcement, etcetera. It's too variable by an order of magnitude.

The only way to do it properly is to look at a specific, objective crime such as murder. This is basic statistics.

US: 0.042802 per 1,000
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000

US/UK = 3.0.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, that can be disproved by counterexample. The two aren't comparable; anybody can get drugs (illegally) in the UK, but you hardly ever hear about instances of gun crime. The vast majority of the police force aren't even allowed guns, and it works.

You've just got to look at the figures, where deaths by shooting in the USA is something ridiculous like 10,000 times that in the UK.

How do the two countries compare in terms of murder with other weapons? The U.S. is a much more violent country. That is the difference, not guns. The U.K. does not have the same gun demand we have. It is not that the U.K. has some awesome war on guns policy.

Why would a war on guns be so much more successful than a war on drugs?

Work it out yourself. I was just pointing out that 'wars on guns' are more successful than 'wars on drugs', looking at the evidence in the form of those countries who prohibit both.

I should also point out that this whole 'war on X' cliche sounds pretty funny outside of the US. Jeez, you guys will go to war with anything.

Originally Posted by Xei

Work it out yourself. I was just pointing out that 'wars on guns' are more successful than 'wars on drugs', looking at the evidence in the form of those countries who prohibit both.

I pointed out that you do not have evidence. You brought up a difference and assumed a reason. Again, it is not your government's gun policy that makes the difference. It is your far less violent culture.

Originally Posted by Xei

I should also point out that this whole 'war on X' cliche sounds pretty funny outside of the US. Jeez, you guys will go to war with anything.

Apparently your government has a war on guns, whether it is called that or not. You don't have to fight the foreign wars too hard, though. You know that we will do that business for you.

Originally Posted by Xei

Work it out yourself. I was just pointing out that 'wars on guns' are more successful than 'wars on drugs', looking at the evidence in the form of those countries who prohibit both.

I should also point out that this whole 'war on X' cliche sounds pretty funny outside of the US. Jeez, you guys will go to war with anything.

It sounds just as funny from in the US. But I think it does make some sense considering war and prohibition are both generally moronic and deplorable.

I think that you do have a bit of a point though. Banning guns would work better and be easier than banning drugs. But both are terreible ideas. Neither will ever actually be successful.

Do not have evidence for what? Again, I'm just disagreeing with this, based on actual empirical evidence:

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs.

And I hope you don't seriously believe that the USA fights wars for anybody other than itself.

Originally Posted by Xei

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Guns are not a deterrent.

Seriously, how can you make a comparison based upon 'crime rate'? That would depend entirely on the laws of that country, the efficieny of law enforcement, etcetera. It's too variable by an order of magnitude.

The only way to do it properly is to look at a specific, objective crime such as murder. This is basic statistics.

US: 0.042802 per 1,000
UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000

US/UK = 3.0.

At first those numbers seem to prove your point, but if you take a closer look at some of the other major factors contributing to murder rates, it quickly breaks down. The most important of these would be population density. UK's most densely populated city is London (obviously) at 4700 p/km^2. America's three most densely populated cities number 18,043.78 (Bronx), 17,134.91 (Astoria), and 11,238.04 (Philadelphia).. I couldn't find any definitive source for the murder rate per capita in london (although I know it is extremely high) and so I also didn't bother looking up the rates for those three US cities since I would have nothing to compare them to, but if you can find some reliable data, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would show a strong correlation to population density.

Edit: Actually, I misread the site. Those aren't the three most densely populated cities, just the three most densely populated cities out of a random selection of 200. It also now looks like its not all that reliable because its coming up with different numbers as I refresh the page. Let me look for something more accurate.

if you take a closer look at some of the other major factors contributing to murder rates, it quickly breaks down

I couldn't find any definitive source for the murder rate per capita in london (although I know it is extremely high) and so I also didn't bother looking up the rates for those three US cities since I would have nothing to compare them to, but if you can find some reliable data, I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would show a strong correlation to population density.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

Originally Posted by Xei

Do not have evidence for what? Again, I'm just disagreeing with this, based on actual empirical evidence:

I explained the insignificance of your "evidence" twice. Counter when ready.

Originally Posted by Xei

And I hope you don't seriously believe that the USA fights wars for anybody other than itself.

We just bail out other countries as a byproduct, huh? Well, tons of U.S. soldiers will tell you first hand that they have fought in U.S. wars and had more countries than the U.S. in mind while they were fighting.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

That the presence of guns is a relatively small factor when it comes to murder rates, and that if you only compare those two statistics, you are going to come up with misleading results. Population density has a much larger impact on murder rates (or so I am arguing). The U.S. population centers outweigh the British ones and so this statistic could easily account for the higher murder rate per capita.

Awh, they had other countries 'in mind' did they..? Thanks.

Seriously, at what point did you guys decide to help out when the Germans were setting up a totalitarian regime over Europe? :\

I don't particularly care about gun crime or even discussions about politics in general to be honest... you guys keep shooting each other, whatever. I'll just stick to the philosophy forums.

Its a moot point, since banning guns goes against the very principles our country was founded on. Being able to defend yourself is a fundamental right, and to defend yourself, you need a gun. How is an elderly woman, going to stop some thugs who want to bust into her house and rape her? She can't, unless she has a gun.

No where in the world are the police going to be able to show up to your house within a couple of minutes of you calling them(Unless your sitting next door to the police station). It only takes a couple of minutes, so you need to be able to protect yourself.

When it comes to the bill of rights, there is no gray area. The government is always trying to pass laws to control guns, or to limit free speech, or spy on people and search things they have no right to search. None of it is right.

I have been a supporter of gun control laws for some time and began typing up a post arguing to this end. I decided to stop, however, and first see what the sociological literature had to say. Below are some lit reviews that I found:

Spoiler for abstracts and links:

Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control?

Originally Posted by Abstract

A comprehensive index that focuses on 30 weighted criteria applied to 6 categories of gun control regulations is constructed based on analysis of gun control laws in each of the 50 US states & the District of Columbia in 1998. Based on a literature review of gun control studies, two models are developed: the impact of gun control on crime rates & the impact of crime rates on gun control. Multiple regression analyses for 10 categories of crime in 1999 & 2001 reveal no statistically significant impact of gun control: There is no support for the contention that gun control reduces crime rates, nor any support for the contention that lax gun control in neighboring states undermines the effectiveness of state gun control laws. These results are consistent with the majority of previous state-level studies showing no impact of gun control on crime. On the other hand, high crime rates increase political support for gun control legislation.

The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis

Originally Posted by Abstract

The purpose of this study is to statistically and empirically evaluate the effectiveness of the gun control laws that have been adopted by states and municipalities. States are divided into two groups: states with no restrictions as to gun use and states with restrictions (e.g., waiting periods, license, etc.). Multiple linear regression models are used to evaluate the relationship between the number of gun related deaths in 1990 and sets of determinants which include state laws and regulations governing the use of firearms. The study results indicate that gun control laws have a very mild effect on the number of gun related deaths while socioeconomic variables such as a state's poverty level, unemployment rate and alcohol consumption, have significant impact on firearm related deaths. These findings suggest that any reduction in resources spent on social programs tied to the Crime Bill may be counter-productive.

Firearms Laws and the Reduction of Violence: A Systematic Review

Originally Posted by Abstract

Overview The Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force) is conducting systematic reviews of scientific evidence about diverse interventions for the prevention of violence, and resulting injury and death,including, among others, early childhood home visitation,1,2 therapeutic foster care,3 the transfer of juveniles to the adult justice system, school programs for the teaching of prosocial behavior, and community policing. This report presents findings about the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence. Studies of the following firearms laws were included in the review: bans on specified firearms or ammunition; restrictions on firearms acquisition; waiting periods for firearms acquisition; firearms registration; licensing of firearms owners; "shall issue" carry laws that allow people who pass background checks to carry concealed weapons; child access prevention laws; zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools; and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found the evidence available from identified studies was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed singly or in combination. A finding that evidence is insufficient to determine effectiveness means that we do not yet know what effect, if any, the law has on an outcome-not that the law has no effect on the outcome. This report describes how the reviews were conducted, gives detailed information about the Task Force's findings, and provides information about research gaps and priority areas for future research.

Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence
(This link expires in 7 days so get it while it's hot!)

Originally Posted by Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between access to handguns, gun control laws, and the incidence of violence associated with firearms. Utilizing F. B. I. data, census materials, vital statistics and Harris and Gallup surveys in a multiple regression statistical framework, gun control laws have no significant effect on rates of violence beyond what can be attributed to background social conditions. This lack of effect may be due to the laws not effectively controlling access to firearms. The data supported this contention. Finally, differential access to handguns seems to have no effect on rates of violent crime and firearms accidents, another reason why gun control laws are ineffective.

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field
No Abstract

I didn't take a terribly close look at each paper to assess the methodologies, but from what I did gather, the efficacy of gun control laws appears to be highly questionable.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you think a war on guns would work well, look at the war on drugs. Thugs WILL have guns, period. Don't take away my right to shoot them when they come into my house or vehicle with the guns that they WILL have.

And that my friends is an example of a patriot, the only way they are going to take our guns is from our cold dead hands, after we fired hundreds of bullets in their faces.