Shyster wrote:There are plenty of nations with stricter gun controls than the United States, and we’re had gun confiscations in places like Australia and Great Britain in the last couple decades. Guns are being banned across the world.
And does it work? Seems like we're the nation where most shooting happens. Yes, I know.. the culture. But I also feel it's lack of regulation. I don't know what happened in those two countries, but as far as I know you can still own guns there.
The UK banned pretty much all private gun ownership in the late 90s. In Australia, handguns were banned in around 2002 in a measure that included a buy-back program. In both cases, there have been marked declines in gun related incidents and crimes. Whether that's causal or relational is difficult to tell, because - as has been the case here in the U.S. - crime rates in general had been on a roughly 25-year decline. In fact, the suicide rate in the U.S. has fallen faster over this period than it has in Oz. So I'm not sure how significant a data point this really is.
Even in the best of circumstances I'm honestly not really sure how instructive a statistic like that can be. Fewer guns, fewer gun crimes. That's not overly difficult to intuit. But at what price? In virtually all other measure of violent crime the per capita rates in both countries skyrocketd after those respective pieces of legislation went into effect. And in Oz, there was a pronounced increase in the number of violent incidents involving bladed weapons. And I'm not talking small increases here; in Oz, the violent crime rate has practically doubled over the last ten years, and in Britain it is now more common for a home robbery to take place when the owners are at home
than it is in an unoccupied residence.
So it becomes a game of risk-reward. Do you want to lower the risk of murder even further in a state where that risk was already pretty low, if lowering that risk means sharply increasing your risk of being the victim of a violent crime? (Which is statistically much more likely, anyway; there are more muggings than murders.)
To me, this is like the debate over visors in hockey. There is empirical evidence that the protective equipment you require, the more likely you are to encounter a high incidence of stick fouls and head shots (and my personal anecdotal evidence bears this out). So yeah, you're more protected, in theory..... but you have to deal with many many more shots to a vulnerable area. So are you really any better off? I would say no.
shafnutz05 wrote:As you can see from the pretty bar graphs, the vast, VAST majority of gun murders are committed by a demographic that makes up 12% of the population. Rather than look at stricter gun controls as the answer, maybe we should ask why black Americans simply can't stop killing each other? Because in my opinion, there is no question that addressing the astronomically higher murder rate among black Americans is probably a lot more relevant as to addressing the issue of murder in the United States.
It's unfortunate, but this only becomes an issue of national importance when middle-class white people are at the center of the discussion.
Look at CT on that graph: 140 homicides between 2008 and 2010....... broken down as 134:6 black victims v white victims. Suddenly in 2013 when 26 mostly white upper-middle class people are murdered at a school, oh now it's a matter of Great National Importance. The white murder rate had increased six-fold in the span of a few minutes, so we must now ban assault rifles. We're talking about eliminating an entire class of weapons because they are so
dangerous, despite them being used in <3% of gun murders. Why? Because they were used by white people to kill other white people. This is suddenly outrageous. Never mind the fact that blacks are murder victims at six times the rate of whites, and that choice of weapon in those cases is almost universally a handgun.