Every EU nation, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden,

has a lower homocide rate than thje USA and just by sheer accident has a lower rate of gun ownership.

I told you how to do it.

at least in Canada (and probably Australia and NZ) would indicate that there should be more per capita homicide in those countries if they had murder patterns like ours so there is another reason for it. I don't know what that reason is though! I wonder if it has something to do with welfare. I don't care too much for welfare (which is one reason why I am more right leaning than most people here), but I do understand that to some extent it is a matter of national security to have it in some form. Afterall, Brazil and other third wolrd countries are often so dangerous because of the hungry people running around that will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to eat. There are other reasons too.


PS - Why can't welfare at least be workfare in many cases? It would be nice to gets some bang for our buck. In rural areas we can put them to work on farms - a different way to subsidize farmers would be to pay for their labor and pay otherwise jobless people at the same time!!! Kill two birds with one stone and help our outrageous b*sh deficit. In urban areas people should not sit on their butts and collect checks! They should be out cleaning graffiti in their neighborhood, picking up litter, and cleaning public toilets! That way we could be paying an otherwise jobless person to beautify their neighborhood - and this probably helps to decrease crime - plus it will not subsidize drug dealers (at least they have to do some form of work to get subsidized) and others who have under the table illicit incomes with rent & food money. Some people do need it legitimately though and cannot work - I understand that, but some reforms like the ones I mention should be pondered!

Weapons worshippers never win this battle. They end up saying Americans aren't as good a people as those Euros and Japanese.

The only time I fired a gun was an AK-47 at the Cu-Chi tunnels historical museum in Vietnam in January. They had a firing range there and I paid a dollar a bullet for ten bullets. I have to admit that I enjoyed it, but I also have not even thought about buying a gun since coming home.

I was just basing my comment on Moore's movie actually. In Bowling for Columbine, he said that Canadians had just as many guns as we do per capita, but their homicide rate is much lower than ours. That is why I was suggesting that there may be other variables. I was wondering if it might be because welfare states help to keep people from being so desperate that they need to use guns...that is all.

What was your suggestion?

Actually, for the first time in my life, I feel like guns MIGHT be something we do not want to ban. Hear me out. Since b*sh has come into office he has really messed things up and he has done everything he can to strip people of their liberties. What if the government continued to get ever more repressive until our leaders became dictators for life (It happened to Rome's republic). If that ever became the case, then I wouldn't want b*sh and b*shlike future leaders to be the only ones with guns.

is to repeal all of the federal gun laws and end the war on drugs for starters.

For the people who want to ban guns or just want more gun control my suggestion is to give up on their idiotic assault weapons ban and get back to their gun grabbing roots. I go over the basics in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x57048#57076

Fortunately, gun grabbers are ignorant and short sighted making it unlikely that they will take my advice. But if they do, they do. Hopefully they'll at least name one of the laws after me.

You clearly know way more about this than I do!

Well ... golly gee gosh.

.

you crack me up.

"is to repeal all of the federal gun laws and end the war on drugs for starters."

WHat is your evidence that this would reduce the homicide rate?

That and the murder rate in the US started dropping pretty much the day alcohol prohibition ended and started climbing again when the war on drugs got kicking.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors involved, but the War on Drugs is a big one and if a big chunk of the gun violence in the country stops when the war on drugs is over, well then there's hardly a need to try and control the guns that were formerly involved in the violence.

The war on drugs is a disgrace.

Unemployment

and repealing all the gun control will result in a lot more unemployment. What are all those DEA and ATF agents going to do for jobs?

n/t

Any time they are filming a scene with a goon kicking down a door and handcuffing a family.

in post #6, #20 to this thread in a roundabout way.

I'm a bit more direct in my posts. Don't have the time I used to go on boards. :)

I don't see why gun ownership would make a difference if someone is killed by a snowglobe.

Improved sniper rifles make killing the leader easy.

and now you're talking about improved sniper rifles.

Guns or no guns, if a terrorist wants to inflict massive casualties, they will.

cuz I got an award waiting for you!

There's one right there. :)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes."

Say what you mean and link with a real statistic.

Did you even read the article?

The bottom line is that there no statistics attempting to prove causation between gun ownership and increase/reduction in homicide/crime that pass academic muster.

and explain why Japan has a 180 times lower gun homocide rate and Ireland a 160 times lower. Might it be cause they don't have many guns?

There are so many more reasons for rates of crime differences than a hunk of metal and plastic. Both sides overstate and attempt to skew the stats in their favor. It's time that the rhetoric stops and a real attempt is made identify causes of high crime rates and how to combat them.

Also doesn't worry with such issues as due process and presumed innocence either.

like a vampire seeing the morning sun. The weapons worshippers can't explain away the blood, the jail terms, the regime changes their toys steal from mankind. Let's see some links from the gunners showing some "advanced' nation with more homocides the the USA.

Additionally, correlation does not equal causation.

They ain't out there buddy. I'm trying to convert the fence sitters. I'm calling the defenders of unlimited rights for weapons purchasers out. America kills a lot of people with promiscuous gun laws and lax enforcement of these weal laws. Prove me different with satistics you believe in.

I already told you, the stats don't prove anything. That is the whole point. There is NO causation between guns and crime rates. Up or down.

Also, you made the initial assertion, the onus is on you to prove it, and you haven't done so.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

"Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."

Allow the private possession of select fire sub-machine guns, battle rifles and carbines, and in some cases, destructive devices. By your rationale, then, they should have a higher crime rate than the USA, but despite all these weapons they don't. Why is that?

if guns are the problem, how do you explain that?

This country has a violence problem, not a gun problem. The guns have essentially gone unchanged for 50 years...the rash of violence has spread in the last 30.

I can't fucking believe that in this age of John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act and Total Information Awareness, that some people are begging the government to take away more of our liberties.

It's absolutely mind boggling.

But then again, it shouldn't surprise anyone. This sentiment comes from the same people who think that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make criminals and terrorists less violent and make suicidal people no longer want to end it all.

I guess you just manage to keep it spewing out, and the force of the stream prevents it from getting sucked back in ...

the same people who think that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will make criminals and terrorists less violent and make suicidal people no longer want to end it all

And they would be ... who?

.

About Finland or Switzerland's homicide rate and gun ownership.

You'll quickly find out that the amount of guns has nothing to do with murder rates.

Tell us
About Finland or Switzerland's homicide rate
and gun ownership.
You'll quickly find out that the amount of guns
has nothing to do with murder rates.

How come ...

an absence of correlation between X and Y in one instance proves that X doesn't cause Y

and yet ...

a perfect correlation between X and Y in another instance doesn't prove that X causes Y??

The only response I can think of to your assertion is:

Tell us
About Canada's or the UK's or Western Europe's or
Japan's or Australia's or New Zealand's homicide rate
and gun ownership.
You'll quickly find that the amount of guns has
everything to do with murder rates.

Except, of course, I wouldn't say that.

I would no more say that the number of firearms in a population has EVERYTHING to do with homicide rates than I would say that it has NOTHING to do with them.

The fact that a correlation observed in many, many cases does not bear out in a few others is NOT proof of absence of causality. It may well be evidence of OTHER causal factors at work in the exceptional cases that are not present in the cases where the correlation bears out -- and that counteract what causal effect the high numbers of firearms might well otherwise have.


The thing is that anyone who would deny that the number of firearms in a population has SOMETHING to do with homicide rates -- i.e. says that it has NOTHING to do with them -- is the one really making the assertion that needs proving here.

The strong correlation observed in so many instances is obvious prima facie evidence that the number of firearms in a population has SOMETHING to do with homicide rates. That prima facie case *does* need rebutting.


Obviously, when investigating causation and examining potential causal factors, one would like to consider all other things being equal situations and compare outcomes in them. We seldom have the good fortune of finding such situations.


As we all know, one of the "things" that is not "equal" as between the US and other mature, industrialized democracies is that income disparity in the US is hugely more pronounced than in those other, otherwise relatively comparable societies - and is growing faster than in those other countries (if it is growing in them).

And we know that violence (e.g. homicide rates) correlates positively with income disparity -- the larger the gap between rich and poor, the more violence. Russia and South Africa bear this correlation out, for instance.

A sensible person might look at the situation and say:

Obviously, we can expect higher levels of violence and crime in societies where more income is concentrated in the hands of fewer people than in societies where income is more evenly distributed.

Obviously, any propensity to violence and crime will be exacerbated by ready access to effective, efficient and low-risk means for committing violent/criminal acts.

One might tentatively conclude: In a country in which one condition (extreme income disparity) is not present, the number of firearms present will have a relatively less significant causal effect on homicide rates. In a country in which that condition is present, the number of firearms present will have a relatively more significant causal effect on homicide rates. One way to test the conclusion would be to find countries with high income disparity and low numbers of firearms, and see how they compare. Unfortunately, we can't just order up guinea pigs in this experiment.

Other factors will certainly have to be considered in determining what other factors exacerbate the tendency and what factors mitigate it: the content of laws and the effectiveness of law enforcement, for instance, need to be compared as well.


A person who gives a shit will then set about identifying, assessing and selecting effective and acceptable ways of reducing violence and crime in a particular situation.

A person who doesn't will keep demanding that the other side "prove" its case.

As the groups opposing a constitutional challenge to some of Canada's firearms control legislation said in 2000:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

While we're there, here is those groups' comments on the right wing's darling, Prof. Gary Mauser (of the Fraser Institute and past discussions here):

Alberta’s case also relies heavily on the work of Gary Mauser, Professor of Business Administration at Simon Fraser University and pro-gun advocate with the BC Wildlife Federation. The methodology used in his study on arming for self-protection was challenged in the sworn affidavit of Jens Ludwig, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Mauser’s research has been funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Langley Symposium, a pro-gun organization. Alberta’s expert on domestic violence is Senator Anne Cools <no comment needed for Canadians - a stupidly and viciously anti-feminist politician who has waged war on behalf of "men's rights" for years ... and who is, gosh, a black woman>.

Funny how the "pro-gun"/right-wing (Govt. of Alberta, Fraser Institute, Anne Cools ...) correlation bears out so well in Canada too.

.

so I believe that we are in agreement income disparity and the maldistribution of wealth can be more easily coralated with levels of socital violence. Combined with the previously discussed clutural problems in the Rural South (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=56428#56492) its amazing we don't lead the developing world in violience.

I believe that we are in agreement income disparity and the maldistribution of wealth can be more easily coralated with levels of socital violence

A little too simplistic.

I think that what might be useful in testing that would be some longitudinal studies, in addition to cross-national studies.

Income disparity has been increasing in the US over the last couple of decades ... and yet violent crime and the homicide rate is falling, right?

Ditto, to a much lesser extent in both case (slower rise in income disparity, slower decline in crime/homicide rates) in Canada, for instance.

So it seems that some other factors might be at work as well -- and be important enough to counteract the higher income disparity : higher crime/violence rates correlation.

Then we could do some historical cross-national comparisons: go back to a time in the US when income disparity was less pronounced, and possibly more pronounced in some of the other countries of interest. (Before about 1950 and the advent of social democracy in western Europe and the UK, for instance.) How did homicide rates compare? What differences (e.g. prevalence of firearms ownership, regulation of firearms possession) were present?

Informal regulation of firearms ownership is also an important factor. Social attitudes, population distribution (rural vs. urban, e.g.), leisure practices, etc. People who hunt know why they own firearms, and practise their ownership within that paradigm. Swiss men who have govt-issued firearms know why they own them, and practise their ownership within that paradigm. The paradigms, where they exist, are enforced by community attitudes. Where they don't, individuals go off on frolics of their own, with sometimes seriously bad consequences. Thus the level of social cohesion is also an important factor, since adherence to the "rules" imposed by the community will depend on the individual's recognition of their legitimacy and of the benefits of adhering to them.


An interesting site:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Welcome.html

Sustainable Development, as defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), is the capacity to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable Development must balance the needs of society, the economy, and the environment.

Sustainable Development Indicators (SDI) are various statistical values that collectively measure the capacity to meet present and future needs. SDI will provide information crucial to decisions of national policy and to the general public.

Social Cohesion

Definition: Those issues dealing with relationships and interactions between individuals or groups within society

Some of the factors that I'd see as relevant to our case:

Alienation: A state of estrangement between a person and the objective world <click on the heading at the site for info>

... Crime: An increase in the acts committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction; a serious moral offense; an unjust, senseless act <click on the heading at the site for info>

... Safety and security: Freedom from fear of victimization by crime, war, terrorism, or civil disturbance <no indicators developed yet>

... Trust: Total confidence (or lack thereof) in the integrity, ability, and good character of another individual or organization <no indicators developed yet>

Here's an example of the problem:
http://www.nbr.org/regional_studies/social_cohesion.html

The Russian Federation's transition to a democratic, capitalist system has generated a tragic and debilitating loss of social cohesion in Russia. Health care conditions have plunged, violent crime, drug use, and alcoholism have escalated, and the well-being of women, children, ethnic minorities, and the environment have deteriorated. Despite the magnitude of these social catastrophes, reaction has been muted and policies to address these circumstances have not been implemented.

A relative serious lack of social cohesion is obviously a major underlying problem in the prevalence of violence/crime in the US. There is more alienation, more crime, less safety & security and less trust overall, for example.

But the question still remains: what earthly sense does it make to add efficient, effective, low-risk means of committing violent and criminal acts to the mix??

A high crime level is an indicator of low social cohesion. It is also causal of decline in social cohesion, obviously. It makes no sense to say "our problem is a lack of social cohesion" and then do nothing to try to solve it. And taking effective action to remove those efficient, effective, low-risk means of committing violence and crime -- firearms -- sure looks to me like an element of a solution, whereas allowing ownership of those means to proliferate at individuals' sole discretion sure looks like an element of the problem.

Arming one's self against criminals simply does not enhance social cohesion; it degrades it. And that's the flaw in the individualist paradigm -- the less social cohesion, the more problems there will be (of all kinds, not just crime/violence), and the more likely the individual him/herself is to be a victim of the problems that result.

.