Renzatic on 4/10/2017 at 23:15
Having more guns around certainly makes murder more convenient, but they don't serve as the catalyst for murder itself.
Take the Nordic countries as an example. While not nearly as widespread as they are in the US, guns are still fairly prominent and easy to obtain in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc. I think they're all in the top 10 guns per capita list, having, on average, about 4 guns for every 10 people.
Yet in a single year, the US will experience nearly 100 times the amount of gun violence when compared to any Nordic country. The difference here isn't nearly proportional. We have a little over double the amount of guns per capita, yet host SIGNIFICANTLY higher crime rates.
The same core question still applies. What is it about the US that makes us so prone to violence?
Starker on 4/10/2017 at 23:33
I don't know about Sweden or Denmark, but in Finland most of these guns are hunting rifles and shotguns -- not really best tools for murder sprees. Also, Finland has gun control, meaning that each gun has to be registered and be suitable for the purpose. You don't get a gun just like that. For example, when you apply for a gun for sporting purposes, you have to prove that it's your hobby. Or if you want a gun for hunting, it has to be suitable for the game you're targeting.
Goldmoon Dawn on 5/10/2017 at 00:29
Quote Posted by Renzatic
The same core question still applies. What is it about the US that makes us so prone to violence?
I see the homeless people starving in the alleyways every morning, yet just around the corner and down the street, at the local Festival Food Market, they are throwing cartfuls of day old food into the dumpster.
Renault on 5/10/2017 at 01:32
How is that relevant in the least? The guy who just killed 58 people in Vegas had the day before wired 100 grand to his girlfriend in the Philippines. These killing sprees are not being committed by homeless, destitute people. Try again.
Renzatic on 5/10/2017 at 01:33
Quote Posted by Starker
I don't know about Sweden or Denmark, but in Finland most of these guns are hunting rifles and shotguns -- not really best tools for murder sprees.
Murder sprees, yeah. Murders in general? No.
I'm talking about violence overall, not just mass killings. The Finnish require you to jump through a number of hoops to gain access to a gun, but the access is still there, and in fairly large numbers. Yet their murder rates are still relatively low, especially when compared to the US.
Of course, blanket bans on high powered, semi-automatic weaponry with high cap magazines would explain why mass shootings are pretty rare events in Europe, but that fact doesn't matter at this point. Regardless what any of us think, regardless of what solid arguments any of us provide, we should all just accept as concrete truth the fact that there isn't going to be any substantial gun ban implemented in the US for the foreseeable future. If we want anything done, we're going to have to argue around it. Concern ourselves less with the how, and more with the why.
It's the only recourse we currently have.
Volitions Advocate on 5/10/2017 at 03:40
Quote Posted by Renzatic
It's obvious that no right is unlimited, but as long as its limits aren't spelled out within the Bill of Rights, advocating for such will always be met with resistance from a politically proactive countergroup that tends to vote far more often, far more regularly than just about anyone else.
In Canada, this is my problem with Gun Control. The thing is I see the conversation go like this everywhere this pops up. Gun nuts freak out over their rights and how everything in society is going to crap, anti-gun nuts freak out over their emotions and try to explain that statistics prove causation and believe that "assault weapon" is a real term.
And then there are a few small percentage of us, that like to meet in the middle and have a discussion where we listen and realize that before we can even say things like "compromise" we have to listen to each others points and take them seriously. ON BOTH SIDES.
I'm getting off topic but whatever I'll get back to it before I click POST.
re: suppressors. They are suppressors, not silencers. They silence nothing, and they are legal in most the US after paying for a tax stamp. Also... It's not the most efficient way, but silencing a gun can be done with a chunk of metal, a tap and die set, and an oil filter. Genie is out of the bottle and there are a lot of makers out there. Also Also... the UK, in their gun control haven, MANDATE silencers for hunters. It's a safety device that has a happy consequence of making shooters better neighbors. It's not a murder peripheral.
Back to what I quoted renz for. The problem with Canadian gun laws for an enthusiastic gun owner is not licensing (although I do take issue with registration, which is nothing like car registration, because it IS used for confiscation, unlike automobiles, in Canada anyway), is a lack of consistency, and common sense in how it is administered. In Canada the police are put in charge of classifying firearms because the government considers them the "experts." Which effectively gives the Judicial branch of government powers of the Executive, which literally means "Police State" if not for everybody, than at least for a law-abiding few. The police can unilaterally decide out of the blue to change the law at any point, and as a citizen you comply or go to prison. Or at the very least, lose your entire life savings defending yourself in court (I should mention that the RCMP also does not mention when they change laws to anybody, and frequently make people felons overnight without informing them).
The classification system has a very rigid set of rules that everybody follows when they buy guns. Barrel length, overall length, action type etc. Except the last clause which always reads "And whatever else we say belongs in here." Meaning the rules don't apply to the police, the police who enforce AND create the laws.
I'm happy with a certain form of gun control. I'm happy with training and criminal record checks. I'm not happy with the mandatory questions about conjugal partners that the RCMP wants to know about which would usually be considered the types of privacy invasion that the Geneva Convention frowns upon. I'm not happy with laws that have no effect, but appeal to emotions (ie magazine limits). I'm not happy with the lack of real discussion and anti-gun people not wanting to care about gun enthusiasts because they outnumber them (not in the US obviously).
I'm not happy with vague laws that are written loosely enough that the police can do what they want, especially because they don't even know what is legal and what isn't most of the time ("Charge 'em and let the courts sort it out").
I want solid, specific gun laws, that I can trust. I want to have the same types of punitive measures for my paperwork "crimes" that one would get in similar situations with their car. Up until a couple of years ago, being pulled over without a drivers license warranted a ticket and fine, whereas being found with firearms and without a license (as in failure to produce, whether or not you actually posses one) was a mandatory minimum 3 year sentence.
I'm also not happy with pig headed gun nuts who use the term "libtards" and assholes like Zimmerman who thought it was his job to be public defender when he was just a fucking neckbeard.
Starker on 5/10/2017 at 04:30
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Murder sprees, yeah. Murders in general? No.
I'm talking about violence overall, not just mass killings. The Finnish require you to jump through a number of hoops to gain access to a gun, but the access is still there, and in fairly large numbers. Yet their murder rates are still relatively low, especially when compared to the US.
I think the hoops make a real difference, though. At least for the impulse murders. And it makes a difference in how people approach each other. For example, police are more likely to open fire when there's a reason to believe someone might be armed. In Finland, carrying a gun with you is not really an option, unless it's a part of your job. If you use it for sport, you are supposed to transport your guns unloaded.
It's true that the homicide rate in the US is much higher than in other high-income countries, but the rate of firearm homicide is far far higher still. To put things in perspective, in the US, getting killed by a gun is about as likely as dying in a car crash -- rare enough occurrence for most people, but still far too common (though obviously it depends a lot on things like where you live and how old you are). In China, for comparison, it's about as likely as dying in a plane crash. In Japan, as likely as getting hit by lightning.
Certainly, correlation alone doesn't prove anything, but there is a strong correlation between the number of firearms and number of homicides:
(
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)
(
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/)
(
https://web.archive.org/web/20170206100059/http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/)
Inline Image:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170105171544im_/http://tewksburylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-and-death-rates.jpgicemann on 5/10/2017 at 05:46
Quote Posted by Renzatic
The same core question still applies. What is it about the US that makes us so prone to violence?
It's those damn filthy videogames corrupting the minds and encouraging murder. Ban em all!!!
Renzatic on 5/10/2017 at 06:56
Remember that one time you played D&D, Ice? Yeah. Your dalliance with the devils dice game ruined an entire generation. It's all on you.
Should've damn well known better. :mad:
demagogue on 5/10/2017 at 07:50
My first idea is legislation which makes illegitimate harms by guns a strict liability claim on the manufacturers. Then it will be the manufacturers themselves that will have the incentive to figure out the best methods to minimize harms by their own weapons. I have an idea the manufacturers can figure out better methods than law-makers, but that cost has to be internalized into their bottom line for them to have the incentive.
