The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[WildCat]

Yes, but you will probably find that violent crime death rates are down everywhere in the developed world, and even in most of the developing world in the time frame that you are talking about so the trend is probably not attributable to the availability of guns.

The worst genocide in the last 25 years was accomplished without guns. In this situation the strong can attack the weak with little danger to themselves, thus the incredible death toll typical of pre-firearm societies.

As the slogan goes "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal". Meaning physical prowess and strength mean little when both are armed with guns, which gives pause to violent thugs who wouldn't think twice about attacking the physically weak in the absence of firearms.

 

[Sabretooth]

Here we go. I have taken the top ten countries in the human development index replicating Sabretooth's completely objective selection of top ten lowest gun homicide rate in the US and looked at these states' gun homicide rates:

STATE | GHR
Norway | 0.04
Australia | 0.13
United States | 3.60
Netherlands | 0.20
Germany | 0.20
New Zealand | 0.26
Ireland | No data (?)
Sweden | 0.19
Switzerland | 0.52
Japan | 0.00

Now apart from Ireland, there is one that really sticks out. The two highest gun homicide rates are the US and Ireland.

But anyway, why not just concede that with more guns lying around there will be more gun deaths? It is palpably obvious that that is the case to all but the most blinkered observer.

Remember that the issue of gun rights is about, well... rights! Why not just state that the number of gun homicide rates is irrelevant given that it is not up to the government to take away your right to your gun?

If you start trying to claim that gun rights are based on something as contingent as gun homicide figures then you are making yourself hostage to the data. Do you want all of your rights to be similarly contingent?




ETA: Just in case the concept of "developed country" is still too "mysterious" for some posters, Wikipedia has a helpful compilation of lists of developed countries by various criteria. The reliability is based on the fact that generally the same countries consistently make all, or nearly all, of the lists while Mexico and Brazil do not appear on a single one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

The point I was making was one that you missed. What do you notice about the states that have low murder rates?

Each of those states (again, with the exception of Hawaii) do not have a prevalent gang problem.

You keep bringing up other countries...but that's not the issue here. The cultures and the people are different, period. But, for some reason, comparing states within the union is somehow being disingenuous despite the fact the are all bound by the same Constitution, rights, and similar laws?

Further, comparing counties within a state identifies the "gun problem" even more clearly. City centers with low-income and gang activity come front and center. A look around the counties within the state of NY clearly identify this. There are 18 counties in NY that have ZERO homicides of any kind, including mine (Wyoming)...yet it has one of the highest percentage CCW holders in the entire state.

The broad brush that AG's use by comparing the USA to other countries is a farce. Let's be clear, the USA doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has a criminal problem. Banning/Restricting guns will do little curb the real problem.

 

[WildCat]

No it doesn't. That's awful statistical analysis. You haven't corrected for anything. there could be a hundred other factors bringing the rate down in the places you cherry picked that you haven't accounted for while guns per capita could still be a driving force.

How you are attempting to make your numbers work is very, very poor statistacal analysis. Stoppit.

If I'm wrong then it would be fairly trivial of you to construct a formula which predicts the homicide rate of any given country just by knowing the number of firearms per capita. Just like one can predict the rate of death by lung cancer by knowing the rate of cigarette smoking.

Can you do that? Why or why not?

 

[angrysoba]

The worst genocide in the last 25 years was accomplished without guns. In this situation the strong can attack the weak with little danger to themselves, thus the incredible death toll typical of pre-firearm societies.

Yes, but the last I checked Rwanda was not in the developed world. And neither is Congo or Somalia and they seem to get along quite well shooting at each other.

As the slogan goes "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal"..

Only two clauses wrong with that sentence.

 

[WildCat]

Ouch. I gave you far too much credit. Allow me to explain:

We're discussing this over and over again BECAUSE incidents like this keep happening, which proves that guns don't make people more careful about getting into confrontations.

Makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well say that traffic laws have no effect on traffic deaths, since traffic deaths keep happening. Or that anti-smoking campaigns have no effect, since people still continue to smoke.

 

[angrysoba]

The point I was making was one that you missed. What do you notice about the states that have low murder rates?

Each of those states (again, with the exception of Hawaii) do not have a prevalent gang problem.

Oh that was the point I missed was it? Actually, no. You are grasping at straws here, because earlier you told me there was a different point about Mexico having strict gun laws.

However, now that you mention it, if all those states have no gang problems then it is just as well isn't it! Given that the gun homicide rates already outstrip almost every other country in the developed world, what would they be like if they had gang problems on top?

In fact, given that we are being advised not to get confused about correlation and causation, how do you know that the lack of gang problems mean a lack of gun homicide rates?

Are there no gang problems in say the UK or other Western European countries?

How do you know that in fact strict gun laws are actually a response to out-of-control gun homicide rates combined with gang problems?

Are you arguing that in states where there are huge gang problems the best thing to do is loosen gun restrictions?

I would be interested in any thoughts on this you have.

You keep bringing up other countries...but that's not the issue here. The cultures and the people are different, period. But, for some reason, comparing states within the union is somehow being disingenuous despite the fact the are all bound by the same Constitution, rights, and similar laws?

Yet that only counts when you and WildCat are not bringing up Mexico or Brazil or Rwanda. Do I sense special pleading?

Further, comparing counties within a state identifies the "gun problem" even more clearly. City centers with low-income and gang activity come front and center. A look around the counties within the state of NY clearly identify this. There are 18 counties in NY that have ZERO homicides of any kind, including mine (Wyoming)...yet it has one of the highest percentage CCW holders in the entire state.

The broad brush that AG's use by comparing the USA to other countries is a farce. Let's be clear, the USA doesn't have a gun problem so much as it has a criminal problem. Banning/Restricting guns will do little curb the real problem.

So, again, legalizing guns in all states with gang problems will either improve the situation or have no effect? Is that right?

It could be, but I doubt it.

 

[WildCat]

Yet you continue to strenuously maintan that there is a connection between a lack of guns, and non-fatal assaults and burglaries in the UK? Riiigghhhttt.....

Yes, because firearms are a tool which can prevent those things and makes it a far riskier proposition for the criminal.

 

[WildCat]

I see you conveniently left out Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, etc.

Purely an innocent oversight I'm sure, and has nothing to so with cherry picking stats to "prove" an otherwise unsupportable hypothesis.

 

[WildCat]

And you may also have earlier caught WildCat stating that the rise in the availability of guns led to a reduction in violent crime deaths. I don't know if you popped up to ask WildCat why he was ignoring the fact that correlation is not causation. Perhaps you were willing to let it go on that occasion.

I said violent deaths in general, not just from crime. And I explained why.

Have you been able to figure out a formula yet for predicting homicide rates based on guns per capita? Why or why not?

 

[3point14]

If I'm wrong then it would be fairly trivial of you to construct a formula which predicts the homicide rate of any given country just by knowing the number of firearms per capita. Just like one can predict the rate of death by lung cancer by knowing the rate of cigarette smoking.

Can you do that? Why or why not?

No, I can't do it and I wouldn't try. I just know your methodology is awful. You need a statisitcian.

 

[Belz...]

I suspect the countries with the highest number of machetes per capita would also have the highest number of machete deaths.

Yes, and if 30,000 people died per year in the US due to machete attacks we might have a similar conversation about them.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, but the last I checked Rwanda was not in the developed world.

That's kind of the whole point. In fact Rwanda is so far from developed firearms are quite rare, and yet it's the scene of the worst genocide in recent times.

And neither is Congo or Somalia and they seem to get along quite well shooting at each other.

And have a lower death toll after years of conflict with firearms than Rwanda experienced in just a few months with nothing more than machetes.

 

[IDB87]

No, my point was that Mexico makes it illegal for a citizen to own a gun, yet they have one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world.

Haven't read the rest of the thread to see if someone responded to this, but Mexicans have a Constitutional right to purchase and own firearms. What they're not allowed to do is own military grade weapons or possess ammunition of that caliber.

 

[WildCat]

No, I can't do it and I wouldn't try. I just know your methodology is awful. You need a statisitcian.

Argument by assertion.

If firearms caused homicides like cigarettes cause lung cancer you'd have no problem showing the relationship mathematically. But you can't for some reason, and refuse to consider that maybe, just maybe, firearms per capita isn't a significant factor when it comes to murder rates.

 

[Sabretooth]

Oh that was the point I missed was it? Actually, no. You are grasping at straws here, because earlier you told me there was a different point about Mexico having strict gun laws.

I was pointing out that your were cherry-picking by avoiding whatever country didn't fit your pretty little list. I don't compare the USA to any other country, that's the AG's angle, not mine.

However, now that you mention it, if all those states have no gang problems then it is just as well isn't it! Given that the gun homicide rates already outstrip almost every other country in the developed world, what would they be like if they had gang problems on top?

Jeezus, you can't stop yourself, can you? Why are you comparing tiny little countries to the USA?

In fact, given that we are being advised not to get confused about correlation and causation, how do you know that the lack of gang problems mean a lack of gun homicide rates?

Really? That's your question? And you thought I was the one grasping at straws?

Are there no gang problems in say the UK or other Western European countries?

Dunno. Don't care. This is a thread about the 2A and an American's right to bear arms.

How do you know that in fact strict gun laws are actually a response to out-of-control gun homicide rates combined with gang problems?

By that logic, all the states with strict gun laws would have the lower homicide rates...and we all know that's not true. Sorry.

Are you arguing that in states where there are huge gang problems the best thing to do is loosen gun restrictions?

That's not at all what I said. I'm saying to actually enforce the laws that are in place.

I am stating, in very clear terms, that the government, at every level, must focus it's attention to the gang/drug/poverty problems we have in the inner-cities around the country and actually prosecute and jail those who commit violent crimes.

 

[WildCat]

What they're not allowed to do is own military grade weapons or possess ammunition of that caliber.

What calibers aren't used by a military somewhere?

Even 12 gauge shotguns are used by the military.

 

[Sabretooth]

Haven't read the rest of the thread to see if someone responded to this, but Mexicans have a Constitutional right to purchase and own firearms. What they're not allowed to do is own military grade weapons or possess ammunition of that caliber.

I see. However, they cannot own anything greater than a .380 caliber and only for home use. Though, it looks like Mexican's can't get a carry permit without an act of God.

 

[IDB87]

What calibers aren't used by a military somewhere?

Even 12 gauge shotguns are used by the military.

Thanks for the flak - I was sloppy penning that up.

Under these two articles, private citizens are generally restricted to semi-automatic handguns or revolvers of a caliber no greater than .380 (for home defense),[28] rifles no greater than .22, and shotguns no greater than a 12-gauge (hunting and shooting when a member of a club). Anything bigger than those calibers is considered for exclusive use of the military and strictly forbidden for civilian possession, as defined by Article 11 of the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives.[29] Only citizens with collector permits may be authorized to possess firearms outside those permitted for civilian ownership.[30]

Wiki

So, as it stands, what I was responding to is proven false.

 

[3point14]

Argument by assertion.

If firearms caused homicides like cigarettes cause lung cancer you'd have no problem showing the relationship mathematically. But you can't for some reason, and refuse to consider that maybe, just maybe, firearms per capita isn't a significant factor when it comes to murder rates.

Not really an argument. I'm not arguing anything. I'm just saying that your methodology was, from a statistacal point of view, pretty awful.

I can link you to a wiki article on statistics if it helps.

Hey, it's not me you're trying to convice, so I don't really care too much, but if you care about getting the right answer, you'll check your methodology against accepted practices and then understand. If you don't, you won't. I don't think you should be asking others to lend the same weight you do to flawed analysis.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

To get anything resembling Australian gun laws passed in the US, you will have to start by restoring trust in the US government. Given the following issues:

- War on Drugs leading to excesses in state power
- Largest prison population on the planet
- Institutional racism causing poverty among minorities
- NSA illegal surveillance
- The skullduggery of the post-9/11 US government (not least kidnapping citizens of foreign countries and taking them to be tortured)
- Poisonous legacies of the Vietnam War and Watergate scandals.
- the political parties being at each other's throats.

You have a tall order ahead of you.

I've already listed some of the problems the US has, but I will go in-depth with some of them.

- Institutional racism towards minorities since before the US was founded has left a lot of them in inner-urban environments with rampant poverty. This forces them to turn to crime in order to make a living, and the police have severe problems policing these areas because said urban communities strongly distrust the government. You can see that today with the War on Drugs, which has led to minorities being disproportionately imprisoned.

- This leads to the US Criminal justice system. The problem is (and it also applies to other countries as well) is that it is using 1980s methodology in order to resolve issues for the 2010s. This means that former criminals are much more likely to end up back in prison, which creates a vicious cycle. Again, it is disproportionately affecting minorities, largely again due to the War on Drugs.

To explain some of the problems with the US justice system, this website is pretty useful: http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122

- General distrust towards the government. When the Pentagon papers were published, the public believed that government knew best, even in the hysteria of the Red Scare. This revelation had led to people not trusting the government because it sent their sons to die on a fools errand and lied to them about it. It was coupled with the Watergate scandal, when Americans found out the president whom they had elected with an overwhelming majority had committed numerous crimes. This has led to Americans thinking that their government cannot be trusted, which has been arguably vindicated by the skullduggery committed during the post-9/11 (extraordinary rendition, screwing the pooch with Afghanistan/Iraq)

These posts probably go a long way to explaining why the US's problems are different from Europe's vis-a-vis crime.