The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[The Norseman]

Such problems also exist in much of Europe. The big difference between Europe and the US is over gun control and the US failure to keep guns away from unsuitable people. Furthermore the US rates about or a bit above average for crime in OCED countires, with exception of homicides. The high rate of homicide is due to the high use of guns which kill more easily than any other weapon.

Is having guns easily available for criminals, nuts, angry people and youths a sociological issue?

If guns were far harder for that group to access, it would not matter what the social issues are, they cannot get hold of a gun.

You really need to get into the habit of posting evidence.

Yeah, you might want to remember that when you need to evidence the claims made in the two quoted posts above. In other words, you're making several assumptions there that may or may not be true.

 

[Xulld]

I mean what exactly is the argument for denying someone the ability to arm themselves?

Is it "People cannot be trusted with dangerous technology?"

Is it "weapons are designed to kill, and killing is illegal?"

What really is the argument? We get a lot of hand waving on both sides and I think starting with what the actual argument against such ownership really is all about would be nice.

 

[Nessie]

The outcry against the Citizens United decision.

This is what you said

"Let's not forget that many of the same people who are unhappy with the 2nd Amendment aren't too fond of the 1st Amendment either, particularly when it comes to allowing others to engage in speech they don't like. Remember how up in arms they got when the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't prosecute people for showing a film about Hillary Clinton? "

How many are you referring to? Show the direct connection between them and not being fond of the 2nd.

Already been there and done that.

There is up to date evidence to show the UK rate is lower than the US. I would likw to see your evidence again so see which is more likely to be correct.

Is it less of a murder if some other weapon is used? You only care about murders if they're done with something that goes "bang"?

In a thread about guns it is relevant to show the level of gun crime. It is much higher in the USA than the countries you listed. Imagine the effect on the USA if gun homicides could be reduced to the levels of those Eastern European countries. Since guns kill more than any other weapon and more than fists and feet, criminals, nuts, angry people, and youths not having access would reduce the death toll. So it is not surprising you dodged answering this claim

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9530928#post9530928

 

[GlennB]

I mean what exactly is the argument for denying someone the ability to arm themselves?

"Many people are idiots and prone to evil nefariousness and/or violent emotional outbursts" does it for me. Without the immediate wherewithal to inflict lethal harm, with ease, they necessarily tend to do less harm.

The big catch, for the USA, is that the place is already swimming in a huge festering sea of "wherewithal"

 

[WildCat]

What, once? Then you got bored with it and refrained for the next 50,000 posts?

Nope, in this very thread. Here it is again: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

 

[Nessie]

Yeah, you might want to remember that when you need to evidence the claims made in the two quoted posts above. In other words, you're making several assumptions there that may or may not be true.

You make the assumption the USA has problems not present elsewhere. There is a war on drugs, racial issues etc in Europe.

The connection between failure to control guns and gun homicides is here

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

and here

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

The countries with properly enforced gun laws that have successfully prevented criminals, nuts, angry people and youths from getting easy access to guns have less gun homicides. It does not matter how many guns are present or the social issues that country has. It matters how well the laws are enforced. Even the NRA agree the present laws need to be better enforced.

 

[WildCat]

There is up to date evidence to show the UK rate is lower than the US. I would likw to see your evidence again so see which is more likely to be correct.

Where is this evidence? Ray Ray's say-so?

In a thread about guns it is relevant to show the level of gun crime. It is much higher in the USA than the countries you listed. Imagine the effect on the USA if gun homicides could be reduced to the levels of those Eastern European countries. Since guns kill more than any other weapon and more than fists and feet, criminals, nuts, angry people, and youths not having access would reduce the death toll. So it is not surprising you dodged answering this claim

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9530928#post9530928

So saying that banning guns will have no effect on murder rates, just the ratio of those committed with guns?

 

[Nessie]

I mean what exactly is the argument for denying someone the ability to arm themselves?

Is it "People cannot be trusted with dangerous technology?"

Is it "weapons are designed to kill, and killing is illegal?"

What really is the argument? We get a lot of hand waving on both sides and I think starting with what the actual argument against such ownership really is all about would be nice.

That does not reflect my argument, which is only deny those who are too dangerous or untrustworthy to have a gun and properly train those who want to use them for self defence.

 

[The Norseman]

You make the assumption the USA has problems not present elsewhere. There is a war on drugs, racial issues etc in Europe.

The connection between failure to control guns and gun homicides is here

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

and here

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

The countries with properly enforced gun laws that have successfully prevented criminals, nuts, angry people and youths from getting easy access to guns have less gun homicides. It does not matter how many guns are present or the social issues that country has. It matters how well the laws are enforced. Even the NRA agree the present laws need to be better enforced.

The gun crime rate in the UK did not decrease significantly after the gun ban as compared to before, therefore the gun ban did not lower gun crime rates as is often assumed.

Secondly, there is good evidence that the Home Office has been for years deliberately underreporting their crime statistics which brings all the charts, tables, graphs and papers written using those numbers under serious doubt.

Strangely enough, I trust the FBI statistics over any other government compiled crime statistics.


Ooops. ETA: You also made some assumptions regarding the lethality of firearms over other methods of killing which you need to support; relying on the idea that it is self-evident won't work here.

 

[Nessie]

Nope, in this very thread. Here it is again: http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

For assaults England & Wales and Scotland are worse than the USA. For burglary England & Wales are worse, but Scotland is better than the USA.

Why stop there? Vehicle theft, USA is the worst. Robbery, England & Wales is the worst, just above the USA. Rape, the USA is worst, just above England & Wales. Intentional homicide, the USA is the worst.

So what have you proved about guns?

 

[Nessie]

Where is this evidence? Ray Ray's say-so?

Yes it is the evidence posted there. I am not taking his say so, as crimes are recorded in different ways, so we need a set to see what the most likely over all picture. So overall the OECD rates you linked to and the rates which NYG linked to show the USA has similar if not worse crime rates for a whole host of crimes. The exception is assault.

What does that evidence about guns?

So saying that banning guns will have no effect on murder rates, just the ratio of those committed with guns?

My argument is effectively banning guns from criminals, nuts, angry people and youths will reduce crime committed with guns which will reduce the number of deaths.

 

[Nessie]

The gun crime rate in the UK did not decrease significantly after the gun ban as compared to before, therefore the gun ban did not lower gun crime rates as is often assumed.

I presume the gun bans you are referring to are those after Hungerford, Monkseaton and Dumblane. They were reactions to mass shootings and were specifically to try and reduce deaths during mass shootings. The effect is unknown, there has been another since then in Cumbria. They banned multiple shot weapons (more than three bullets before reloading), which still leave loads of guns fro criminals to use. So I am not surprised gun crime did not immediately fall, especially since UK gun crime is so low anyway, possibly as low as it can get.

Secondly, there is good evidence that the Home Office has been for years deliberately underreporting their crime statistics which brings all the charts, tables, graphs and papers written using those numbers under serious doubt.

Strangely enough, I trust the FBI statistics over any other government compiled crime statistics.

Sufficient doubt to say the USA's gun death rate is not as bad as it appears compared to the UK? I would say not as murders and how they were committed are hard to fiddle the stats with. The dead body is a big give away.

Ooops. ETA: You also made some assumptions regarding the lethality of firearms over other methods of killing which you need to support; relying on the idea that it is self-evident won't work here.

Sorry, I was taking that as uncontroversial. A meta study of A&E mortality rates. Guns come out as the least survivable.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

 

[WildCat]

So what have you proved about guns?

That they have no discernible effect on homicide rates, and may well prevent other crimes.

I wouldn't put too much in the rape stats, as there are different ways of defining it in various countries as well as cultural factors in reporting it.

As for vehicle theft you're missing a big factor when it comes to that stat - vehicles per capita. The USA has 54% more vehicles per capita as the UK, yet the vehicle theft rate* is only 20% greater. So any given vehicle in the USA is less likely to be stolen than any given vehicle in the UK. Maybe thieves are afraid of getting shot?

*note the rate in the civitas paper is per 100,000 population, not per 100,000 vehicles.

 

[newyorkguy]

The gun crime rate in the UK did not decrease significantly after the gun ban as compared to before, therefore the gun ban did not lower gun crime rates as is often assumed.

...

This I agree with. One would need to look at the overall trends for a number of years prior to the ban and see how those trends changed afterwards. Same is true for the US.

Ironically though both countries are using very different strategies re: guns, both are seeing a big reduction in their crime rates. What does that mean? Maybe that citizen gun ownership has little impact on overall crime?

 

[The Norseman]

I presume the gun bans you are referring to are those after Hungerford, Monkseaton and Dumblane. They were reactions to mass shootings and were specifically to try and reduce deaths during mass shootings. The effect is unknown, there has been another since then in Cumbria. They banned multiple shot weapons (more than three bullets before reloading), which still leave loads of guns fro criminals to use. So I am not surprised gun crime did not immediately fall, especially since UK gun crime is so low anyway, possibly as low as it can get.

It didn't immediately fall nor did it fall much later, either. As I stated, gun crime is very low yet further banning did not lower it. This demonstrates that banning guns in the US will have little effect on overall crime -- as there are less guns to commit crimes with, the crime rate goes down, but with less guns for self-defense, the crime rates go up.

Sufficient doubt to say the USA's gun death rate is not as bad as it appears compared to the UK? I would say not as murders and how they were committed are hard to fiddle the stats with. The dead body is a big give away.

Sure, be a smart ***; apparently you've never heard of the controversy regarding the crime statistics and your government? I find that to be surprising, to say the least. At any rate, this is a derail so I'll just drop the issue of the UK's false statistic reporting.

Sorry, I was taking that as uncontroversial. A meta study of A&E mortality rates. Guns come out as the least survivable.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

I'll have a look-see at that, thank you for providing it.

 

[The Norseman]

This I agree with. One would need to look at the overall trends for a number of years prior to the ban and see how those trends changed afterwards. Same is true for the US.

Ironically though both countries are using very different strategies re: guns, both are seeing a big reduction in their crime rates. What does that mean? Maybe that citizen gun ownership has little impact on overall crime?

That's been my point all along; I don't agree with the notion of more guns, less crime. I think it's irrelevant what the gun ownership levels are; it's a sociological issue that causes more people to act out in violent ways. Once those items are addressed (as NWO Sentryman has suggested more than once) and begun to be dealt with, will the overall crime rate continue to decline.

Taking away guns does nothing whatsoever in solving people's despair, anger, frustration, hopelessness, jealousy which is the root of these massive numbers of crime. Check out those countries with the lowest crime rates and you'll find out that they all have the highest amount of social equality, levels of trust, and so on. Guns have nothing to do with it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Given that we're discussing firearms in the US why wouldn't we use US frames of reference in comparison to other frames of reference? Would you rather we compare things with Brazil or something?

You think comparing the Lincoln County War to the Rwandan Geoncide is valid?

All comparisons between random dissimilar things are equally ridiculous. There's too much cherry picking going on. If we're going to have a useful discussion on the 2nd amendment (this is me not holding my breath) we need to either discuss it within the context of US culture and history as a while, or discuss it within the larger global context of armed citizenry for the last 10,000 years, and then maybe a conversation that makes sense could happen.

You can't compare pioneer-era New Mexico armed with black powder weapons with modern failed-state Rwanda. You can't compare Detroit with Dublin. Every comparison in this entire thread is stupid, narrow-minded cherry-picked gibberish.

 

[angrysoba]

All comparisons between random dissimilar things are equally ridiculous.

That may indeed be so. But comparions of gun homicide rates among different modern developed nation states are not comparisons between "random dissimilar things".

 

[angrysoba]

"Developed world", apparently, being defined as all countries with a lower homicide rate than the USA?

No. I have not defined it that way at all, as well you know.

There's no standard, agreed upon definition for "developed world", which means you're still cherry picking.

Just because there are different ways of defining developed world does not mean that the concept is meaningless.

I've already given you a number of examples, but let's use Wiki for now:

A developed country or "more developed country" (MDC), is a sovereign state that has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations. Most commonly, the criteria for evaluating the degree of economic development are gross domestic product (GDP), the per capita income, level of industrialization, amount of widespread infrastructure and general standard of living.[1] Which criteria are to be used and which countries can be classified as being developed are subjects of debate.

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

Whatever the debate is, some countries consistently meet the definition and other states consistently do not meet the defintion. Thus, there is concordance, and when trying to analyze something in the social sciences there is very little that isn't a subject of debate. To point to some disagreements and then blow off the whole concept as meaningless is the equivalent of "going nuclear" in an argument.

But anyway, some people such as yourself want to know why Brazil, Mexico, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Moldova, Lithuania, and Russia don't count as part of the developed world.

Earlier I posted the top ten Human Development Index countries. None of the countries above featured.

None of those countries are members of the OECD either.

None of those countries are considered by the IMF to be "advanced".

None of those countries are considered by the CIA as "advanced economies".

None of those countries are considered by the World Bank to be so either.

None of those countries are on the Development Assistance Committee.

None of those countries are in the top thirty of the Economist's Quality of Life survey.

None of those countries are considered by Newsweek to be the in the 30 "best countries" or to have the best quality of life.

In other words, any reasonable metric that you choose sees Brazil, Mexico, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Moldova, Lithuania, and Russia to be not included as a "developed country".

So your claim that I am defining "developed country" as one with "a lower homicide rate than the USA" is false, and probably a downright lie.

 

[WildCat]

No. I have not defined it that way at all, as well you know.



Just because there are different ways of defining developed world does not mean that the concept is meaningless.

I've already given you a number of examples, but let's use Wiki for now:



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

Whatever the debate is, some countries consistently meet the definition and other states consistently do not meet the defintion. Thus, there is concordance, and when trying to analyze something in the social sciences there is very little that isn't a subject of debate. To point to some disagreements and then blow off the whole concept as meaningless is the equivalent of "going nuclear" in an argument.

Which supports everything I said. You can draw the line anywhere you like.

Can you even explain why that's a relevant metric, other than it allows you to draw a random line?