Guns, Guns Guns

thinkstoomuch wrote:So once all gun deaths are done what does that do to violent crime rates.

FL more concealed weapons permits over time less violent crime over time.

Chicago less access to legal firearms more crime. Washington, DC the same. L.A. The same. The list goes on and on and on.

You have a wonderful one dimensional view. Once guns are gone life is good. Except in the US it doesn't work that way.

And Zimmerman has his skull broken open on a sidewalk by a thug. Thank you for your support for a civilized society. US Ain't there. Sorry people are people sort of. Culture is not culture.

"Good to be sure."
T2M

Cities (or even states for that matter) are not islands unto themselves, using them to try to figure out the impact of gun laws is an exercise in futility.

Cities have no border controls. It doesn't matter if you make guns illegal in one city if people can drive an hour and go buy one then bring it back in with no checks performed.

There is a slightly higher ability to regulate by state because simple distances involved act as a kind of quasi-barrier... but not much of one. if you want real effect you need controls around the are you're trying to regulate. Which means you need federal action.

And violent crime has trended down nationally, so pointing out it trended down in cherry picked cities means nothing. "Violent crime" is subject to many more influencing factors than homicides and there has been no real demonstrated correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime in the US.

This:



Is a relationship with almost 0 correlation. Violent crime spikes massively while gun ownership rates rise, then plummets drastically while it continues to rise.

You say there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.

This shows that in the US (to be honest and no disrepect intended to other nationalities not my country to a certain extent what you do is up to you).

Your previous chart said most gun ownership currently, for the length of the chart.

And from http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rh ... gun-facts/

Gun murders in the US are at the lowest since at least 1981. So then their is no correlation between gun murders and gun ownership in the US. Yeah it is old but it really is not worth my time. If we are talking about gun murders. I could care less about gun deaths. Though President Bush and his let's give every village a SWAT team with military equipment may have influenced that. Just like the war on drugs embraced by every recent President influences that.

More or less everything you want is available somewhere else. As you constantly point out. Ever considered moving? From what Daryl and the media have been saying Australia looks like a good place they would probably be glad to have you. So maybe England?

Your choice if the majority don't want what you want, then that seems your best option.

Anyways I'm done for now.

Have fun,
T2M

T2M,

There is a flip side. Gun ownership has no correlation to violent crime. That means there is no damaging societal consequence to arming the citizenry in an effort to deter government over reach. Since the 2nd Amendment was instituted as a guarantor of the 1st Amendment, there is no real social cost to having high rates of gun ownership.

thinkstoomuch wrote:You say there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.

This shows that in the US (to be honest and no disrepect intended to other nationalities not my country to a certain extent what you do is up to you).

Your previous chart said most gun ownership currently, for the length of the chart.

And from http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rh ... gun-facts/

Gun murders in the US are at the lowest since at least 1981. So then their is no correlation between gun murders and gun ownership in the US. Yeah it is old but it really is not worth my time. If we are talking about gun murders. I could care less about gun deaths. Though President Bush and his let's give every village a SWAT team with military equipment may have influenced that. Just like the war on drugs embraced by every recent President influences that.

More or less everything you want is available somewhere else. As you constantly point out. Ever considered moving? From what Daryl and the media have been saying Australia looks like a good place they would probably be glad to have you. So maybe England?

Your choice if the majority don't want what you want, then that seems your best option.

Anyways I'm done for now.

Have fun,
T2M

No worries. you aren't the first, probably won't be the last.

thinkstoomuch wrote:
My Apologies. I have no idea how that got there. My mind said kiwi may fingers types ... huh ... what. Worse I never noticed it at all when I proofread it.

Once again my apologies.

We have had many enjoyable conversations ones where agreed and wonder of wonders where we disagreed. Like this time. Though this time it is more a matter of scale I think.

Going by what you are saying the US isn't a world leader in supporting Drug Cartels and the like. Good to hear. Mexico's problems are Mexico's problems. Also good to hear. Now if we could just convince the News Media and the US Federal Government, we are golden, we won the war on drugs.

Ok, maybe little too sarcastic but anecdotal and what we are told seem to disagree.

Still can't believe I did that with your name, damn.

Have fun,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:You say there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.

This shows that in the US (to be honest and no disrepect intended to other nationalities not my country to a certain extent what you do is up to you).

Your previous chart said most gun ownership currently, for the length of the chart.

Yes, but I just noticed they were charting it in absolute numbers, which is inexcusably stupid. Of course the absolute numbers keep going up, the population keeps going up.

Thy should have charted it per capita, or per household. Which would look something like this: (Gallup)...



The non-correlating point holds. The claim that the US currently has the highest rate of gun ownership does not.

PeterZ wrote:There is a flip side. Gun ownership has no correlation to violent crime. That means there is no damaging societal consequence to arming the citizenry in an effort to deter government over reach.

We have already established the rather strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

So, no deleterious effects except all the thousands of dead fellow citizens year after year after year...


And can we someday dispense with the fairy tale that dumping guns into the general population is a deterrent against government overreach in the first place... how many times in US history has an armed citizenry risen up and prevented the government from going all authoritarian? Or even the explicit threat of same occurring done so? Oh right, zero.

Uncle Bob owning a rifle doesn't keep the government from turning all dictatorial. The democratic institutions of the nation that make it so the people running the government can only do it if they keep winning elections does that. Imperfectly, but FAR more effectively than a bunch of random firearms floating around the country under no guiding authority or organization.


A group of citizens did try to put your theory into practice once upon a time, attempted to rise up with force of arms against a government taking unconstitutional (in their view) action... George Washington personally sicced the militia on them and sent them home with their tail between their legs and that was the end of the Whiskey Rebellion.


Haven't noticed it happening too much since then... because it doesn't work.

Invictus, you are so wrong on the effect of our gun laws that it must be a deliberate and concious choice on your part to ignore everything related to the topic.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:There is a flip side. Gun ownership has no correlation to violent crime. That means there is no damaging societal consequence to arming the citizenry in an effort to deter government over reach.

We have already established the rather strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

So, no deleterious effects except all the thousands of dead fellow citizens year after year after year...


And can we someday dispense with the fairy tale that dumping guns into the general population is a deterrent against government overreach in the first place... how many times in US history has an armed citizenry risen up and prevented the government from going all authoritarian? Or even the explicit threat of same occurring done so? Oh right, zero.

Uncle Bob owning a rifle doesn't keep the government from turning all dictatorial. The democratic institutions of the nation that make it so the people running the government can only do it if they keep winning elections does that. Imperfectly, but FAR more effectively than a bunch of random firearms floating around the country under no guiding authority or organization.


A group of citizens did try to put your theory into practice once upon a time, attempted to rise up with force of arms against a government taking unconstitutional (in their view) action... George Washington personally sicced the militia on them and sent them home with their tail between their legs and that was the end of the Whiskey Rebellion.


Haven't noticed it happening too much since then... because it doesn't work.

If there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime and homicide is a violent crime, it follows that gun ownership is unrelated to violent crime.

If gun ownership is directly related to homicide rates and homicide is a violent crime, then for both statements to be true, gun ownership must deter violent crimes other than attempted homicide and/or something else.

I suspect that gun ownership is not correlated to incidents of violent crime, but the lethality of assaults committed with a gun. That by itself argues for universal gun ownership. If criminals are made more lethal with access to guns, then law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from the increased lethality of gun armed criminals.

If gun ownership deters other violent crimes like rape, then with holding access to guns increases the likelihood of those other violent crimes. After all, the data suggests that gun ownership tends to decrease non-homicide violent crimes.

As for the deterring governmental over reach, the founding fathers believed an armed populace deterred tyranny. They might have been right or not. That is to some extent besides the point. What isn't beside the point is that our Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns. You are free not to own a gun but not free to with hold one from me should I choose to own one.

You want to change that, then change the Constitution.

PeterZ wrote:If there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime and homicide is a violent crime, it follows that gun ownership is unrelated to violent crime.

Homicides are dwarfed by other crimes in the larger "violent crime" classification. all the signal is drowned out by the noise of the thousands of times more assaults and such than murders that happen.

So no, it does not follow that because no correlation to large broad category therefore no correlation to smaller subcategory.

As already demonstrated.

I suspect that gun ownership is not correlated to incidents of violent crime, but the lethality of assaults committed with a gun.

Quite right, that would be the problem...

That by itself argues for universal gun ownership. If criminals are made more lethal with access to guns, then law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from the increased lethality of gun armed criminals.

I'm going to quote myself from a couple days back:


It's all a big interconnected web of negative effects. And the irony is people will point at the result as justification for needing more of what caused it. "Look at all these shootings! It's dangerous out there! You know what that means... we need more guns! For everyone! That will make it better!"

thinkstoomuch wrote:
More or less everything you want is available somewhere else. As you constantly point out. Ever considered moving? From what Daryl and the media have been saying Australia looks like a good place they would probably be glad to have you. So maybe England?

Your choice if the majority don't want what you want, then that seems your best option.

Anyways I'm done for now.

Have fun,
T2M

You do realize that more people in the US want stricter gun control laws than want less strict laws, and that this trend dates back more than 20 years.


Looks like you are the one who should be moving.

Simple fact the Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority from a capricious majority. As one of the founders said, "Why should we trade one tyrant two thousand miles way for two thousand tyrants living a mile away?"

For you Aussies a neet little animation along with every other country from DA http://ehsan-m.deviantart.com/journal/Your-Flags-on-Deviantart-World-498259985#comments:



Back a while when Islamic extremists attacked a shopping center in Utah they were stopped by an armed citizenry, but not in France, , sigh.

Poker

Annachie wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:
More or less everything you want is available somewhere else. As you constantly point out. Ever considered moving? From what Daryl and the media have been saying Australia looks like a good place they would probably be glad to have you. So maybe England?

Your choice if the majority don't want what you want, then that seems your best option.

Anyways I'm done for now.

Have fun,
T2M

You do realize that more people in the US want stricter gun control laws than want less strict laws, and that this trend dates back more than 20 years.


Looks like you are the one who should be moving.