If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Blurry_Dreams]

The argument has been that knife attacks are less severe (possibly the case, depending on setting), or that somehow schools/children/society will become safer by removing the guns. Yet we see crime spiking in many civilized countries and everything from bombs to trucks to axes to knives being employed. Ultimately, people kill people, and we can't bubble wrap everything, or even afford to bubble wrap many things.

i think part of what's happening is where the shooter is completely convinced that no one is going to shoot back
think about it like this
if every school teacher was required to carry a gun to class every single day
(a thing people are actually proposing)
then when someone decides to shoot up a school
the teacher would shoot back
and the death toll would be just 2 instead of 20

 

[Einherjar86]

I've seen no data to suggest guns increase incidence of violence. They do seem to increase likelihood of success in a suicide attempt, but that's not an objectively bad thing.

I think there's evidence to suggest that developed countries with more guns tend to have more violent incidents than developed countries with fewer guns.

what is your reasoning behind this, because this doesn't make sense

My reasoning is that there are more guns per 100 people in the United States than there are in China. But even barring this statistic, why doesn't it make sense?

 

[Dak]

I can't say I'm surprised that with a quick Google search you can easily find numerous articles about rising crime today, as opposed to, say, the 70s

Europe certainly isn't a wonderland and just how wonderful it is differs greatly on the country in question, but they do get some things right and I think it's fair to question why the US doesn't occasionally to look to other developed countries for potential models for addressing our own social problems.

There's literally nothing about Europe that equivocates to the US other than a percentage of genetic relation. Geography, genetic/cultural heterogeneity, dispersion, wealth, etc. are all different, and these are all hugely relevant for policy. Plus Europe as a whole isn't even succeeding with the government addressing of social problems across time. There are a handful (IE 5ish) succeeding on the short term, with radically different geographic, dispersion, cultural, and genetic makeups.

I would hardly call the movement toward gun regulation a national movement, at least when compared with the very real movement against it. And while there's not necessarily a national movement against texting and driving, there are in fact public awareness campaigns which warn of its dangers and action at the state level intended to prevent it.

I'm talking about the Parkland shit shoved in our collective faces in the last couple of months.

I need to get off here and torture myself with reading Kant in German, so I'll skip the article, but it's not the first time that I've heard that concealed carry does not actually prevent crime, and it's also something which I don't find at all surprising.

Well, there are additional factors at play: Having the option to get a license doesn't mean people get one, and having a license doesn't mean people use it, and using it is a fraction of total existence within the other restrictions. I've had a permit for years and can't practically use it because on any given day A. I've gotta frequent a place a gun isn't allowed B. It's only allowed locked up in my vehicle. Why fucking bother? I literally only have it for distance travel, on a practical level, at this point. Or if I needed to go somewhere dangerous I wouldn't normally go. All of that to say that I wouldn't be surprised if CCW laws didn't lead to a measurable decrease in crime: Crime has a low baserate in 99% of places, guns are somewhat outlawed in the high crime places, and concealed carry is limited even with permit.

I think there's evidence to suggest that developed countries with more guns tend to have more violent incidents than developed countries with fewer guns.

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

This isn't "violent incidents" but....

 

[Einherjar86]

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

This isn't "violent incidents" but....

I can cite studies that suggest otherwise, including this one:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

I don't think it's worth getting into a pissing match over it. I just think it makes sense that more guns correlates to more violent incidents.

 

[rms]

My reasoning is that there are more guns per 100 people in the United States than there are in China. But even barring this statistic, why doesn't it make sense?

Stat doesn't really seem relevant but for your claim to be valid, you are asserting guns inherently make the average citizen more violent. And the average violent citizen almost certain to use it in a crime.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

 

[Einherjar86]

Stat doesn't really seem relevant but for your claim to be valid, you are asserting guns inherently make the average citizen more violent. And the average violent citizen almost certain to use it in a crime.

My original claim was that the proliferation of guns (i.e. their increase in number) will lead to a higher rate of violent incidents. So stats are relevant, since pointing to examples like the U.S. and China would seem to support my claim.

Now, there are exemptions to the claim. For example, Switzerland has way more guns per 100 people than China does, and yet they have a lower homicide rate. But China also has a much higher poverty rate, and Switzerland's guns are way more regulated. So there are intervening factors, of course.

All I was suggesting is that more guns do tend to result in a higher rate of violent crime (and Switzerland does in fact have a higher rate of gun crime than China, if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Dak]

Switzerland's guns are way more regulated [than China's].

I haven't looked up the laws in those countries but I find this hard to believe.

 

[Einherjar86]

Citizens in China simply don't have that many guns. Switzerland allows and encourages widespread gun ownership, but that ownership is strictly regulated and monitored.

 

[Dak]

Citizens in China simply don't have that many guns. Switzerland allows and encourages widespread gun ownership, but that ownership is strictly regulated and monitored.

Wouldn't restricted ownership be a part of regulation?

 

[Einherjar86]

Chinese regulation is virtually a ban. I distinguish bans from regulated ownership.

 

[rms]

All I was suggesting is that more guns do tend to result in a higher rate of violent crime (and Switzerland does in fact have a higher rate of gun crime than China, if I'm not mistaken).

you're just evading the claim, though. i don't understand why. and to just say "china vs. usa" is pretty disingenuous

Switzerland allows and encourages widespread gun ownership, but that ownership is strictly regulated and monitored.

last i read/heard/saw, Swiss forces all men to own a gun for militia purposes...but Switzerland or Canada directly counter your own claim here so I don't know what is going on

 

[Einherjar86]

you're just evading the claim, though. i don't understand why. and to just say "china vs. usa" is pretty disingenuous

Why are you making this so complicated? I'm not evading the claim, I stated the claim. Then I reiterated the claim. What am I evading? And how am I being disingenuous? I cannot comprehend your nonsense.

last i read/heard/saw, Swiss forces all men to own a gun for militia purposes...but Switzerland or Canada directly counter your own claim here so I don't know what is going on

Yeah I don't know either, this is a real chore.

 

[rms]

I cannot comprehend your nonsense.

jesus christ. imagine if you said this:

"My original claim was that the increase population of blacks will lead to a higher rate of violent incidents"

(from)

My original claim was that the proliferation of guns (i.e. their increase in number) will lead to a higher rate of violent incidents

and then when one asks why the hell do black people make a community more violent you just respond with "all I was suggesting is that more blacks tends to a higher rate of violence"

(from)

All I was suggesting is that more guns do tend to result in a higher rate of violent crime

these claims need some sort of logical background or else it's just fucking dumb

 

[Dak]

Chinese regulation is virtually a ban. I distinguish bans from regulated ownership.

Interesting. I wonder if that's common among more US liberal types? Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, I see regulation on a continuum, bans being on one end and zero related laws on the other.

 

[Einherjar86]

these claims need some sort of logical background or else it's just fucking dumb

More guns tend to correlate to more violent incidents. Likewise, a higher-density black population tends to correlate to more violent incidents (percentage-wise).

These aren't the same as saying that black people are inherently more violent, or that guns inherently make people more violent. These are observations with various factors involved.

You want me to explain these underlying factors, but I'm not prepared to. All I'm prepared to do is make the observation, which I made.

Switzerland is a notable exception, but I did acknowledge the extent of regulations in that country.

Interesting. I wonder if that's common among more US liberal types? Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, I see regulation on a continuum, bans being on one end and zero related laws on the other.

That's fair, but I'm of the opinion that bans will not solve the problem (or if it will, it will result in other problems; I don't think China is a beacon of political liberty--nor is the U.S., but I firmly believe that banning guns will only make things worse). I am of the opinion that certain regulations and attitude adjustments can ameliorate the issues, so I distinguish between bans and regulation.

I'm not sure how many others of the leftist persuasion share this perspective.

 

[Dak]

That's fair, but I'm of the opinion that bans will not solve the problem (or if it will, it will result in other problems; I don't think China is a beacon of political liberty--nor is the U.S., but I firmly believe that banning guns will only make things worse). I am of the opinion that certain regulations and attitude adjustments can ameliorate the issues, so I distinguish between bans and regulation.

I'm not sure how many others of the leftist persuasion share this perspective.

You probably already know this, but the main sticking point between even "moderates/center-left" and pro-gun/anti-regulation persons is the necessity of a national and/or state registry to make regulation truly work. The problem with a registry is it puts an easily enforceable seizure/ban always one EO or "crisis" driven Congressional vote away. I know this sounds "slippery slopeish", but I think it's a very reasonable fear.

 

[Einherjar86]

I sympathize with that perspective, I just don't see it as a plausible outcome barring some massive cultural revolution (and I use that phrase intentionally--the reason citizens are mostly barred from owning guns in China has to do largely with its political and economic history).

The political and economic topography of the U.S., as divided as it is, virtually prohibits a central government from enacting widespread bans and confiscation. If it did, we would have organized retaliation. But aside from that, plenty of democrats own guns and don't want to give them up. The mentality about guns in this country is very much a product of its economic history, and, for better or worse, public opinion is way too volatile to even begin pursuing prohibitory measures.

Furthermore, there are examples of countries with strong centralized regulation with widespread gun ownership (and I'm thinking again here of Switzerland--again, this practice seems quite grounded in the country's political and economic history).

 

[Dak]

I sympathize with that perspective, I just don't see it as a plausible outcome barring some massive cultural revolution (and I use that phrase intentionally--the reason citizens are mostly barred from owning guns in China has to do largely with its political and economic history).

The political and economic topography of the U.S., as divided as it is, virtually prohibits a central government from enacting widespread bans and confiscation. If it did, we would have organized retaliation. But aside from that, plenty of democrats own guns and don't want to give them up. The mentality about guns in this country is very much a product of its economic history, and, for better or worse, public opinion is way too volatile to even begin pursuing prohibitory measures.

Furthermore, there are examples of countries with strong centralized regulation with widespread gun ownership (and I'm thinking again here of Switzerland--again, this practice seems quite grounded in the country's political and economic history).

I think it's fair to assert that at this point in history the US is quite a bit more divided politically than Switzerland may ever have been, both politically and geographically. But that aside, there's been plenty of hubbub in the news this year about banning semi-automatic weapons. It's not going anywhere at the moment, but that it's being floated by some as "common sense" (a 80%+ gun ban effectively, with a SWAG as to percentages) tells me there's risk.

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/sports/track-gender-rules.html?smid=tw-share

Advocates for intersex athletes like to say that sex doesn’t divide neatly. This may be true in gender studies departments, but at least for competitive sports purposes, they are simply wrong. Sex in this context is easy to define and the lines are cleanly drawn: You either have testes and testosterone in the male range or you don’t. As the I.A.A.F.’s rules provide, a simple testosterone test establishes this fact one way or the other.

Testosterone throughout the life cycle, including puberty, is the reason the best elite females are not competitive in competition against elite males. This 10- to 12-percent sex-based performance gap is well documented by sports and exercise scientists alike. But it isn’t the most important performance gap. Rather, that’s the mundane fact that many nonelite males routinely outperform the best elite females.