shoulda hadda gun?

[BigBallinStalin]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

How many of you have done any of the following:
- Performed reserach over and above a google search into any topics relating to criminal behaviour and/or criminal social science. (BBS: Ooo! Ooo! Me, I did!)
- Covered any reseach papers that were not directly linked to you by a media organisation (that is you seeked out the specific paper or topic area on your own accord) (BBS: Yes! Me again, baby!)
- Taken a university course in ANY topic in the school of social science (BBS: AWWWW, SHIGITY, I DID.)

???

I ask that if you do fit any of this criteria you mention what you have done.

Seriously, and this is aimed at both sides of the coin here - not just my usual adversaries, nobody here, including myself, is qualified to voice an opinion on the matter (that im aware of, certainly noone thus far has come up with any relevant credentials). The topic is highly complex and is unlikely to have any "right" answers.

The fact that some of you are saying things like "common sense says guns prevent crime" and "common sense says guns cause crime" doesnt make your point; it merely just shows how ignorant you actually are on this matter.

This kind of media shitstorm (not the coverage of the tragedy, but the consequential "analysis") and the resulting water cooler discussions pretty much sums up my beef with "liberty".

I've only read and summarized books and articles. As far as writing goes, I don't have much to write of impact because I'd need to spend more time reading this stuff, and more importantly, my opportunity costs for other subject matters are higher. I could spend 30 minutes finding what I've read and give you a recommend reading list--if you're interested... (but why? Why do that to yourself? There's less depressing topics out there! ).

Seriously, and this is aimed at both sides of the coin here - not just my usual adversaries, nobody here, including myself, is qualified to voice an opinion on the matter (that im aware of, certainly noone thus far has come up with any relevant credentials). The topic is highly complex and is unlikely to have any "right" answers.

On this, I agree, but I perceive that I provide something useful and true to at least somebody on these fora, so even though the issue is complex, we should still be able to discuss it.

This kind of media shitstorm (not the coverage of the tragedy, but the consequential "analysis") and the resulting water cooler discussions pretty much sums up my beef with "liberty".

What'dya mean? What exactly is your beef with "liberty"?

[BigBallinStalin]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

From what I recall on the literature, homicide rates, break-ins, robbery, rapes, and the like were very similar regardless of the gun control laws. Sometimes, you'd see a decrease in one type of crime but an increase in another. Much of the discrepancy is more related to the other factors: "legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few."

So, to answer your question, sure, someone with two glocks can kill more people in one shorter instance, but people notice this because of its shock value. People don't notice the 33% unemployment rate of black males under the age of 25 or so. People don't notice that the deaths on government roads per year is 40,000. People don't notice that homicide rates in European countries don't vary that much from the US. I don't think stricter gun control laws (or the complete abolition of guns) would be worth it.

For example, with roads, the government forms many laws and bureaucracies which help reduce these deaths (drinking ages, DMVs, traffic laws, etc.), but even with these regulations in place, are they updating or innovating? Is the problem effectively being addressed while similarly not reducing the quality of life for others at some unacceptable level? If we want almost 0 deaths per year, let's mandate that a knife--pointed at the driver--should be placed in the steering wheel of every car. That'll make people drive very carefully...

Can you post the things that you've seen comparing homicide levels versus levels of bureaucratic paperwork?

I have the strangest feeling that you're being cheeky with me... but I'll assume you're being well-intended and sincere! Yay!

I haven't seen any studies on that. It's an excellent question, but can be too narrow-sighted (again other causes are involved). One example: deregulation of law and order regarding the rise of private security firms (detective agencies, mall cops types, etc.) significantly occurred in the late 1980s early 1990s, and the US has experienced a severe downturn in crime (around 1993), which suggests that private security (and not just bureaucratic paperwork) really matters.

[Symmetry]

Not being cheeky, I've tried to provide evidence when we've talked in the past, and done my level best to support my claims when you've asked if I can support them. I think you know I'm also kind of sceptical about the way you think about evidence, so yeah, a bit of snark in the comment, but I suspect you'll survive.

[Phatscotty]

Not being cheeky, I've tried to provide evidence when we've talked in the past, and done my level best to support my claims when you've asked if I can support them. I think you know I'm also kind of sceptical about the way you think about evidence, so yeah, a bit of snark in the comment, but I suspect you'll survive.

Just curious, have you ever lived in a culture or society where it was okay for citizens to carry a gun openly?

also, how would you react if you were in this crowd, at this Obama rally?

[BigBallinStalin]

Not being cheeky, I've tried to provide evidence when we've talked in the past, and done my level best to support my claims when you've asked if I can support them. I think you know I'm also kind of sceptical about the way you think about evidence, so yeah, a bit of snark in the comment, but I suspect you'll survive.

Here's my dilemma. I could spend 30 minutes, maybe an hour, finding all that I read about crime, the law, recommended polices, and blah blah blah. Then, I could pound out a list, and post it here. But, would anyone read it? And if they did, would anyone actually read anything in that list??

Or if you're really, really, REALLLLYYY interested, maybe you could narrow down what you're interested in (regarding crime, the law, and punishment/enforcement), and I could most likely recommend you a book, a high-brow debate, or maybe an academic article. Or, if you want something introductory, which usually is more beneficial, I could recommend something along those lines as well!

[Symmetry]

Not being cheeky, I've tried to provide evidence when we've talked in the past, and done my level best to support my claims when you've asked if I can support them. I think you know I'm also kind of sceptical about the way you think about evidence, so yeah, a bit of snark in the comment, but I suspect you'll survive.

Just curious, have you ever lived in a culture or society where it was okay for citizens to carry a gun openly?

I'm gonna cut you short and point out that that you already know I've lived in the US, so I guess quid pro quo, have you lived in a country with strict laws against citizens owning guns?

[Woodruff]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?
How many of you have done any of the following:
- Performed reserach over and above a google search into any topics relating to criminal behaviour and/or criminal social science.

No.

- Covered any reseach papers that were not directly linked to you by a media organisation (that is you seeked out the specific paper or topic area on your own accord)

Yes. Many times, though none that had to do with criminal behavior or criminal social science (by the wording of this item and your first one, I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for here or not).

- Taken a university course in ANY topic in the school of social science

Yes. Many of them. Quite a number are required for a Masters Degree in Education.

[Woodruff]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

So your answer to all three was a "no" then?

[Woodruff]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

From what I recall on the literature, homicide rates, break-ins, robbery, rapes, and the like were very similar regardless of the gun control laws. Sometimes, you'd see a decrease in one type of crime but an increase in another. Much of the discrepancy is more related to the other factors: "legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few."

So, to answer your question, sure, someone with two glocks can kill more people in one shorter instance, but people notice this because of its shock value. People don't notice the 33% unemployment rate of black males under the age of 25 or so. People don't notice that the deaths on government roads per year is 40,000. People don't notice that homicide rates in European countries don't vary that much from the US. I don't think stricter gun control laws (or the complete abolition of guns) would be worth it.

For example, with roads, the government forms many laws and bureaucracies which help reduce these deaths (drinking ages, DMVs, traffic laws, etc.), but even with these regulations in place, are they updating or innovating? Is the problem effectively being addressed while similarly not reducing the quality of life for others at some unacceptable level? If we want almost 0 deaths per year, let's mandate that a knife--pointed at the driver--should be placed in the steering wheel of every car. That'll make people drive very carefully...

Very little of that addressed my actual point. In fact, you seemed to be trying very hard to hide that "very little" in a sea of other stuff.

[Woodruff]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

Well, for one....I was born and raised and continue to live in and love the country we are talking about. Yet, you live on the other side of the world.

May I ask what you think makes you qualified on this topic?

Living in this country doesn't mean you're automatically qualified to talk about social theory, etc. Also, disproving any qualifications he may or may not have doesn't make you any more reputable.

-rd

You guys are hilarious.

Bottom line is, if you want to take away people's guns, then the Communist party has been saving you a seat at it's table.

Why do you say that as if the Communist Party in the United States is some sort of an evil? I don't understand that.

[Phatscotty]

Not being cheeky, I've tried to provide evidence when we've talked in the past, and done my level best to support my claims when you've asked if I can support them. I think you know I'm also kind of sceptical about the way you think about evidence, so yeah, a bit of snark in the comment, but I suspect you'll survive.

Just curious, have you ever lived in a culture or society where it was okay for citizens to carry a gun openly?

I'm gonna cut you short and point out that that you already know I've lived in the US, so I guess quid pro quo, have you lived in a country with strict laws against citizens owning guns?

New York was it?????

No I have not. But then again, I am not constantly obsessing and fomenting at the mouth over other countries and their policies either...so.....

[Lootifer]

Um yeh Woody I meant in Criminology or related social science areas. My mistake. Also my post wasnt really aimed at you/BBS.

[Lootifer]

This kind of media shitstorm (not the coverage of the tragedy, but the consequential "analysis") and the resulting water cooler discussions pretty much sums up my beef with "liberty".

What'dya mean? What exactly is your beef with "liberty"?

Media whips up a frenzy (bias or otherwise); people form uneducated/irrational opinion based on media frenzy; same people use opinion coupled with democratic freedom to collectively implement uneducated/irrational policy/law/whatever.

A great line from Fat Mike:

Majority rule dont work in mental institutions

I have no answers though; as any fixes are liable to be worse than the status quo.

[Lootifer]

No I have not. But then again, I am not constantly obsessing and fomenting at the mouth over other countries and their policies either...so.....

I have never said the US should overturn the constitutional right to bear arms.

I personally think its beyond retarded, but as you say; your country, your choice.

I just dont think you, among others, have any qualification to even comment on the debate. HOWEVER, dont read this as me saying you cant participate in the debate; by all means, go right ahead. I just view your comments on the topic as one would smile sweetly - yet essentially condescendingly - at a toddler as they tell you what makes a car go broooooom!

ps after spending the weekend with my 2 year old neice, I can tell you its a mixture of invisible pixies and fairy dust... I gotta get me some of dem...

[Phatscotty]

No I have not. But then again, I am not constantly obsessing and fomenting at the mouth over other countries and their policies either...so.....

I have never said the US should overturn the constitutional right to bear arms.

I personally think its beyond retarded, but as you say; your country, your choice.

I just dont think you, among others, have any qualification to even comment on the debate. HOWEVER, dont read this as me saying you cant participate in the debate; by all means, go right ahead. I just view your comments on the topic as one would smile sweetly - yet essentially condescendingly - at a toddler as they tell you what makes a car go broooooom!

Who is qualified to talk about my rights?

[Woodruff]

No I have not. But then again, I am not constantly obsessing and fomenting at the mouth over other countries and their policies either...so.....

I have never said the US should overturn the constitutional right to bear arms.

I personally think its beyond retarded, but as you say; your country, your choice.

I just dont think you, among others, have any qualification to even comment on the debate. HOWEVER, dont read this as me saying you cant participate in the debate; by all means, go right ahead. I just view your comments on the topic as one would smile sweetly - yet essentially condescendingly - at a toddler as they tell you what makes a car go broooooom!

Who is qualified to talk about my rights?

According to you, you don't have any rights...because you allege that rights don't require permission from anyone else.

[Lootifer]

With respect to your right to own a gun; it's my opinion that that decision should be made with pragmatism in mind.

The rules should be constructed such that the least social cost (since crime is largely a social issue) is placed on the population - that is in plain english: whatever results in the lowest amount of crime.

The optimal solution may or may not infringe on your freedom; but I personally think that freedom is secondary in this issue. What should be at the forefront of the debate is the fundamental drivers.

As BBS stated earlier, it sounds like gun laws have a fairly low impact on crime rates and its mostly to do with enforcment and cultural issues. So in my opinion asking the question "shoulda hadda gun?" (yes I know its satire AoG but bear with me here) is like debating what flavours an ice cream parlor should or shouldnt have in the aftermath of a fire burning the parlor to the ground.

[BigBallinStalin]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

From what I recall on the literature, homicide rates, break-ins, robbery, rapes, and the like were very similar regardless of the gun control laws. Sometimes, you'd see a decrease in one type of crime but an increase in another. Much of the discrepancy is more related to the other factors: "legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few."

So, to answer your question, sure, someone with two glocks can kill more people in one shorter instance, but people notice this because of its shock value. People don't notice the 33% unemployment rate of black males under the age of 25 or so. People don't notice that the deaths on government roads per year is 40,000. People don't notice that homicide rates in European countries don't vary that much from the US. I don't think stricter gun control laws (or the complete abolition of guns) would be worth it.

For example, with roads, the government forms many laws and bureaucracies which help reduce these deaths (drinking ages, DMVs, traffic laws, etc.), but even with these regulations in place, are they updating or innovating? Is the problem effectively being addressed while similarly not reducing the quality of life for others at some unacceptable level? If we want almost 0 deaths per year, let's mandate that a knife--pointed at the driver--should be placed in the steering wheel of every car. That'll make people drive very carefully...

Very little of that addressed my actual point. In fact, you seemed to be trying very hard to hide that "very little" in a sea of other stuff.

see underlined.

the part in bold is related.

Where did you want to go with this?

[BigBallinStalin]

The answer is chocolate ice cream.

[Phatscotty]

Something very interesting is happening as a result of this tragedy, and it is another piece of the evidence puzzle that the USA truly is starting to change our attitude for the better over the last couple years.

Overall, many more Americans believe more guns are the answer, and the people who are trying to get more gun control are not finding the support they were expecting. Common sense is making a comeback!

[rdsrds2120]

I shall use a friend of mine, who can more eloquently put how we view the gun control case in better words:

First of all, I have a much broader dislike/distrust of the new wave of neoliberal/”the world is flat” leftism that is prevalent among a lot of the younger middle class. This is the generation that has internalised their parents’ anxieties about the Soviet Union and the dangers of communism, has thus been spoon fed notions of American exeptionalism (‘but, like, the United States is just good, right?’) by the media and government, pays attention to things like Kony 2012, and whose idea of a great thinker is Thomas Friedman.

The thing that irritates me so much about this group is that the political positions they espouse (shallowly) contain generally zero application of critical thought or credence to anything resembling a properly underlying theoretical basis. They may believe the “right” things, but there is no understanding of why this is or in what way such a belief is a consistent application of that theory (e.g. there is no attention paid to ontology or epistemology, even if it’s not in those terms).

This is coupled with a particular sense of arrogance or appropriateness that many conservatives find irritating about “liberals”. It annoys me as well. It is not difficult to take some university classes and then be able to regurgitate the same repetitive, hollow lines. These people use their ‘knowledge’ to lecture, bully, and belittle others who don’t “get it”, rather than having a discussion stemming from true understanding of issues. There is very little broader explanation of concepts because many people don’t bother to understand the positions they hold.

Now, to bring it back to gun control: every time a violent event takes place and a lot of people are shot (coincidentally, most often by middle-class white people), these hollow liberals see the bad situation, have only the critical thinking skills to go “this is bad”, and take up a position based on no other information. Comments from conservative gun owners do not spring from a vacuum. Every time, the same hollow adherents to broad “left” and “right” political doctrines (not theories) trot out and make the same staid, done-to-death, repetition-of-the-familiar arguments and that environment is fostered.

Gun control is a complicated issue that almost never has a complicated discussion. If someone is broadly in favour of more restrictive gun laws, they are branded as a hippy pinko who wants to de-arm white people. If someone is broadly in favour of more relaxed gun laws (a mistake, in my opinion), they are branded as a nutcase who lives in fear of the rest of society.There is often a cultural schism between, roughly, city folks and country folks who each have a different relationship to guns. From my experiences, I can say that I believe that the “city liberals” are pretty often ignorant about the issue and its complexities.

The conversation from both sides should be more about gun crime taking place at the bottom echelons of society. The bigger menace posed by guns is through gang and drug violence, not from the occasional person who goes off the handle and shoots up a movie theatre. But one is a spectacle, and one happens to “other” people. (As an aside, I always find it amusing that the people who insist more people with guns would be able to stop shooters sooner are predominantly whites, who enjoy significantly more protection from police forces than non-whites. These also tend to be the same whites who, under the guise of needing to “protect themselves”, end up going out and hunting down ‘criminal types’ à la George Zimmerman [and on racial lines].)

Liberals and conservatives who believe that gun control is about people with hunting rifles or a pistol locked up in their house, or even a school shooting, are missing the real dangers of guns and nullifying meaningful discourse.

The televised and often revisited occurrences of these events are made spectacles of. You see, it's very easy to get drawn into discussions that don't really matter, and politicians on both sides have used this fact effectively to get people to pay attention to them and issues like this, and by consequence, increase their voting margin.

People will talk about this shooting in Colorado for weeks and months, but no one will talk about how the United States is escalating the drug war into Africa. The drug war which is directly responsibile for THOUSANDS of deaths here and abroad, for poverty here and abroad, for our criminal justice system being swamped with BS crimes, and for continuing racial tensions.

When you can make the point, which is completely valid, that most gun crimes are carried out with weapons that were obtained illegally anyway, it's pointless to insist on more stringent laws that will affect people LEGALLY buying weapons. Stopping the occasional shooting deaths with legal guns is a drop in the bucket compared to the gang and drug deaths that no one seems to know about.

-rd

[Baron Von PWN]

Most of the supposed explanations listed in Table 1 actually played little direct role in the crime decline, including the strong economy of the 1990s, changing demo-graphics, better policing strategies, gun control laws, concealed weapons laws and increased use of the death penalty. Four factors, however, can account for virtually all of the observed decline in crime: increases in the number of police, the rising prison population, the waning crack epidemic and the legalization of abortion.[1

]

(1st and 2nd pages, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpricetheory.uchicago.edu%2Flevitt%2FPapers%2FLevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf&ei=US0MUO73KeHI2gXW4bkf&usg=AFQjCNHqWNThdafe1fxUvsHYaYU9hIMKKQ

But it's highly debatable.

Others mention the change in laws during the 1990s regarding private security (i.e. deregulation, or freer market for law and order/security), whose officers now total more than public police officers.

Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point suggests that a change in policing strategies in NY which arresting for misdemeanors more fiercely and the cleaning up of subway cars were the main causes.

Mark Kleiman (When Brute Force Fails) mentions causes which work more effectively in reducing crime:

show

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9018.html

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime. However it's fairly clear that simply the amount of guns that are around has little effect on crime rates. For instance Canada is fairly restrictive in fire arms yet we've also had crime go down, also for a long time we haven't had high prison populations(that may change soon with new laws going through).

Interesting, what Kleinman is talking about sounds like law enforcement took psych 101. That's almost a perfect description of variable reinforcement. Random rewards/punishments are stronger behavioural modifiers than consistent ones .

The abortion argument makes sense as it's a powerful tool for social modification. Suddenly there is a means to prevent the birth of unwanted children even if you don't have access to contraceptives/are uneducated about sex. It means way fewer neglected children in financially struggling households.

[Baron Von PWN]

My question is what in the world makes all you armchair sociologists even remotely qualified to voice an opinion on this topic?

How many of you have done any of the following:
- Performed reserach over and above a google search into any topics relating to criminal behaviour and/or criminal social science.
- Covered any reseach papers that were not directly linked to you by a media organisation (that is you seeked out the specific paper or topic area on your own accord)
- Taken a university course in ANY topic in the school of social science

???

I ask that if you do fit any of this criteria you mention what you have done.

Seriously, and this is aimed at both sides of the coin here - not just my usual adversaries, nobody here, including myself, is qualified to voice an opinion on the matter (that im aware of, certainly noone thus far has come up with any relevant credentials). The topic is highly complex and is unlikely to have any "right" answers.

The fact that some of you are saying things like "common sense says guns prevent crime" and "common sense says guns cause crime" doesnt make your point; it merely just shows how ignorant you actually are on this matter.

This kind of media shitstorm (not the coverage of the tragedy, but the consequential "analysis") and the resulting water cooler discussions pretty much sums up my beef with "liberty".

I hold CEGEP degree in Social Science

-This included research on topics in sociology such as the effects of policies on society (crime was not the direct focus but it was covered)
-Reading scholarly articles on the topic.
-taking university quality classes on topics in sociology (urban planning, psych, sociology, ect)

so according to you I am "qualified" to enter into the discussion. However I don't feel one needs to be educated in the field to opine about it. Lighten up Loot!

[Woodruff]

In 2010 the homicide rate in the United States was 4.8 per 100,000 inhabitants (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... 0tbl01.xls). In The Netherlands it was 0.87 (http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publicat ... STB=T&VW=T)

I can name several other European (gun control) countries where the murder rate is similarly low. It is a fact that fewer gun lead to less homicides. Don't get me wrong, I am not against gun ownership in the USA. It is a part of the American culture and nobody will ever ban gun ownership.Heck, once I gte my citizenship I might get one myself (plus a safe plus adequate training). But if you are going to have gun ownership there will simply be more gun related deaths too. Mall shootings, University shootings, etc. Of course this happens in Europe too (seethe Anders Breivik case in Norway), just way less frequent. Doesn't take a communist to understand that. Sure, criminals in The Netherlands still have guns. They might use them in robberies too. But they don't go into malls, universities etc. to randomly shoot people. Or take dady's gun out of his nightstand and accidentally kill a sibling.

Actually, it isn't. There may be a positive correlation, but from what I recall, it's very weak. People simply seek substitutes like knives, bats, etc.

Do you believe the same sort of damage is very likely to be done by a single assailant with a knife or bat as is done by a single assailant with a gun?

From what I recall on the literature, homicide rates, break-ins, robbery, rapes, and the like were very similar regardless of the gun control laws. Sometimes, you'd see a decrease in one type of crime but an increase in another. Much of the discrepancy is more related to the other factors: "legal systems (laws, legislation, prisons, enforcement), cultural attitudes, regulation, public policy, homogeneity of the population, unemployment rates, and neighboring countries, to name a few."

So, to answer your question, sure, someone with two glocks can kill more people in one shorter instance, but people notice this because of its shock value. People don't notice the 33% unemployment rate of black males under the age of 25 or so. People don't notice that the deaths on government roads per year is 40,000. People don't notice that homicide rates in European countries don't vary that much from the US. I don't think stricter gun control laws (or the complete abolition of guns) would be worth it.

For example, with roads, the government forms many laws and bureaucracies which help reduce these deaths (drinking ages, DMVs, traffic laws, etc.), but even with these regulations in place, are they updating or innovating? Is the problem effectively being addressed while similarly not reducing the quality of life for others at some unacceptable level? If we want almost 0 deaths per year, let's mandate that a knife--pointed at the driver--should be placed in the steering wheel of every car. That'll make people drive very carefully...

Very little of that addressed my actual point. In fact, you seemed to be trying very hard to hide that "very little" in a sea of other stuff.

see underlined.

the part in bold is related.

Where did you want to go with this?

So then you agree with me that more damage is very likely to be done by a gun than by a knife or baseball bat. My point is that while the idea that people would simply use knives or baseball bats to commit certain crimes like muggings and such is true, yet situations as are being outlined in this thread are NOT going to happen with knives or baseball bats. It really takes a weapon of the caliber (heh) of a gun to do that sort of damage (which has nothing to do with shock value, but rather with efficiency).

I don't think I disagree with your broader points regarding gun control, but I did think that was important enough to point out, given your earlier statement.

[Woodruff]

It's pretty questionable that high prison populations reduce crime.

I would suggest that at least in the United States' "prison for cash system", high prison populations increase crime.