Guns, guns, guns
- Thread starter Zaij
- Start date
Please stop repeating this nonsensical argument that keeps being touted.Julius said:DammitBoy said:Julius said:
Because, before there were firearms - nobody died a violent death and homicides were statiscally much, much lower?
Because countries without a prevalence of firearms statistically have in extremity lower homicide rates.
There are a *lot* of differences between each country, and simply pinning murder rates on guns is ridiculous because of that as gun control is inherently tied in with different cultures.
Julius said:DammitBoy said:Julius said:
Because, before there were firearms - nobody died a violent death and homicides were statiscally much, much lower?
Because countries without a prevalence of firearms statistically have in extremity lower homicide rates.
Really? I could have sworn Switzerland and Israel have more firearms per capita and less violent crime commited with firearms...
Sander said:Please stop repeating this nonsensical argument that keeps being touted.Julius said:DammitBoy said:Julius said:
Because, before there were firearms - nobody died a violent death and homicides were statiscally much, much lower?
Because countries without a prevalence of firearms statistically have in extremity lower homicide rates.
There are a *lot* of differences between each country, and simply pinning murder rates on guns is ridiculous because of that as gun control is inherently tied in with different cultures.
Aside the fact that it's basic common sense, the relationship is too big to ignore.
It is true that cultural and possibly genetic factors will have a significant impact on homicide rates. This is why it is most valid to compare countries that are close to each other in culture and ethnicity. The best example is probably the US contra the EU, in which the US homicide rate averages around a ridiculous 6 times higher. 6 times is such an insane difference that anyone would stop to think that something is really inflating them. That something is the prevalence of firearms. Furthermore, if we take a look at Scandinavia, we see that the Finland, which has very liberal gun laws and a high prevalence of guns has a 3 times higher average homicide rate than the other Scandinavian countries. Due to data issues it is problematic to make comparisons with countries which aren't Western.
Of course to really provide some good statistics you'd need to make a comparative analysis with these two variables. I honestly cba. Still, there is a way to go before this argument becomes 'bullshit'
No, it isn't. There is no giant correlation between gun laws and murder rates. Yes, the US has more murders per capita than most European countries. Yes, so does Finland.Julius said:
But the same doesn't hold true for countries such as Switzerland, Australia and Canada.
That's not a relationship too big to ignore. That's you and other gun control advocates falling victim to confirmation bias.
Ahe. You really think the US and EU are close in culture? Hell, you think you can even generalise over the vast differences within both the EU and the US? The fact that gun ownership is considered a very basic human right is should tell you that there are vast cultural differences that you can't just wipe away with 'But they also have guns!'Julius said:
Confirmation bias is a stupid, stupid thing.Julius said:
You are going at this entirely the wrong way. You've taken a stance, and now you're looking solely for examples that confirm your bias. This leads you to completely ignore contradictory evidence, such as Switzerland.
Instead, you should look at the evidence, and then draw a conclusion.
Also also, this just a repetition of what has been said over and over and over again in this thread. I really, really wish people would even just attempt to read the damn thread they're posting in.
Somebody from Finland should explain their gun laws.
Okay, in Finland, to get a gun license, one must have a acceptable reason, hunting,sports etc . Home-defence and self-defence are not considered valid reasons. To get a handgun, you have to be a member of a shooting club. To hunt legally you also need a hunting permit.
Applicants are subjected to a background check from police databases.
But guns dont have that much to do with high murder rates.
Drunks kill other drunks, usually it goes down like this:
Two friends start drinking. They start to argue. The other axes or stabs the other, or simply beats him to death. Murders arent committed that often with guns, its drunks killing other drunks and beating them to death thats common.
Alcohol is to blame more than guns.
Applicants are subjected to a background check from police databases.
But guns dont have that much to do with high murder rates.
Drunks kill other drunks, usually it goes down like this:
Two friends start drinking. They start to argue. The other axes or stabs the other, or simply beats him to death. Murders arent committed that often with guns, its drunks killing other drunks and beating them to death thats common.
Alcohol is to blame more than guns.
Sander said:
Australia, low prevalence of firearms, low homicide rate.
Canada, low prevalence of firearms, low homicide rate.
Switzerland, only nation that goes against the statistics. Answers are ready at hand. Several factors are keeping the homicide rate below its statistically natural level. Most significant is the lack of urban conglomeration. Another factor is its relative isolation on the continent, including from the EU, and thus isolation from immigrant-fueled crime rate increases in other European countries. There does however remain a very high percentage of gun homicides in the country.
Significantly closer than comparison with a non-Western country.
Apparently it needs repetition.
No, both have relatively lax gun control laws, and low homicide rates. They also have lower prevalence of firearms than the US but still have a very high prevalence of firearms when compared with other nations.Julius said:
The fact that guns may not be so prevalent even though laws are pretty lax would only show that gun control isn't the problem.
I also have no idea where you're getting the idea from that ownership rates are low, unless you're using the US as the standard, which is absurd. Compared to most Western nations, Canada and Austalia have high gun ownership rates according to any of the different internet sources I'm finding, even though no two of them seem to be capable of agreeing with eachother exactly, unless they're citing the same study.
"Statistically natural level"? That doesn't mean anything. That's not even how statistics work. Anyone with a working knowledge of statistics should see that that's a completely nonsensical statement.Julius said:
And again, you're talking about statistics that ignore any example that you deem irrelevant, which is to say not agreeing with your vision of the world.
It has a very low percentage of actual homicides. Which is actually the relevant percentage.Julius said:
Also, thank you for agreeing with me that factors other than gun control are to blame for murder rates.
This doesn't mean anything. There are a lot (a *lot*) of cultural differences, regardless of whether or not there are more differences with other countries.Julius said:
Let me re-iterate: you are using two individual nations (the US (which is also very diverse internally) and Finland), comparing them to a relatively narrow field of 'other Western nations that have strict gun control laws', ignoring the other Western nations that do not have strict gun control laws but happen to not fit your neat little picture of the world and brushing aside the vast cultural gap between those two nations (both between themselves and with the rest of your selected sample of nations), focusing solely on one single difference to explain everything.
In short: you are selecting your own sample, drawing conclusions you can't legitimately draw from the sample, and ignoring any and all contradictory evidence.
No, it doesn't. Go read the rest of the thread before responding again.Julius said:
Julius said:
Why couldn't that 'something' be a much great urban congestion factor? Why can't it be 'drug trafficing related crimes' something?
Why can't it be a greater number of minorities living in poverty?
Why can't it be a significant cultural difference?
I think the inside of your head makes only the prevalence of firearms the deciding something...
Getting my stats from http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/Sander said:
Both Canada and Australia have fewer guns per capita than Sweden, France and Norway.
Sander said:
While it isn't statistical terminology, it makes perfect sense if you try to understand what I'm saying. I'm referring to the issues that practically anyone who has to deal with population statistics will encounter quite a few times. You have two variables which covariate in a linear manner, but you have one or a few data points which have 'odd' correlation coefficients. While it is true that strictly mathematically speaking there are no 'oddities', we live in the real world, so we go look for other variables which affect the 'odd' data points.
Sander said:
Never said otherwise.
It makes a lot of sense. Naturally you want to compare nations that are closer together for more validity.Sander said:
Sander said:
Not saying guns are the only factor, I'm saying it's a significant one.
And I've dealt with all your examples.
Sander said:
No U.
Sander said:
I'll do whatever I please.
DammitBoy said:
Because the difference is too high. The negros don't kill THAT many people. Besides, most European nations have issues with minority crimes too.
Concerning urban conglomeration, while I don't know it, my intuition says that size doesn't matter that much when it comes to crime when a city has reached a certain size.
I'll agree that other factors impact homicide rates, but guns are a significant one.
Don't double post.
In any case, from that site:
Also, it would've been nice if you'd linked to this, since for some reason it's not exactly clear where they posted the data.
In any case, your citing of the data is slightly misleading. The top per capita gun ownership rates in small arms/100 people as given in that article:
US = 83-97
Yemen = 32-90(?)
Iraq = 28-50 (obviously inflated due to war)
Finland = 41-69
Switzerland = 31-61
Serbia = 26-49
France = 30-34
Canada = 25-38
Sweden = 23-40
Germany = 24-36
Saudi Arabia = 20-33
Angola = 11-30
Thailand = 16
Australia = 15-16
Australia seemed like a good cut-off point. Norway isn't mentioned, and looking at averages between the high and low estimates Canada is practically level with both France and Sweden. It is vastly, vastly above the gun ownership rates in almost all other Western European countries that I haven't posted here, with the UK having an ownership of 3-8, Italy 7-17, and no other Western European nations being cited (meaning that they have a total ownership below the top 30's ownership, for most Western European countries this will automatically mean that they have lower ownership rates, although I'd be obliged if you could point me at a place that has those ownership rates).
In any case, let's now compare them to murder rates, shall we?
I found two sources that seem reliable, feel free to provide alternatives: this might be more reliable than this, although you can judge for yourself. The first uses numbers from a 1998-2000 UN survey, while the second uses whatever the most recent available source was.
Taking the countries mentioned above, I'll list them in order of average of the rates of the two sources, in rates/100,000:
Iraq = N/A/21 (obviously inflated due to war)
Thailand = 8.01/8.47
US = 4.28/6.8
Yemen = 3.36/3.98
Sweden = N/A/2.64
Finland = 2.83/2.17
Switzerland = 0.92/2.94
France = 1.73/1.59
Canada = 1.49/1.8
Australia = 1.50/1.45
Germany = 1.16/0.98
Saudi Arabia = 0.40/0.92
Angola = N/A/40 (number is from 2002, civil war was ending, probably inflated due to that)
Serbia = N/A/N/A
Then look at the rates for the two other Western European countries mentioned:
United Kingdom = 1.4/2.03
Italy = 1.23/1.3
And Norway, since you cited it:
Norway = 1.07/0.78
If you look at those numbers, there isn't much that correlates gun prevalence and homicide rates for similar cultures (meaning we ignore anything not Northern American or Western European, according to your definition of similar cultures). The US tops both lists, but it is followed by Finland on one, and Sweden on the second list, while Sweden is down in the middle of the pack (although high compared to other western european countries) on the first one (Finland does come in right behind Sweden on the second list, though).
Similarly, the country with the lowest cited gun/capita rating comes in at about the middle of the pack for murders, amongst the high/middling (this distinction is tough to make as ownership rates probably decline very steeply with any non-cited nation, whereas looking at the total numbers of homicide rates, those don't) ownership rates of Canada, Switzerland.
Germany has the lowest homicide rate of the pack, and a middling ownership rate in this list, although (extrapolating) compared to all other Western European nations it has a relatively high ownership rate.
Basically, these figures are all over the map and simply point to the US being an outlier.
Keep in mind that Switzerland has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and I can't find any data on how that may have impacted the difference in numbers here.
So why, exactly, are you comparing the US to a personally filtered selection of different European nations, instead of say, comparing European nations internally, which would make a lot more sense?
You've simply stated that Switzerland goes against the statistics (yet it doesn't).
You sidestep my argument about gun control laws vs gun ownership vs culture.Julius said:
In any case, from that site:
That sounds like a group with an agenda.
Also, it would've been nice if you'd linked to this, since for some reason it's not exactly clear where they posted the data.
In any case, your citing of the data is slightly misleading. The top per capita gun ownership rates in small arms/100 people as given in that article:
US = 83-97
Yemen = 32-90(?)
Iraq = 28-50 (obviously inflated due to war)
Finland = 41-69
Switzerland = 31-61
Serbia = 26-49
France = 30-34
Canada = 25-38
Sweden = 23-40
Germany = 24-36
Saudi Arabia = 20-33
Angola = 11-30
Thailand = 16
Australia = 15-16
Australia seemed like a good cut-off point. Norway isn't mentioned, and looking at averages between the high and low estimates Canada is practically level with both France and Sweden. It is vastly, vastly above the gun ownership rates in almost all other Western European countries that I haven't posted here, with the UK having an ownership of 3-8, Italy 7-17, and no other Western European nations being cited (meaning that they have a total ownership below the top 30's ownership, for most Western European countries this will automatically mean that they have lower ownership rates, although I'd be obliged if you could point me at a place that has those ownership rates).
In any case, let's now compare them to murder rates, shall we?
I found two sources that seem reliable, feel free to provide alternatives: this might be more reliable than this, although you can judge for yourself. The first uses numbers from a 1998-2000 UN survey, while the second uses whatever the most recent available source was.
Taking the countries mentioned above, I'll list them in order of average of the rates of the two sources, in rates/100,000:
Iraq = N/A/21 (obviously inflated due to war)
Thailand = 8.01/8.47
US = 4.28/6.8
Yemen = 3.36/3.98
Sweden = N/A/2.64
Finland = 2.83/2.17
Switzerland = 0.92/2.94
France = 1.73/1.59
Canada = 1.49/1.8
Australia = 1.50/1.45
Germany = 1.16/0.98
Saudi Arabia = 0.40/0.92
Angola = N/A/40 (number is from 2002, civil war was ending, probably inflated due to that)
Serbia = N/A/N/A
Then look at the rates for the two other Western European countries mentioned:
United Kingdom = 1.4/2.03
Italy = 1.23/1.3
And Norway, since you cited it:
Norway = 1.07/0.78
If you look at those numbers, there isn't much that correlates gun prevalence and homicide rates for similar cultures (meaning we ignore anything not Northern American or Western European, according to your definition of similar cultures). The US tops both lists, but it is followed by Finland on one, and Sweden on the second list, while Sweden is down in the middle of the pack (although high compared to other western european countries) on the first one (Finland does come in right behind Sweden on the second list, though).
Similarly, the country with the lowest cited gun/capita rating comes in at about the middle of the pack for murders, amongst the high/middling (this distinction is tough to make as ownership rates probably decline very steeply with any non-cited nation, whereas looking at the total numbers of homicide rates, those don't) ownership rates of Canada, Switzerland.
Germany has the lowest homicide rate of the pack, and a middling ownership rate in this list, although (extrapolating) compared to all other Western European nations it has a relatively high ownership rate.
Basically, these figures are all over the map and simply point to the US being an outlier.
Keep in mind that Switzerland has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and I can't find any data on how that may have impacted the difference in numbers here.
The fact that you even consider Switzerland to be an odd data point, even though you might as well consider the US to be the odd data point says it all, really.Julius said:
Yet you continue to claim that guns have a very significant impact - without any actual proof that that is so.Julius said:
Yes it does.Julius said:
So why, exactly, are you comparing the US to a personally filtered selection of different European nations, instead of say, comparing European nations internally, which would make a lot more sense?
Ehm, no you haven't. You haven't shown why Switzerland's stats are aberrant, as opposed to the US's stats, you've given anecdotes that don't have anything to do with gun ownership as to why Switzerland might have a lower murder rate. That doesn't say anything about the impact gun ownership has.Julius said:
You've simply stated that Switzerland goes against the statistics (yet it doesn't).
I'm vatting any and all posts from this point on that simply stomp in this debate without bothering to read up on the thread. Although given that we're getting into new territory with these statistics I'll not do the same for you.Julius said:
welsh
Junkmaster
I have to say, I am puzzled by some of these comparisons.
One of the arguments made above is that the US is unique culturally. Ok, perhaps. But then so is France, and so is Germany and Italy, etc. This goes with that "every snowflake is unique" idea that gets tossed around? Does this mean that we can't make a comparison? Afterall, even though snowflakes may be different (and they're not), they are created through the same process and are composed of the same elements. You argue that the US, by having a high homicide and gun ownership rates, is an outlier, yet it is that case that we are often trying to explain. The US is, essentially, a critical case.
In fact, looking at the data listed above, and drawing a broad stroke, we could argue that your choice of cases illustrates that there is a relationship between high guns and high homicides- if we assume a mono-causal argument.
To be fair, it might be- as Dammit Boy might argue- that people have lots of guns because they are afraid of crime. The causality might be reversed. Fear of crime leads to self-help, and thus people assure themselves of their own protection. Maybe.
But at the same time, I am puzzled by some of these comparisons. If we don't compare the US with Europe, Australia, than where? Is the US more like Yemen or Thailand, or is it more like England, German, and Sweden? Or is England more comparable to the US than the US or England are to Japan? Then again, maybe the US is more like Brazil and South Africa in other ways- issues of race and income inequality? What is the basis of the comparisons?
Culture? The concept of culture is a strange bag of elements- religion, history, language, norms, values, etc. In some ways the US is much more comparable to Europe than elsewhere. You can't just toss out one and saying, "Oh Germany is so much more different from the US?" Really? In some ways, but compared to what?
Don't get me wrong- I see what you're trying to do Sander. You are saying Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to Americans. Ok, maybe (don't forget that most Americans are of German roots and that the notion of liberalism that was basis of our government and political system are rooted in notions from the UK and France). I am not saying your wrong either, but I am saying that you are being a bit too broad in your generalizations. You may be seeing difference because you want to, while others might see similarity. Neither is right but both are biased.
I suspect that there are two problems here, that both groups are suffering from.
(1) a Mono-causal fallacy. One side says, homicide is caused by guns, while the other side says Guns have nothing to do with homicide.
Both are probably wrong. Given that most homicides are done with guns in the US, often illegal guns, makes access to guns relevant. Are most homicides in Europe done with guns? The availability of illegal weapons is thus a structural variable within each case. Places were its easier to get an illegal gun means that its more likely guns will be used- with lethal affect.
Comparisons-
US - highly developed, strong democracy, high income inequality, easy access to guns-> high rates of gun violence.
Europe- highly developed, strong democracy, lower income inequality, medium access to guns, -> low rates of gun violence
South Africa- medium developed, weak democracy, high income inequality, easy access to guns -> high gun violence.
Brazil- - medium development, weak democracy, high levels of income inequality, easy access to guns -> high rates of gun violence.
What does that say? Gun violence doesn't relate to levels of development or democracy, but does relate to income inequality and easy access? Is that enough?
We can't stop there, but at least its better. We can figure out perhaps that which doesn't matter and thus, figure out what does.
We also have to look at the actor that makes the decision to use the gun in a crime, and this is where things may get more complicated. Unless we are going to be racist or prejudiced and assume that the perpetuation of underclass, or the existence of large communities of underprivilged minorities, or ethnic minorities prone to violence (and thus the image of the black psycho), than we should begin with an assumption that all people are both prone to good and evil, rational and irrational behavior. The question then becomes what structural variables predisposes a person or groups of people towards a crime.
This is important. We might argue, as Dammitboy has said to me, "I have never wanted to kill a person" - and thus why deny my right. I could argue that I, of generally sound mind, wanted to kill a person and thank God I didn't have a pistol. Maybe both are true? It doesn't really matter. At the individual level, personal choices drop out. What we are looking at is large macro-level choices of people, not persons. What are most people likely to do under X conditions? Or, given X conditions- are people more likely to commit crimes than not. We are not so much looking at people, but societies and communities.
Let me offer another example- If your house is completely on fire and you know there is no way to save it, you flee. Under those structural circumstances, your choices are limited. The question of whether you grab the jewelry, your dog, or your family heirloom on the way out, is an individual choice. Most people will elect to escape. But perhaps here, we can differentiate people- some types of folks may be more likely to grab the dog, while others are more likely to grab some material possession.
SO we need to consider both the structural conditions that shape actor behavior and their capacity to commit violence. This allows us to make a determination of why crimes are being committed among certain groups of people and their likelihood to use a gun in that violence (availability of illegal guns) leading to the rate of gun violence.
The problem with the mono-causal variable argument is that one one hand, it makes an argument that guns are the proverbial "smoking gun" of homicide rates. The other side, saying guns have nothing to do with it, assumes that guns have no added effect to the likelihood of homicide and violence. YOu can't argue one or the other unless you consider other variables that shape behavior. Only then can you tease out if guns matter and if so, how much.
(2) The second problem is a bit more complex. Here, we examine the nature of our cases.
I have argued in this thread that gun violence in the US generally falls into two groups- that which affects inner city and generally poor minority males, and everyone else. Since poor inner city minority males are often the leading victims of gun violence, this is significant.
That gun violence also occurs among "everyone" else, is not without concern. Here again, we can factor in other variables (age, income, inequality, job security) and we should include "access to guns" - if only to test that variable against the others. Does having a gun in the house increase the risk of a fatality due to a domestic dispute? Increases the danger of shooting a neighbor over a fallen tree? Maybe. Its worth thinking about, as generally speaking, those are the general cause of homicide among "everyone else".
But in the US, the victims of gun violence are usually poor inner city minorities. Evidence is pretty clear that these kids are getting guns, and often from states were it is easier to buy a gun. For example, guns sold in Kennesaw ended up killing someone in New York. But is that true in Europe as well? Are most of your homicide acquaintance related homicides, or are they drug trade related. Those contexts matter in trying to get a understanding of the substance of homicide rates. Who is doing the killing and why?
Compare for instance- if more assaults are occurring among certain sub-sets of the population-
Drunk unemployed males are more likely to beat their wives than sober, empolyed males in Europe.
Drunk unemployed males are more likely to shoot their wives than sober employed males in the US.
Perhaps the smoking gun is being drunk and unemployed, but perhaps in the US this is more likely to lead to a fatal shooting where in Europe, the wife is sent ot the hospital with a broken arm.
Does it matter? Yes.
Consider- Are inner city kids more likely to commit crime, get in trouble with the law, and be either the cause or victims of violent assault in Europe than other kids? If you added easy access to guns, would that lead to more fatalities? Here we look at a more complicated relationship, but take into consideration other socio-economic context factors. Does guns matter- perhaps yes. Perhaps no- either way, we need to understand the origins of the crime first.
Once we get an answer to that, we can move on to more prescriptive/normative questions. Should the risk of fatalities in inner cities mean that the rights of those who live in rural areas be, in someway, constrained and if so, how so that they may maintain their rights while promoting a broader and safer society? If the problem for them isn't guns but culture, socio-economic factors, what do we do? If we can't address the socio-economic factors (the structural constraints that shape individual actions), than is controlling access to guns the answer?
That leads to more normative/prescriptive arguments and is why we should debate these issues. But first we need to understand what's going on before we can make those prescriptive arguments? But for the sake of the discussion above, lets' step back a bit.
If the US isn't that different (you had riots in France that looked a lot like race riots in the US of decades ago), than maybe what we need to do is a combination of-
(1) break open the cases themselves. Does France or UK or Germany have more gun violence among low income or communities that suffer high rates of illegal narcotics? Does the division that we see in the US mirror what is seen in Europe? If so, why not.
(2) Before we can say (as Dammit Boy wishes) that guns don't matter, than we have to figure out what does. This is difficult. John Stuart Mill's Methods of Agreement and Disagreement, can help us along the way, but his argument often fails to account for causal complexity. Multi-variable regressions might help.
For instance- what if the reason we find that high levels of violence due to failed social safety nets, high unemployment and racial discrimination. What if we find that violence/crimes occur among certain populations more than others. If we factor in gun ownership or the capacity to get illegal guns, corresponds with high rates of gun violence? Thank, guns probably matter.
Mono-causal arguments are very nice because they are simple and elegant, but real life is often messy. But then, so is nature. Storms are created because of different factors of wind, pressure/temperature and water vapor. Mix these variable, and you get a different storm. Without these variables, no storm. Consequently, these three variables may exist at different levels but by interacting, they combine and create storms.
Are guns part of that equation for social violence? We won't know, one way or the other, until we make precise comparisons and, at macro-level, figure out causation.
One of the arguments made above is that the US is unique culturally. Ok, perhaps. But then so is France, and so is Germany and Italy, etc. This goes with that "every snowflake is unique" idea that gets tossed around? Does this mean that we can't make a comparison? Afterall, even though snowflakes may be different (and they're not), they are created through the same process and are composed of the same elements. You argue that the US, by having a high homicide and gun ownership rates, is an outlier, yet it is that case that we are often trying to explain. The US is, essentially, a critical case.
In fact, looking at the data listed above, and drawing a broad stroke, we could argue that your choice of cases illustrates that there is a relationship between high guns and high homicides- if we assume a mono-causal argument.
To be fair, it might be- as Dammit Boy might argue- that people have lots of guns because they are afraid of crime. The causality might be reversed. Fear of crime leads to self-help, and thus people assure themselves of their own protection. Maybe.
But at the same time, I am puzzled by some of these comparisons. If we don't compare the US with Europe, Australia, than where? Is the US more like Yemen or Thailand, or is it more like England, German, and Sweden? Or is England more comparable to the US than the US or England are to Japan? Then again, maybe the US is more like Brazil and South Africa in other ways- issues of race and income inequality? What is the basis of the comparisons?
Culture? The concept of culture is a strange bag of elements- religion, history, language, norms, values, etc. In some ways the US is much more comparable to Europe than elsewhere. You can't just toss out one and saying, "Oh Germany is so much more different from the US?" Really? In some ways, but compared to what?
Don't get me wrong- I see what you're trying to do Sander. You are saying Europeans are more similar to each other than they are to Americans. Ok, maybe (don't forget that most Americans are of German roots and that the notion of liberalism that was basis of our government and political system are rooted in notions from the UK and France). I am not saying your wrong either, but I am saying that you are being a bit too broad in your generalizations. You may be seeing difference because you want to, while others might see similarity. Neither is right but both are biased.
I suspect that there are two problems here, that both groups are suffering from.
(1) a Mono-causal fallacy. One side says, homicide is caused by guns, while the other side says Guns have nothing to do with homicide.
Both are probably wrong. Given that most homicides are done with guns in the US, often illegal guns, makes access to guns relevant. Are most homicides in Europe done with guns? The availability of illegal weapons is thus a structural variable within each case. Places were its easier to get an illegal gun means that its more likely guns will be used- with lethal affect.
Comparisons-
US - highly developed, strong democracy, high income inequality, easy access to guns-> high rates of gun violence.
Europe- highly developed, strong democracy, lower income inequality, medium access to guns, -> low rates of gun violence
South Africa- medium developed, weak democracy, high income inequality, easy access to guns -> high gun violence.
Brazil- - medium development, weak democracy, high levels of income inequality, easy access to guns -> high rates of gun violence.
What does that say? Gun violence doesn't relate to levels of development or democracy, but does relate to income inequality and easy access? Is that enough?
We can't stop there, but at least its better. We can figure out perhaps that which doesn't matter and thus, figure out what does.
We also have to look at the actor that makes the decision to use the gun in a crime, and this is where things may get more complicated. Unless we are going to be racist or prejudiced and assume that the perpetuation of underclass, or the existence of large communities of underprivilged minorities, or ethnic minorities prone to violence (and thus the image of the black psycho), than we should begin with an assumption that all people are both prone to good and evil, rational and irrational behavior. The question then becomes what structural variables predisposes a person or groups of people towards a crime.
This is important. We might argue, as Dammitboy has said to me, "I have never wanted to kill a person" - and thus why deny my right. I could argue that I, of generally sound mind, wanted to kill a person and thank God I didn't have a pistol. Maybe both are true? It doesn't really matter. At the individual level, personal choices drop out. What we are looking at is large macro-level choices of people, not persons. What are most people likely to do under X conditions? Or, given X conditions- are people more likely to commit crimes than not. We are not so much looking at people, but societies and communities.
Let me offer another example- If your house is completely on fire and you know there is no way to save it, you flee. Under those structural circumstances, your choices are limited. The question of whether you grab the jewelry, your dog, or your family heirloom on the way out, is an individual choice. Most people will elect to escape. But perhaps here, we can differentiate people- some types of folks may be more likely to grab the dog, while others are more likely to grab some material possession.
SO we need to consider both the structural conditions that shape actor behavior and their capacity to commit violence. This allows us to make a determination of why crimes are being committed among certain groups of people and their likelihood to use a gun in that violence (availability of illegal guns) leading to the rate of gun violence.
The problem with the mono-causal variable argument is that one one hand, it makes an argument that guns are the proverbial "smoking gun" of homicide rates. The other side, saying guns have nothing to do with it, assumes that guns have no added effect to the likelihood of homicide and violence. YOu can't argue one or the other unless you consider other variables that shape behavior. Only then can you tease out if guns matter and if so, how much.
(2) The second problem is a bit more complex. Here, we examine the nature of our cases.
I have argued in this thread that gun violence in the US generally falls into two groups- that which affects inner city and generally poor minority males, and everyone else. Since poor inner city minority males are often the leading victims of gun violence, this is significant.
That gun violence also occurs among "everyone" else, is not without concern. Here again, we can factor in other variables (age, income, inequality, job security) and we should include "access to guns" - if only to test that variable against the others. Does having a gun in the house increase the risk of a fatality due to a domestic dispute? Increases the danger of shooting a neighbor over a fallen tree? Maybe. Its worth thinking about, as generally speaking, those are the general cause of homicide among "everyone else".
But in the US, the victims of gun violence are usually poor inner city minorities. Evidence is pretty clear that these kids are getting guns, and often from states were it is easier to buy a gun. For example, guns sold in Kennesaw ended up killing someone in New York. But is that true in Europe as well? Are most of your homicide acquaintance related homicides, or are they drug trade related. Those contexts matter in trying to get a understanding of the substance of homicide rates. Who is doing the killing and why?
Compare for instance- if more assaults are occurring among certain sub-sets of the population-
Drunk unemployed males are more likely to beat their wives than sober, empolyed males in Europe.
Drunk unemployed males are more likely to shoot their wives than sober employed males in the US.
Perhaps the smoking gun is being drunk and unemployed, but perhaps in the US this is more likely to lead to a fatal shooting where in Europe, the wife is sent ot the hospital with a broken arm.
Does it matter? Yes.
Consider- Are inner city kids more likely to commit crime, get in trouble with the law, and be either the cause or victims of violent assault in Europe than other kids? If you added easy access to guns, would that lead to more fatalities? Here we look at a more complicated relationship, but take into consideration other socio-economic context factors. Does guns matter- perhaps yes. Perhaps no- either way, we need to understand the origins of the crime first.
Once we get an answer to that, we can move on to more prescriptive/normative questions. Should the risk of fatalities in inner cities mean that the rights of those who live in rural areas be, in someway, constrained and if so, how so that they may maintain their rights while promoting a broader and safer society? If the problem for them isn't guns but culture, socio-economic factors, what do we do? If we can't address the socio-economic factors (the structural constraints that shape individual actions), than is controlling access to guns the answer?
That leads to more normative/prescriptive arguments and is why we should debate these issues. But first we need to understand what's going on before we can make those prescriptive arguments? But for the sake of the discussion above, lets' step back a bit.
If the US isn't that different (you had riots in France that looked a lot like race riots in the US of decades ago), than maybe what we need to do is a combination of-
(1) break open the cases themselves. Does France or UK or Germany have more gun violence among low income or communities that suffer high rates of illegal narcotics? Does the division that we see in the US mirror what is seen in Europe? If so, why not.
(2) Before we can say (as Dammit Boy wishes) that guns don't matter, than we have to figure out what does. This is difficult. John Stuart Mill's Methods of Agreement and Disagreement, can help us along the way, but his argument often fails to account for causal complexity. Multi-variable regressions might help.
For instance- what if the reason we find that high levels of violence due to failed social safety nets, high unemployment and racial discrimination. What if we find that violence/crimes occur among certain populations more than others. If we factor in gun ownership or the capacity to get illegal guns, corresponds with high rates of gun violence? Thank, guns probably matter.
Mono-causal arguments are very nice because they are simple and elegant, but real life is often messy. But then, so is nature. Storms are created because of different factors of wind, pressure/temperature and water vapor. Mix these variable, and you get a different storm. Without these variables, no storm. Consequently, these three variables may exist at different levels but by interacting, they combine and create storms.
Are guns part of that equation for social violence? We won't know, one way or the other, until we make precise comparisons and, at macro-level, figure out causation.
I think that in arguing, my actual point may have gotten obscured.
I'm not saying that cultural differences make comparisons irrelevant, but that the plurality of differences between cultures makes drawing any definite conclusions from those comparison tenuous.
In other words: you are free to compare, but by focusing on guns you are already falling victim to a confirmation bias, as you are looking at a very small subset of a very large dataset. Moreover, as the sample is exceedingly small (a few dozen countries at most), variance plays a very large role as well.
And even if there is a correlation between the presence of guns and murders, is this because people get guns due to the dangerous environment, or because guns make the environment dangerous, or a combination of both? Is perhaps the type of person or culture (nature vs nurture) that wants to own guns more prone to violence in the first place?
These are questions that these statistics can't readily answer - which is why a comparison across different nations or timeframes will always be problematic. And this kind of data isn't likely to appear in the foreseeable future, unless several US states decide to change gun laws while others don't.
But yes, I agree with most of what you've posted. The issue is a lack of solid research, and perhaps a lack of a possibility of solid research.
There's also the question of how effective gun control really is. As an anecdote, in this highly gun controlled country, at a festival this weekend several people (probably football hooligans) pulled guns and fired them, resulting in one dead and several injured.
I'm not saying that cultural differences make comparisons irrelevant, but that the plurality of differences between cultures makes drawing any definite conclusions from those comparison tenuous.
In other words: you are free to compare, but by focusing on guns you are already falling victim to a confirmation bias, as you are looking at a very small subset of a very large dataset. Moreover, as the sample is exceedingly small (a few dozen countries at most), variance plays a very large role as well.
And even if there is a correlation between the presence of guns and murders, is this because people get guns due to the dangerous environment, or because guns make the environment dangerous, or a combination of both? Is perhaps the type of person or culture (nature vs nurture) that wants to own guns more prone to violence in the first place?
These are questions that these statistics can't readily answer - which is why a comparison across different nations or timeframes will always be problematic. And this kind of data isn't likely to appear in the foreseeable future, unless several US states decide to change gun laws while others don't.
This assumes that guns add murders, instead of perhaps being a replacement tool that doesn't add any murders, but merely changes the method. That's also a reason why looking at gun violence instead of general violent crime or murder rates is probably faulty.welsh said:
But yes, I agree with most of what you've posted. The issue is a lack of solid research, and perhaps a lack of a possibility of solid research.
There's also the question of how effective gun control really is. As an anecdote, in this highly gun controlled country, at a festival this weekend several people (probably football hooligans) pulled guns and fired them, resulting in one dead and several injured.
Sander said:
No, Australia doesn't have lax gun control laws, it actually has pretty strong ones. It also has a strong anti-gun culture in urban areas. In the outback, however, there is a large number of guns simply because it's necessary. There're so many damn pests, introduced or otherwise, that fuck up crops and so on that they're simply necessary which accounts for the 'high prevalence of firearms'. No idea where you got the 'Australia has relatively lax gun control laws'.
Issue is that thinking always in extrems, from either side, ads nothnig to a serious discussion or the pont. Particularly when talking about cultures and their unique abilities.
One should eventualy not forget that Germany as nation was very long divided and actualy had the Sovietunion or Warsaw Pakt as direct neigbhbour and particularly in West-Berlin the threat of "war" was always present to the people or they feelt at least always aware about it thx to the "wall".
So there are a lot of differences already between the states itself in europe that are almost as big like the differences between the US and Germany, or the US and France or between France and Germany (just as example). I can only agree with Sander in most of his points.
Though I would be very curious to know what some of the "pro-gun" faction here would think about their arms if it accidently happens that either they harm their family or if their children would even kill themself with the weapon eventualy regardless if they tried everything to train their children and family in the save use of weapons. I mean people receive educations with machines, tools and training with them and still accidents happens sometimes where people die and you cant really blame someome. Even with very strict testing guns accidents just happen. Of course yes you can not have a 100% safety and even with weapons one has just to accept certain dangers just like with the use of every other object (within some limits). But I still would be curious about this hypothetical question.
One should eventualy not forget that Germany as nation was very long divided and actualy had the Sovietunion or Warsaw Pakt as direct neigbhbour and particularly in West-Berlin the threat of "war" was always present to the people or they feelt at least always aware about it thx to the "wall".
So there are a lot of differences already between the states itself in europe that are almost as big like the differences between the US and Germany, or the US and France or between France and Germany (just as example). I can only agree with Sander in most of his points.
Though I would be very curious to know what some of the "pro-gun" faction here would think about their arms if it accidently happens that either they harm their family or if their children would even kill themself with the weapon eventualy regardless if they tried everything to train their children and family in the save use of weapons. I mean people receive educations with machines, tools and training with them and still accidents happens sometimes where people die and you cant really blame someome. Even with very strict testing guns accidents just happen. Of course yes you can not have a 100% safety and even with weapons one has just to accept certain dangers just like with the use of every other object (within some limits). But I still would be curious about this hypothetical question.
Just have to say, bravo. This post should be required reading for anyone looking to jump into the gun debate.welsh said:
All I'd like to add is that it's probable that, due to differences in socioeconomics, culture, the general mindset influenced by the conviction that anything in the constitution is absolute and cannot be contradicted (guess black people should only be counted as a third of a person still right?) whether or not it might be outdated or possibly a bad idea to begin with, etc., gun control might be a more relevant issue in the U.S. than it is in other parts of the world.
This is because gun control laws have changed significantly over the past two decades in Australia.Zaij said:
To put this into perspective, according to Freakonomics:Crni Vuk said:
"In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.)"
In other words, the presence of a swimming pool is a factor 100 more dangerous than the presence of a gun. Gun accidents are very infrequent and hence have a low total impact.