Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Jun 21 08:17:53 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / We need car control
Habebe
Member
Thu Apr 22 23:11:27
http://www...an/ar-BB1fXgAQ?ocid=uxbndlbing

For the children.

This woman is a wack job targetting colored kids and running them over with her car.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Apr 23 00:19:25
& she said she thought the black kid was ISIS (not sure why not in that article)

pretty sure i know who she voted for
Seb
Member
Fri Apr 23 01:53:57
Habebe:

We have Car control: vehicles are registered and you have to have a license,
so when you run someone over it's pretty easy to work out who did it. We also don't let people who have medical conditions or haven't demonstrated the ability to drive safely drive the cars either. Including specific laws for using cars when incapacitated.

This all greatly reduces the risk and rate of dangerous accidents.

Maybe we should do the same with guns?


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 23 02:21:30
Yea, people have been advocating that the process to obtain a gun, be more like the one to get a driver's license. But just because guns were mentioned in the constitution and not cars, it becomes a non-sequitur for some folks and they go "Muh constitution". OK I understand, but MUH mass shootings are driving society insane and MUH AR-15 are not muzzle loaded muskets. Arguably a car today is far more dangerous and lethal than a muzzle loaded musket was 300 years ago. YoIf you got shot, you mostly died from sepsis or infection, rather than blood loss and trauma.

I like guns, I think you should be able to own guns, but you should at least show some kind of technical and theoretical proficiency with them. Show society that you are not a fucking retard, like with cars, before we let you loose on the roads.

Why isn't that reasonable?
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 02:27:39
Its absolutely reasonable. The issue comes in with registering. The fear is with registration follows confiscation.

The compromise is to mass train adolescents with firearms and pull it off safely.

While I had archery in gym class, my father had firearms training where people just brought in their guns. Obviously this woild.be met with contreversey today poost columbine.

The NRA and local hunting/fishing clubs have free gun safety courses.
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 02:31:16
I wouldn't be opppsed to a 2 year mandatory public service. Not so let military focused but would have a basic training camp even if your just going to build houses for the homeless or plant trees.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 23 02:36:10
It should be mandatory and taken at least as seriously as with cars. There central problem however is still, that obtaining a driver's license is an earned privilege and owning guns are a right. You can still lose both under current US laws, but the premise also sets up the expectations people have about the threshold to obtain them.

We are not having the discussion about registration of cars, because you need to register your car and are aware the car can be confiscated, like any other belonging for many different reasons, like settling your debts for instance.
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 02:48:31
Ok, but there isn't really a fear of mass car confiscation.Worldwide we have seen that for small arms.

That said, I'm not sure that this sort of training will do much to curb mass shootings People don't commit these acts because of lack of gun safety knowledge.

I think its much more closley tied to depression and frustrations.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 23 03:00:37
It's not just, go this orientation course and the you can have weapons. I don't know about drivers license in the USA, but here you have to get an eye exam to establish if you need glasses to drive. For guns I would imagine, a psych evaluation. There should actually be people who flunk and can't get a license for a variety of reasons.

I'm not sure why a mass confiscation is something to fear or why that is wrong, if the guns are illegal or people lack the license to have them.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 23 03:02:35
What is wrong with an eye exam to establish if you need glasses to shoot?
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 03:17:09
So, there is a basic vision test to get your permit/license.However whether or not you need glasses to drive is determined by a doctor.

Now, in PA where I grew up you could go hunting at age 12, and you go with an adult (usually your dad/uncle) you also must pass a hunters safety course which was a few hours a day for several weekends.

Down here in SC,I dont know whatbthe legal age is to hunt, but I commonly see 6 year olds and such taken hunting.

I never had to purchase any guns new, so I'm not sure of the process at the store. My grandfather was a gun dealer/sheriff , so my family has hundreds of guns, although mostly black powder

I got my first rifle at age 12 from my other grandfather. Feildmaster .22 remington AKA squirrel gun.

Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 03:20:26
I will say the biggest issue with many of these other wise reasonable laws is fear of bottlenecking or government confiscation as even in this country we have seen bans and such ( DC/NYC or example.)

I just seen that the postal service spies on US social media posts. .
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 03:23:25
I really think a public service for like 2 years could really help weed out alot of these issues. Perhaps even help General health by instilling a more excessive based culture.
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 03:42:54
More recently, the US has a crazy attitude against common sense.

Taking things to absurd extremes.Its prevalent in different manners from the left and right.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 23 06:18:04
Public service sounds great to me, I see additional value with that. All I would adviacte for, is that you show you are a responsible person and understand the rules of driving/owning a gun. A public service set in your own community among peers, will make you known to the community, it adds another layer of, transparency, ”policing” and accountibility.
habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 06:41:01
Exactly, Im not big on details, but it could have many outcomes.

Screen for mental illness, sense of structure, all the benefits of basic military training.

But also the benefit of community service. We already have the military infrastructure to host logistics and such.
Paramount
Member
Fri Apr 23 09:54:54
Deliberately running over a child with a car? Wtf is wrong with people?

There’s so much anger, hate and insanity in America.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 23 09:57:57
habebe
So you basically want to reintroduce selective service.

Well, it's the system that made the US great, so why not?
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 09:58:29
Paramount, Its everywhere.People as a species are prone to being vile.
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 10:02:40
Jergul, Sort of, but not just fornthe military, I see that as one option for a path, like I said a vast expansion of non military public service.Clean the parks, habitat for humanity, feed the poor, assist handicap/elderly etc.

All forms of service to the community. Again, im not being very specific, but you get the gist.
chuck
Member
Fri Apr 23 10:48:17
> There’s so much anger, hate and insanity in America.

Yeah, something has definitely changed. Just cracked open "Breaking The Two Party Doom Loop" which throws out some theories about the subject. Kind of seems like a blog post that's been stretched to book length so far. Anyway, that guy's theory is that systems with only two political factions can never be stable, and that in the past there were really four shadow parties in US (classic onservative Rs, conservative Ds in rural districts, liberal Rs in Northeast, classic liberal Ds) and that the extinction of liberal Rs and conservative Ds erases nuance, removes need/possibility of building coalitions and leaves the out of power party feeling existentially threatened whenever they lose.

Media contributes, religion falling by the wayside contributes (especially w/ it not happening equally across party lines), changing demographics play it into it.

"If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other's throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness."
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 23 10:59:27
Chuck
Add to that the fact that those seats in congress and the senate are fixed, population isn't and the financial system is built around growth and inflation.

Hmmm.. have you invested in bitcoins yet? :D
Forwyn
Member
Fri Apr 23 11:15:13
"MUH mass shootings are driving society insane"

MUH media response to mass shootings is driving society insane. Curious you heard far less about them in 2017-2020, even though there wasn't a significant change in rate.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Apr 23 11:21:59
That is the reality, yes. It was never intended that brain recieve an endless stream of bad news and didn’t take them long to figure out bad news sells better than good news.
Habebe
Member
Fri Apr 23 12:18:07
Well, yeah, we are sort ofnhardwired to pay more attention to bad news.
kargen
Member
Fri Apr 23 13:37:47
"pretty sure i know who she voted for"

obviously President Biden as they share a hatred of Latino children.
Paramount
Member
Sat Apr 24 02:27:59
"If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other's throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness."


I think there is truth in that.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 24 05:52:04
Habebe:

This fear that registration precedes confiscation doesn't really hold up.

The govt hasn't normally started with registration to proceed to mass confiscation on anything else it wants to ban.

And why would it wasn't to ban something it has regulated?

The argument is from the gun selling industry - registration will add costs and night reduce market size.

And the threat "omgz they are going to ban guns" boosts sales as a bunch of derps rush out to buy one.

TJ
Member
Sat Apr 24 10:45:19
Registration makes it easier for law enforcement to track the weapons with a single data base rather than having to begin at the manufacturer, FFL seller, to customer purchase while tracing a gun crime. It also lets enforcement know how many guns and what type the subject could be in possession of at the time subjects are encountered.

Living is Illinois, my weapons are registered, but then, I'm not a criminal, you know, one who doesn't care about laws. The idea is efficiency by shortening the process of apprehending a sought perpetrator.

Collecting sales information from dealers falls short of a complete repository, except in jurisdictions that require private, unlicensed sellers to conduct transfers through licensed dealers.

If an FFL goes out of business the ATF takes all the records of sales they made, which could be decades, depending on how long the FFL has been doing business.

Personally, I believe confiscation would be far more difficult than rounding up everyone in the Country illegally. The Government would insistently create a high level of low level criminals.

States have rights and I don't think the Federal Government wants another civil war, but considering humans are fallible, exposes my hesitancy.
Seb
Member
Sat Apr 24 18:09:11
TJ:

Yes but this is Mickey Mouse logic.

No govt that decides to ban something starts by registering it.

They just pass a law and start confiscating as and when they come across it.

Registration and licensing users helps keep guns out of the hands of idiots and criminals, and also provides a basis from taking guns from people who are likely to have used them to commit crimes, or are likely to use them in crimes.

kargen
Member
Sat Apr 24 18:15:39
Mickey Mouse has generated over five billion in revenue.

That aside "who are likely to have used them to commit crimes, or are likely to use them in crimes." the word likely is of concern to some. Who gets to decide likely?
Forwyn
Member
Sat Apr 24 21:04:05
Ah yes, give the ATF, the goons who lied on their warrant and burned children alive alongside the FBI, a perfect record of everything they're facing. What could go wrong? Lol
TJ
Member
Sat Apr 24 23:52:25
Seb:

I thought I had made myself clear that confiscation would be nearly impossible, if not entirely impossible. That is not a point I find to be worthy of a discussion.

Every legal gun sale is already registered and purchaser background checked in every State. Federal law requires it for all gun sales by legally licensed gun sellers, that includes online, gun shows, and auction sales. The FFL's are required to keep and maintain records of sales.

In my opinion you would have a debatable point if you argued for a centralized data base.

Some States already require private sellers to transfer the sale through a federally licensed seller. Private exchanges are a different matter and that depends on the individual State.

You are not going to stop illegal sales with registration. It already exists for legal sales, but simply not in a single federal data base. The registrations are in the hands of the FFL sellers, federally licensed to reiterate the point. If criminal data registries aren't kept current the fault is with law enforcement.

The devil is in the details. It isn't an unknown idea that employees shirk their responsibilities and continue to draw a paycheck. Law enforcement isn't exempt.

You'll never stop a demented individual that doesn't have a previous police record and is a legal or an illegal owner without a tip from public observation.

As for trafficker's with FFL's the BATF can do an audit without notice if there is a suspicion of illegal sales and the patterns will show them breaking the licensing law. That illegality will cost them their license and a hefty jail term.

Banning the sales of weapons that millions or hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens own is doing exactly what? What happens when a person needs to replace a degraded or faulty part and it is no longer manufactured or sold because of a ban. Any grandfathered status eventually becomes useless. No need to get tied up with confiscation.

The last paragraph of your post is highly subject to abuse as Kargen provided attention.

Guns are taken away from convicted criminals, as well as, their ability to purchase in the future, if law departments do their required duties efficiently.

"No govt that decides to ban something starts by registering it."

I agree.

Banning additional sales of weapons that millions or hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens own is doing exactly what? What happens when a person needs to replace a degraded part when it is no longer manufactured because of a ban? I think we both know what that eventually ends up accomplishing.

I can imagine a time in the future when guns will become a commodity of wealthy privilege in the legal sense. I'll be long gone when or if that ever becomes a reality.

Did you realize that in the States, because of the current environment, that women and Black Americans have recently become the largest segments of gun purchasing for self defense?

Forwyn:

Your point is well received.
TJ
Member
Sun Apr 25 00:00:31
Sorry for the repeated paragraph, but at times redundancy can have value.
Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 08:37:41
TJ:

"You are not going to stop illegal sales with registration"

The key point is that from what I understand, the registration regimes are fragmented and operate to different standards.

Compare to cars: it is mandatory to keep the register record up to date with current owner. Whether this is centralised or decentralised, the lack of a common standard and requirement means that right now, if you sell a gun you can take it off register, effectively (it is no longer clear who is legally responsible for it, or who provided it to someone who shouldn't have the gun) - and as guns can easily move across state lines, it becomes impossible, or at least very hard, to really enforce any licensing regime anywhere. You lose the ability to show who sold a gun to an unlicensed person.

My point was that the opposition to gun registration "because it is a step to confiscation" isn't something that's propogated by lobbyists and campaigners on good faith. Any mass confiscation regime can be pursued without a registration regime of the goal is simply to remove "legal" guns from many people. Sure, many illegal guns hidden under the bed will continue, but getting accessories, ammunition, openly using/training etc. all become potential capture points.

The real reason that registration regimes are opposed by the gun industry is the administrative burden and consequent impact on the profitability and volume of the gun wholesale and retail market.
Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 08:37:57
But I think we agree on that?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 10:02:21
Seb
Do you think ownership of handguns, should be legal, provided the same regulatory scheme as a car?
Habebe
Member
Sun Apr 25 10:09:08
I would add to handguns AR-15's.

"Americas rifle" due to its popularity.
TJ
Member
Sun Apr 25 10:27:23
The only thing I have remaining to say is that the gun legacy in the U.S. is a difficult challenge without repeating myself on registration. After the initial purchase you are correct depending on the individual States and individuals who protect themselves from possible complications.

I'm fairly certain that the Constitutional process will be on going for the foreseeable future and I also imagine you would probably be surprised at how many left leaning subjects in and out of government oppose tightening federal gun legislation.

Things do change with time though. I trained all four of my girls at the age of 11 in a Junior High School basement shooting range. I dedicated a lot of my evenings to give gun safety classes. That would be impossible in todays national environment.

Gun theft is a major problem.

http://www...d-states-state-state-analysis/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 10:36:09
Part of the gun regulation in Sweden, is secure storage. You have to store them in safes ceetified according to a specific standard. The same way you can be found liable if you leave your keys in the car, or in some other reckless way allow others to unlawfully operate your car. On the other hand you are allowed to teach your kids driving, provided you both attend a safety course.
Tj
Member
Sun Apr 25 11:01:18
Nim:

Requirements for first time drivers in Illinois. All has to be done before you get your drivers license.

http://www...rs/teen_driver_safety/gdl.html
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 11:44:11
What about storage of guns?
TJ
Member
Sun Apr 25 12:03:19
http://ilg...=HB&LegID=118046&SessionID=108
habebe
Member
Sun Apr 25 12:05:44
Gun storage regulations depend on state and local laws.They vary drastically.
TJ
Member
Sun Apr 25 12:17:12
http://gif...-consumer-safety/safe-storage/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 12:46:31
Reasonable.
Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 14:41:04
Nim:

Contextual.

The UK banned handguns after the dunblane massacre.

We already had a strong licensing regime.

In the UK gun ownership is low, there's no strong case that a hand gun is needed for self defence here as a result of that.

Further, a handgun is really only a tool for killing people (or sport in the sense of proficiency in using a handgun).

So in the specific context of the UK, the ban makes sense.

In the US, gun violence remains high, and there seems a credible argument for now that a hand gun represents a desirable and in some situations necessary tool for self defense that it would be hard to justify depriving people of.

The ultimate goal of public policy in this space in my view ought to be to work towards a society where private/personal ownership of handguns and other weapons specifically designed for killing people can be, effectively, be banned; and guns used for hunting and sport permitted under license.

But that requires all necessary and legitimate *needs* of such weapons to be eliminated. As long as there is a credible need for hand guns for self defense, straight up banning them isn't credibleb or viable, to my mind.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 15:07:13
That fact that guns are used more often in violence in the USA has to do with the fact that guns are legal there. Apples to apples would be rate of violence, not just guns. You can use a handgun to defend yourself against any violence.
kargen
Member
Sun Apr 25 15:54:37
"Requirements for first time drivers in Illinois. All has to be done before you get your drivers license."

You don't need a drivers license to buy a car.
Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 17:14:48
Nim:
"That fact that guns are used more often in violence in the USA has to do with the fact that guns are legal there"

And if you banned hand guns tomorrow, that wouldn't change overnight. Which is a simple and obvious fact baked into my analysis. You can only ban when you can be confident that there's no real legitimate *need* to personally own a gun and keep it at home that outweighs the societal risk of owning one.

Nobody who tries to break into my house will be armed with a gun. The cost benefit to criminals in the UK is such that adding a gun into the crime simply isn't worth it.

As for defence, I have a 16 inch carving knife that I can get my hands on faster than I could get a gun out of a cabinet, load and arm it.

It is sharp and pointy, and I know how to fence, and to turn the blade flat to pass through the ribs.
jergul
large member
Sun Apr 25 17:20:07
At least get a filetting knife if you want to go through the armoured part of a human being.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 17:31:52
You can get plenty injured/killed even if the thief/attacker doesn't have a gun, it depends on who you are. So the legitmacy of owning one, if you say it is contextual, is in the broader context of violence, not just gun violence. I think.

In that broader context not everyone can fence, nor do they have the strength of the average man. I don't know about your wife, but my wife weighs 50 kg and I could kill her with 1 hand.
Habebe
Member
Sun Apr 25 17:38:04
"You can get plenty injured/killed even if the thief/attacker doesn't have a gun, it depends on who you are."

Hence they saying "God made man, Samuel Colt made him equal"
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 17:50:47
Give guns a chance, for the sake of equality.
Habebe
Member
Sun Apr 25 18:03:51
Nimatzo, I know your joking, but in all seriousness, who does a gun for self defense benefit the most?

The young and strong have a huge advantage on attackers.

The wealthy can hire body guards and live in gated communities.

Females,elderly, handicap and poor are the sort of people who actually would have the greatest benefit against a would be attacker.
Habebe
Member
Sun Apr 25 18:12:19
Not to mention rural dwellers such as myself. I keep a shotgun usually on hand when clearing the land. After 2 years I have much less need for it now with less since the property is much clearer and I burn it yearly.

Keeps the snakes away, my first year down here I killed 15 copperheads. Thia year only one and it was a black racer, kind of impressive since In only had a .25 Bauer ( small pistol)
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Apr 25 18:37:16
And also, there is this.

http://www...es/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

Page 7. The rate of assault in the USA is substantially lower than the UK, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and quite a few other European countries. The difference is shocking.

Per 100k
Scotland 1487 (violence capital of OECD)
Sweden 927
England and Wales 730
Belgium 718
Germany 630
.
.
.
United States 262

The USA is actually a less violent society than the UK and Sweden and hell on earth, Scotland. They just have more violence with a deadly outcome. One explanation could be that guns actually raise the threshold for violence.
Habebe
Member
Sun Apr 25 20:04:26
Really? To be honest I had thought we were generally much more violent as a country.

Id bet our capitol is worse, its really just the national mall area surrounded by a flaming ball of shit.
Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 23:38:26
Jergul, Nim:

You are missing the point. I do not answer the door with a carving knife in hand nore keep one under the bed. Merely that it is an as, or more, effective form of self defence / deterrence as a hand gun. Robbers of houses in the UK are generally not armed with guns, nor do robbers show up with stab proof vests etc.

House invasions are rare in the UK. When they do happen, when they do they normally always target the elderly, and unless the person is going to answer the door every time gun in hand armed and ready; then a gun isn't going to provide any protection.

The net effect of widespread gun ownership then is that the ease and chances of robbers having a gun goes up and robbery becomes both more lethal and more common, as does other forms of crime committed with a gun.

When gun prevalence is very low, the argument that they should be generally permitted for self defence falls down.

Since banning hand guns, their use in violent crime in the UK has fallen (as has the kinds of crime where hand guns would confer a growing advantage to criminals, as has crimes were the theoretical potential for the victim to have a gun is supposedly a deterrent).

This strongly suggests for the UK, banning hand guns was the right move.

But the UK is not the US.

Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 23:39:24
Nim:

Another could be that the definition of assault is different.
Seb
Member
Sun Apr 25 23:46:15
Indeed, you of the violent crimes, that's the only one where the US is significantly lower.

Intentional homicide, rape, and robbery are all either higher or the same.

Given most assaults in England and Scotland are drink related I suspect it is more due to our drinking culture, as anyone who has witnessed the centre of town at 11am on a Friday night in a big British city can attest.

Adding hand guns to that mix seems incredibly daft.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 26 02:45:44
I am not sure what point I am missing. You brought up your fencing skills and carving knife, I added manly strength. This is your outlook on defence and security when/if someone provides a challange to it. I just said, not everyone starts from this place of strength and confidence, surely you can see the inequality? And these are the kinds of inequalities a government diversity program, simply isn’t going to cover.

Personal security would extend outside the home. We don’t generally need to answer the door with a gun, there are layers to home security.

I understand your conclusion, I just don’t think the case has been made for it. The net effect is the product of many variables, not just gun ownership. That is why a comparison within OECD makes sense and not say with Yemen. I don’t think it is reasonable to deprive women (or anyone else) of effective tools for self defence, because of the net effect and an analysis largely viewed through the eyes of people who generally weigh 50% more than them, and that can overpower them with 1 hand, men.

And before we question the methodology, we should read the preamble. It says the UK together with some other European countries, have been known as ”crime hotspots” since 2004. Obviously I am not saying ”if only you had guns”. My point here is that guns isn’t this huge factor in the net effect equation (broadly) as many people think, either way. There are ”gunless” societies on that list with far lower violence than the USA.

While variation on the definition of rape and the difficulty of cross nation comparison is well established, I am not aware of this being the case for assault and murder. We can of course look at victimization studies since these are plagued by legal definitions, as a supplement. I can’t be asked to dig it up now, but we looked at them a few years ago on UP. It told the same tale, the USA has less violence, but more deadly violence.

It really shouldn’t run counter to intuition, that a high gun ownership (in a stable and affluent society) would have a civilizing effect. Most people are after all, civilized and decent. It isn’t necessarily the case, but it shouldn’t require a suspense of disbelief.

I don’t believe ”assault” is ”just assault”, it is the lion share of violence in any society, guns or no guns. Rape is more complicated, because there is the sexual component, which doesn’t exists in assault, generally.

So, at some point the equation becomes, how many assaults per 100k should we be willing to absorb to have less dead due to violence? Ironically the numbers I posted are proportional. You have 1/5 the murders and roughly 5 times the assaults.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 26 03:00:27
Violence with a deadly outcome is the extreme end of violence. We can on many levels make violence less deadly, e.g ban weapons and provide better trauma care. We are in some ways then fooled into thinking our society is less violent, because there are less dead bodies, that make up these neat and discrete units of measure. But are we less violent?

I think you also have a threshold. You wouldn’t accept any amount of non lethal violence, for the price of less deadly violence.
Seb
Member
Mon Apr 26 04:24:52
Nim:

The point was a bit indirect: the intent was to be faintly ridiculous. Using carving knife to prevent a home invasion is to some degree credible; but doesn't deter in practice in the same way having a gun doesn't really deter.

My post possibly missed it's mark.

Stripping away the stylistic flourish, my point is that the threat of being injured etc. by someone defending their property is baked in. Criminals approach to entering the property is structured in such a way as to ensure the residents are easily overpowered before they can lay their hand on any weapon.

"The net effect is the product of many variables, not just gun ownership.That is why a comparison within OECD makes sense and not say with Yemen."

Well, is anyone using Yemen as a comparator? My point about the US is that it is closer to Yemen in that sense than it is to say, the UK in terms of guns, so policy will be different.

Your will get more useful information though from looking at trends in counties where gun laws have changed then in straight up comparisons between oecd counties.

"It really shouldn’t run counter to intuition, that a high gun ownership (in a stable and affluent society) would have a civilizing effect. "

Danger here of confirmation bias. You are trying too hard to find data to validate your hypothesis, and not approaching it from a skeptical approach.
Of the crime data you cite, only one crime seems to fit the pattern. If the hypothesis that guns have a civilising effect, but only for assaults and not murder,robbery and rape - it's far more likely there is something up with the Assaults that's not to do with your null hypothesis.

The obvious one is drink. Northern European countries drinking culture (go out, get utterly smashed, have a fight over stupid shit like sports) is far more pronounced than in the US; and a breakdown of UK assaults data will show the vast majority of it is associated with drinking and occurs at turning out time.

I'll admit that this leaves open the possibility that people would be more restrained if they knew people might be armed but I suspect not. Drunken people are not known for restraint, and the fact that other violent crimes in the US don't show this deterrent factor gives little reason to be confident that it would here.

You are a long long way from being in a position to "prove" that gun ownership reduces rates of assault. Indeed, if we look at countries that reduced gun or indeed letter weapon ownership (through law or where already illegal or regulates through e.g. amnesties to reduce prevalence of illegal weapons) you will not see the expected rise in assaults due to reduced deterrence effects.

You have to be careful not to construct your hypothesis to fit around your data and the gaps in it.




Seb
Member
Mon Apr 26 04:28:14
And needless to say, ideally we shouldn't make policy on the basis of a hunch or reasoning from first principles when the policy has such a clear high risk of causing harm itself.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 26 05:33:08
Fair enough, but I still think the right to defend yourself, not just in your house - which I explained has additional layers that can be fortified - is important. Rights are useless without the ability to use them. If there was an issue I was very positive towards equalization, it would be the fundamental right to defend life and property.

I am not arguing against the complex nature of violence, I am trying to give violence, a more holistic scope, not just the extreme outcomes. Why ”assault”, because it is by far the most common form of direct violence between people, often supplementary to other crimes, like rape, robbery and murder. That is what is up with assault, it is objectively a broader, and according to me also a better measure for violence.

Bias or not, if guns have a civilizing effect or not is an empirical question, and I think it is an interesting component. Most importantly though, I think we are fooled by the extremes here. Just look at it this way, isn’t this an important and embarassing revelation for you, that the UK has so much violence compared to the USA (assuming it isn’t a statistical illusion)? It was for me with regards to Sweden.

The difference may be that I approach guns, in that broader context of violence, because guns are an effective way of projecting violence.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 26 05:37:27
Because you didn’t know, that the UK ranks like this relative to the USA, and your intuitions, like mine, did not predict these numbers. Because the only violence you and I hear about from the USA is: gun violence with a deadly outcome. Actually an even narrower band of if, mass shootings. We are all going into this biased seb.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 26 06:09:50
”has such a clear high risk of causing harm itself.”

That is the debate. It isn’t clear when viewed in a broader context of violence. And my contribution to policy around guns, would be to expand the view and include the factors that defy intuition, for what problems guns solve. Because they also solve problems, they are not just the cause of problems. Like most things in life.
Seb
Member
Mon Apr 26 07:25:26
Nim:

But I do know the UK has high rates of assault - it was a major issues a few years back around police cuts - I also know it's hugely linked to alcohol.

I also recall at the time it was raised that the way we count assaults is odd too, and tends to lead to a larger figure.
Seb
Member
Mon Apr 26 07:31:17
Nim:

"It isn’t clear when viewed in a broader context of violence. "

Err, it is clear.

The handgun ban resulted in a large drop in violence and lethality. Guns used to be commonly used in gang violence, and are now far less.

It is highly likely that if we repealed that ban, that violence would increase.

I see very little persuasive in your argument that comparative differences in US and UK assault stats have anything to do with wider gun ownership; and even if they did that increasing gun ownership would therefore cause UK figures to drop.

Given what we do know with high certainty that one impact of repealling the hand gun ban would be to increase some harms; you would need very very strong evidence to demonstrate that it would be offset by positives.

Seb
Member
Mon Apr 26 16:28:38
http://www...s-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/

Here we go:

As Bier put it, "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "the British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’ "
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Apr 26 18:11:17
Is there a reason you post an article to refute ”violent crime” as a difficult to compare definition, when I posted an article that compared ”assault” with ”assault”?

Quite a low resolution error you made here, simply by not paying attention to, well, anything I have said or even the article I posted. And why? Because you think *I* make these low resolution mistakes.

I think you are better served, if you assume you are not smarter than me, or that you would even rank in the top 20 of intelligent people I know, because you simply are not. And trust me, it will make for far better conversations.
TJ
Member
Mon Apr 26 21:15:17
I'm beginning to view this thread similar to an MD prescribing a medication that disguises symptoms of a disease for relief. Soon the side effects develop from the action taken and will need relief becoming a repetitive process. Not a totally bad thing mind you, but guns don't get to the root causes of violence.

Violent people will use what is at their disposal whether it is a gun, knife, bat, fists, bricks, iron pipes, fire, or bombs. The list is nearly endless and when any are used violently can cause extreme harm and death.

Does anyone realize that the bulk of violent crime historically correlates with specific ages? The who, why and where seems more important when it comes to discovery and solution.

The who, where and why of violence gets to the nitty gritty. I prefer the view of looking in all the right places that will provide a realistic direction to achieve the best correction. Discover the cause and you can treat the disease correctly. The unconscious and conscious bias appears to be frenemies with poor strategies and they appear to be winning.

In general people are nibblers of good food and gorgers of rot. You can cut off the foot of a diabetic, but nothing is done to change the behavior that caused the foot to be removed. In the same light we can remove a tool being used incorrectly by a violent person, but we do little to nothing in solving violent behavior.

The knowledge is available, yet it is treated as a red hot item no one wants to touch allowing it to burn into ashes. Maybe the vision of the forest is blocked by focusing on the tree.

One thing I don't particularly enjoy is wasting time, energy and monetary value. The blood, sweat and tears deserve the best and most direct attention the world is capable of offering. The majority of people are not violent aggressors.
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 27 11:49:18
Nim:

Read the full link - but as I recall the US definition of assault for the purpose of OECD stats etc. isn't the same as the UK's, one reason for the discrepancy.

And then there is everything else I've said which is independent of this.

I understand you want to cling to your hypothesis, one of the saddest things in science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly truth.
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 27 11:52:59
TJ:

Yup, but someone who decides to be violent has a much greater capacity do harm if he has access to a gun rather than a lead pipe.

There is also a good deal of evidence that suggests it is psychologically easier to commit violence with a gun as opposed to one that requires physical exertion to be deployed.

Preventative measures are lovely, but it doesn't alter the fact that gun control *does* work to reduce violence in addition, based on studies of changes in gun laws.

http://wat...ZV_7nNxc-q1vtZSUEFCOq3CNyO5GCw
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 27 11:59:06
http://www...e-effects-of-gun-policies.html

See also this by RAND, which found that stand your ground rules increases firearm homicides (strongly supported by evidence) and concealed carry rules increase violent crime rates (limited support from evidence).
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Apr 27 12:32:04
Seb trying to understand stats and studies. How cute.

Please explain seb, why democrat controlled inner cities have the toughest gun laws but also the most murders? Please explain why switzerland has so many guns and so little crime?

Hmmmm....
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 27 12:39:34
Sam:

"Please explain seb, why democrat controlled inner cities have the toughest gun laws but also the most murders? Please explain why switzerland has so many guns and so little crime?"

In which Sam once again fails to understand how to control for covariant.

The answer is because there are other factors that affect gun crime which you have not controlled for.

Feel free to take it up with the authors of the studies etc.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Apr 27 14:03:12
"In which Sam once again fails to understand how to control for covariant."

Uh oh... seb is learning. Now take it one step further. If you want to control guns to reduce violence, should you not also want to control these other factors? Especially since the correlation between a couple of those factors and gun crime is vastly stronger than the gun itself?
habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 14:05:53
"stand your ground rules increases firearm homicides (strongly supported by evidence"

Define firearm "homicides"

I mean , are they counting someone assaulting someone who then gets shot as a homicide?
habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 14:07:37
"The answer is because there are other factors that affect gun crime which you have not controlled for."

Homo sapiens africanus?
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Apr 27 14:13:08
Please use the correct term.

Criminal-americans.
Habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 14:36:36
I'm a criminal American, but I'm not out there raping, looting and burning cities in a mostly peacefully protest.
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 27 14:55:29
Sam:

I'm all for eliminating poverty and improving education in inner city areas.

Higher education spending, higher minimum wage, job creation, subsidised child care - all excellent policies.

Habebe:
"I'm a criminal American,"

Indeed. Which is why we really shouldn't listen to a word you have to say on this matter.
Habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 15:55:24
Seb, Im fairly sure I'm a protected class now, and you just committed a hate crime.
Seb
Member
Tue Apr 27 16:11:51
Habebe:

I thought you weren't even allowed to vote in the US as an ex con. Doesn't seem very protected to me.
Habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 16:19:39
Pretty sure that's only while incarcerated. Maybe during probation?

Or certain crimes, like say voter fraud.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Apr 27 16:34:35
"I'm all for eliminating poverty and improving education in inner city areas."

So am I. Lol.
Habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 17:16:13
Hahahaha....the back to Africa program?
kargen
Member
Tue Apr 27 18:54:51
"Higher education spending, higher minimum wage, job creation, subsidised child care - all excellent policies."

People that think more money will fix the problems with education are the problem with education.

Higher minimum wage is not a good idea in a country with a diverse economy. A localized living wage would be a much better solution.

It isn't the governments place to create jobs. Nor is it the governments place to prop up sectors within the business community.

Assistance with pre-school costs I think would be okay but still could be better handled by the private sector than by the government. What would help more than anything would be a relaxing of restrictions for those wanting to provide a day care service.
Habebe
Member
Tue Apr 27 19:40:55
"Nor is it the governments place to prop up sectors within the business community."

Well, that depends, certain sectors may have influence on national security or such.
kargen
Member
Tue Apr 27 19:46:21
yeah that distinction can be made until if gets carried to the extremes as some are trying.

Let the private sector and the consumers decide when we are ready for electric cars as example. No need to give car companies billions to force those care upon us.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 02:44:33
Kargen:

The distinction in terminology between regional living wage and (national) minimum wage is parochial not universal.

A regional living wage is a minimum wage policy. I did not say *national* minimum wage.

"It isn't the governments place to create jobs."
1. That's a normative choice not a universal principle. Explain from first principles why that should be the case.
2. I didn't say the govt should directly create jobs, but I do think employment (how this is done: creating conditions for employment Vs direct employment) *must* be a govt responsibility if you have a system that does not provide comfortable safety net because the system is predicated on anyone who wants a job being able to get a job that provides acceptable standards of living that does not fuel social breakdown and the societal costs that entails.

"certain sectors may have influence on national security or such."
It is a strange society that concerns itself with the negligible threat to its population from external attack but not the very real threats to its population from disease, poverty and the impact that has on violent crime.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 02:46:08
Particularly if the role of the police is not to prevent crime. For the victims of crime, you are offering negligible protection.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 05:15:19
Kargen:

"No need to give car companies billions to force those care upon us"

This argument assumes no external costs.

Taken to this kind of extreme we have the idea that it is an affront to my freedoms to not be able to create exact replicas of 20 dollar bills, and sell them as such. It would only be illegal if someone fraudulently chose to pass them off as payment to someone else.

Obviously, we make manufacturing such items a crime.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 05:40:46
Seb
Here are other figures:

per 1000 UK
Violence with injury 9
Violence without injury 12
http://www...nenglandandwalesappendixtables

per 1000 USA
Aggravated assault 3.7
Simple assault 13.7
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv19.pdf

The interesting things are the lower numbers in both cases, because the higher figures include threats of violence in both cases. I think actual violence is crossing a boundary that is important for the discussion of how violent a society is. Talk is cheap, as they say. And even with these figure you are >100% more violent than the USA. You are simply a very violent country, like Sweden. But because this violence isn't very eye catching (like murder and rape), our societies are lulled into believing a bunch of nonsense.

*And I think it is a bit odd, I claimed you were not aware of how you rank, you said you knew and since then you have tried to convince me, the figures are all wrong.*

I am of the conviction that violence, like energy, can't really be destroyed, it goes from one form to another. There is a potential violence underneath the surface of our societies, programmed into our DNA, waiting for a catalyst. One component of that reaction threshold is the perceived cost of projecting violence. That cost has 2 major components, the immediate and direct cost, risk of death or serious injury, and the long term costs, prison and the loss of social currency.

On both accounts, the UK and Sweden have lowered these thresholds. We don't have capital punishment and our sentences are lower for violent crimes compared to the USA. We take pride in our humane treatment (Assange extradition fell through because of this) of the criminals in our societies. And of course, people are not armed in our societies.

We have inadvertently incentivized this violence, because, I assert, our societies don't understand it at a fundamental level. At a fundamental level, violence is currency. Either directly, to be expended for other peoples' stuff, or indirectly as social currency in a game of dominance, respect and honor.

Human behavior as this crude level, really isn't rocket science.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 07:23:44
"but as I recall the US definition of assault for the purpose of OECD stats"

Hence why I said, fairly early, we can supplement with victimization studies, because that data isn't subject to the changes in legal definition. I have sort of made this journey with rape stats. It was shown via these kinds of surveys that Sweden indeed had a significant rise in sexual offences, irrespective of the broadening of the definition and under-reporting.

"stand your ground rules"

Isn't what I am talking about though, but FYI "homicide" isn't by virtue of killing a human, illegal as per that definition. There is a thing called "justifiable homicide" and these are generally "committed" in acts of self-defense. This is how the Swedish legal system is set up as well, "physical violence" is illegal in Sweden, but such acts of physical violence are exempted from legal punishment if they are in self-defense, but paragraph still starts with the fact that physical violence is illegal, unless x y and z.

It isn't clear from the study you posted that they have made this differentiation and intuitively, why would stand your ground laws, lead to more unlawful homicides? Obviously it will lead to more deadly confrontation, but the general murder rates in society? Difficult pathway to imagine on a large scale.

So, in that light, where is the surprise that guns together with stand your ground laws, will lead to more people getting shot and killed [in self-defense]? Arguably, this isn't the harbinger of calamity you think it is.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 07:54:34
And just to be clear, I am not proposing the UK harmonize their gun laws with the US. What I am really doing is showing that there is another form of existence and social organization than the one in the UK and Sweden.

I am ultimately explaining, what I often find myself explaining to Europeans, that the USA isn't a worse place than Europe, it is different. You may not like how they have solved the equations of social order, but they work, they work quite well and in many ways better than here. It is the same thing I tell Americans who think universal health care is going to destroy their way of life. It works quite well and in many ways better than your system.

I actually agree with you that things and stuff are generally contextual, I just provided a broader (and imo appropriate) context for guns and yes, I believe there are few items in our social organization that never become outdated in any context. Effective means for self-defense and health care are two of those things - We should all have access to them regardless of our physical abilities and financial situation. Life and health are unique in that every other experience is contingent on their integrity.

My ideas around "life" are among the few principles I am not willing to negotiate or undermine, and my concerns start at conception.

It is a fact, *you* could kill your wife with 1 hand and you are probably, like me, not a physical specimen, but fairly average in terms of strength and body size. You have not taken steroids or decades of martial arts training, yet this is the context we live in.

If you can invent something better than a gun, by all means go right ahead.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Apr 28 07:58:43
Yes, I convinced my wife to join me in my quest for a hunting license, she has no interest in hunting, she is more the pick berries and mushrooms person. My primary aim was, if we are going to have rifles in the house, I want her to feel comfortable with them and be able to use them properly.
Seb
Member
Wed Apr 28 08:03:26
Nim:

What are the definitions of violence with injury and violence without injury; and are they fully equivalent to aggravated and simple assault?

You need to look at the full chain - particularly how they are counted for reporting purposes. For example; there can be a difference where multiple crimes can apply to an individual event; do we rely on reports, police records, arrests etc.

"you said you knew and since then you have tried to convince me, the figures are all wrong"

I have tried to persuade you that the figures are not comparable in the way that you want them to be - and do not support the argument you want to make because you have completely ignored alternative reasons for why (even if a normalised comparator was created) these might be different; and instead leapt to the idea that the main driver is gun ownership.

This is not a sensible way to do analysis.

show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share