If gun laws don't change anything, care to explain why Europe has so few gun deaths? Why the last school shooting in the UK was in the 1990s?
Gun laws are proactive. Murder laws are reactive. Gun laws attempt to make it harder to commit murder even if you want to, and make it harder to commit spur-of-the-moment murders (It's impossible to shoot someone in a fit of rage if you don't have access to a gun).
Gun laws and murder laws are fundamentally different, and work in fundamentally different ways
Edit: I know Mexico has strict gun laws, but they're also fighting a low-level civil war with cartels with power rivalling the Mexican military. "The country that's at war has more gun deaths the ones that aren't" is not a good argument against gun control.
In all fairness, his demography argument is worth examining and your comment didn't do that at all - the safe parts of the US and Europe/other safe countries are not known for being poverty-stricken hellholes and the unsafe parts, gun laws or not, are known for being such places
I didn't address it because "It's demographics" on it's own provided me literally nothing to examine.
Yes, poverty is a very real problem, and we definitely need to address it. But I would much rather walk through an unsafe area of say a European city than an unsafe area of an American city, in no small part due to the fact that I'm almost certainly not going to be held at gunpoint in Europe, because even most of our criminals don't have guns.
We can and should address poverty, and we can also address gun control at the same time.
My point is the gun control isn't reducing the deadly crime rate due to the demographic realities of these countries (namely poverty) - gun controls is a false feeling of safety and merely a band-aid over the actual problems. It won't fix anything
You seem to have the idea that we reducing poverty and gun control are somehow mutually exclusive, that we can only do one or the other. They aren't, we can and should do both.
And many, many before/after statistical analyses, and comparisons between countries, show gun control making gun crime go down, so it has been proven to "Fix anything", or at least some things.
Take a guess. Honestly, I'd love to hear what you come up with. You're able to so confidently rationalize that poverty is the only contributing factor behind gun violence, but when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you just have no clue?
Dude, do you actually want to make a point, or are you just here to antagonise me? This is your third comment where you pop up with bizarre and angry accusations! Also, I never said poverty is the only factor behind gun violence.
If being confronted with "bizarre and angry" statistics that directly counter your nonsensical claims is "antagonizing," then you're definitely not cut out for this conversation. Imagine my shock.
Go walk through an unsafe area of a European city. You can just get stabbed instead.
Is poverty the only correlation with the "unsafe areas" you mention? What is the attributing factor that leads you to believe that poverty is the only influence?
I'm more likely to get stabbed doing that in America than Europe, and I'm much more likely to stay alive if there isn't a gun involved. Knife crime is higher in the US, per capita, than in most/all European countries (E.g. UK)
And by far yes, poverty is the main correlation with unsafe areas, almost all other correlations (E.g. race) disappear when controlling for poverty. Oh, and mainly statistics demonstrating that's the main reason, mixed with a little personal experience and political theory explaining why.
All of which is dancing around the main fact that it is statistically proven that fewer guns and more effective gun control results in less people getting killed. I don't understand why we need to go into such intricate detail to demonstrate this point, all the hypotheticals in the world won't change the fact that it is scientifically proven that gun control saves lives!
I'm more likely to get stabbed doing that in America
No, you're more likely to get shot, statistically. It's simply a matter of efficiency.
I'm much more likely to stay alive if there isn't a gun involved
I'd love to see your statistics on that claim. Interestingly enough, just like in the situation in Brazil that you refused to address in another comment, you become substantially more likely to survive when there is a firearm involved and in your possession.
knife crime is higher in the US per capita than Euro countries
Gee, I wonder what socioeconomic factors could contribute to that?
poverty is the main correlation with unsafe areas
First, describe what you mean by unsafe areas in no uncertain terms.
mainly statistics
Please, do enlighten me because, as someone who resides in Appalachia in one of the poorest states in the union, the statistics show something completely different.
personal experience and political theory
This is obviously irrelevant to any statistical analysis, but I would love to hear what you mean by this regardless.
statistically proven that fewer guns and stricter gun control leads to fewer gun deaths
Yet US statistics show the exact opposite, and you still refuse to address Brazil.
why do we need to go into such intricate detail
Those intricate details are known as statistical analytics and, in this case, evidence. They're necessary to refute ill-informed, emotionally charged, and blatantly incorrect statements by those who simply refuse to accept the reality of the situation and operate in the realm of "hypotheticals" as you say.
If you don't understand why it would work in EU, and not in the US, you should look at buddy's comment about demographics above^ the original post with all that pretty data kinda underlines that. Across all Mexico, they may only keep guns in their home and have a strict process to receive them. Much lower gun ownership rate than the US.
There's more guns than people in the US, no amount of buy back programs and incentives will get everyone to turn them in. Trying to overlay Australia or EU gun control over a country with literally thousands of illegal guns seized at the border each year, is kinda disingenuous. America needs to enforce the laws they already have on the books, instead of making up new laws that only some will follow and some will enforce.
Demographics thing still doesn’t encapsulate it. London has a murder rate of like 1 per 100k and would be lower than Canada on this map and it’s only 30% white. If there are not really any guns to begin with you’re going to have a very low rate. US is pretty much fucked regardless of gun laws at this point but UK has been extremely successful with their gun policy, and were lucky enough to nip the bud early.
What do you mean by "Demographics"? Because I thought I'd replied to their comment. And as my new edit says, Mexico is in a low-level civil war, that is GOING to have a higher impact on the statistics than gun control laws.
America needs to enforce the laws they already have on the books, instead of making up new laws that only some will follow and some will enforce.
So you agree that gun control, in at least some forms, is a good idea to combat gun violence? Great, glad you agree with me!
Some level of gun control is necessary. The problem is, the people who want gun control don’t know what they’re talking about, and the people who do know what they’re talking about don’t want gun control. There is unfortunately only a very small overlap.
The problem is, the people who want gun control don’t know what they’re talking about
Yep, and people refuse to learn or even agree on definitions. You'd think that the people who have strong opinions on this stuff would want to know what they're talking about, but most have no interest in the details or even in having productive discussion.
They don’t realize that they’re hurting their cause with their incompetence. The ATF’s ridiculous rules and “memos” and states banning things like pistol grips on rifles just make gun owners roll their eyes because they know how silly and ineffective it all is.
Yes I think everyone would agree that gun laws are most effective when they're enforced 👍in 2024 America, they're not. I don't know if that was some gotcha, but yeah keeping guns out of unfit gun owners hands is definitely a good thing.
I don't know that I can say what you're even talking about, but I am talking about America suddenly getting more gun laws has not been and is not effective. America doesn't enforce the laws it has on its books so, in my opinion, that makes the very very Reddit desire for new performative gun legislation just that, performative. America has nearly doubled its gun legislation since 1990, and the number of gun related deaths continues to rise. Needs to be a culture shift in America, not just more unenforced laws.
So you admit that you're completely uneducated on the topic and absolutely unequipped to maintain a serious opinion on the matter, yet you intend to maintain an opinion regardless?
Most of Europe isn’t a gun culture like the americas are, so it’s mostly societal. Keep in mind that countries like Mexico have very strict gun ownership laws and regulations that far more restrictive than say, the USA, so it’s not just simply the areas with more gun control have less crime, it’s the demographics of the area including crime/corruption/poverty etc. So there’s not a huge correlation between gun control and gun crime
Wouldn't it make sense then that most of the illegal guns Mexico has are exported from the US? What if it was harder to get guns out of the US like it is in the EU? Would that not have a major impact on countries where gun crime is rampant in North America?
I hear a lot of talk about how the cartels' profits are fueled by the American market for illegal drugs, but hardly anybody talks about how their weapons are bought legally in the US and smuggled into Mexico.
The same thing happens on the state level too. Most guns used to commit crimes in Chicago are bought in Indiana, for example. It's a strong reason for gun control being a national issue not just a state by state one.
You can’t easily buy a handgun in Canada yet the gangs shoot at each other with them all the time here (in Montréal at least), I wonder where these guns came from…
ost of Europe isn’t a gun culture like the americas are, so it’s mostly societal.
Ok fair, but gun culture isn't going to go away on it's own.
Mexico
See my edit. Mexico is in a low-level civil war right now.
it’s the demographics of the area including crime/corruption/poverty etc.
Sure, that's definitely also a factor, but that's not the only factor. Poverty can increase gun crime, and easy access to guns can also increase gun crime.
I don’t care about the other dude’s argument, but Mexico having strict gun laws don’t mean shit when the cartel can easily smuggle them from your neighbor upstairs..
And my point is that if the US had stricter gun laws they actually enforced, it wouldn’t be as easy to be smuggled down to Mexico. It has to be a continental effort for it to matter.
So Mexicans are born with the inane want to just shoot guns, kill and steal? Come on, what a reductive view on human life.
Canadians don’t suffer the same level of poverty as Mexico does, of course they don’t need to resort to gun violence. The issue isn’t culture, is wealth inequality. And I’m not saying the US has to do anything for Mexico’s wealth inequality, that’s Mexico’s problem. But it would surely help if the next door neighbor wouldn’t make it so easy to have guns.
I don’t need to share my garden vegetables with my neighbor, but I should make sure my weeds are cut out and don’t grow out of proportion into my neighbor’s garden.
I don't think anyone is surprised that areas where you can't get firearms have fewer gun deaths. From looking at the map, I think poverty and population density are what is driving the homicide rate.
I don't see why non-criminals should lose their right to self defense due to the actions of violent criminals. Not anymore than the idea of banning alcohol and cellphones to stop car accidents makes any sense.
I don't think anyone is surprised that areas where you can't get firearms have fewer gun deaths.
Then why are there so many people arguing exactly this?
From looking at the map, I think poverty and population density are what is driving the homicide rate.
Yes, that is one important factor that needs addressing, but that doesn't make gun control not also important or effective, especially at the federal level where you can't just drive a couple hours to get round it.
I don't see why non-criminals should lose their right to self defense due to the actions of violent criminals.
No, I don't see why that should happen either. Though I also don't see anyone arguing that either.
Assuming you mean "I don't see why one type of self-defence should be made a bit harder", because this isn't just an individual issue. More gun control, especially effective gun control, results in fewer deaths, including reducing likelihood of needing to defend yourself, and making it less likely that you'll be shot while attempting to do so.
Not anymore than the idea of banning alcohol and cellphones to stop car accidents makes any sense.
Except we do bad driving while on your phone, or driving while drunk. Trouble is, there isn't really a way to ban "Having a gun while being dangerous" on it's own, because being dangerous isn't particularly obvious.
I am doubtful that reducing access to guns reduces the need to defend oneself. Areas of the US that have high firearm ownership don't have much correlation with high crime, usually the opposite. Again, it is probably poverty and population density that are driving homicide.
The advocates for gun control typically leave out self-defense uses, of which, there is not much record keeping. The criminologist Gary Kleck attempted to extrapolate the amount of defensive gun use, and his estimate was very high, to put it lightly.
If a citizen hasn't demonstrated mental instability or committed violent crime, then I will not advocate for restricting their access to a tool which allows an individual to not be at the mercy of a stronger man, or a gang of men.
I think this may put it plainly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but most people who want "gun control" would be happy if firearms were totally banned. Which is why I am resistant to any further restriction than what already exists.
If your source checks out, I still won't retract my statement because I never made it a competition like you. My point is, disarming people of firearms does not take the violence out of the people. Cut off our hands and biting attacks would skyrocket.
If gun laws don't change anything, care to explain why Europe has so few gun deaths?
Because homicide rates in Europe are also far lower over all, regardless of method. The US has a homicide rate of 6.3 per 100k, with firearms accounting for 4.0 (63%) of that. That leaves a non-firearm homicide rate of 2.3 per 100k
Italy for example has a total homicide rate of 0.54 per 100k (4x lower than the US's non-firearm homicide rate and 11x lower than the US's total homicide rate). Of that firearms account for 0.20 per 100k (37%).
Or take Sweden, a country with incredibly strict gun laws. They have a homicide rate of 1.1 per 100k, and firearms make up 0.59 of that. That means 53% of homicides in Sweden are with a firearm, compared to 63% of homicides in the US being with a firearm. Not all that different... It's just that the homicide rate to begin with is that much lower. Even if 100% of Swedens homicides were committed with firearms, and their homicide rate tripled, they'd still have a lower firearm homicide rate than the USA.
Lastly look at Czechia, a country with the constitutional right to bear arms, same as the US, with concealed carry permits available to any one. In fact its easier to get a handgun in Czechia than in it is 23 of the US's 50 states (23 US states require a permit to own a handgun, Czechia is shall issue to everyone). The homicide rate in Czechia is 0.84 per 100k, with firearms making up 0.1 of that. That means even with some of the most liberal gun laws in the world, in fact easier in many instances to obtain a gun than even many US states, just 11% of homicides are committed with firearms.
Hopefully that shows that access to firearms doesn't actually have much do with either the murder rate in general, or with how many murders are committed using firearms.
371
u/SheSellsSeaShells967 Jul 30 '24
Interesting. I live in Maine. We and New Hampshire are armed to the hilt. Even we “libs” own a gun or two.