Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
fwiw...
this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....
I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.
so...
country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents
US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26
The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?
If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:
country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents
US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26
Right? |
I appreciate an analytical mind. But, all you have done is prove the "Oh, Duh" statement of Mavdog: Crime committed with guns is more lethal.
I have never argued contrary to that idea. Yes, Yes, Yes. Guns produce more lethal outcomes when crime is committed with guns.
Still doesn't deal with the issue.
The issues are:
The criminal has a gun. I need a gun to defend myself.
The nation/society needs a militia of armed citizens for its own safety as a state/society (Switzerland as Exhibit A).
Now, we can talk about having a UK style seizure and destruction of weapons (that is what happened there) and a ban on almost all types of guns.
But, that leaves the UK in the same boat as Greece, India, and France: the innocent civilians/citizens cannot defend themselves when all hell breaks loose. Greek citizens can't protect their property against an anarchal riot. The citizens of India suffer 500 deaths and injured persons at the hands of a dozen militants with small arms and grenades and are powerless to defend themselves. And, French citizens could do nothing to defend themselves against the Islamic riots that broke out earlier.
That stuff doesn't happen in Switzerland and Texas because the citizens there would just shoot the idiots themselves...
So, that brings us back to the question. What is the cost/benefit consideration of an armed citizenry?
What is the cost/benefit of the automobile industry (cost is hundreds of thousands of annual deaths)? Shall we just kill the automobile industry since it is about to go bancrupt anyway?
Now, if you want solutions, then here are the ideas I stand behind:
1)as the guns cannot be removed from the hands of the criminally minded anyway and as the US Second Amendment prevents a UK style seizure of guns anyway, then the answer is not in gun control (if gun control is defined as elimination of guns).
2)We continue to seek the ideals of giving guns to the good guys and preventing their possession to the bad guys. But, this is a pipe dream although we all support trying.
3)We do what Rudy Giuliani did in NYC. We
a)increase the punishment
b)assign the punishment in court if guilty
c)prevent the correctional facilities from letting them go early or reducing the penalty.
Rudy's plan worked in NYC. If it works there, then why not expand it across the nation? Do we really have to keep debating ideas when we have good evidence and history about what works?