U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

Story:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/opinio ... d-in-iowa/

As opposed to someone who keeps proposing an unworkable and abuse prone "solution" to a problem? Show me a place where gun registration has ever done anything positive and not been abused, and maybe I can start taking you seriously on this, otherwise you're just another person with some pet idea that refuses to apply any critical thinking to it, lest they have to change their opinion.

So, Dox et. all: as experts on this subject, what would you do - what actual actions would you put in place - to reduce the rate of gun deaths in the US?

As I've said many, many times in the past, stop focusing on the guns and focus on the root causes of violence; desperation and socioeconomic factors that make violence or suicide seem the only viable options. Reforming the criminal justice system, drug laws in particular, would be an excellent start that would drop crime faster and further than any gun control regime could dream of, and yet people still choose to waste their time on the Quixotic pursuit of the firearms they won't deign to learn about; I have to conclude that actual concern for life is not their true motivation.

As I've also mentioned many times, the US has higher rates of non firearms related crime than countries that are often held up as examples of successful gun control, such as Japan, and we are in fact in the midst of the least violent time we've seen in decades, while also seeing a massive spike in firearms sales. In light of those trends, I could actually say 'do nothing', and still have more empirical evidence to back me up than any of the gun control proponents I've argued with over the years have ever had for their schemes.

Not that you'll take my word as a demonstrated expert on this subject, of course.

Well, the firearms sales are to fewer and fewer people; there are more guns out there, but fewer people are actually carrying guns. So that one (crime rate vs. gun ownership) could go either way.

Wrt. other reforms: do you know of any data showing that drug legalization/decriminalization (a la Amsterdam, or wherever) decreases the murder rate (aside from the US experience with alcohol? Note that I agree with you on that one - I support decriminalizing pot for that reason, among others)? Do you have any suggestions for support measures that will reduce desperation and poverty, without violating your libertarian views?

Actually, CCW permits are way up, and gun culture 2.0 is drawing in people that are not traditional gun owners through shooting sports and video games, to say nothing of the new generation of hunters inspired by culinary or ethical reasons. The 'more guns to less people' thing isn't exactly accurate either, though my source on that was lost in my last hard drive crash so I don't have a link handy.



I'm actually working backwards on that one, using the percentage of violent crime that is directly tied to the drug trade as a guideline for what sort of changes legalization would accomplish, but Prohibition is also an excellent example of crime being tied to an ill advised regulatory scheme.



Guaranteed minimum income in the form of Milton Friedman's proposed reverse income tax. Preferably, implemented in tandem with the reduction or elimination of many other welfare programs that it would make redundant, in order to reduce the constituency that administering complicated government programs entails, who then have perverse incentives not in line with the people whom the programs are ostensibly designed to benefit.

There are also a number of non drug related reforms to the justice system I'd like to see that would make it easier for people to re-assimilate into society rather than fall into recidivism, perhaps based on the Swedish model, and a general reduction in the criminal code across the board. It's far too easy to unknowingly commit felonies these days, and many modern laws don't have any requirement for mens rea, making it possible for just about anyone to be prosecuted at the will of the police and prosecutors who run the system. There are more than 22,000 gun laws alone in this country, many of them arbitrary and pointless, and I've never met anyone who claims a comprehensive knowledge of them, and given my professional background, you'd think I'd at least have heard of such a person if they existed. Explain to me why a shotgun with a 17.9 inch barrel should get someone thrown in jail, while an 18 incher is just fine, or why putting a stock on a pistol, something that makes it more controllable and less concealable, is a federal crime?

"There are more than 22,000 gun laws alone in this country, many of them arbitrary and pointless, and I've never met anyone who claims a comprehensive knowledge of them, and given my professional background, you'd think I'd at least have heard of such a person if they existed."

The folks at home.nra.org do a pretty good overall treatment of Gun Laws by state. But no one can know all of the individual laws of all states on any subject (prob. why an attorney needs to be admitted separately to individual states bars.

The responsible gun owner will familiarize him/her self concerning laws in their state and any state or country they enter with weapons by accessing online the appropriate state division (Justice, etc.) charged with making this information public. For details for each state there is no shortcut to reading the law word-by-word except contacting the local NRA, or other pro-gun owner group, for each state for a synopsis.

It's a mess for sure and with so many gun laws per state, it's so bad the local police often don't know all the details of the gun laws in their own state.

denny

Dox, this is the type of graph I usually find wrt. gun ownership; does it not jibe with your understanding?
[img][800:723]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/gun-ownership-declining1.png[/img]
In support of one of your positions:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ar/266505/
http://my.firedoglake.com/meeshellchen/ ... -on-drugs/

Then if the availability of guns is a cause of school shootings,shouldn't there be less of them if there are fewer guns?

As always, you and your gun hating brethren on this forum are once again fixated on the notion that the increased availability of firearms is what causes higher rates of violent crime.
The fact is that violent crime is down and gun sales are up, despite that Gallup poll. If you all were right then the streets would be running red with blood.
Find me a thread and a link to it were your side has ever come into these debates with anything valid.

Raptor, gun sales are up because paranoiacs who think that Obama's gunna take ther gunz are hoarding (and I know of half a dozen guns bought in the last 5 years because of this exact reason, as stated by the buyers), not because more people have guns. I agree that sheer number of guns in circulation does not have an impact on violent crime rates; the evidence clearly shows that 'number of guns' does not correlate to 'more gun violence.' But it might simultaneously suggest that 'fewer people with guns at hand' correlates with 'fewer gun deaths/injuries.' Isn't your side always saying that it's about the people, not about the guns?

Also, can you answer the question: What would you do to reduce gun violence?

It was people's mistrust of government that ignited that gun and ammo buying spree. After that it was a matter of pre-existing gun owners stocking up on things that they would have bought anyway.


Once sentence contradicts the other.


That's because it is.


I don't believe we have a problem relevant to guns, other than not enough of them in the right hands at the right time.

Are you being disingenuous, or do you really not understand the difference between the two things?


So your solution for suicides, drug crimes, domestic violence and murder, is "more guns"?

Christ, I rarely agree with Dox on this subject, but he's about two orders of magnitude more sane than you are on this point.

I always find the phrase "reducing gun violence" an interesting one. It seems to me that people who are really interested in reducing violence and not promoting an agenda never put it that way.

Here are some ideas to reduce violence,
Increase the ability of parents to raise nonviolent youth.
Increase alcohol and drug treatments for parents
Promote family and the community
Increase mental health services
Intervene early with at risk youths
Strengthen community standards against violence, harassment, aggression, racism, sexism, heterosexism and bullying.
meet basic family support needs including income, housing, food and nutrition, prenatal and childcare
Provide housing and care for all youth who cannot live at home
give a sense of purpose to youths
teach life and social skills

None of these are dramatic headlines though so you're not likely to see them on the front page of the paper.

^ like.
Not libertarian, though.

Seems reasonable to me. Plenty of violence has been stopped by good people with guns.