Can America be fixed?

pink poodle

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Your examples are from some pretty special locations...corruption, militia, poverty, overt attempting disarm the populace for political gains and so on.

I'd be interested in European homicide rates and gun control practises. Must be a bunch for both ways across the continent.
 
pink poodle

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
The unlawful death impact matrix is pretty complex. You need to look at it from all 3 dimensions.
1) how much of a mess is there? In which direction? Is it easy to clean up? Property damage?
2) how preventable was the incident?
3) how quickly did the victim die? Undue drawn out suffering or a swift instant death?
 
Lazmo

Lazmo

Old and hopeless
Those four countries are all 3rd world, with significant social, crime, poverty and political issues and clearly didn’t enact any actual gun control. The gun laws may have changed, but do you actually really and treally reckon they had significant gun hand ins? Yeah right. Do we know how many weapons were actually handed in? I’m guessing next to zero, so was the gun control law change moot?

OK, they passed a law. Look more dudes are dying... proof.

Bizarre.
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Zaf said:
  • El Salvador in 1999, 2000 and 2004 enacted further controls with the Control and Regulation of Arms, Ammunition, Explosives and Related Materials, the Regulation of the Act on the Control and Regulation of Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Related Materials and the Act on Levies Relative to the Control and Regulation of Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives and Related Materials.
    • It is now the Murder Capital of the World and has had a rising rate since 2000 in homicide rates.
  • Veneuzuala in 2013 introduced the Act on the Disarmament and Control of Arms and Ammunition
    • Has seen an equally rising rate in both Homicides and Kidnapping's since then, in excess of the already gradually rising trend the country was experiencing in these crime sectors since mid 90's.
  • Virgin Islands includes the Firearms Act from 2007 and Firearm and Air Guns Amendment of 2015.
    • Saw a 10 percent increase in homicides over 2014-2015, amongst the title of having the highest murder rate in the Caribbean.
  • Jamaica enacted amendments to the Firearms Act of 1967 in 2010.
    • Homicide rate up 20% as of 2017 and the highest in the world.
If you'd like, I could go on. But I think you're starting to get the picture.

In first world countries, we have been seeing a declining homicide rate since the 1970's. Perhaps a better question would be, can you show me an instance of gun control being enacted that has reduced the homicide rates outside of the already projected margins?
Click to expand...

How long do you think you should wait before you can say that controls haven't worked though?

Those countries you've picked there, El Sal and Ven are countries that suffered decades of civil war and insurgencies. Expecting tighter gun controls to make a difference in a couple of years (after those countries have been awash with unregulated armies, militias and banditry) is clearly silly. Change takes like that takes at least a generation if not 3.

I'm not saying there aren't developed and peaceful countries out there where you couldn't show that 3 generations of controls didn't improve things but those examples you've given seem almost dishonest.


By the way, you're both measuring the wrong thing. You're talking about gun control but measuring homicide, many murders don't involve firearms and are irrelevant when it comes to gun control. Secondly, not all harm to society can be measured by gun deaths, you should be measuring firearm related crime, which includes robbery and many other things.
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Zaf said:
instances of gun control (that you're satisfied is "effective" gun control) reducing homicide rates (total, not gun homicide as a percentage)
Click to expand...
Why are you measuring all homicide rather than just gun homicide when discussing gun laws (if for any other reason than the way the question was framed)?
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Lazmo said:
Those four countries are all 3rd world, with significant social, crime, poverty and political issues and clearly didn’t enact any actual gun control. The gun laws may have changed, but do you actually really and treally reckon they had significant gun hand ins? Yeah right. Do we know how many weapons were actually handed in? I’m guessing next to zero, so was the gun control law change moot?

OK, they passed a law. Look more dudes are dying... proof.

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Actually, Jamaica did a huge amount of enforcement, it even brought the military on the street and upturned whole neighbourhoods for guns and imprisons a lot of people for life for gun crime. It's a gang-led crime scene over there and the place is already awash with guns and doesn't have the best border control.
 
flamin'trek

flamin'trek

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I don’t thibk there will be any convincing Zaf of what most others appear to agree: that gun control is better than no gun control.

Good luck to you Zaf, maybe you should live in a country other than Oz if you are so passionate about guns.
 
Lazmo

Lazmo

Old and hopeless
Why?... I've already read every word, and don't need to read it twice, to know that you haven't given me a compelling argument yet.
 
LPG

LPG

likes thicc birds
Zaf said:
Runs the risk of missing crucial information about the violence in a society. If you ban guns, but then more people start dying from knives, you've shifted and not solved the problem. If you're only looking at gun crime, you'll see a decrease in relation to the percentage of overall, which will give a false reading in comparison to lives being saved and adding a moral equivalence to it (ie, it's better that someone is stabbed than if they were shot).

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Killing people with means other than guns are quite hands on and I would expect a bit too full on for the average person to do in a fit of rage. I suspect having a knife or bat instead of a gun would be a deterrent for most and would result in fewer going far enough to kill someone.
A gun is instantanious with the pull of the trigger. Other things are messier and very personal and woyld be a deterrent for people who are not psychopaths.

So you have any goos arguments for people havibg guns? Being too big a problem to fix is well understood, I'm looking for something positive. From my point of view gun that isn't for hunting is a weapon for killing very effectively which isn't of any use unless you want to kill someone. What are the positives for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top