4 ms·

To seek out the highest rate of gun violence, look no further than gun-free zones in America.

TheBiv 11y ago
Those gun-free zones would also be the highest populated. However, without a source, it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion.
- meric 11y ago
  Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time, otherwise you'll end up with the law-abiding people having no guns, and the non-law-abiding people with all the guns, and that will increase violent crime, rather than decrease it. And since confiscating every gun is not a practical solution, the practical solution should be to enable the freedom for every woman, man and child to carry a gun at all times.
  - zardo 11y ago
    >Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time. You're setting up a false dichotomy. Outlawing guns, and complete unlimited rights to fire arms aren't the only choices available. To say their is a spectrum of possible choices is simplifying it, there is a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and they lead to many outcomes.
    - meric 11y ago
      Besides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.
splitrocket 11y ago
Which is why, if you believe guns reduce violence, we should saturate such areas with guns. I highly doubt you'd be in favor of such a policy.
- madengr 11y ago
  I am.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Why do you doubt that? As a counter data point, the police chief of Detroit recently advised the city's residents to carry guns for their protection. The reaction on right-wing blogs which covered this was applause.
- smsm42 11y ago
  Why you doubt it? In fact, that is exactly what is done when one wants to make absolutely sure nothing bad happens - a lot of people with guns come and saturate the area. Look what was done in New York on New Year's even or what happens when the President or other VIP like that visits some place. Lots of people with guns are always around. So apparently if you look at evens through the lens of "how many guns are around", "more guns" is the common standard solution for "more security".
asmithmd1 11y ago
Exactly! Look at my home state of Massachusetts where you need a license to own a gun and a permit to buy a gun...well, now that I look into it... actually you are 3X less likely to die from a gun in MA than the US average and 6X safer from gun violence than the worst states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...

Those gun-free zones would also be the highest populated. However, without a source, it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion.

meric 11y ago
Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time, otherwise you'll end up with the law-abiding people having no guns, and the non-law-abiding people with all the guns, and that will increase violent crime, rather than decrease it. And since confiscating every gun is not a practical solution, the practical solution should be to enable the freedom for every woman, man and child to carry a gun at all times.
- zardo 11y ago
  >Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time. You're setting up a false dichotomy. Outlawing guns, and complete unlimited rights to fire arms aren't the only choices available. To say their is a spectrum of possible choices is simplifying it, there is a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and they lead to many outcomes.
  - meric 11y ago
    Besides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.

splitrocket 11y ago

Which is why, if you believe guns reduce violence, we should saturate such areas with guns. I highly doubt you'd be in favor of such a policy.

madengr 11y ago
I am.
13thLetter 11y ago
Why do you doubt that? As a counter data point, the police chief of Detroit recently advised the city's residents to carry guns for their protection. The reaction on right-wing blogs which covered this was applause.
smsm42 11y ago
Why you doubt it? In fact, that is exactly what is done when one wants to make absolutely sure nothing bad happens - a lot of people with guns come and saturate the area. Look what was done in New York on New Year's even or what happens when the President or other VIP like that visits some place. Lots of people with guns are always around. So apparently if you look at evens through the lens of "how many guns are around", "more guns" is the common standard solution for "more security".

asmithmd1 11y ago

Exactly! Look at my home state of Massachusetts where you need a license to own a gun and a permit to buy a gun...well, now that I look into it... actually you are 3X less likely to die from a gun in MA than the US average and 6X safer from gun violence than the worst states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...