8 ms·

I don't live in the US, but I'm skeptical. There are a lot of places where civilian gun ownership causes problems, gun crime, etc. Some of the places where it

I don't live in the US, but I'm skeptical. There are a lot of places where civilian gun ownership causes problems, gun crime, etc. Some of the places where it does not cause big problems (eg Switzerland) have liberal gun laws and high ownership rates. There are examples where widespread gun ownership/availability causes exactly the kinds of is "problems" that (according to some) the American founders intended it to cause. Basically, armed revolutions. There are confusing examples where laws are liberal but ownership is rare. There are opposite examples. I'm not saying ignore all this. If you want to learn about policy areas, you need to study examples. Just beware the anecdote, attributing cause and effect. Beware within heated political debates, they are known to cause insanity. There is rarely some objective fact that proves your argument, just a collection of facts that may, taken in context, convince you. Back to drugs policy, Portugal had its own set of cultural norms, problems they were trying to solve, political considerations... I think Mexico and some other big transit countries need to look at radical liberalisation options. Portugal is a good guide for some of their issues, but overall their situation is very different. They have nasty problems with the wholesale dealing, and the organized crime that goes with it. The street level crime and consumption is not their biggest problem, like Portugal.

wereHamster 9y ago
> Some of the places where it does not cause big problems (eg Switzerland) have liberal gun laws and high ownership rates. So you don't consider suicides to be a 'big problem', eh? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-troubling-record-of-suicide/8301804 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-troubling-record-...
- dalbasal 9y ago
  Sorry. I never should have used guns as an example. I don't know much about it, and it's hard to deal in "not a problem" terms when it comes to life and death. I do think even this speaks to my point though, about looking at examples as fully fleshed out examples. There are all sorts of "gun problems." All sorts of "gun rules." All sorts of simple and complex relationships between those two things and a whole lot of other things. The relationship between gun accessability and suicide is fairly straightforward. But both suicide and gun availability are related to a bunch of other things. *I'm not talking about gun laws (don't live in the US, own guns or have a strong opinion), I'm talking about how we think of policies using examples.
- foxhound6 9y ago
  Seems that Australia has a higher suicide rate than Switzerland. Didn't Australia ban guns? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/who-findings_switzerland-reports-above-average-suicide-numbers/40589132 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/who-findings_switzerland-report... http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/27/australias-suicide-crisis-has-peaked-to-a-terrifying-new-height_a_21480647/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/27/australias-suici...
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Not entirely, but they made owning them very tricky unless you're a farmer AFAICT. City dwellers can own handguns, but they must stay locked up at the gun club when not in use at the gun club.
scotty79 9y ago
Even Switzerland. From wiki about gun laws there: In 2016, the defence ministry estimated that 2 million privately owned guns are in circulation, which given a population of 8.3 million corresponds to a gun ownership rate of around 24 guns per 100 residents. This is roughly a quarter of the rate in the United States, and lower than that in the neighbouring countries of Germany, and Austria, but about the double of Italy and France. Quarter of guns per person US has. If US taxed gun manufacturers an used that money to buy back 3/4 of guns off the market it would surely have bit less gun related problems.
- pc86 9y ago
  Switzerland has a gun homicide rate of 0.50 per 100k population. The US rate is approximately 3.53 per 100k population.[0] So this begs the question, if the per capita gun ownership in Switzerland is 1/4th what it is in the US, why is gun homicide 1/7th? Are Americans just more homicidal than the Swiss? Guns are certainly an issue but not the issue. If you cut American gun ownership by 75% you'd still have more per capita gun crime than Switzerland, why? [0] Homicides, not all gun deaths. It's important to compare apples to apples.
  - Tyrek 9y ago
    I don't know if it's fair to say that it's not the issue. Unless we have a crystal ball that will reveal the exact breakdown of causal factors, it certainly seems reasonable to address the big ticket items that we are aware of, and are reasonably sure will have a positive impact on the homicide rate. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to incremental social improvement.
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    You have to dig a little deeper. Swiss gun ownership is primarily guns owned by those in mandatory military service. The have guns, but most do not have ammunition with the guns. The majority of Swiss gun owners simply cannot shoot someone with their guns without first obtaining difficult to obtain ammunition. Looking at the numbers alone is not enough. Just like looking at the US numbers alone doesn't really tell the real story. Guns are definitely part of the problem, but it's the rest of the culture and economic factors that tells the story of why the US numbers are so high.
scotty79 9y ago
> the American founders intended it to cause. Basically, armed revolutions. So ... After all the history that passed since then, after all the civil wars and armed revolutions do we still believe they are good idea? I guess US military thinks so after supporting so many in the middle east. Europe I think has different take on the subject.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  That is certainly debatable. Americans seem used to the idea, but to the uninitiated the idea of building armed insurrection into the governing system seems pretty mad.
  - Helmet 9y ago
    How is it mad? Government's are capable committing atrocities of unprecedented scale against their own citizenry. I wonder if the Russian Kulaks could have organized an armed resistance, or perhaps the Chinese peasants during Maosism. Also, I recommend to you the fascinating history of the African-American tradition of arms in the US. Black's used firearms to defend their families and communities against KKK and white mobs. "A good revolver is the best response to the slave catcher" - Fredrick Douglas
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? If gun control works, tyrants will use it too. If it doesn’t then you don’t have to worry about it.
      - Helmet 9y ago
        Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. This has nothing to do with my point, or if it does, it certainly isn't clearly elucidated. As far as I'm aware, there is no strong history of armed resistance from either of the groups that I mentioned. And I'll leave you to the research the history of successful resistance movements, as there are many. I would start with the American Revolutionary War and then perhaps the importance of guns and armed resistance by blacks during Antebellum South and the Jim Crow period. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? Your argument is circular as it's based on a false premise. Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.

wereHamster 9y ago

> Some of the places where it does not cause big problems (eg Switzerland) have liberal gun laws and high ownership rates. So you don't consider suicides to be a 'big problem', eh? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-troubling-record-of-suicide/8301804 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-troubling-record-...

dalbasal 9y ago
Sorry. I never should have used guns as an example. I don't know much about it, and it's hard to deal in "not a problem" terms when it comes to life and death. I do think even this speaks to my point though, about looking at examples as fully fleshed out examples. There are all sorts of "gun problems." All sorts of "gun rules." All sorts of simple and complex relationships between those two things and a whole lot of other things. The relationship between gun accessability and suicide is fairly straightforward. But both suicide and gun availability are related to a bunch of other things. *I'm not talking about gun laws (don't live in the US, own guns or have a strong opinion), I'm talking about how we think of policies using examples.
foxhound6 9y ago
Seems that Australia has a higher suicide rate than Switzerland. Didn't Australia ban guns? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/who-findings_switzerland-reports-above-average-suicide-numbers/40589132 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/who-findings_switzerland-report... http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/27/australias-suicide-crisis-has-peaked-to-a-terrifying-new-height_a_21480647/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/09/27/australias-suici...
- Nursie 9y ago
  Not entirely, but they made owning them very tricky unless you're a farmer AFAICT. City dwellers can own handguns, but they must stay locked up at the gun club when not in use at the gun club.

scotty79 9y ago

Even Switzerland. From wiki about gun laws there: In 2016, the defence ministry estimated that 2 million privately owned guns are in circulation, which given a population of 8.3 million corresponds to a gun ownership rate of around 24 guns per 100 residents. This is roughly a quarter of the rate in the United States, and lower than that in the neighbouring countries of Germany, and Austria, but about the double of Italy and France. Quarter of guns per person US has. If US taxed gun manufacturers an used that money to buy back 3/4 of guns off the market it would surely have bit less gun related problems.

pc86 9y ago
Switzerland has a gun homicide rate of 0.50 per 100k population. The US rate is approximately 3.53 per 100k population.[0] So this begs the question, if the per capita gun ownership in Switzerland is 1/4th what it is in the US, why is gun homicide 1/7th? Are Americans just more homicidal than the Swiss? Guns are certainly an issue but not the issue. If you cut American gun ownership by 75% you'd still have more per capita gun crime than Switzerland, why? [0] Homicides, not all gun deaths. It's important to compare apples to apples.
- Tyrek 9y ago
  I don't know if it's fair to say that it's not the issue. Unless we have a crystal ball that will reveal the exact breakdown of causal factors, it certainly seems reasonable to address the big ticket items that we are aware of, and are reasonably sure will have a positive impact on the homicide rate. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to incremental social improvement.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  You have to dig a little deeper. Swiss gun ownership is primarily guns owned by those in mandatory military service. The have guns, but most do not have ammunition with the guns. The majority of Swiss gun owners simply cannot shoot someone with their guns without first obtaining difficult to obtain ammunition. Looking at the numbers alone is not enough. Just like looking at the US numbers alone doesn't really tell the real story. Guns are definitely part of the problem, but it's the rest of the culture and economic factors that tells the story of why the US numbers are so high.

scotty79 9y ago

> the American founders intended it to cause. Basically, armed revolutions. So ... After all the history that passed since then, after all the civil wars and armed revolutions do we still believe they are good idea? I guess US military thinks so after supporting so many in the middle east. Europe I think has different take on the subject.

dalbasal 9y ago
That is certainly debatable. Americans seem used to the idea, but to the uninitiated the idea of building armed insurrection into the governing system seems pretty mad.
- Helmet 9y ago
  How is it mad? Government's are capable committing atrocities of unprecedented scale against their own citizenry. I wonder if the Russian Kulaks could have organized an armed resistance, or perhaps the Chinese peasants during Maosism. Also, I recommend to you the fascinating history of the African-American tradition of arms in the US. Black's used firearms to defend their families and communities against KKK and white mobs. "A good revolver is the best response to the slave catcher" - Fredrick Douglas
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? If gun control works, tyrants will use it too. If it doesn’t then you don’t have to worry about it.
    - Helmet 9y ago
      Both the Russians and Chinese had big civil wars in which the governments you mention eventually came into power. The question of armed resistance isn’t a hypothetical. It was tried and it failed. This has nothing to do with my point, or if it does, it certainly isn't clearly elucidated. As far as I'm aware, there is no strong history of armed resistance from either of the groups that I mentioned. And I'll leave you to the research the history of successful resistance movements, as there are many. I would start with the American Revolutionary War and then perhaps the importance of guns and armed resistance by blacks during Antebellum South and the Jim Crow period. The notion of gun rights as essential to defending against tyranny is inherently self-defeating. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal, won’t a tyrant do that before they start with other forms of oppression? Your argument is circular as it's based on a false premise. Yes, they may very well begin with outlawing guns. Which is why we have guns. If you try to take my gun by force, I will shoot you. If all it takes to defeat gun owners is passing some laws making them illegal This isn't what it takes. This would be the first formal step, but what it would take is for the State to pry them out of my hands, which would be met with resistance. Not just by me, but by the millions of gun-owners across the country - which is precisely why it won't happen.