3 ms·

The proliferation of guns isn't everything. Finland has one of the highest number of guns per capita[1], yet their crime rates are one of the lowest. There is

The proliferation of guns isn't everything. Finland has one of the highest number of guns per capita[1], yet their crime rates are one of the lowest. There is a massive correlation between (gun) crime and poverty. Regional inequality means that those who live in poverty have a pretty poor chance of improving their lives. To me, the problem stems less from guns and more from a poor quality of life for massive numbers of people in America. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...

scotty79 9y ago
But if you compare communities equal in poverty then amount of gun violence correlates with amount of guns. So either give poor communities heaps of money or take away guns. Or just wait till they shoot themselves, which is current US approach to the problem.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I don't understand your logic. You acknowledge that low quality of life is a huge part of what pushes people to commit crime, yet you'd rather take away their weapons instead of doing something about poverty? We have 101 guns per 100 Residents[1]. Do you really think removing guns is a viable option at this point? What makes you think this wouldn't be met with violent resistance from people who want to defend their constitutional rights? Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Why not make people's lives better instead? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
  - scotty79 9y ago
    > you'd rather take away their weapons instead of do something about poverty? I'm just pointing out it's cheaper solution to resolving gun violence. > Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Mostly knifes I guess. But it's harder to kill a person accidentally with a knife then it is with a gun. Almost all gun death are accidental. Killer just wanted the victim to stop doing something or to punish him/her for some percieved transgression and it wasn't supposed to be capital punishment.
  - throwaway-hn123 9y ago
    You Americans deserve the shithole your country has turned into.
sjg007 9y ago
Cops won't even go to areas that are gang infested with a proportion of poverty and guns. They call these "no go" areas.
stoolpigeon 9y ago
I don't think it is everything but I think it is a lot. Comparing a very small northern European country to the whole of the USA is a bit difficult in my opinion. I think it's hard to make comparisons that make sense.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Extremely interesting list! I'd love to see a set of worldwide correlations: - homicide rate VS gun ownership (very little, apparently!) - homicide rate VS income inequality - homicide rate VS wealth inequality

scotty79 9y ago

But if you compare communities equal in poverty then amount of gun violence correlates with amount of guns. So either give poor communities heaps of money or take away guns. Or just wait till they shoot themselves, which is current US approach to the problem.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
I don't understand your logic. You acknowledge that low quality of life is a huge part of what pushes people to commit crime, yet you'd rather take away their weapons instead of doing something about poverty? We have 101 guns per 100 Residents[1]. Do you really think removing guns is a viable option at this point? What makes you think this wouldn't be met with violent resistance from people who want to defend their constitutional rights? Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Why not make people's lives better instead? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
- scotty79 9y ago
  > you'd rather take away their weapons instead of do something about poverty? I'm just pointing out it's cheaper solution to resolving gun violence. > Even if we _could_ remove all guns, wouldn't those in poverty just begin using knives, acids, and explosives like they do in other countries? Mostly knifes I guess. But it's harder to kill a person accidentally with a knife then it is with a gun. Almost all gun death are accidental. Killer just wanted the victim to stop doing something or to punish him/her for some percieved transgression and it wasn't supposed to be capital punishment.
- throwaway-hn123 9y ago
  You Americans deserve the shithole your country has turned into.

sjg007 9y ago

Cops won't even go to areas that are gang infested with a proportion of poverty and guns. They call these "no go" areas.

stoolpigeon 9y ago

I don't think it is everything but I think it is a lot. Comparing a very small northern European country to the whole of the USA is a bit difficult in my opinion. I think it's hard to make comparisons that make sense.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

Extremely interesting list! I'd love to see a set of worldwide correlations: - homicide rate VS gun ownership (very little, apparently!) - homicide rate VS income inequality - homicide rate VS wealth inequality