8 ms·

Do we know what it is? You seem quite confident. Americans have 101 guns per 100 citizens. Finns have 34.2 guns per 100 citizens. Icelanders have 30.3 guns pe

Do we know what it is? You seem quite confident. Americans have 101 guns per 100 citizens. Finns have 34.2 guns per 100 citizens. Icelanders have 30.3 guns per 100 citizens. America has 110x the murder rate than Finland has. America has 13,000x the murder rate Iceland has. Whatever the cause is, 3x the guns ≠ 110x the murder rate (or 13,000x the murder rate). A more interesting comparison might be to examine countries with similar murder rates to the U.S., regardless of arbitrary "developing or not developing" boxes, and ask what the two countries have in common. For instance, countries with similar murder rates to the U.S. include: • Burundi (1.2 guns per 100 residents) • Cuba (4.8 guns per 100 residents) • Kazakhstan (1.3 guns per 100 residents) • Kyrgyzstan (0.9 guns per 100 residents) • Latvia (19 guns per 100 residents) • Niger (0.7 guns per 100 residents) • Rwanda (0.6 guns per 100 residents) • Somalia (9.1 guns per 100 residents) • Turkey (12.5 guns per 100 residents) • Turkmenistan (3.8 guns per 100 residents) • Ukraine (6.6 guns per 100 residents) What about the U.S. makes it more like these countries, murder-rate-wise, than more developed countries with higher gun ownership, like Finland or Iceland (both of which have far and away higher gun ownership than all the countries on that list)? We know it's not guns. So what's the cause?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IgorPartola 9y ago
> We know it's not guns. So what's the cause? You misspelled “I want to believe it’s not guns.” I am from Ukraine originally. Poverty is the reason there. So yeah let’s have that proper safety net instead. But when we are talking about this, let’s break it down a bit between different types of violence where guns are used: police shooting suspects, gang violence, run of the mill murder, and acts of terrorism. You don’t believe that the police are shooting suspects because the officers are poor, do you? Or that the Vegas shooter was poor? Or the Sandy Hook one? Gang violence is a result of poverty, but terror attacks (the US likes to call these mass shootings when the suspect is white and/or Christian), are not. I think it is time to repeal the second amendment. It clearly failed to create an organized militia that could stand up to an oppressive government. The US police force alone is enough to suppress any rebellion by the civilians, and if aided by the military, no militia could stand up to it. You can have gun ownership without the second amendment. Individual laws could grant access to weapons. But it is time to switch from a loophole that lets us have all the guns unless specifically disallowed by a law to a denied first, allowed second system. Do I hear you ask about all the criminals that would keep their guns anyways, and only the law abiding citizens would be left unarmed? I will buy that argument the day it’s applied across the board to drugs and abortions.
- throwaway30yo 9y ago
  Even with all the technology police + military has. I don't think it would be an easy win if the gun owning population decided to revolt. There would be millions of deaths. The government may end up on top, but the consequences would be dire. Not an American. Canadian here. I actually wish we had American gun laws, even with their consequences.
  - IgorPartola 9y ago
    See, I want to send my kids to school and be reasonably sure that some idiot can’t go down the street, buy a couple of rifles, and murder them and their classmates. Being able to go to the gun range once in a while and post on /r/guns is sorta secondary to that. Different priorities I guess. Edit: and funnily enough the above scenario doesn’t happen in the developed world, except in the US, where it happens multiple times a year. Here we don’t tolerate things like weed, or abortions, or refugees because the societal price for those is too high, but mass child murder is cool because otherwise how would we prove our manliness?
    - barsonme 9y ago
      > See, I want to send my kids to school and be reasonably sure that some idiot can’t go down the street, buy a couple of rifles, and murder them and their classmates. Everybody does. Let's not be disingenuous, though: the chances one of our children dies from a gunshot wound at school is incredibly small. By my counts, 4 students have been killed at school shootings this year. 4 students out of ~50 million kids at over 130,00 schools. Consider also there are over 350 million firearms in the US. People only care about it because of _guns_. <soapbox> Nobody seems to care much about the ~30,000 firearm deaths in the US each year. They don't care that 2/3 of them are suicides, usually of middle-aged men. They don't care that most of the remainder are usually in poor areas (often because of the US' long history of racism) and often gang-related. They only care about the sensational (and very tragic) 0.0001% of deaths. It annoys me to no end because it's proof they don't care about gun deaths. No, they just care about tear-jerking cable news stories. It's gross and disingenuous. </soapbox>
throwaway181986 9y ago
As dukeflukem said below, Iceland and Finland probably have very different aspects driving up gun ownership (rural populations hunting, vs self-defense). An issue with the provided list is that these countries are all relatively poor. As for something that stood out for this list for me: inequality. i.e.: with the exception of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, all the Gini coefficients are above 35% (with the US (41%) being most similar to Turkey/Turkmenistan/Ukraine (41%/43%/41%). Compare that to Iceland and Finland (26%, 27%)
eberkund 9y ago
It's possible that the relationship between the number of guns per citizen and gun deaths is non-linear.
freeflight 9y ago
These kind of comparisons are so dishonest, at least you used Finland and Iceland instead of Germany and Switzerland, but the basic flaw still remains: Did you actually compare the gun regulations in place [0] instead of just comparing raw numbers of guns in circulation? Because it's exactly those proper gun regulations which allow these countries to have many guns, without irresponsible owners constantly getting innocents killed and police being forced to treat everybody they encounter as a potentially armed suspect. That's also the reason why not every police officer in Iceland needs to carry a gun [1]. Case in point: Neither Finland nor Iceland has "open carry", they actually require you to have a reason for wanting to get a permit. In Iceland, applicants have to go through a government course to show they are actually responsible and able enough to own a firearm. In Finland, each individual gun is registered with its own permit. Contrast that with the situation in the US: There is no federal gun regulation, each state makes its own laws, which leads to lots of loopholes (buying guns at gun shows) and ultimately leads to a flood of unregulated guns getting into the hands of people who lack the training and responsibility to own such a "tool". Additionally many of these "high ownership, barely any shootings" countries put in place peer control by demanding that gun owners actually state a reason for wanting to own a gun. This entails either regular participation in organized shooting sports or in actual hunting clubs. Nobody there gets a gun "just because" as getting a legal permit entails quite a bit of work, effort, and responsibility on the side of the applicant. Which is the exact opposite sentiment of that present in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/?utm_term=.5877cd6b4c44 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18...
thro1237 9y ago
Here is how you can get a gun in the Iceland[1]: " all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and most handguns are banned for public use in Iceland. People who hold a gun license can buy semi-automatic shotguns, bolt-action rifles, single-shot rifles and double-barrel rifles to hunt with but all rifles over 8 millimeters in caliber are banned in Iceland, although with a special permit to hunt large animals abroad, such as elephants or African cape buffalos. It is also possible to obtain a special collector’s license for handguns and sports associations practicing marksmanship can apply for a license to use small indoor 22 caliber handguns as used in the Olympics. To obtain a gun license people must attend a course and pass a test at the police station. They also have to pass a medical examination where they are specifically asked about their mental health. The gun license is issued by the respective District Commissioner." Legal firearms in Finland must be registered and licensed on a per-gun basis[2] Do you the see the problem? In the US, the second amendment makes it extremely hard to make sure that bad actors (a small percentage of the population) don't get a gun. In the countries you mentioned, they have an effective of preventing this from happening. [1]http://icelandreview.com/stuff/ask-ir/2011/02/10/what-kind-gun-laws-exist-iceland http://icelandreview.com/stuff/ask-ir/2011/02/10/what-kind-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

IgorPartola 9y ago

> We know it's not guns. So what's the cause? You misspelled “I want to believe it’s not guns.” I am from Ukraine originally. Poverty is the reason there. So yeah let’s have that proper safety net instead. But when we are talking about this, let’s break it down a bit between different types of violence where guns are used: police shooting suspects, gang violence, run of the mill murder, and acts of terrorism. You don’t believe that the police are shooting suspects because the officers are poor, do you? Or that the Vegas shooter was poor? Or the Sandy Hook one? Gang violence is a result of poverty, but terror attacks (the US likes to call these mass shootings when the suspect is white and/or Christian), are not. I think it is time to repeal the second amendment. It clearly failed to create an organized militia that could stand up to an oppressive government. The US police force alone is enough to suppress any rebellion by the civilians, and if aided by the military, no militia could stand up to it. You can have gun ownership without the second amendment. Individual laws could grant access to weapons. But it is time to switch from a loophole that lets us have all the guns unless specifically disallowed by a law to a denied first, allowed second system. Do I hear you ask about all the criminals that would keep their guns anyways, and only the law abiding citizens would be left unarmed? I will buy that argument the day it’s applied across the board to drugs and abortions.

throwaway30yo 9y ago
Even with all the technology police + military has. I don't think it would be an easy win if the gun owning population decided to revolt. There would be millions of deaths. The government may end up on top, but the consequences would be dire. Not an American. Canadian here. I actually wish we had American gun laws, even with their consequences.
- IgorPartola 9y ago
  See, I want to send my kids to school and be reasonably sure that some idiot can’t go down the street, buy a couple of rifles, and murder them and their classmates. Being able to go to the gun range once in a while and post on /r/guns is sorta secondary to that. Different priorities I guess. Edit: and funnily enough the above scenario doesn’t happen in the developed world, except in the US, where it happens multiple times a year. Here we don’t tolerate things like weed, or abortions, or refugees because the societal price for those is too high, but mass child murder is cool because otherwise how would we prove our manliness?
  - barsonme 9y ago
    > See, I want to send my kids to school and be reasonably sure that some idiot can’t go down the street, buy a couple of rifles, and murder them and their classmates. Everybody does. Let's not be disingenuous, though: the chances one of our children dies from a gunshot wound at school is incredibly small. By my counts, 4 students have been killed at school shootings this year. 4 students out of ~50 million kids at over 130,00 schools. Consider also there are over 350 million firearms in the US. People only care about it because of _guns_. <soapbox> Nobody seems to care much about the ~30,000 firearm deaths in the US each year. They don't care that 2/3 of them are suicides, usually of middle-aged men. They don't care that most of the remainder are usually in poor areas (often because of the US' long history of racism) and often gang-related. They only care about the sensational (and very tragic) 0.0001% of deaths. It annoys me to no end because it's proof they don't care about gun deaths. No, they just care about tear-jerking cable news stories. It's gross and disingenuous. </soapbox>

throwaway181986 9y ago

As dukeflukem said below, Iceland and Finland probably have very different aspects driving up gun ownership (rural populations hunting, vs self-defense). An issue with the provided list is that these countries are all relatively poor. As for something that stood out for this list for me: inequality. i.e.: with the exception of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, all the Gini coefficients are above 35% (with the US (41%) being most similar to Turkey/Turkmenistan/Ukraine (41%/43%/41%). Compare that to Iceland and Finland (26%, 27%)

eberkund 9y ago

It's possible that the relationship between the number of guns per citizen and gun deaths is non-linear.

freeflight 9y ago

These kind of comparisons are so dishonest, at least you used Finland and Iceland instead of Germany and Switzerland, but the basic flaw still remains: Did you actually compare the gun regulations in place [0] instead of just comparing raw numbers of guns in circulation? Because it's exactly those proper gun regulations which allow these countries to have many guns, without irresponsible owners constantly getting innocents killed and police being forced to treat everybody they encounter as a potentially armed suspect. That's also the reason why not every police officer in Iceland needs to carry a gun [1]. Case in point: Neither Finland nor Iceland has "open carry", they actually require you to have a reason for wanting to get a permit. In Iceland, applicants have to go through a government course to show they are actually responsible and able enough to own a firearm. In Finland, each individual gun is registered with its own permit. Contrast that with the situation in the US: There is no federal gun regulation, each state makes its own laws, which leads to lots of loopholes (buying guns at gun shows) and ultimately leads to a flood of unregulated guns getting into the hands of people who lack the training and responsibility to own such a "tool". Additionally many of these "high ownership, barely any shootings" countries put in place peer control by demanding that gun owners actually state a reason for wanting to own a gun. This entails either regular participation in organized shooting sports or in actual hunting clubs. Nobody there gets a gun "just because" as getting a legal permit entails quite a bit of work, effort, and responsibility on the side of the applicant. Which is the exact opposite sentiment of that present in the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/?utm_term=.5877cd6b4c44 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18...

thro1237 9y ago

Here is how you can get a gun in the Iceland[1]: " all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and most handguns are banned for public use in Iceland. People who hold a gun license can buy semi-automatic shotguns, bolt-action rifles, single-shot rifles and double-barrel rifles to hunt with but all rifles over 8 millimeters in caliber are banned in Iceland, although with a special permit to hunt large animals abroad, such as elephants or African cape buffalos. It is also possible to obtain a special collector’s license for handguns and sports associations practicing marksmanship can apply for a license to use small indoor 22 caliber handguns as used in the Olympics. To obtain a gun license people must attend a course and pass a test at the police station. They also have to pass a medical examination where they are specifically asked about their mental health. The gun license is issued by the respective District Commissioner." Legal firearms in Finland must be registered and licensed on a per-gun basis[2] Do you the see the problem? In the US, the second amendment makes it extremely hard to make sure that bad actors (a small percentage of the population) don't get a gun. In the countries you mentioned, they have an effective of preventing this from happening. [1]http://icelandreview.com/stuff/ask-ir/2011/02/10/what-kind-gun-laws-exist-iceland http://icelandreview.com/stuff/ask-ir/2011/02/10/what-kind-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Finland