3 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owners... Countries that have prohibition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_owners... Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working. I don't know that countries that have prohibitions on drugs reduce drug taking by the same amount, or countries with prohibitions on prostitution reduces prostitution by a similar amount. Mexico is an outlier because of its large porous border with the US. Switzerland is just an outlier.

kelnos 16y ago
> Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working. Who cares? You're working from a premise that having fewer firearms is a good thing. I'm not going to say I disagree, but I'm not sure I agree either. The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms. There's also the question of whether firearm use matters in some crimes. Take these two scenarios: 1. Burglar commits armed (firearms) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt. 2. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt. They are essentially the same crime, but now #2 is not lumped in with the "firarms-related crime" group. And let's try keeping #1 as it is, but now #2 is this: 2'. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house think a knife isn't too scary and fight back. One owner gets stabbed and dies. I don't know about the frequency of stuff like this, but it's certainly not a quick "look at the numbers" thing to decide which is better.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms. No, the real metric is whether or not firearms cause a net increase in the amount/severity of crimes - firearm crimes are not the only relevant ones. There are all sorts of factors which make it a tricky question. Deterrence (burglar is afraid to rob a house, since homeowners might shoot him) is a fairly big effect. Substitution (criminal 1 wants to kill criminal 2, since no guns are around he uses a knife) are some of the biggies. If criminals stab 20 people instead of shooting 15, that's not a good thing.
  - kelnos 16y ago
    No, the real metric is whether or not firearms cause a net increase in the amount/severity of crimes - firearm crimes are not the only relevant ones. How can you draw causal relationships there? At best I'd think you'd be able to make correlative arguments, but not much more.
- barrkel 16y ago
  The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-cri... Contrast US with UK and Ireland. Actually, I think US cultural exports are a large factor in the increase of gun crime in the UK and Ireland, a certain glorification of the weapon that gang members feel they need to live up to.

kelnos 16y ago

> Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working. Who cares? You're working from a premise that having fewer firearms is a good thing. I'm not going to say I disagree, but I'm not sure I agree either. The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms. There's also the question of whether firearm use matters in some crimes. Take these two scenarios: 1. Burglar commits armed (firearms) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt. 2. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt. They are essentially the same crime, but now #2 is not lumped in with the "firarms-related crime" group. And let's try keeping #1 as it is, but now #2 is this: 2'. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house think a knife isn't too scary and fight back. One owner gets stabbed and dies. I don't know about the frequency of stuff like this, but it's certainly not a quick "look at the numbers" thing to decide which is better.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms. No, the real metric is whether or not firearms cause a net increase in the amount/severity of crimes - firearm crimes are not the only relevant ones. There are all sorts of factors which make it a tricky question. Deterrence (burglar is afraid to rob a house, since homeowners might shoot him) is a fairly big effect. Substitution (criminal 1 wants to kill criminal 2, since no guns are around he uses a knife) are some of the biggies. If criminals stab 20 people instead of shooting 15, that's not a good thing.
- kelnos 16y ago
  No, the real metric is whether or not firearms cause a net increase in the amount/severity of crimes - firearm crimes are not the only relevant ones. How can you draw causal relationships there? At best I'd think you'd be able to make correlative arguments, but not much more.
barrkel 16y ago
The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-cri... Contrast US with UK and Ireland. Actually, I think US cultural exports are a large factor in the increase of gun crime in the UK and Ireland, a certain glorification of the weapon that gang members feel they need to live up to.