3 ms·

America is not a violent country, it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And when we make comparisons with Europe, we should remem

America is not a violent country, it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And when we make comparisons with Europe, we should remember that violence in Europe is rising, while violence in the US is declining. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-abo... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKBN1ES16J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-c... https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-attacks-violent-reality-undoing-peaceful-self-image-law-and-order/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-bombings-grenade-atta...

throw0101a 7y ago
> America is not a violent country, The general crime rate in the US is not too different from the crime rate in most other developed countries; see point seven: * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... However there's a lot more violent crime; see point one (ibid). > it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And yet as someone who lives in Canada, your neighbour to the north, we have a lot less gun crime. The difference is that we have good social services and decent filters on gun ownership. I don't know all the nitty-gritty details, but it seems that Canada's laws are roughly in line with what Massachusetts has: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co... There will always probably be mass shootings: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting But I think adding some filters or speed bumps to ownership (and especially CCW) will weed out the hot heads and incompetents that cause so much low-level carnage: * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1158207870808264704 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647... * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1157550990343712770 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127... * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_
- leereeves 7y ago
  Both you and Vox are trying to limit the discussion to gun crime, as if knife crime or acid attacks or bombings or mass vehicular homicides don't matter. That's misleading and borderline dishonest. It's the violence that matters, not the weapon.
  - eropple 7y ago
    And the effort required to kill a number of people with a gun is significantly less--like, to the point where the "but but what about that?" verges on ludicrous--than knife crime or acid attacks. Gun violence requires less specialized knowledge and provides fewer opportunities to catch a criminal before their plan goes off than bombings. And vehicles have overwhelmingly more legitimate use than guns that present a meaningful and socially valid argument against their restriction where guns have no such value. Which is why this is low-hanging fruit to deal with and long past due.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      The vast majority of killers aren't aiming to kill a lot of people. Just one, usually. You're focusing on the dramatic mass killings instead of the significant majority of murderers, who could switch to knives and acid. And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. As would bombs, though that does require more skill than the other weapons. And guns would remain available too. Gun control does very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, as the gun crime rate in Chicago shows.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        > And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. Yet curiously, almost all mass murders are committed with guns, not vehicles.
jakelazaroff 7y ago
If you compare the US to only developed countries, it is an extreme outlier with regard to violence, and that violence correlates strongly with the number of guns [1]. Gun violence in the US is rising, not declining [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/ https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-...
- leereeves 7y ago
  By what logic do you exclude Central and South America from the discussion?
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    The logic that they have different social conditions that place different incentives on people's behaviour. For example, Venezuela banned private gun ownership, but that is not the reason for firearm deaths falling. The reason for that is because of the economic meltdown is so bad that bullets are too expensive for even criminals: * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-gangs-gun-violence-bullets-expensive-inflation-a8932871.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-... It is a control on the variables that can confound comparison so we have a more apples-to-applies situation.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Well now we're talking about what we should be talking about: social conditions. Why people angry enough to kill and end their own lives in America? But social conditions in America and Europe are very different so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison if we keep talking about gun policy.
      - zzzcpan 7y ago
        This is an answer to every single tricky political problem. If people resort to something those in power don't like - then they didn't provide good enough conditions for people to be happy and not do that.

throw0101a 7y ago

> America is not a violent country, The general crime rate in the US is not too different from the crime rate in most other developed countries; see point seven: * https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... However there's a lot more violent crime; see point one (ibid). > it's about average, and far better than our neighbors to the south. And yet as someone who lives in Canada, your neighbour to the north, we have a lot less gun crime. The difference is that we have good social services and decent filters on gun ownership. I don't know all the nitty-gritty details, but it seems that Canada's laws are roughly in line with what Massachusetts has: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co... There will always probably be mass shootings: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_shooting But I think adding some filters or speed bumps to ownership (and especially CCW) will weed out the hot heads and incompetents that cause so much low-level carnage: * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1158207870808264704 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11582078708082647... * https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/1157550990343712770 https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_/status/11575509903437127... * https://twitter.com/well_regulated_ https://twitter.com/well_regulated_

leereeves 7y ago
Both you and Vox are trying to limit the discussion to gun crime, as if knife crime or acid attacks or bombings or mass vehicular homicides don't matter. That's misleading and borderline dishonest. It's the violence that matters, not the weapon.
- eropple 7y ago
  And the effort required to kill a number of people with a gun is significantly less--like, to the point where the "but but what about that?" verges on ludicrous--than knife crime or acid attacks. Gun violence requires less specialized knowledge and provides fewer opportunities to catch a criminal before their plan goes off than bombings. And vehicles have overwhelmingly more legitimate use than guns that present a meaningful and socially valid argument against their restriction where guns have no such value. Which is why this is low-hanging fruit to deal with and long past due.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    The vast majority of killers aren't aiming to kill a lot of people. Just one, usually. You're focusing on the dramatic mass killings instead of the significant majority of murderers, who could switch to knives and acid. And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. As would bombs, though that does require more skill than the other weapons. And guns would remain available too. Gun control does very little to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, as the gun crime rate in Chicago shows.
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      > And then there are the mass killers, but since vehicles won't be banned because they have "overwhelmingly more legitimate use", they would remain available for mass killings. Yet curiously, almost all mass murders are committed with guns, not vehicles.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

If you compare the US to only developed countries, it is an extreme outlier with regard to violence, and that violence correlates strongly with the number of guns [1]. Gun violence in the US is rising, not declining [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/ https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-...

leereeves 7y ago
By what logic do you exclude Central and South America from the discussion?
- throw0101a 7y ago
  The logic that they have different social conditions that place different incentives on people's behaviour. For example, Venezuela banned private gun ownership, but that is not the reason for firearm deaths falling. The reason for that is because of the economic meltdown is so bad that bullets are too expensive for even criminals: * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-gangs-gun-violence-bullets-expensive-inflation-a8932871.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-... It is a control on the variables that can confound comparison so we have a more apples-to-applies situation.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Well now we're talking about what we should be talking about: social conditions. Why people angry enough to kill and end their own lives in America? But social conditions in America and Europe are very different so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison if we keep talking about gun policy.
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      This is an answer to every single tricky political problem. If people resort to something those in power don't like - then they didn't provide good enough conditions for people to be happy and not do that.