3 ms·

quite frankly, the "gun in your house" thing is a very weird argument. if you actually play out a real-life instance of such a situation, it's not so simple at

• spindritf 14y ago
  > the "gun in my home to keep me safe" is a non-sequitur and only makes sense in simplistic cowboy scenari No, it makes perfect, quantifiable, empirical sense >> data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”[1] [1] beware the PDF: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Kate...
  • jacquesm 14y ago
    That must be why there are so many homicides with other weapons in Western Europe and most of Asia.
    • spindritf 14y ago
      > That must be why there are so many homicides with other weapons in Western Europe and most of Asia. I could never find a good response when my rational argument is met with an off-hand snark. And yet something should be said to avoid the perception that it was a valid counterpoint. One option would be to point out that there are multiple factors at play, other differences between those countries than just gun ownership. That study after study linked in the post before show no correlation, no meaningful impact of gun ownership. That there are causes of crime that explain reality much better, like family structure. Other would be to mock. "Sure, let's ban all the guns, jail all the blacks, and live in a crime-free utopia. Oh, and maybe nuke Detroit or New Orleans while we're at it. After all, nothing gives a better picture than a cursory glance." I'm never satisfied with either.
      • DeepDuh 14y ago
        You certainly do have a point. I'm Swiss and our gun ownership clocks in somewhere after USA and Canada, yet violence levels are about the same as in the rest of Europe. It really seems to have much more to do with culture than with guns themselves. However, defending this position must be quite tough as an American. It means that there is something inherently violent in your culture. Maybe there is a correlation with suburban car culture? First there is the significant correlation between environmental lead during childhood and violence, secondly I think that having a low population density might make people feel more on their own, the highest goal being to protect their family. I'm thinking that people that are used to a high population density, who are in contact with hundreds of other humans a day, get used to this and lower their defenses. Then again I've seen a study suggesting that the violence leves in cities and on the countryside is pretty much the same (at least after lead levels have evened out). Maybe, hopefully, the decline in violence in the US will continue and it will level out at a similar point as Europe / Asia - then we'll probably know that you were just poisoning yourselves with lead. I hope that this will have some impact on limiting the power of lobbies. Think of how much lead gasoline, lobbied into the world by the oil and car industry, has cost society, if this really was the main cause of the 70ies / 80ies crime outbursts.
        • jacquesm 14y ago
  • tokipin 14y ago
    > No, it makes perfect, quantifiable, empirical sense i disagree. the reality of a criminal entering someone's home where guns are involved is much more complicated and unpredictable than that argument implies. and i've also read of other studies that show the opposite conclusion of that study now that the research ban has been lifted, we will get a better picture eventually