Why do some countries have much higher rates of gun violence?

[jamesvt]

Incorrect. Most gun deaths are from suicide (20k) followed by homicide (10k). Of the approximately 30k deaths involving firearms in the US only about 500 of them are accidents.

Sorry - you are right. I should add that most suicides from guns are also determined by the availability of guns to normal, law abiding people. They went down 67% in Australia.

But did suicides overall go down? If not that statistic is not really relevant.

[Kris]

It's easy to get a gun in the US.  If it were harder to get a gun in the US, Canadian gun violence and crimes would drop simply due to availability.

In theory.  In practice, there are already an estimated 300M+ guns in the US, so unless you try and confiscate them (good luck!) the cat's already out of the bag.  That's what gun control advocates don't seem to get.  Yes, if you could confiscate all guns and THEN institute very strict controls on acquiring them, you could maybe 'solve' the problem, but in the real world where we all live, there are already so many guns out there that trying to solve anything by restricting new gun sales is just absurd. 


Also, FWIW, I just came back from a weekend in a time and place where every single person was carrying one gun and most were carrying 2*, and not a single problem with anyone anywhere.  It ain't the guns, folks.


*opening weekend for gun season in Northern WI, everyone has a hunting rifle and most were also carrying a sidearm.  I walked into a grocery store open carrying a Sig .40 pistol and no one blinked an eye (I was on my way into the woods).

This is one of the few things I will agree with Chris22 on. Gun control is already not a real option. It's far, far too late for that.

RUBBISH! When the somewhat draconian gun control laws were instituted in Australia (with 1/10th the population and therefore probably 1/10th the policemen), there was a buy back system. 660,959 guns were taken out of the system - that means, with your population, you should easily be able to take 6 million out of the system. And, given that you have more firearms per person, you should be able to get a much larger number. You are a rich nation, and can afford this, if we can.

Yes. Except we have the NRA. Which is an extremely powerful gun lobby, with shitloads of money behind them. Not to mention the Second Amendment, which people read the way they want to read it. Which is to say, in a way that means we get to have as many guns as we want, because freedom, y'all.

Look. I am in theory in agreement with you re Australia's reaction to Port Arthur. I wish that's who we were as a people. But we are not. Not by a goddamn long shot. This will never, ever happen in the US. We are way too ammosexual as a culture.

[deborah]

Incorrect. Most gun deaths are from suicide (20k) followed by homicide (10k). Of the approximately 30k deaths involving firearms in the US only about 500 of them are accidents.

Sorry - you are right. I should add that most suicides from guns are also determined by the availability of guns to normal, law abiding people. They went down 67% in Australia.

But did suicides overall go down? If not that statistic is not really relevant.

Yes. However, as that article I referred to originally says, gun deaths of all sorts were going down already, and have continued to go down since (even the figures in the wikipedia article are too high), so it is difficult to say how much was due to the gun control laws. And since they we have been really concentrating on suicide as well (you will notice at the end of the article there is a link to our depression/suicide hotline - this is normal in any article in any media that mentions suicide or depression in Australia).

[Metric Mouse]

To be fair, in America it's generally illegal to fire one's handgun in areas not private property/properly designated as a range. People still do though, sadly.

  Isn't almost everywhere private property?   LOL!  Anyway, this is wrong.  Most any area of National Forest is open to shooting so long as it is not hunting season and you are a certain distance from the road.

Is there a large number of murders committed in natinoal parks? Or are most murders committed where it is illegal to fire a firearm? The point is America has basically the same laws as Canada in that respect. If anyone who is not licensed is found to be carrying a firearm, they are arrested, just like in Canada. We dont have to have trigger locks on ours, but generally they must be cased or otherwise secured. Its not really the wild west down here.

[Metric Mouse]

This will never, ever happen in the US. We are way too ammosexual as a culture.

I wish more people would realize this. Then we could begin working together on reducing gun violence and gun deaths.

[Kris]

This will never, ever happen in the US. We are way too ammosexual as a culture.

I wish more people would realize this. Then we could begin working together on reducing gun violence and gun deaths.

Agreed.

[powskier]

America is all about the individual.
All other developed nations place a higher value on the society first, the individual second.

Guns, violence, inequality as well as genius and generosity come from this distinct difference.
This is my macro perspective.

[hoosier]

America is all about the individual.

Freedom.  Liberty.  Yup.

All other developed nations place a higher value on the society first, the individual second.

Statism.  Communism.  Nope.

I think our society has made the right choice.

[deborah]

America is all about the individual.

Freedom.  Liberty.  Yup.

All other developed nations place a higher value on the society first, the individual second.

Statism.  Communism.  Nope.

I think our society has made the right choice.

Freedom and Liberty - I don't think so - you have 5% (well 4.4%) of the world's population, and 25% of its people behind bars http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/15/jim-webb/webb-says-us-has-5-percent-worlds-population-25-pe/ (there are plenty of other places where you can get either of these figures, but that article comes from the US and puts both figures together).

There are plenty of other places that have very good democracies - one could say better - certainly better rates of gun deaths - look at the Nordic countries, or the other countries with native English speakers - UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Or even the other countries on the original list.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Freedom and Liberty - I don't think so - you have 5% (well 4.4%) of the world's population, and 25% of its people behind bars http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/15/jim-webb/webb-says-us-has-5-percent-worlds-population-25-pe/ (there are plenty of other places where you can get either of these figures, but that article comes from the US and puts both figures together).

And you want to put more of them, people like me, behind bars for violating your new gun laws?  No thanks.

[Northwestie]

America is all about the individual.

Freedom.  Liberty.  Yup.

All other developed nations place a higher value on the society first, the individual second.

Statism.  Communism.  Nope.

I think our society has made the right choice.

Yea for Freedum.

America is not the greatest country in the world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA

We did not used to scare so easy - which explains any number of recent events.

[GuitarStv]

America is all about the individual.

Freedom.  Liberty.  Yup.

All other developed nations place a higher value on the society first, the individual second.

Statism.  Communism.  Nope.

I think our society has made the right choice.

Yea for Freedum.

America is not the greatest country in the world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA

We did not used to scare so easy - which explains any number of recent events.

Worth a watch when Americans start talking about their freedom:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjeq3NYUw2M

[Kris]

America is all about the individual.

Freedom.  Liberty.  Yup.

All other developed nations place a higher value on the society first, the individual second.

Statism.  Communism.  Nope.

I think our society has made the right choice.

Yea for Freedum.

America is not the greatest country in the world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA

We did not used to scare so easy - which explains any number of recent events.

Worth a watch when Americans start talking about their freedom:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjeq3NYUw2M

I love that bit.

[Metric Mouse]

Freedom and Liberty - I don't think so - you have 5% (well 4.4%) of the world's population, and 25% of its people behind bars http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/dec/15/jim-webb/webb-says-us-has-5-percent-worlds-population-25-pe/ (there are plenty of other places where you can get either of these figures, but that article comes from the US and puts both figures together).

And you want to put more of them, people like me, behind bars for violating your new gun laws?  No thanks.

Right?

Also, if Mexico had stronger controls on the drugs grown in and shipped through their country, there wouldn't be nearly the abuse and crime in America related to illegal substances. Which, oddly, is also highly correlated to firearm violence.

[ooeei]

RUBBISH! When the somewhat draconian gun control laws were instituted in Australia (with 1/10th the population and therefore probably 1/10th the policemen), there was a buy back system. 660,959 guns were taken out of the system - that means, with your population, you should easily be able to take 6 million out of the system. And, given that you have more firearms per person, you should be able to get a much larger number. You are a rich nation, and can afford this, if we can.

There's plenty of debate on whether Australia's violence reduction is due to the laws, or the trend that was already happening before the laws.  I'm not really interested in getting into that here.

As far as a voluntary buyback, that's maybe the silliest political stuntest strategy I've ever heard of.  You know what guns are taken up during buybacks?  Old shitty ones that people don't care about anymore, or that they buy on purpose for less than the buyback price to make some cash.  They're purely so whatever politician decided to do it can put "I got 20,000 guns off the streets, and am making the world safer for your kids" on their political resume and campaign ads.  Don't pay attention to the fact that they spent a few million dollars to do it, or that it had no impact on crime.

The reason Australia's "worked" is that the buyback was actually confiscation.  You basically were told your guns you owned were illegal, but the government would pay you some $ value for turning them in.  It was less a "buyback" and more a confiscation with a bit of $ thrown in.  "Either you sell them to us now, or we come take them and fine/jail you later" is hardly a "buyback."

There are currently ~300 million guns in the United States.  Your buyback plan would not only be expensive, but even if it hit double what you project it would, it would only take ~4% of the guns out of circulation.  I highly doubt gangs and criminals would be turning anything in, so crime wouldn't be impacted. Occasionally they may turn in a gun they used in a crime, as identification isn't required so it's an easy way to get rid of some evidence.  More likely it'd be someone whose Grandpa left a rifle in the shed for 15 years and forgot about it, and it's rusted shut.  Maybe someone who inherited some guns and doesn't want them in the house for some reason.  Or maybe a few guns like this:

Incorrect. Most gun deaths are from suicide (20k) followed by homicide (10k). Of the approximately 30k deaths involving firearms in the US only about 500 of them are accidents.

Sorry - you are right. I should add that most suicides from guns are also determined by the availability of guns to normal, law abiding people. They went down 67% in Australia.

And yet even in our current state of guns killing people left and right, the US's suicide rate is only 14% higher than Australia's (and lower than a few of the other "reasonable gun law" countries in the OP).  I find it very hard to believe gun laws are a significant reason for that difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[Drifterrider]

Perhaps someone should determine which countries have the highest rates of violence by all means.

Then, we can compare apples to apples.  Are some people more prone to committing violence?  If so, what is the root cause of that?

[Intrigued]

This will never, ever happen in the US. We are way too ammosexual as a culture.

I wish more people would realize this. Then we could begin working together on reducing gun violence and gun deaths.

It's probably the wrong thread for a first post given it's an emotive subject for many, but being on the other side of the pond, the American approach to gun control and violence is perplexing. We obviously get media looking to portray it in a certain way but normally the clips you see of people as to why they own guns is one of fear and it's quite sad to watch. Worry about going to the cinema, an intruder breaking in etc

Yes, there are a significant number of guns already in circulation and harder to patrol with size of borders but surely gun controls can still be effective if done on a national level. Just my pennies worth but what about..

Start by restricting where they can be carried so it's the home only, people therefore can still say they are protecting their home but it makes it easier for police to make a decision if they arrested someone with a gun in person. Police officers in the UK have more time to consider the situation even if someone is holding a knife as they can combat it, I don't envy US officers who probably have to assume whoever they stop has a gun. That must breed fear and impact the reaction to a situation.

Then start restricting ammunition, particularly for high powered or multiple firing items. Make it difficult to buy, with clearances needed or use only at a gun range. Slowly those will become of less interest and will stop circulation. Amnesties and laws allowing them to be confiscated could ultimately come in to remove the weapons as law abiding citizens are unlikely to have them.

You'll still have violence, but I'm fairly confident it would be reduced. Those who mention people who switch to other methods of violence - I'd prefer chances of surviving if someone attacked with a bat or knife as opposed to a gun. Again, deescalates the sense of fear and also helps stop the mass shootings (could happen, but none of which have I heard of have been stopped by another citizen with a gun).

[scottish]

I find the whole thing intriguing.   

A big part of the American culture is about freedom, and being the greatest country in the world and the leader of the free world and so on.

And yet the US doesn't have things most first world countries take for granted.    (public health care, a good social safety net, all that welfare state stuff)

It's not just the gun violence rate, it's everything.   Why is the US so different from everyone else?

[RetiredAt63]

Or reverse the question?  Why have most first world countries gradually shifted to a more culturally supportive state (the health care, safety net, low cost higher education) while the US has not?  Especially why is Canada more like the European countries in those aspects while the US is not? 

Re Canada, there are all sorts of theories floating around.  To briefly list a few, the fact that it started (as of confederation) more ethnically diverse, more social influence of First Nations (more intermarriage) a la John Ralston Saul, influence of the Scots, influence of the harsh climate, influence of gradual development of self-government, influence of United Empire Loyalists, influence of being British subjects, influence of our southern neighbour.  I'm sure any historian could come up with dozens more.

Re the European countries, they have diverse histories, but they all have more social cohesiveness (at least when seen from a distance).

[GuitarStv]

Re the European countries, they have diverse histories, but they all have more social cohesiveness (at least when seen from a distance).

Meh.  People are people.

I'm not sure you can say that Ireland is socially cohesive.  France (National Front), Greece (Golden Dawn), Denmark (Danish People's Party), Hungary (Jobbik Party), Austria (Freedom Party), etc. all have nationalist parties aimed at dividing the countries.

[Metric Mouse]

This will never, ever happen in the US. We are way too ammosexual as a culture.

I wish more people would realize this. Then we could begin working together on reducing gun violence and gun deaths.

It's probably the wrong thread for a first post given it's an emotive subject for many, but being on the other side of the pond, the American approach to gun control and violence is perplexing. We obviously get media looking to portray it in a certain way but normally the clips you see of people as to why they own guns is one of fear and it's quite sad to watch. Worry about going to the cinema, an intruder breaking in etc

Yes, there are a significant number of guns already in circulation and harder to patrol with size of borders but surely gun controls can still be effective if done on a national level. Just my pennies worth but what about..

Start by restricting where they can be carried so it's the home only, people therefore can still say they are protecting their home but it makes it easier for police to make a decision if they arrested someone with a gun in person. Police officers in the UK have more time to consider the situation even if someone is holding a knife as they can combat it, I don't envy US officers who probably have to assume whoever they stop has a gun. That must breed fear and impact the reaction to a situation.

Then start restricting ammunition, particularly for high powered or multiple firing items. Make it difficult to buy, with clearances needed or use only at a gun range. Slowly those will become of less interest and will stop circulation. Amnesties and laws allowing them to be confiscated could ultimately come in to remove the weapons as law abiding citizens are unlikely to have them.

You'll still have violence, but I'm fairly confident it would be reduced. Those who mention people who switch to other methods of violence - I'd prefer chances of surviving if someone attacked with a bat or knife as opposed to a gun. Again, deescalates the sense of fear and also helps stop the mass shootings (could happen, but none of which have I heard of have been stopped by another citizen with a gun).

Welcome to the forum!

The main issue with your suggestions  is that the end result is confiscation of almoat all firearms. Both liberals and conservatives in America have stated they do not wish to ban or confiscate all firearms. Even gun control supporters claim that such a step would be too far. So that option is pretty much off the table, as it has very little public support.

[GuitarStv]

This will never, ever happen in the US. We are way too ammosexual as a culture.

I wish more people would realize this. Then we could begin working together on reducing gun violence and gun deaths.

It's probably the wrong thread for a first post given it's an emotive subject for many, but being on the other side of the pond, the American approach to gun control and violence is perplexing. We obviously get media looking to portray it in a certain way but normally the clips you see of people as to why they own guns is one of fear and it's quite sad to watch. Worry about going to the cinema, an intruder breaking in etc

Yes, there are a significant number of guns already in circulation and harder to patrol with size of borders but surely gun controls can still be effective if done on a national level. Just my pennies worth but what about..

Start by restricting where they can be carried so it's the home only, people therefore can still say they are protecting their home but it makes it easier for police to make a decision if they arrested someone with a gun in person. Police officers in the UK have more time to consider the situation even if someone is holding a knife as they can combat it, I don't envy US officers who probably have to assume whoever they stop has a gun. That must breed fear and impact the reaction to a situation.

Then start restricting ammunition, particularly for high powered or multiple firing items. Make it difficult to buy, with clearances needed or use only at a gun range. Slowly those will become of less interest and will stop circulation. Amnesties and laws allowing them to be confiscated could ultimately come in to remove the weapons as law abiding citizens are unlikely to have them.

You'll still have violence, but I'm fairly confident it would be reduced. Those who mention people who switch to other methods of violence - I'd prefer chances of surviving if someone attacked with a bat or knife as opposed to a gun. Again, deescalates the sense of fear and also helps stop the mass shootings (could happen, but none of which have I heard of have been stopped by another citizen with a gun).

Welcome to the forum!

The main issue with your suggestions  is that the end result is confiscation of almoat all firearms. Both liberals and conservatives in America have stated they do not wish to ban or confiscate all firearms. Even gun control supporters claim that such a step would be too far. So that option is pretty much off the table, as it has very little public support.

Not true at all.

Canada has lots of restrictions on firearms and it's not hard at all to get a gun if you want to go hunting or shooting at a range.  Gun ownership in Canada is pretty high, and the end result is that we've totally avoided the 'confiscation of almost all firearms' that you're referring to.

Gun control advocates often advance the 'they're going to take (almost) all my guns' to elicit an emotional fear response and attempt to shut down debate.  It's demonstrably not true when looking at how gun control implementations have worked in the majority of democratic countries around the world.

[Metric Mouse]

I'm not sure what isnt true; Intrigued clearly stated that rhe end result was "laws allowing them to be confiscated. "

Clearly, as you pointed out, very few people want this level of control in the United States.

[scottish]

Confiscation by the state is a very bad thing.

Non-resident property owners in Vancouver are beginning to experience this.    The city is imposing a tax of  0.5% to 2% of the property value on all residential properties that are unoccupied.   Really??    Since when is it the city's business how I use my property???

I'll advocate for gun control, but I'd never advocate for confiscation of legally owned firearms.

[Malum Prohibitum]

I find the whole thing intriguing.   

A big part of the American culture is about freedom, and being the greatest country in the world and the leader of the free world and so on.

And yet the US doesn't have things most first world countries take for granted.    (public health care, a good social safety net, all that welfare state stuff)

It's not just the gun violence rate, it's everything.   Why is the US so different from everyone else?

  Well, you answered the question yourself by posing it the way you did.  All of the things that other countries "take for granted" have nothing to do with freedom.  They have to do with the state and state power.  This includes the difference in gun laws, too, not just the "welfare stuff."

Americans do not view other countries that have these things as being as "Free."  I am not looking to start a debate with you about why that is so, or whether you happen to think it is true, but that is the way Americans generally view it, so now you can at least understand why the US is "so different from everyone else."  This is the philosophy that underlies most US citizens - the dirty little secret of freedom is, you are on your own (Clarence Thomas will forgive me if I butchered his quote).  The US was founded on individual rights, not group rights.

We also have a constitution that grants extremely limited powers to the federal government, so many of the things you list were never authorized by the foundational document that makes up our system of government.  There are exactly 18 things Congress is authorized to do (see article 1, sec 8).  When Roosevelt started his New Deal program with the help of eager Democrats in Congress, the Supreme Court struck down every single New Deal law as not being an authorized exercise of power granted to Congress.  This changed when Roosevelt threatened the Court (court packing scheme), and they began to pretend some of these unauthorized actions were authorized (social security, etc.).

So we have an idea that individual rights exist, and not group rights, a constitution that grants limited powers, and, in addition to that, a bill of rights that specifies things the government may not do even it it is exercising an enumerated power (which is where the gun thing comes in again).

I hope that helps if this was a genuinely curious question.

Ideas are shifting in the US.  Lots of voters, from time to time a majority, are quite willing to ignore our constitution to get what they want, and only pay lip service to the constitution if they think it protects something they happen to value.  There are plenty of politicians and judges willing to go along with such sentiments, so that our constitution is eroded a little more each year.

[scottish]

The US constitution is substantially older than the Canadian constitution.    It's easy to find topics that provide more 'freedom' in the US than Canada as part of the constitutional documents, eg
- the right to bear arms
- property rights

Recently, I was surprised to realize that property rights aren't a big priority in Canada.     They are in the US, aren't they?

It makes me wonder if the US constitution is in need of a major update.   Didn't Roosevelt's new deal effectively end the great depression?    Imagine it being illegal for the government to undertake such economic activity.      Anyway, I'm sure you don't want advise from someone who isn't a US citizen on that topic!

Your explanation makes sense.   If the population of the US thinks of itself as the leader of the free world, then pretty well anything it does is the right thing to do.   It also makes it much less difficult to understand the polarization between the left and the right.    The right believes in the constitution, and thinks that anything in there must be the writ, the best way, and the only proper way to do things.    The left doesn't share this belief and looks at other countries in the world for ideas on how to improve (i.e. the ACA).   

Have I got it?

[RetiredAt63]

Canada also has federal and provincial jurisdictions. However the areas that are seen by others tend to be federal, so the provincial areas may be less noticeable.

Division:

Federal jurisdiction

    Trade, Taxes, Postal service, Militia and defence, Currency and banks, Indian policies,
    Criminal law, Residual powers (not defined in the British North America Act),
    Right of disallowance over the provinces

Provincial jurisdiction

    Public lands and forests, Health system, Municipal institutions, Marriage, Property and civil rights, Education, Business licences, Provincial constitution

Shared jurisdiction

    Agriculture, Companies and economic development, Prisons and justice, Fishing,
    Public works, Transportations and communications, Immigration

Changes in who does what tend to be by legislation, not amendments to the constitution, so again less visible.  The Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms (First part of the constitution Act, 1982) is fairly recent, but comprehensive (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html).  It is truly a reflection of Canada (lots about personal rights, languages, rules of Parliament, nothing on property rights).

[deborah]

Canada also has federal and provincial jurisdictions. However the areas that are seen by others tend to be federal, so the provincial areas may be less noticeable.

Division:

Federal jurisdiction

    Trade, Taxes, Postal service, Militia and defence, Currency and banks, Indian policies,
    Criminal law, Residual powers (not defined in the British North America Act),
    Right of disallowance over the provinces

Provincial jurisdiction

    Public lands and forests, Health system, Municipal institutions, Marriage, Property and civil rights, Education, Business licences, Provincial constitution

Shared jurisdiction

    Agriculture, Companies and economic development, Prisons and justice, Fishing,
    Public works, Transportations and communications, Immigration

Changes in who does what tend to be by legislation, not amendments to the constitution, so again less visible.  The Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms (First part of the constitution Act, 1982) is fairly recent, but comprehensive (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html).  It is truly a reflection of Canada (lots about personal rights, languages, rules of Parliament, nothing on property rights).

That is quite interesting. In Australia, you would expect our division to be the same as we went through the federation process at about the same time as the Canadians, and have a similar background. But there are some distinctions. Transportation, Public Works, Prisons, Aboriginal Affairs, Agriculture (including quarantine zones) and Fishing are all at a state level, Border Protection (including international quarantine) is at the federal level. Taxes are shared (originally they were all state, but the Federal Government took over income tax during the war, and introduced GST - which is divided between the states but collected federally). There tend to be federal departments for things like Health but Medicare is federal and every hospital is state.

[Metric Mouse]

The US constitution is substantially older than the Canadian constitution.    It's easy to find topics that provide more 'freedom' in the US than Canada as part of the constitutional documents, eg
- the right to bear arms
- property rights

Recently, I was surprised to realize that property rights aren't a big priority in Canada.     They are in the US, aren't they?

It makes me wonder if the US constitution is in need of a major update.   Didn't Roosevelt's new deal effectively end the great depression?    Imagine it being illegal for the government to undertake such economic activity.      Anyway, I'm sure you don't want advise from someone who isn't a US citizen on that topic!

Your explanation makes sense.   If the population of the US thinks of itself as the leader of the free world, then pretty well anything it does is the right thing to do.   It also makes it much less difficult to understand the polarization between the left and the right.    The right believes in the constitution, and thinks that anything in there must be the writ, the best way, and the only proper way to do things.    The left doesn't share this belief and looks at other countries in the world for ideas on how to improve (i.e. the ACA).   

Have I got it?

To be fair, the "left" stole the majority of the ACA from the "right". Romney care, the basis of the ACA was first put into use by a Republican.

I don't see the lines as clear cut as left or right, but I did try to keep it in the terms you used.

[Malum Prohibitum]

It makes me wonder if the US constitution is in need of a major update.   Didn't Roosevelt's new deal effectively end the great depression?    Imagine it being illegal for the government to undertake such economic activity.      Anyway, I'm sure you don't want advise from someone who isn't a US citizen on that topic!

  I am willing to listen to anybody.  Most Canadians I know are pretty much like US citizens I know in outlook and culture, and around here all the Canadians immigrants own and carry firearms (gasp!) and consider it one of the perks of living in the US. 

As a child in school I was taught that Roosevelt was the great savior who pulled us out of the Great Depression.  My grandparents loved him with reverence.  Now I am older and have studied that period and the New Deal much more closely than anybody else I know personally, and I have come to the exact opposite conclusion, now thinking his policies caused the depression to be worse and of a much longer duration than had he done absolutely nothing at all.   In addition, the consequences were drastic for many individuals caught up in the economic control schemes that he put into place.  Many economists studying the period have come to the same conclusion, although I do not rely on appeal to authority for my own conclusion.

As to the rest of the post, yes, I think you do "have it."

It is nice to have a discussion that does not descend into endless ad hominem (it's all those stupid, uneducated rednecks with guns or they are all mental or paranoid) attacks.

[RetiredAt63]

Most Canadians I know are pretty much like US citizens I know in outlook and culture, and around here all the Canadians immigrants own and carry firearms (gasp!) and consider it one of the perks of living in the US. 

Well your sample is of people in your area - maybe your area is high in gun ownership?  Maybe some of the ones you know like target shooting and enjoy the easier access?  Or they think that if things are so dangerous that everyone has guns, maybe they should too?

I know lots of people who have guns, since I live in a farming area and there are coyotes (and fishers, and what look like cougars on hunting cams).  And hunters - deer populations are too high, Lyme disease is becoming a concern, and hunters are generally welcome.  Its just not much of a topic of general conversation. 

Plus a lot of Canadians try to blend in when they are in the US, and basically avoid topics that they know will be contentious (like politics and religion and guns).  You are likely to get a better idea of Canadian values and culture on a forum like this, where we are speaking our minds, than when we are guests trying to be polite and fit in.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Well your sample is of people in your area - maybe your area is high in gun ownership?  Maybe some of the ones you know like target shooting and enjoy the easier access?  Or they think that if things are so dangerous that everyone has guns, maybe they should too?

  I do not claim to have conducted a carefully controlled study of Canadians immigrants to the United States.  Yes, this is a sample of people I know in my area only.  Yes, my area is high in gun ownership.  I have never heard one of the Canadian immigrants express the last idea as their own.

Plus a lot of Canadians try to blend in when they are in the US, and basically avoid topics that they know will be contentious (like politics and religion and guns).  You are likely to get a better idea of Canadian values and culture on a forum like this, where we are speaking our minds, than when we are guests trying to be polite and fit in.

  LOL!  A forum like this is full of outliers.  I hardly think anybody on here is a representative sample of anything other than people with high savings rates, or people who aspire to high savings rates.

Also, the people from Canada I know do not avoid contentious topics or expressing their opinion, even on politics, religion, and guns.  It could be I only know the weird Canadian immigrants . . . but, like I said, I haven't conducted a study, nor do I intend to do so.  I am just posting my own experience.  That is all.   I like the ones I know.  I would probably like some of the Canadian immigrants you know, even if they do not like to own or carry guns.  Live and let live.

[RangerOne]

While I think good gun laws are important and potentially effective at avoiding unnecessary violence I think there are also numerous shitty gun laws on the books. Especially in states like California and we are arguably not that much safer for it.

It is an unending balancing act to try to encourage responsible safe gun ownership while deterring criminals and the mentally ill from abusing firearms.

I think it makes sense for these laws to vary across different states and cities as concepts like open carry may make less sense in crowded city where safely discharging a fire arm is next to impossible versus a rural community where police response may be slow and population density is low.

I think we need more efficient paths to remove crappy dated gun laws. Consolidate and improve good ones and more research to try to measure the value of one law versus another.

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

[GuitarStv]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

[Metric Mouse]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

It's still up for debate that those laws had any effect upon gun violence. Correlation does not equal causation; and for every country with stricter laws and less violence there is at least one country with stricter laws and more gun violence.

[Midwest]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

It's still up for debate that those laws had any effect upon gun violence. Correlation does not equal causation; and for every country with stricter laws and less violence there is at least one country with stricter laws and more gun violence.

Are we concerned about gun violence or violence in general?  Personally I'm less concerned about the tool than the violence.

[Metric Mouse]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

It's still up for debate that those laws had any effect upon gun violence. Correlation does not equal causation; and for every country with stricter laws and less violence there is at least one country with stricter laws and more gun violence.

Are we concerned about gun violence or violence in general?  Personally I'm less concerned about the tool than the violence.

If that were the concern, I think we would be proposing different laws, and expecting different impacts.

[Midwest]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

It's still up for debate that those laws had any effect upon gun violence. Correlation does not equal causation; and for every country with stricter laws and less violence there is at least one country with stricter laws and more gun violence.

Are we concerned about gun violence or violence in general?  Personally I'm less concerned about the tool than the violence.

If that were the concern, I think we would be proposing different laws, and expecting different impacts.

You mean like actual success in reducing violent deaths?

[Kris]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

It's still up for debate that those laws had any effect upon gun violence. Correlation does not equal causation; and for every country with stricter laws and less violence there is at least one country with stricter laws and more gun violence.

Part of the reason that it is still "up for debate" is that the NRA does everything it can to block CDC research on gun violence. If it really believed the research would bear out its position, it doesn't seem the gun lobby would work so hard to prevent research. This one thing, more than anything else, convinces me the NRA believes there IS a causal link. In much the same way that industries that contribute heavily to carbon emissions do everything they can to cast doubt on climate science.

[RangerOne]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

Unquestioning no, but playing word games with the amendment is not going to change peoples minds. I suppose though in the legal realm its all down to words.

[Kriegsspiel]

All while keeping in mind that yes the 2nd amendment exists and no it is not just for publicly run militias.

If you're going to try to improve gun laws in the US by looking at things that have worked elsewhere around the world, holding a US exclusive law written 245 years ago as being unquestionably right might not be the best approach.

Unquestioning no, but playing word games with the amendment is not going to change peoples minds. I suppose though in the legal realm its all down to words.

Lawyers used to be able to duel. Then guns got really accurate. So they stopped dueling.

Talk about your unintended consequences.

[Metric Mouse]

Lawyers used to be able to duel. Then guns got really accurate. So they stopped dueling.

Talk about your unintended consequences.

This is one law that probably has reduced gun deaths. :D

Part of the reason that it is still "up for debate" is that the NRA does everything it can to block CDC research on gun violence. If it really believed the research would bear out its position, it doesn't seem the gun lobby would work so hard to prevent research. This one thing, more than anything else, convinces me the NRA believes there IS a causal link. In much the same way that industries that contribute heavily to carbon emissions do everything they can to cast doubt on climate science.

If only there was a way to do research without government funding. Or if there were more people that disagreed with the NRA than there are people who support it, then it wouldn't matter what the NRA wished.

The NRA boogie man gets pretty old. Sure they're the 'face' of gun-rights, but the fact is that it's the massive number of voters that support gun rights (and possibly disapprove of research on the topic) that really drives policy.

[ooeei]

It's probably the wrong thread for a first post given it's an emotive subject for many, but being on the other side of the pond, the American approach to gun control and violence is perplexing. We obviously get media looking to portray it in a certain way but normally the clips you see of people as to why they own guns is one of fear and it's quite sad to watch. Worry about going to the cinema, an intruder breaking in etc

Yes, there are a significant number of guns already in circulation and harder to patrol with size of borders but surely gun controls can still be effective if done on a national level. Just my pennies worth but what about..

Start by restricting where they can be carried so it's the home only, people therefore can still say they are protecting their home but it makes it easier for police to make a decision if they arrested someone with a gun in person. Police officers in the UK have more time to consider the situation even if someone is holding a knife as they can combat it, I don't envy US officers who probably have to assume whoever they stop has a gun. That must breed fear and impact the reaction to a situation.

Even if you restrict it to only carrying at home, the police will still have to assume anyone could have a gun, as anyone who would be likely to use it against a police officer wouldn't care about the "keep it at home" law.

Then start restricting ammunition, particularly for high powered or multiple firing items. Make it difficult to buy, with clearances needed or use only at a gun range. Slowly those will become of less interest and will stop circulation. Amnesties and laws allowing them to be confiscated could ultimately come in to remove the weapons as law abiding citizens are unlikely to have them.

And THIS is why gun rights advocates resist additional restrictions.  The head of the Brady Campaign laid out a very similar strategy in the 70's.

There are numerous people who say they don't want to confiscate guns, they just want a few of those other steps that come before it.  The problem is most of us don't believe they'll actually stop there, and will change their minds once they see that registration and carrying restrictions don't really stop gun violence.

So far I've never heard of a gun law (other than the assault weapons ban because of its sunset clause) that was repealed down the road if it was found not to work.  Many gun owners I know, and myself would be fine with adding new laws if they get rid of some of the current ones that make no sense. 

You'll still have violence, but I'm fairly confident it would be reduced. Those who mention people who switch to other methods of violence - I'd prefer chances of surviving if someone attacked with a bat or knife as opposed to a gun. Again, deescalates the sense of fear and also helps stop the mass shootings (could happen, but none of which have I heard of have been stopped by another citizen with a gun).

You haven't heard of any being stopped by another citizen because then it's not a mass shooting.  It's like me saying I haven't heard of a fatal drunk driving accident being stopped by friends taking away someone's keys.  I'm sure it happens, but it's tough to prove since by definition it prevents the event from happening.  Once it becomes a mass shooting police are likely on scene and civilians are moving out of the area.  I don't think police would appreciate a civilian with a gun running through a shooting scene.

If you google "active shooter stopped by civilian" you'll find an FBI active shooter study (pdf) from 2000-2013 with information on page 11.  It shows that approximately 3% of active shooters are stopped by armed civilians.  This compares to 28% stopped by law enforcement, 56% by suicide, and 13% by unarmed citizens. 

Considering in 2007 (the middle of this study) ~1.5% of the population had carry permits, not all of them have guns on them at all times, and many shootings occur in "gun free zones" where armed civilians are not allowed, I don't think that's too shabby.  In other words, while concealed carry holders were only 1.5% of the population, they accounted for 19% of the shooters stopped by civilians, and 7% of shooters stopped by civilians and police.

Note that these numbers are only as good as the data that backs them up, and only apply to the FBIs interpretation of an "active shooter."  I didn't read through all of the methodology, it's a 47 page report.  PDF link below:

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf

[Malum Prohibitum]

You haven't heard of any being stopped by another citizen because then it's not a mass shooting.

People here forget about the media bias against guns.   Things get reported a certain way, and that becomes reality.  Everybody remembers Virginia Tech shooting and murders because it was news 24/7 for a long period of time.  Nobody remembers the Appalachian Law School shooting because it was stopped by two students with guns.  Same state.  5 years separating the two.  The only AP story failed even to mention that the students had guns and claimed that they "tackled" the shooter (no tackling happened).  John Lott, in his book The Media Bias Against guns interviewed the students, who made it quite clear what they told the reporter, the reporter, and the editor who made the story that became the AP story, and the reporter and editor basically said their version was close enough and the fact that the students pointed guns at the shooter, which caused him to stop after shooting multiple people, basically was not important enough to report.

Pearl, Mississippi, the principal stopped the shooter as he was in his car in the parking lot, about to drive a few blocks to another school and resume shooting.  Again, merely a pointed gun stopped everything in its tracks.  Not reported 24/7.

2007 Jeanne Assam shot a mass shooter at the New Life Church out in Colorado.  He had already committed mass murder the day before at one of their missionary schools, so several people, including Ms. Assam, were asked to carry their guns to church the next day.  The shooter appeared, shot three people in the parking lot (killing two teenage girls and wounding their father), and came into the church shooting.  He was carrying 1000 rounds of ammunition.  Any of you who have ever picked up that many rifle rounds know how much it weighs.  He really wanted to cause damage to the 5,000 people gathered that Sunday morning.  Ms. Assam engaged him and shot him.  He fell to the ground, and, realizing he could do no more damage, shot himself in the head.  The interview with the press told reporters clearly that Ms. Assam was a missionary student with a concealed carry license who had been asked, along with other church-goers, to carry.  So, how did the media report it?  Armed security guard shoots attacker.  Although it was untrue, this better fits the narrative of turning over responsibility for your safety to others.

Last year, you might have heard of the Uber driver in Chicago who shot a man who was shooting into a crowd.

Last year, in a Philadelphia barber shop, a man began shooting several people until he was shot by an armed customer.

There are lots and lots more stories.  The mass church shooting in South Carolina received 24/7 coverage, but a man who kicked in the door of a South Carolina church in 2012 and went in with a shotgun was not covered much at all, because a parishioner held him at gunpoint for the police.  Nobody was shot.  Not newsworthy.  Because it is not newsworthy, the public gullibly thinks it did not happen, it is not real.  Reality is only what the TV shows you.

Your other points are valid as well, ooeel.  These shootings usually happen in gun-free zones, which means it is unlikely law abiding people will be carrying guns.  This should drive you to ask - WHY ARE MASS SHOOTERS CHOOSING GUN FREE ZONES?  Because they do not want to be shot.

The mass shooters actually take advantage of gun control laws.  They see the gun laws as weaknesses to be exploited.  It makes their job easier.

[Metric Mouse]

Thanks Malum - saved me from a massive post of examples as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.1465d8e5bc20

lists eight or 9 in the past ten years. And there are several that are missing from the list, such as the Clackamas mall shooting in Oregon, or the cc holder who shot the man who had disabled and was beating a police officer in Florida late this year.

[Malum Prohibitum]

This happened here in Atlanta in 2009, college student stopped a threatened mass murder (and rape) in its tracks by engaging and shooting multiple bad guys with guns.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2054129059072688443

It was reported here in Atlanta, locally, a bit, but I do not know if it was reported nationally.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Anyway, I do not intend to keep posting examples. There are LOTS of them out there.  My only point was to respond to whichever poster was asking why she does not hear about "civilians" stopping mass shootings.  The answer is simple, but disturbing.  The people you are listening to do not want you to hear about them.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Part of the reason that it is still "up for debate" is that the NRA does everything it can to block CDC research on gun violence. If it really believed the research would bear out its position, it doesn't seem the gun lobby would work so hard to prevent research. This one thing, more than anything else, convinces me the NRA believes there IS a causal link. In much the same way that industries that contribute heavily to carbon emissions do everything they can to cast doubt on climate science.

  Or, Kris, it could be that Kellerman and others at the CDC are extremely biased and churn out trash science (I hesitate to even give it the level of respect that "junk science" deserves) that is more gun control propaganda than serious study of "epidemiology."  This was addressed on page 1.  See Reply #5.

A study that should have shown the city with more gun control had marginally higher homicide rates did not, because Kellerman chose to misrepresent it.  A "scholar" like that should never be taken seriously again, but you want to reward him by showering him with federal funds. 

By the way, Kellerman is also the source of the often quoted statistic that a gun in the house is more likely to be used against somebody in the home than against a criminal.  Take that for what it is worth.

Be careful and a little critical of what you are told.  Do not reward deception and propaganda with money.

[ooeei]

Thanks Malum - saved me from a massive post of examples as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.1465d8e5bc20

lists eight or 9 in the past ten years. And there are several that are missing from the list, such as the Clackamas mall shooting in Oregon, or the cc holder who shot the man who had disabled and was beating a police officer in Florida late this year.

Good link.  I usually hesitate to post examples of this because I always forget where to look.  When I google it all sorts of biased (sounding) websites come up, and I don't really take them seriously.  Glad to have an aggregate of at least a few examples with sources to local news sites.

[Cathy]

... a US exclusive law written 245 years ago ...

(Emphasis mine.)

According to Supreme Court in DC v. Heller, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has long been viewed as a direct descendant of a provision titled "Subjects' Arms" in the English Bill of Rights 1689, 1 William & Mary Sess 2, c 2, a provision of UK law that technically still remains in force today. 128 S Ct 2783, 2798 (2008). In that sense, it is not "a US exclusive law", although admittedly it no longer has much substance or relevance in the UK as a result of later-enacted laws.



As for the topic, even if it can be shown that liberal gun policies (such as those that exist in the United States) lead to more gun violence than the allegedly restrictive policies in certain other countries, it doesn't follow that those other countries should be copied. In a free society, we don't limit individual freedom just because an increase in safety can be thereby achieved. Otherwise we would have government-controlled surveillance recording the inside of every house at all times, among other safety-promoting ideas. Safety might be relevant, if it can be established that a given proposal will increase safety, but you still need to articulate an argument about why the decrease in freedom is warranted to achieve that safety.