<p>Right, but I never said that there was no correlation between gun control and reduced crime. You're assuming too much there.</p>
<p>According to Freakonomics, the book, there is possible correlation (not at all causation) to lowered crime and legalized abortion. It's a rather interesting read, and I recommend you pick up your copy today. It's by Steven Levitt, an UChicago Economist.</p>
<p>That's fascinating indeed. Is it a positive correlation?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Right, but I never said that there was no correlation between gun control and reduced crime. You're assuming too much there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess you didn't catch it. I said that assumption in a sarcastic manner. What I was trying to point out is that there is a very weak correlation between high gun ownership per capita and high rate of of violent crime per capita. However, liberals/anti-2nd amendment would have you believe that guns cause crime when the truth is that people are the root of crime.</p>
<p>There's also a correlation between ice cream sales and drownings-- it doesn't make them necessarily directly related. The point is that you can't just say, "Aha! They're correlated!" and rest on your laurels. I also don't believe that gun legislation reduces crime, either. What I do believe, however, is that the "ZOMG, gun control heavy cities have crime = gun control is bad" argument is logically fallacious at best. It ignores the causative factor for the gun control in the first place (high rates of gun crimes), and instead goes for the more easy correlation.</p>
<p>I prefer the much less definite answer of "it's very complicated, let's look at it from all angles." Unfortunately, that doesn't give talking heads/pundits/political zealots much to rant about, so I'm usually left being called either a raving liberal or a baby-eating conservative depending on who I talk to...</p>
<p>And yes, my less-than-concrete opinion has led to me being called both.</p>
<p>Check out John Lotts "More Guns: LEss Crime"</p>
<p>Decent book, but Lott overrelies on econometrics that actually backfired for him later when Nagin and Black basically made the data speak otherwise. I do agre with him, however, that the media doesn't report defensive use of guns.</p>
<p>Though there's a simple economic reason for that. </p>
<p>But anyway, I haven't read the whole thing, but part of it for a class I did back as an undergrad on modeling in social science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There's also a correlation between ice cream sales and drownings-- it doesn't make them necessarily directly related. The point is that you can't just say, "Aha! They're correlated!" and rest on your laurels. I also don't believe that gun legislation reduces crime, either. What I do believe, however, is that the "ZOMG, gun control heavy cities have crime = gun control is bad" argument is logically fallacious at best.
[/quote]
That is exactly my point! Gun control, even according to you, does not have a noticeable significant impact on crime. Politicians that continue to insist that it does (Feinstein) would probably achieve their desired end result (lower crime? ... or is it actually to disarm the general public...meanwhile Feinstein believes she is entitled to her concealed carry permit while her subjects are not) by focusing on approaches other than gun control.</p>
<p>Try seeing Michael Moore's movie, "Bowling for Columbine" some time. In one part of the movie he visits Canada (Windsor across from Detroit and Toronto). Handgun laws are strict in Canada, but rifles for hunting by millions of Canadians are prevalent. Guess what. Deaths from handguns are extremely low in Canada and violent crime in urban multi-ethnic Canada is much lower than comparably sized American cities. The fear of violent crime Toronto is also quite low (as evidenced by Michael Moore walking down a street with older townhomes and apartments in Toronto and finding that most doors weren't locked. When the resident came to the door he pretended he just made a mistake). A couple of these residents had been burglarized, but they still kept their doors unlocked in part because they did not fear violent crimes from the burglars. </p>
<p>I realize that strong gun control laws in the United States will never happen, but take a look across the border and see what might have been.</p>
<p>Here's an article from the Canadian Broadcasting Company</p>
<p>Gun deaths cut in half, StatsCan says
Last Updated Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:55:08 EDT
CBC News
The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. </p>
<p>In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory, but it draws no conclusions about the cause of the falling death toll. </p>
<p>Guns seized by Toronto police in February 2005. It says that 816 people 767 males and 49 females died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said. </p>
<p>Among males, the 2002 rate was 4.9 deaths per 100,000, down from 10.6 in 1979. Among females, it was 0.3, down from 1.2. </p>
<p>In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females. </p>
<p>Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada. </p>
<p>But even as Canada's rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says. </p>
<p>Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says.</p>
<p>Polo,</p>
<p>I don't disagree with that. Nonetheless, I believe that the whole siren's call of "gun control increases crime" also tends to be based on a fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Handgun laws are strict in Canada, but rifles for hunting by millions of Canadians are prevalent. Guess what. Deaths from handguns are extremely low in Canada and violent crime in urban multi-ethnic Canada is much lower than comparably sized American cities.
[/quote]
We can also look at Switzerland which virtually every household has a rifle and it has a extremely low rate of violent crime.</p>
<p>We could also look at Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and Eastern Europe where the greatest attrocities came after the government took away the ability for its people to protect themselves.</p>
<p>Polo,</p>
<p>You don't find that a bit silly of an argument, though? There are plenty of other countries with strict gun laws that aren't run by genocidal dictators, as well. Like I said earlier, the causes of murders are very complex, and we can't just point to one factor.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that doesn't give the O'Reillys and Moores much to talk about, does it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA is going to get their jock straps handed to them on September 2nd by my Utes!</p>
<p>Yeah, it's hard to mangle the numbers that urban, democratic, multi-ethnic, muliti-racial Canada in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc. has much lower rates of deaths from guns (and violent crime in general) than comparable American cities. And Canadian kids also see all the same violent movies, videos, and TV shows as the American kids do. Yet Canadians in general die in far fewer numbers from guns than we do. Strict gun control maybe?</p>
<p>The next time you hear about another boy being shot dead by playing with a friend (or by himself) with a handgun that his parents thought was securely tucked away, just fleetingly remember it did not have to be. His equally precocious, curious, mischievous Canadian counterpart will still be alive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The next time you hear about another boy being shot dead by playing with a friend (or by himself) with a handgun that his parents thought was securely tucked away, just fleetingly remember it did not have to be. His equally precocious, curious, mischievous Canadian counterpart will still be alive.
[/quote]
Actually, this happened in my town which is located in the People's Republic of New Jersey. A 11 year old boy "accidentally" shot his 12 year old friend in the head with an antique gun. We have fairly strict gun control laws here in New Jersey, but these words on paper didn't seem to prevent this event.</p>
<p>None the less, strict gun control does not prevent crime. Fewer criminals and stupid people prevent crime. In the event that I described above, both boys won the "darwin awards". The 11 year old boy won a darwin award because he committed a crime that he will have to live with the rest of his life. The 12 year old boy who got shot won a darwin award because if you see that your friend doesn't know how to handle a firearm safely, it is in your best interest to leave and if you don't, you will suffer the consequences. Of course there will always be some people that say, "These were just kids, they wouldn't know any better." What child does not know that playing with firearms can potentially cause very serious injury? The children who do not "know" probably have never seen a violent movie in their lives. It is far worse to not know the consequences of one's actions than to be subjected to some violent material.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, this happened in my town which is located in the People's Republic of New Jersey.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ugh. The whole "add 'People's Republic'" thing was cute about a year ago. It's dead. Drop it. </p>
<p>:-/</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the event that I described above, both boys won the "darwin awards". The 11 year old boy won a darwin award because he committed a crime that he will have to live with the rest of his life. The 12 year old boy who got shot won a darwin award because if you see that your friend doesn't know how to handle a firearm safely, it is in your best interest to leave and if you don't, you will suffer the consequences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd say the parents win the "I shoulda done a better job of keeping a gun out of my children's hands" award. Most 11-year-olds don't know how to properly handle a gun, let alone check to make sure that it's not loaded. The real crime was a parent not teaching their child to respect a firearm as "always loaded."</p>
<p>
[quote]
None the less, strict gun control does not prevent crime.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That, and I really wouldn't put the 11-year-old in the category of having deliberately commited a crime. There is a legal difference between an "accident" and a "crime" in many case.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most 11-year-olds don't know how to properly handle a gun, let alone check to make sure that it's not loaded. The real crime was a parent not teaching their child to respect a firearm as "always loaded."
[/quote]
That is a possibility. But it also possible that today with our huge population there will always be a few on the lower end of the "fit to survive" scale that will eventually earn darwin awards. I mean, you see so many stupid people everyday, that an incident like this no matter how tragic should not surprise everyone.
[quote]
That, and I really wouldn't put the 11-year-old in the category of having deliberately commited a crime. There is a legal difference between an "accident" and a "crime" in many case.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is also a legal difference between "accidental discharge" and "negligent discharge". An accidental discharge is when a firearm discharges a projectile without any input/contact from a person. A negligent discharge is when a firearm discharges a projectile in an unsafe manner with the input from a person. When you deliberately raise a gun to someone's head and you press the trigger, that is NOT an accident.</p>
<p>You also realize that children and adults are tried differently in court, right? </p>
<p>Different capacities.</p>
<p>How they are eventually held accountable in the court of law does not mean they have not committed a crime. Because someone is a child or an adult does not determine whether this incident is "accidental" or "negligent" in nature.</p>
<p>In the case of a child, who doesn't really understand the concept of "always loaded and dangerous," it's not really negligence. Negligence suggests failure to use reasonable care. You need to realize that something requires a level of care to begin with. </p>
<p>It's negligence on the part of the parent. It's an accident on the part of the child.</p>