Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

No not at all. Just that the increased restrictions didn't reduce rates.

My belief is that prohibition of something people want just doesn't work in general, and other factors than gun accessibility have a far greater impact on violent crime and murder.

But the argument that those increased gun restrictions didn't reduce gun violence or crime will be used.

The fact that gun crime increased supports my theory that economic and social factors are far more impactful than any possible law or restriction.

 

I think that looking at rates of change without looking at the level of the problem is a mistake you make.

It is like saying "once there were restrictions from dropping people into pools that are 3 ft deep to 2 ft deep there was no reduction in drowning, thus there should be no advantage to restricting dropping people in the middle of the ocean". Obviously, that's an absurd idea.

The problem is that even before the restrictions in the UK or Australia, these countries had a fraction of the access to guns that this country has. Thus, this argument carries no water with me, frankly - and I specifically used the word water because without it, people will die, but if you have too much of it, you will die as well. The argument that restrictions are not beneficial is just wrong, like everything else in life, gun access is not a binary problem, it needs to be within an acceptable range - and unfortunately, the numbers show, very clearly, that the US is well outside this acceptable range.

 

I wasn't talking about other countries in this post. I was talking about the states in the US which have increased gun control over the last 5-10 years. California has enacted more gun control laws since 2019 than they did between 1900 and 2019. As has Washington and Oregon. And there are more states just like that. And every one of them have seen spikes in all crime and murder, including with guns.

However, since you brought it up, the change before and after gun control in those countries was very similar to (or even far less than, in the case of the UK and Brazil) the change we saw in the US over the same time frame. While the US was doubling the number of guns and increasing access to them our intentional homicide rates dropped as fast or faster than the UK and Australia who had enacted sweeping gun control.

I'm not ignoring anything with this point. I'm asking for before and after evidence that gun control actually makes a significant difference. I've not been able to find that evidence. In fact, the evidence I've been able to find has refuted that idea.

 

Since 2019 means nothing because we had a pandemic and divided political population to deal with and we all know that it takes time for new restrictions to actually affect the amounts of guns on the streets - I would certainly no try to deduce anything from it about gun ownership. What we have seen in California which has enacted higher restrictions over the years is that between 2000 and 2019 violent crime rates have fallen by a 1/3 - which is a huge amount. California still stands at 28% of household gun ownership which is still more than twice as many as Australia had before their restrictions. During the same time period, Alaska's crime rate has fallen only 2% - it is clear that reducing the access to firearms in California has worked much better than the no-changes approach taken by Alaska.

If anything, looking at violent crime rates and household gun ownerships between states in the US is a good indicator that there is a correlation, especially when you look at some of the highest violent crime rate states have low population density and high household firearm ownership.

 

I'm not deducing anything from it, other than social and economic triggers are far more powerful than legal restrictions. Which is VERY clear.

I am saying the argument will be used that there can be no causal relationship shown between reduced crime and gun control.

The US as a whole saw similar drops in violent crime rates over this time frame.

Correlation isn't enough, IMO. You need to prove a causal relationship to significant reductions in violent crime and murder rates if you want to get much movement on gun restrictions. Which will require 38 states to support amending the constitution. And to drive home how difficult that will be, 30 states are moving the exact opposite direction at this point.

 

Correlation is always required in a complex situation like society planning and legal work - otherwise nothing can be proven in a vacuum. What the world has shown is a strong relationship between violent crime rates and firearms access among countries with similar traits of democracy, affluence and first-world amenities. The world has also shown that there is little measurable mental health difference between these countries.

Now, I am going to separate this from the constitution and the amount of issues that are required to change it - because I am 100% certain about the fact that it will be a slow moving solution because of the fundamental problems that the constitution presents in this case. But, ignoring the biggest cause of the problem (too easy access to tools of destruction) is just amplifying the problem that that outdated document presents in our society.

 

This seems like you might be ignoring the fact that the US doesn't have similar access to first-world amenities like education, healthcare, and a social safety net as the countries you're comparing it to.

Violent crime isn't only committed by crazy people but desperate people. The one way to take all of this into consideration is by looking at Gini rankings. The US is not good. Countries with better Gini coefficient have less violent crime. Which is why I have repeatedly brought it up.

That can be improved without amending the constitution.

 

Agree 100%. Which is exactly what I've been advocating for. I just thought it was interesting that he made that point.

 

Oh, the US certainly has access to first-world amenities like all these countries, but they are not as well distributed - I have no doubts that universal healthcare will help, and better education (although we are not that different from most first world countries in that regard).

Absolutely true, but this is the place where we show that violent crime rates in CA with a super high Gini coefficient is much much lower than the violent crime rates in Alaska which has lower Gini coefficient. The same is true for New York which has a higher Gini coefficient rate than Alaska but a much lower violent crime rate.

Of course they can, but unfortunately, they are somewhat like dropping a life jacket for someone dropped in the middle of the ocean. It will improve the survival rate but does not fix the fundamental problem.

Unfortunately, you keep on going back to the argument that we should not discuss the root of the problem because the constitution will make fixing it hard. I argue that this is a mistake that will just make fixing that root problem even harder.

 

It also has to do with the ability and willingness for those services to work together that make the big difference. Which the currently proposed legislations appears to at least try and improve on. It's also having the improved access to these services will help destigmatize mental healthcare in the US. As well as a COMPLETELY different police ideology and judicial system.

In most of Europe these services work together to focus on restitution, healing and education. Not how things work here in the US.

*edit* And having access in the country doesn't help if it's not well distributed. That's the point.

Alaska has a very high gini coefficient, all US states do (within about .1). And Alaska has FAR less access to first world amenities than California and New York.

If guns are the root of the problem then that means having guns will make an otherwise law abiding citizen feel the need to shoot people. Is that the claim you're making?

I am of the opinion that allowing more people to become desperate makes them more likely to make poor choices which are more likely to put them in life or death situations.

 

Listen to the podcast. He specifically said he couldn't get all the Dems to agree to that, let alone many Republicans. He didn't think they would get even 50 votes to raise the age.

 

But it is still lower than California, and if you do not want to use Alaska for first world amenities, use Arizona or Tennessee - which would have the same level of access as California, with a lower Gini coefficient and higher violent crime rate. All these things you suggest can help, but the big difference between these is consistently access to firearms. consistently.

No, I have said it before, there needs to be much better control over access to firearms, and much better enforcement. Once it is not so easy to access it for everyone at any whim, the law abiding citizens that have access to it will likely (extrapolating from other sources) need to use it less for protection and a lot of violent crimes that are easy to perform will be easier to prevent or not taken. It is really not a complicated issue. If you want to encourage something, you make access to the tools that enable it easier, if you want to discourage something, you make access to the tools that enable it harder. It's why the buy now button on Amazon works, and it's why lung cancer death rate has decreased when access to cigarettes was made harder.

 

Access to cigarettes hasn't gotten harder... What restriction caused the change shown above? Any adult can buy as many cigarettes as they want. Lung cancer rates started dropping because of education, access to care, and social pressures, not prohibition.

The numbers you're pointing out could mean anything. Otherwise California would have lower crime rates than Main, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, and the list goes on. They all have far more guns per capita than California or New York, but lower crime rates. The things you're pointing out aren't consistent. And the differences in violent crime between them aren't enough to move the needle. You're talking about differences of .2% over 100,000 people...

Nobody is going to have their opinion changed on their personal rights based on hopes of a possible 0.2% reduced crime rate... especially when the data that claim is based on isn't consistent even here in the US.

 

Of course they have. Additional taxes and age restrictions. It was not a federal thing (until the Obama Federal cigarette tax law), but it has been proven by multiple studies that these made a big effect.

That is another argument that avoids context. California and New York have much denser large urban centers - and as you can imagine the highest violent crime rates are at the densely populated areas. The fact that California's (and New York's) violent crime rates are as low as they are despite the fact that the most dense urban areas in the country are in them (NYC and the bay area) is a testament to the fact that their higher firearms regulations are working.

 

State level age restrictions were in place in the 1930s. It only took 40 years for cancer and smoking rates to start dropping thanks to these restrictions? Not buying it.

I've seen no evidence that would suggest that's the case. NY's crime rates have trended right along with the rest of the country except its drop was accelerated faster in the 1990s by the broken window policy the police employed (no, I'm not a fan of that racist bullshit, either).

There is no significant causal impact that can be shown as a result of their specific gun control. Same with California. Again, you're pointing out rates that differ by 0.2% over 100,000 people. This is not compelling.