From Crime in the United States - Wikipedia
The article goes on to point out that countries define violent crime for statistical purposes differently, and that “homicide” is the only category which is measured pretty much consistently between countries.
Of course guns are unsafe in some ways - they are designed to kill people. The question is whether their ownership by Joe Public makes society safer or less safer than their ownership only in the hands of, let us say, government employees of various types, as well as those willing to violate whatever restrictive laws may exist.
The issue being debated here is not gun laws but gun ownership. Mexico has tough gun-control laws, but its endemically corrupt and incompetent goverment apparently can’t enforce them; Japan and the UK have such laws and can enforce them.
And Switzerland?
Has anyone mentioned that Mexico seems to have both strict gun laws *and *a high rate of violent crime? Just wondering.
And one other thing… can you back up your claim that gun ownership in Mexico is comparable to the US?
The comparison is to countries with fewer guns, not to countries with gun laws that aren’t enforced.
If Mexico had a 15 mph speed limit, that wouldn’t mean that driving slow was dangerous, if the limit was ignored.
Let’s derail this “safer” weaseling right now: the assumption I’m making is that if we consider an incident in which a would-be murder victim defends himself by killing his three attackers with his legal handgun, we may say that society is safer as a result.
If anyone wishes to dispute this by pointing out that three deaths are “less safe” for society than one death, and that speaking strictly from a position of safety, the conclusion of my hypothetical has made society “less safe”… I have no inclination to debate on those terms with you.
“Making society safer” has some inherent assumptions. If you’re not on-board with the idea that it refers to keeping law-abiding citizens safe, and is unconcerned with the fate of criminals, then we’ll be talking at cross-purposes.
What about publically-owned firearms? Would we finally be safe then?? WOULD WE??!?!?
The goalposts are moving. The original question was:
I and others cited Mexico (strict gun control, not necessarily well enforced) and UK and Australia (strict gun control, enforced effectively) as countries that meet the criteria cited.
The UK today has far fewer guns in circulation than it did 15 years ago. How are things going on the violent crime front? Not so swimmingly.
I said only that its gun-control laws “apparently” can’t be enforced. This list of countries by gun ownership does not even include Mexico, and this page gives the percentage of households with guns there as “n/a.” But the latter does give Mexico’s firearm-homicide rate as 9.88 per 100,000 persons (compared to 3.72 in the U.S.) – how would that be possible if there were not a lot of guns in private hands? (Which does not, of cource, tell us whether that figure is “comparable to the U.S.” or not.)
We had a higher rate of violent crime. Once. In 2001. For 20 minutes.
I think rifles kept in the house for compulsory militia service are outside the scope of this debate. Concealable handguns are much more likely to be used in crimes. (See post #2.)
I think gun-control laws might cut down a bit on individual violence, but it’s so iffy I’m not sure if anything can be shown one way or the other.
OTOH, I think gun-control laws vastly increase the amount of organized violence. How much violence in Mexico, and in large American gun-control cities, is due to gangs? Once you filter out the amount of violence the rest of America also has, I’d say the vast majority. If you know your victims cannot fight back, or you can use laws to ensure they don’t have the arms to fight back, you’re free to form your own “militia” or “our thing” to run the place.
Perhaps, but I very much doubt the number of criminals killed by their intended victims is statistically significant, in any country, compared to the reverse; it makes no real difference whether those deaths are included in a country’s “firearm homicide” rate or not.
Furthermore, a lot of firearm deaths, especially in inner-city neighborhoods, result from cases where you can’t clearly distinguish “perpetrator” from “victim,” except by defining “victim” as the one who dies. I hope you don’t require a cite for that, it’s fairly common knowledge.
If by “a lot” you mean “a statistically significant percentage,” then yeah, you’ll need to back up that “common knowledge” with a cite.
I would not require a cite for that, myself, if what you’re asserting is that a good portion of the violence is gang-on-gang. I would add, though, that a lot of gangs started as a means of self-defence where the police were unable or unwilling. One of the ways in which gangs are criminalized is in their possession of guns.
If guns are legal, neighborhood civilians who arms themselves and coordinate for self-protection are “posses”. When they are illegal, they are “gangs”.
I’m not saying any armed gangs do not engage in criminally violent behavior. But just because someone’s killed by gunfire and happens to have a gun on them in a place where they shouldn’t, doesn’t mean they have a criminal mindset.
As I noted. But that still leaves a lot of guns in CH.
Only because they are legal. If handguns were banned in the US, don’t you think criminals would use other firearms if they were unable to get handguns? Of course they would.
No. It’s because they’re the most effective and efficient tool to use to commit a crime, AND they’re legal.
Fine. Your own cite shows Norway has the same number of guns per capita as the US, and a murder rate a quarter of the US. Finland has about 2/3rds the gun ownership and the murder rate is about half.
So, there we are. Despite the clear text of the OP, despite the goal posts being moved, the field goal has been scored.