I don’t know about the international numbers, but the state-to-state comparisons typically use surveys in which gun ownership (household or individual) is a binary variable. I suspect the international numbers are the same. They show a strong correlation between rates of ownership and rates of gun death.
Of course, “gun death” is a category that includes suicide and self-defense and accidental shooting, etc. And the fact of the strong correlation does not answer the policy questions here. But as far as the basic empirical question goes, it’s pretty indisputable that more guns means more gun deaths of all kinds–in Switzerland as in the United States.
Actually no. Mostly when the comparo is done it’s done with cherry picked numbers. And as you said “gun deaths” is a meaningless term, what should be compared is overall homicide rate.
It’s easy to looks at various numbers then decide what to compare to prove your point. In this case, the “gun grabbers” like to pick the OECD* , and pick "gun deaths’.
Then, they leave out nations that dont fit.
Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it’s pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.
But Fisher has what he thinks is a good excuse for his manipulation here. According to Fisher, the omission is because Mexico “has about triple the U.S. rate due in large part to the ongoing drug war.”
Oh, so every country that has drug war deaths is exempt? Well, then I guess we have to remove the US from the list.
But, of course, the US for some mysterious reason must remain on the list, so, by “developed” country, Fisher really means “ a country that’s on the OECD list minus any country with a higher murder rate than the US.”
*
membership in the OECD is highly political and not based on any objective economic or cultural criteria.
When you compare overall homicide rate to overall gun ownership- and include all nations- the USA is about in the middle. Mind you, that leaves plenty of room for improvement.
That is really a fascinating comment. It appears that crazy people intent on killing as many others as possible don’t try to avail themselves of these extremely formidable weapons that would do so much more damage. And according to you, it appears that the reason for this is that requirements for certification and vetting (and also, I might add, very stiff penalties for non-compliance), lack of supply, and other regulatory issues have stymied them. Instead, they just use weapons that they can pretty much pick up at the corner store like a candy bar.
I don’t question your logic. I think it’s probably correct. I just have one question for you:
Do you understand now how gun control works and why it’s effective?
Your condescension notwithstanding, you’re reading meaning that isn’t there. Do you really think that crime isn’t committed with pen guns because they are illegal or not readily available? They aren’t effective. A short barreled shotgun is easy to acquire or manufacture but you don’t see voluminous crimes with them because they are not as effective. But you think it’s ridiculous that a person could go through hoops to obtain one and bemoan that they are not banned. Why do you want to ban things that cause viritually no harm?
You’ll have to define “works” and “effective”.
Are you proposing an NFA scheme for other types of firearms - which is effectively a ban in many areas?
And what do you have against suppressors? I can think of no reason suppressors should be restricted - in fact they should be encouraged.
It’s utterly laughable you believe there are not so called gun bans. It reveals a fundamental ignorance of gun laws in this country. “Nobody has banned guns” - this idea is not based in reality.
In the interest of agreeable cordiality, I agree with you that this has veered off the narrow subject of Obama’s executive actions (of which, for the record, I approve and believe that he’s simply done all that his office has the power to do).
So I’m happy to leave it here, too, but just to wrap up the absolutely silliest of some silly loose ends …
No, you’re extrapolating a cherry-picked point into a generalization that isn’t there. It doesn’t take a deep analysis of the Title II restricted weapons to see that they fall into two major categories: weapons that are restricted because of their stealth nature, and weapons that are restricted because of their hugely destructive nature.
It’s the latter to which I primarily refer. I’m sure it would come as a huge surprise to any nation’s military leaders – or anybody, really – that “grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles and other heavy ordnance” (from the Title II list) are to be considered “things that cause virtually no harm” (your words).
So there are only two reasons that those planning mass murders, like those in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Louisiana, San Bernardino, etc. etc. etc. seemingly without end, don’t avail themselves of more powerful weaponry like machine guns. Either
(a) The slight legal formalities are just not worth it (which would mean that gun control is a dissuasive factor in gun violence)
--------- OR ---------
(b) The stuff they can already easily get does the job just fine (which would mean that existing gun control is sadly inadequate) – which does seem to be at least part of the explanation. After all, if the objective is to kill as many as possible of your former employees or a classroom of children, a perfectly legal semi-automatic with a high-capacity magazine is probably just about as satisfying to a deranged lunatic as a machine gun, and no hassle at all to get.
Or both. I don’t see any other logical conclusion, in view of the following:
I’ll define it in terms of what keeps gun violence under control in the entirety of first-world modern democracies, and has both rates of gun ownership and gun violence off the charts in the US, and uniquely in the US alone among comparable nations. I’ve quoted the figures many times before. In some cases, like handgun homicides, we’re talking orders of magnitude difference.
I’m not in a position to “propose” anything, but I’ve been arguing in these many threads about what works everywhere else in the world.
The only thing “laughable” is your insistence on playing with semantics. Guns are not “banned” when qualified individuals can own rifles and pistols and when many choose to do so, nor are guns “banned” by any rational definition if specific military-grade ordnance is banned that has no justified use in civilian hands.
Mexico is a lawless corrupt shit-hole in which violent drug cartels are major powers. Do you want an honest evaluation of gun violence or do you just want to advance a gun agenda? I would suggest that if one wants an honest evaluation of gun violence, then do an honest comparison of like countries. Canada is practically identical to the US and is right beside it; much of western Europe is closely comparable to the US. Bringing Mexico or Yemen into the comparisons doesn’t really provide any useful learnings.
Indeed it is- to some extent. Still, it is a close neighbor and it is a OECD nation. So, leaving it off a graph showing OECD nations and "gun violence’- just because it has more than the USA- is a lie.
In many ways I’d say Mexico has more in common with the USA that Norway does.
While it’s well known that I HATE Obama, and oppose him on nearly everything just on principle alone, and I am a law abiding, responsible firearm owner, my overall reaction to these EA’s (taken on face value alone, assuming no hidden ulterior motives), my reaction is a resounding…
…meh…
I see nothing to get worked up over, seems basically a tightening and clarification of existing laws.
…I still don’t like him, don’t trust him, but there seems to be nothing too insidious about this particular batch of EA’s