I rather thought so, but we seem to get stuck on the word ‘causation’. I think it perfectly ‘no duh’ to say that “easy firearm access causes a higher murder rate”.
If we agree this, I am willing to entertain the possibility that only heavy handed, national-level means of addressing firearm access will have much effect on the murder rate, and that even then ‘cultural’ factors might cause a difference (but not nearly as huge a difference as easy firearm access).
Having a firearm makes it a lot easier for someone who intends to kill to do so, but rather like power steering making it a lot easier to maneuver a car, it doesn’t actually cause the desier to murder any more so than the power steering causes the desire to drive.
And all of those ‘means’ focus on those people who would actually obey the law, thus removing firearms from the hands of people who are not out committing crimes of any type, including murder, with them.
Firearms restrictions are not about crime control, because laws don’t control crime. They only allow for a means to punish the criminal later.
And the statistics for the lethality of assaults using weapons other than firearms shows that the US does not demonstrate any greater prevalence of a “desire to murder” than comparable industrialised democracies.
The right to keep and carry firearms seems to me to be equivalent to demanding the right to drive drunk.
Not all killings are premeditated; in the ‘heat of the moment’ a gun will generally do more damage than a fist, although in a few cases, I suppose this may have a somewhat sobering influence on the individuals involved and the situation might end with less actual bodily harm being done.
Now of course it can be argued that the hotheaded, impulsive actions of a few individuals should not be used to bludgeon the majority of law-abiding citizens, but I suspect that the only way to identify the majority of abuse cases is the fact that they have already happened. - Right up to the moment of crisis, the guy carrying the gun IS a normal, law-abiding citizen.
I dunno; I can’t overcome my personal bias on this matter; the idea that I’d be safer if there were more guns in circulation is just something utterly alien to me.
Not when the ‘guy carrying the gun’ is someone who has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor requiring 1 or more years in jail as punishment, when that person is subject to a restraining order or protection from abuse order, is a person under 21 years old in possession of a handgun, is carrying a firearm concealed without a proper license, has been convicted of more than 3 DUIs, has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, and a host of other things that can make a person a criminal merely for owning a gun.
Gang members and drug dealers who are engaged in illegal activity are also not ‘normal law-abiding’ citizens.
I think the problem with your idea about further restricting ownership of firearms is that it punishes people like myself for things that we hypothetically might do in the future. You’re worried about someone like me perhaps committing a crime of passion at some point in the future, so why not restrict my right to own and carry a firearm now?
Because we are not supposed to punish people who haven’t committed a crime.
That was Mangetout you responded to, not me. But anyway:
Like drunk people who haven’t run anyone over yet?
Sorry, that was my mistake.
Kind of like suspending or revoking the driver’s license of someone who merely likes to frequent bars but has never driven drunk.
No. Like a drunk person that is not driving.
And if it could be shown that a country which allowed drunk driving had a much higher road-death rate, would those who demanded the freedom to drive drunk focus on what caused people to drink and drive?
I myself don’t think a study on what causes people to murder, or commit crimes will reveal any surprises. Poverty, upbringing, morals, whatever. They will all be in there.
Allow me to flesh out my analogy.
I am fairly new to driving, since I only passed my test a few months ago. I am quite willing to believe that there are experienced drivers out there who could drive more safely than me when drunk than I do sober. Those people have never had an accident, and could reasonably demand the right to drive drunk.
But if drunk driving causes a higher road death rate, it is entirely reasonable to curtail their freedom in such a manner. They can still drive, only not when drunk.
Similarly, many gun owners have never shot anyone dead, and reasonably demand the right to keep and carry guns around.
But if keeping and carrying around guns causes a higher murder rate, it seems entirely reasonable to curtail their freedom. They can still shoot guns, only not outside of recreational facilities.
What causes the higher murder rate for the same assault rate in the US?
I understand your objection and it is a difficult issue (although I wouldn’t exactly agree that depriving someone of the right to carry a potentially lethal weapon is best described as ‘punishment’). Yes, I’m worried about the possibility of someone who presently appears entirely normal suffering a fit of rage/passion/whatever and at that point finding themselves conveniently in possession of an easy way to express their passion in the form of lethal violence. I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t be concerned about this.
But as I say, I can’t overcome my cultural bias on the matter.
That really won’t work. What about hunting? And I myself own 40 acres out in the middle of nowhere that I target shoot on.
As I’ve said, I’m perfectly willing to move the discussion on to what might or might not “work”. (Registered users can fire hunting rifles in the UK in certain areas, incidentally.)
Can we first agree some causative effect of easy access to firearms on the assault to murder ratio?
Let me expand on this a bit. In most places it is illegal to shoot guns. Either because of laws, zoning, or covenants. I live on 2 acres, can’t see any other house from my property and could set up a safe target range. Yet it is against the rules to shoot there. I agree with those rules. The 40 acres is a different story.
Snakespirit, the person pointing out that a) NationMaster’s data has to be treated with causion, and b) everybody, including the FBI and the US Department of Justice, uses homocides per 100 000, not murders - was me! Why don’t you pay a little attention and you won’t be caught with your pants down all the time.
In the US we are also restricted to where we can and cannot shoot.
Some causative effect? Probably. Although there is the issue of self defence. We don’t know for sure what the numbers will do if we take guns away from honest gun owners. Many criminals will keep theirs.
I am also perfectly willing to talk about things that will or won’t work. So far, I haven’t seen anything that will work.
We can’t pick and choose, but you need to break down the data. It’s hardly a single factor causing high homocide rates (or crimes in general), factors like the number of guns, number of illegal guns, rural/urban, poverty, age - it all play a role.
Handsguns is an easy pick. Three out of four homocides are carried out with handguns. Where rifles and shotguns are often used for hunting, handguns serve no other primary purpose than crime or self-protection.
This is quite an important issue that does not often get enough attention in the debate; attempting to remove guns from a culture where they are established will not necessarily turn it into something like another culture where they are not, and haven’t ever really been established. I suppose, likewise, introducing them to a culture where they are largely alien will not necessarily turn it into something like another culture where guns are established and generally sensibly used.
I’m not sure what my point was there.
I agree, Mange. The question of how our American cousins might be encouraged to merely beat the crap out of each other in a ‘square go’ instead of firing lethal projectiles is indeed a difficult one.