Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Most regulated industry
Slightly wrong
You are incorrect in saying that there has never been proven a correlation between strict gun laws and lower crime . It's less successful in the United States (and sometimes it's been shown to have a negative correlation, but I suspect that just means the laws were ineffective and crime was rising naturally), but internationally where the laws have been even more strict there is evidence is does curb violent crime.
Your views on Swiss gun policy is overly simplistic and looks over many of the regulations they actually have. Gun ownership is high, but carrying permits for public places if you are off-duty or non- military are very difficult to get; most guns are registered and some ammunition is depending where you buy and the manufacturer; and you can't even keep the ammunition in most guns (there are some confusion based on local canton laws about this though).
To be frank though, many of the laws are not well enforced and they differ so widely between cantons that many times they are not enforced at all if you move between cantons because nobody cares. I don't have stats or anything to support that, but I have a lot of Swiss friends and family who tell me it hasn't changed since I left. I'm actually a dual Swiss / U.S. citizen (silly parents) and I lived most of my life in Switzerland. My grandmother would be pissed if I renounced my Swiss citizenship which is mostly why I keep it, I think she'd prefer I renounce my U.S. citizenship and go to college in Switzerland instead.
Anyway, to my greater point. You can't use Switzerland as a model to say that we don't need regulations because the primary mark of violent crime (in particular gun crime) in developed countries is related to the Gini coefficient (measure of inequality), and the Swiss coefficient is much lower than ours. It's not even poverty levels that imply an abnormal violent gun crime rate, the biggest predictor is inequality. This is even further amplified when the inequality is driven along minority lines, be them race , religion , or something else (which is obviously true of the U.S. in the case of race). This was demonstrated compellingly by a study commissioned by the World Bank which followed the rates in relation to inequality from the 70s to mid 90s. Note, this only applied in developed countries or near-developed countries though since crime is high in many African nations yet inequality is very low (they are all poor etc.).
If you really want to solve gun violence , you need to just fix the massive inequality that exists in this country. That's much more difficult to do though, unfortunately.
- caelum
October 28, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Machine Guns
My comments were more to the point that mere possession of firearms , even fully automatic ones, does not change crime . Those who make their living in crime will do so regardless of laws. You don't have crime in Switzerland committed by those person's who take their military arms home.
The English tried to ship criminals out of the country. It was called Transportation. Australia was populated with those sent away. That didn't work either.
England's crime is going up since the total ban on firearms just as it is in Australia. They are now attempting to ban knives with a sharp point. (Absolutely true.) Sticks are next.
The person responsible for the original studies that eventually led to the Sullivan law in New York recanted on his death bed. He falsified the study results.
The only place super strict law changed crime was in Franco Spain.
You are responsible for your own protection. Arming those willing to do that is one of the only answers. Unfortunately police are so poorly trained they have on occasion shot the home owner rather than the criminal.
- Researcher
October 28, 2009 4:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(4)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Example; California
In California, I believe is some of the most stringent handgun laws on record. An HSC (Handgun Safety Certificate) is required to purchase a pistol. This is a photo ID issued by our DOJ after passing a background check and a safety/ability test. This HSC is a "permit" required to purchase a handgun. Many misdemeanor convictions prohibit a handgun purchase such as domestic violence, firearm infractions and drug convictions. Also, any handgun ownership transfer must be recorded to the DOJ, yes, even an inter-family transfer. Any handgun brought into California by a new resident must be registered with the DOJ. A large capacity handgun magazine must have been purchased and registered with the DOJ before @2004, and all others are illegal and carry severe penalties as a felony attachment.
Transporting a handgun and ammunition is difficult at best. They must be separated and in locking containers. A destination to show purpose of transporting a handgun must be explained to any officer. A "carry" permit is impossible to obtain for any common law -abiding citizen.
Assault Rifles are illegal unless registered before @1989; but you can't do anything with it if you have one anyway.
Along with a hundred more laws (too many to mention) our government just signed into law restrictions on handgun ammunition. Any purchaser must be fingerprinted and all records kept. Bullets and casings don't have serial numbers (yet) so what good this does is questionable. No ammunition purchases allowed through the mail or Internet.
I am a California native for a half a century and witnessed all of my freedoms I was raised with become illegal, bit-by-bit. Now, if I lost my freedoms from necessity and good cause with even notable results to the positive, I possibly could accept that. But the results are not good.
In California we have some of the most violent gangs in the country, if not the planet. Our crime statistics are frightening. We live behind steel reinforced doors and home surveillance systems. We are reduced to carrying Pepper Spray and walking-sticks for personal protection. You don't make eye-contact with anybody and distance yourself from your neighbors because you don't really know "what" they are. You can no longer offer assistance to a stranded motorist. I had to give up camping because of people being murdered in their sleeping bags, or trailers.
California is a population of victims. Every family I know has been touched by criminal violence, some in horrible ways. We live like this because we no longer have the "right" to defend ourselves. I can thank people like the Brady Campaign and Freedom States Alliance for this fact. So if this is the pay -off that they are looking for, they have succeeded. We live with indefensible fear, every day.
- VonS
October 29, 2009 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Uh,
you missed my point entirely. My point was it was income inequality that determines violent crime rates, which is entirely true.
You have a correlation / causation issue. You aren't controlling for factors such as crime is just increasing and is unrelated to gun control , and so may be effective but crime is just overwhelming it. Unsurprisingly, you'll find an increase in income inequality leads to higher crime rates independent of any gun legislation - supporting my view again. Just this year England's gini coefficient hit a record high. In Australia, you are actually confusing homicide percentage / numbers and homicide rate. You'll actually find gun-control has reduced homicide rate (the important figure) in recent years.
You just presume this away based on your own ideological biases. I personally do not know if gun control is effective because the data is too limited to make any conclusions because we cannot properly control for all the factors that could influence crime. Depending on how I want to do the analysis, given my limited data resources, I could make it say whatever I wanted too.
I offer no conclusion, because I am trying to be fair rather than ideological.
I'm personally for limited gun control, since I think repairing income inequality would solve the problem in the long-run, although this does take quit a bit of time given the massive disparity of wealth we have in this country.
I'm curious though, what exactly are the proposals for reducing violent gun crime among gun rights advocates? I've never actually heard an intelligent idea come from that group, I just know they think guns protect them, but that hardily addresses the overall issue of gun violence .
- caelum
October 29, 2009 10:42AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How is that?
How is it that income inequality/equality, not gun control , leads to an increase in crime , but gun control, not income inequality/equality leads to a decrease in crime? That is very confusing to me. Maybe you could explain that to me, and to John Lott, who has done probably the most extensive studies on this subject anywhere, and shows clear correlation between gun control and higher crime.
- LagerHead
October 30, 2009 8:26AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.