it's obvious that if you could keep guns out of the hands of criminals by an effective control method gun crime would go down...keeping guns out of the hands of everyone but the police and military and you could reduce this to near zero domestic deaths...
While "if" you could get guns out of the hands of criminals, I believe it would lower homicide rates. The problem is you can not do that anymore than eliminate drugs from the hand of criminals. More deaths are a result of police and military use of weapons than by civilians throughout history. So by the rational you are using should we not disarm them as well? Even if you discount people such as Kates and others that have shown a significant number of defensive uses of firearms. The statement we could eliminate almost all homicide is incorrect even if you assume no additional substitution, about 30% of homicides in US are not commited with a firearm. Russia has a extremely high homicide rate with strict gun-control. I believe they are considered a 1st world country. Other factors have a far greater effect on crime than firearms; income inequality, unemployment, and culture would have more effect on lowering the crime rate if those issue were adequately addressed.
Perhaps a great liberal thinker like yourself can solve the crime problem in Mexico. Now, they already have gun control laws so restrictive that it makesit almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to get a permit from the police or military to obtain anything more powerful than a .22. There is no death penalty, and the criminal justice and law enforcement establishments there are more corrupt than even the worst liberal-democrat urban strongholds in the US. How will you stop the drug gangs from killing each other and innocent victims with the illegal weapons they usually bring up from Central and South America with their narcotics?
Gun control cannot solve a crime problem. It can, however, generate positive externalities through lower crime rates. If you want to make a big deal of Mexico I'll set you a task: can you find one scholarly empirical study that supports your position
Why would you think gun control would reduce crime? There is no reason to suppose it would. Reducing the number of people killed with guns? That may be another matter.
ahh ya you can, but you can't if don't try... can you read? what did I post? again reading comprehension, we're not discussing homicides committed without firearms... Russia has brutally violent culture ...
and where do Mexican criminals get their illegal weapons? the same place as Canadian criminals do, the USA...
Real people in the world of science may only need to look at the emprical evidence around them. One would hardly have to put together a gun control study that factors in poverty, gun laws, and various others in an area with gang warfare and violence (like Mexico) to understand that the people involved with the violence care little about gun laws in the first place. My basic ideas about gun crime and violence have been that they are influenced almost exclusively by the ethnic group, culture and their morals and laws enforced by the degee of punishment, in any given area. This hypothesis works anywhere it is plugged in at any time. Any fool would know that reseachers could not go into a warzone like Juarez, Mexico, or the Sudan and begin doing random satitisical interviews with all the violent people that reside there.
I stopped here. You clearly have no means to support your argument and you obviously are wasting my time. I have no tolerance for it. Get back to me when you can offer a grown up argument with empirical evidence in support
What was the purpose of the war on drugs if not to eliminate drugs? Has it worked? Yes, I did read what you wrote where did you mention disarming the police and miltary? I brought that up because it would not work either, only the countries that would not be a threat would actual disarm. Much the same as civilians. What country has been successful at removing illegal firearms? No you said homicides not firearm homicides would be reduced to almost zero. As opposed to the peaceful culture that America was founded on and still exists?
Technically just to reduce drugs. Its a realisation that market solutions to social costs aren't available
Judging by the epidemic of drug use and the violence associated with it, I would have to believe the approach has failed. While I admit I do not see how cocaine and heroine could be safely sold legally. Prohibition in the US has a very violent past and present. The "cure" seems worse than the disease in my opinion. It is used unfairly to target and oppress the poor and minorities. To me it is the culture issue that increases violence to the levels we have now, when combined with the income inequality and unemployment that my leaders refuse to address. That is only a opinion but I do honestly believe that.
That belief isn't easily supported. There are numerous factors that impact on drug consumption. Illegality can still reduce consumption despite an overall increase being observed. We'd expect a reduction as illegality impacts on price and therefore the law of demand kicks in. However, there are admittedly complications (e.g. "I want to consume it as its illegal"). Drugs and guns though, in terms of the nature of any possible legal market, aren't easily compared
I agree there are not any individual studies that support my opinion. Studies do exist that show the increased violence by some ethnic groups is related to income inequality. That same inequality would be why I believe some turn to drug trafficking to make more money, than they would otherwise be able to make. The violence related to drugs is similar to what was seen during alcohol prohibition, that only existed for a short time, yet gave rise to a powerful organized crime element. Legal means of protecting themselves do not exist so they take matters in their own hands. That said I can find no proof that the social cost would be lower if they were all legal. I do believe marijuana is comparable to alcohol and tobacco and should be treated as such. That is only around 40% of the problem but better than not addressing it at all. The only comparison I make regarding guns and drugs, is any product made illegal, that is indemand will be provided by the black-market. Cost will increase but it will still be available.
and that tangent has what to do with gun control? I clearly posted keeping guns out of the hands of everyone but the police and military and you could reduce this to near zero domestic deaths... that is directed to gun homicides as to the OP topic...at no time did I suggest disarming the police or military... the topic is gun control not knives, bats and axes, you're the twisting it into something different, try stay on topic...
whereas Portugal and Netherlands are coping with legalizing various drugs, it's not the drugs that causing the violence it's the restricted use and contraband nature that is causing the numerous deaths...the violent gang culture associated with illegal alcohol disappeared when prohibition ended...
You can not eliminate guns from criminals any more than you can drugs. I agree that is what you said, I was saying that would be more effective in reducing death. Yet it will not work anymore than disarming the general population. You ignore the fact of substitution most countries that have effectively banned firearms, has also had to regulate the other tools of death you mention. While some studies do show benefits to gun control systematic reviews have not supported them that I am aware of. The problem is more complex than just passing a law without adequate enforcement can solve. The fact the government does not strictly enforce the laws in place is why I believe the effect of controls have not been supported.
I suppose there could be black market for guns but I doubt it would reach that of the demand for drugs...people don't need/crave or get physically addicted to guns like they do drugs...there is a black market in illegal guns in Canada but deaths are few if any because of it, the deaths come when those who buy them battle it out for drug territories...there is no shooting war among legitimate gun enthusiasts to obtain illicit guns...
Enforcement play a large role in that I believe. The background check system in place in the US for example hundreds of thousands failed background checks have occured yet only a fraction are charged with the crime. That leaves them free to go to the black-market to provide their weapons. The huge prison population contributes to the reluctance to enforce all gun laws strictly. That is why I doubt the effectiveness of additional controls. Without enforcement law is not a effective deterrent in my opinion.
I agree but they are the main group committing the homicides in the US and the Americas as a whole. I would like to see the war on drugs end. Letting them corner the market on firearms will not help the problem.
Who do you think takes the guns to Mexico? Your last sentence demonstrate the point they can buy guns legally no need to use black-market firearms.
the problem as I see is a lack of gun control, we have control over who can or cannot buy a gun, there's a fair amount of paperwork involved but it doesn't deter legal and responsible owners...when a legal gun owner sells his gun he has the same restrictions he just cannot sell to anyone he pleases...handguns the preferred choice for criminals are even more tightly controlled and and legal ownership comes with more restrictions...the only way for criminals to obtain illicit guns is to steal (difficult)them from legitimate owners or buy them from smugglers...the USA's problem is the genie has been let out of the bottle there are so many guns in the hands of criminals it'll be a huge task to get them back...in Canada the government had an amnesty program where forbidden guns and those illegally obtained could be returned with no questions asked, it removed many guns from circulation...
You do not consider the large population of gun owners. It is as American as apple pie, firearms would be in much greater demand than drugs. They last longer since they can be used more than once but the demand would still be there.
