Kinda obvious. So what? No one's being stupid enough to argue that tight enclosed spaces aren't a factor in terms of fatalities in a shooting. Sadly, many people are being stupid enough to argue that the presence of armed civilians in the vicinity of a shooting isn't a factor.
I don't think anyone's really making that argument per se. Maybe they are, and if so, they're wrong. Of course it's a factor.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the argument that Joph and several others have been making for a week or so now. Take from that what you will.
Sure. If we can both acknowledge that this list isn't telling us anything about income disparity. Just want to clear that up right off the bat.
When you see high homicide rates for nations near the top of this list, that should indicate there's some societal problem.
Or geographical factors. As I mentioned before, take the entire population of Finland and plop it into a similarly sized location in the middle of Africa or South America (replacing those currently living there), and change nothing else, and you'll see violent crime skyrocket. I get what you're saying in terms of wealth and violence, but being next to a nation with high poverty and violent crime is going to have an effect on your own violent crime rate. Swap the US and Canada geographically, but keep everything else the same, and we'd likely swap homicide rates as well.
I think that absolutely dwarfs the kind of social stuff you're talking about. I don't disagree that societal and wealth factors within a country affect their own violent crime rates, but who your neighbors are (and how easily their problems can spill into your country) is a pretty massive effect as well.
Given that indication, I'd be inclined to limit deadly weapon availability in those societies. France has a low homicide rate and fairly available deadly weapons. There seems to be no reason to limit availability in France. That's the idea.
That's a circular idea though. What France shows us is that there's no direct causal relationship between the availability of deadly weapons, and their use in homicides. A nation that is violent and has lots of homicides will be violent and have lots of homicides no matter how much you restrict access to guns. I just think that you're looking at the weakest relationship here.
Regulation doesn't happen in a vacuum. I'm all for changing US society to be more like France. If you want more guns, then lower income disparity via strong social welfare programs.
One has nothing to do with the other though, so why?
There's a problem in the US around gun violence. Yes, it may have nothing to do with guns, really. It may be an income disparity problem, or a heterogeneous society problem. It might be a cultural issue about how we view manhood. It might be thousands of other things. It might be the trade off we have to make for being a young nation with no real cohesive sense of self.
Ok. So we'd expect to have about the same rate of homicides whether we have ready availability to firearms or not, right? So that sorta discounts the argument for stricter gun control. It's not about the guns.
Here's the crux of the current debate: Doing nothing doesn't seem to be effective. Doing something may or may not be effective.
And restricting guns is restricting an enumerated right that the founders thought was so important that they listed it right after free speech. So we should balance the "may or may not be effective" against "will infringe the rights of the people" and perhaps look at all of the other things we could do instead.
The only "something" there's any political will to attempt at the moment is some level of increased regulation around guns.
That's not because it's the "something" that makes sense, but because that's what the anti-gun people want to do. They'd argue for it even if our homicide rate was half what it is. If we had a homicide rate lower than Japan with our current gun laws, they'd still be arguing for tighter gun control. It's cart before the horse logic. They start by wanting to restrict and/or eliminate guns and then go looking for arguments to support what they want to do. That's where the political will comes from. It has nothing to do with reducing actual rates of violent crimes and you damn well know it.
I don't see a compelling argument against this.
I just gave you two.
The idea that more regulation would limit defensive use of firearms borders on the absurd.
Depends on the regulation. Certainly, there's massive evidence that regulating away conceal carry would limit defensive use of firearms, right? I've been arguing for a week that regulating away all civilian carry in certain "gun free zones" is contributing to our upswing in rampage shootings in those zones.
When congress is debating a bill outlawing handgun ownership wholesale, get back to me. Making it slower to stockpile weapons, and limiting capacity or cyclic rate have no noticeable impact on your argument that I can determine. If you disagree, let me know.
If that was all we were talking about you might have a point. In this thread though, my argument has primarily been about two things: Concealed carry and gun free zones. Both of which are definitely on the radar of those pushing for tighter gun regulations. If not, then why have people been arguing with me for a week or so?
We can discuss those other things as well, but it's hard to take those seriously given the hard core "guns are bad and should be eliminated" background noise to the whole issue. I don't believe anyone on the gun control side of this who claims that they really just want to restrict large capacity magazines, and make sure our background check process doesn't have loopholes. They want to ban guns. Period. Failing to recognize that would be pretty darn stupid. If I thought for a moment that those things would end the debate, I and every member of the NRA would line up to implement them today. But no one actually believes that and can you really blame them?
if you're honest with yourself, you don't believe it either. The anti-gun lobby doesn't really care about magazine sizes, or background checks except as a means to the end goal of ridding society of guns. Let's not kid ourselves about this.