The debate here has focused on guns as the problem. Guns are not the problem, they are an expression of the problem. To quote the article: "The Economist stated that rapid urbanisation and inequalities in wealth distribution were some of the largest factors in violent crime, and as one of the most unequal countries on the planet, Brazil backs up this claim." I think this statement applies to Mexico and other Latin Am…
Gun laws where guns take the most lives
61–70 of 204 posts
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#62Nobody seems to point out the obvious fallacy of the "right to protect yourself". If having that right actually results in being more likely to be harmed, or harm someone else, having that right is an unacceptable public safety risk. A common argument against gun control ("should we ban hammers next?") is obviously fallacious when you compare it to an even more extreme comparison ("should we ban private ownership of…
obviously fallacious... https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-m...
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#63> Small Arms Survey reported that in 2017, Mexico had 12.9 guns per 100 civilians, although of the 16,809,000 guns estimated in circulation in that year, only 3,118,592 were legally registered. >This high level of unregistered firearms has been attributed to Mexico’s proximity with the United States, as thousands of gun retailers sit just over the border. A report on gun trafficking between the US and Mexico revealed…
Mexico has vast lawless areas where there is nary any law enforcement, and cartels fight with other cartels for power.
For reference:
+ Canada has many fewer guns than the US, and many fewer gun crimes + European countries have vastly fewer guns, vastly less gun crime + Japan has almost no guns, and almost no gun crime.
When looking at civilized states where laws are actually enforced then there's a correlation between guns and gun crime.
While most legal gun owners are not more likely to be criminal, the preponderance of available guns just gives the statistical chance that someone in a bad mood can get one much higher.
In other words: loose gun laws mean low level bad guys can get a hold of guns in a much more easy way.
Every car you pass on the highway in the US, there's a half decent chance there's a gun in there. In Canada, there's very little chance.
The 'odd man out' is Switzerland: they have a lot of guns. Their guns are however for civil defence: rifles, not hand guns, and they definitely do not have 'self defence culture' whereby people actually carry weapons. They are locked up in the basement or at the armoury. Also, they are amazingly civilized with low social strife etc..
It would be nice to see America have much stricter gun laws while not so much infringing on the essential right to own a gun. I think it's possible.
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#64This article mixes and matches statistical types and conclusions in a confusing manner. For example, if most United States firearm deaths are suicides, it is misleading to then follow with a quote saying “where there are more guns there is more homicide.”
Why? Both things can be true. Firearms could cause an increase in both homicides and suicides.
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#65The debate here has focused on guns as the problem. Guns are not the problem, they are an expression of the problem. To quote the article: "The Economist stated that rapid urbanisation and inequalities in wealth distribution were some of the largest factors in violent crime, and as one of the most unequal countries on the planet, Brazil backs up this claim." I think this statement applies to Mexico and other Latin Am…
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#66This article mixes and matches statistical types and conclusions in a confusing manner. For example, if most United States firearm deaths are suicides, it is misleading to then follow with a quote saying “where there are more guns there is more homicide.”
Why? Both things can be true. Firearms could cause an increase in both homicides and suicides.
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#67This article mixes and matches statistical types and conclusions in a confusing manner. For example, if most United States firearm deaths are suicides, it is misleading to then follow with a quote saying “where there are more guns there is more homicide.”
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#68The debate here has focused on guns as the problem. Guns are not the problem, they are an expression of the problem. To quote the article: "The Economist stated that rapid urbanisation and inequalities in wealth distribution were some of the largest factors in violent crime, and as one of the most unequal countries on the planet, Brazil backs up this claim." I think this statement applies to Mexico and other Latin Am…
Guns are like a megaphone for violence. Violent people will still exist but their reach is far less with a knife
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that is true, then Canada should have exactly the same problem.
I believe Canada and Mexico both have more guns per capita than the USA does, but one has less gun violence than the USA and the other has more...feel free to look it up and double check me on that though my brain is rusty and I think I last looked into it around Y2K.
Re: Gun laws where guns take the most lives
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't Mexico perform the basic state function of protecting its citizens from organized violence? Drug rehab may sound like a panacea, but as it's practiced and administered in America, rehab centers seem to respond to their perverse incentive to treat addicts enough to get them out the door and relapsed back into treatment. I think we're doing a lot to treat addiction, but Mexico can't count on us to solve the h…
> Why can't Mexico perform the basic state function of protecting its citizens from organized violence? The drug cartel has better funding. This is why you see El Chapo housed in the US and not Mexico anymore.
Why do you think the Mexican drug cartels have better funding than a government with a budget of $300 billion/yr?
IIRC, El Chapo is in America because Mexican prisons couldn't contain him. All his prison breaks involved corrupt guards, in fact, during his trial it was claimed that El Chapo paid a $100 million dollar bribe to the sitting President of Mexico. I think it's more plausible that Mexicans would rather join in the festival of corruption, saying that the Government is outclassed by the resources of the cartels seems false.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_the_Unit...