Quite aside from the practical benefits, enacting such measures would be a way of saying “we recognize that there is a problem, and we are going to do the grown-up thing and take sensible steps to address it.” That in itself could have quite an impact. Current actions – or rather inaction – sends quite a different message, and that in itself has consequences.
As for the ‘dark and sinister’, I sometimes think whoever it was who said “The whole country is built on a Native American burial ground: what did you think would happen?” may have had a point.
That is what I meant. Rereading my sentence I am shocked at how unclear it was.
But “orders of magnitude” might be pushing it a little. The US homicide rate is only about 10 times that of Switzerland. It’s only three times Canada’s.
Ultimately I think the US has much more of a “people’s default reaction to stress is aggression” problem than a gun problem, but when you’ve got the former problem, the latter sure makes it a hell of a lot worse.
Precisely. Just look at the impact the parkland kids have had. Essentially no movement at the federal level, but yet made substantial progress in Florida and the tone of the national discourse.
Yeah, I was going to say something to that effect, but I sometimes feel like I bang that drum too often. Thanks.
I read this article. I’m not sure we should pat ourselves on the back for having a much lower homicide rate than Venezuela, Mexico, and Panama. One reason to compare ourselves to western European countries is that its aspirational. As the bestest country ever we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, right?
Any time someone raises ethnic diversity that’s a red flag. The UK is ethnically diverse. Sure, in the US people from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all look like generic “white people”, but they have long histories of bloody ethnic conflict. People who identified as Irish were bombing targets identified as English because of the ethnic divide in my lifetime. The idea that ethnic cohesion leads to harmony is a racist idea with no evidence supporting it.
Also, it asks why not compare the US to Mexico? Mexico is an OECD country. Compare to Mexico all day long. That’s not the same as comparing to Honduras or to Congo or to North Korea.
It totally skips what is probably the most important reason to compare to developed nations: we trust their statistics (or at least we trust them to a far greater extent).
The statistical analysis showing guns are related to deaths is totally naive. When you compare just OECD countries thats just 35 countries. It’s not enough data to draw conclusions. Two outliers on gun ownership, Switzerland and the US, have totally opposite results in terms of homicide rate. To draw the conclusion by cross-country comparison that reducing gun ownership will reduce the homicide rate would be foolish. But comparing the US’s homicide rate to the homicide rate of Honduras is way, way more foolish. It’s downright absurd. Might as well compare it to the homicide rate in a war zone. Arguing against questionable use of statistics by saying we need to make the statistics even less meaningful seems bizarre unless the point is to make sure no one can learn anything.
Unrelated to the statistics part, I find this particularly enraging:
Now, let’s address the bait-and-switch of using “gun-related killings” versus homicides, that is often used. These numbers include accidents and suicides. But of course, the reason most people are concerned about gun violence is because of homicides.
Accidents and suicides are dead people. Having a gun in your home dramatically increases your chance of suicide. People who are buying guns to “protect their families” have a larger chance of having on their teenagers kill themselves with that gun than they do of ever actually protecting anyone with it.
Reducing suicide is the number one way in which gun control would lead to fewer deaths. “If we just don’t count the bulk of gun deaths then it doesn’t seem like there are so many” is an absolutely horrendous argument made by people who are either too uninformed about suicide to talk about it or too callous towards people who commit suicide to care about them. This talking point needs to die in a fire.
It’s crystal clear to all but the denialists. After all, what is the death of 1% of the US population per year weighed against one’s freedom to enjoy a hobby?/s
It’s amazing how each piece of “evidence” exists independently from all the rest. In one breath, he points out that Vermont has lower gun control levels than DC, but a lower firearm homicide rate, and in the next he points out the different death rates by type of gun and never stops to associate the former with the latter. Hell, he even explicitly states that “poverty rate and population density are the two largest factors.” He even, strangely, nukes a common pro-gun argument when he claims that “there really is not correlation between homicide and gun laws.” If the only thing stopping bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, and if we make owning guns a crime, only criminals will have guns, etc. etc., then shouldn’t states with tougher gun laws have higher firearm homicides? He says there are “roughly 10,000 homicides committed in 2013” and later that “In 2013, handguns killed 5,782 people. Rifles? 285.” I.e, over 60% of homicides committed using a firearm (and that’s not including shotguns). So, the fact that “50% [of homicides] were perpetrated by African Americans even though they are only 13% of the population” proves correlation, but the fact that over 60% of homicides were committed by gun-owners even though less than a third of Americans own guns is just coincidence. But even then, there’s the lovely bait and switch of switching between homicide and firearm homicide whenever he feels like it, adding “I don’t really care if I am shot to death or stabbed to death, I’d like to avoid either.” I’ve never seen anyone killed in a drive-by stabbing. It’s a hell of a lot easier to get out of range of a knife than a gun.
And just what is a developed country? As the linked article points out, there is no actual metric of measure involved in that arbitrary term.
I’m not arguing that there is not a problem, indeed I believe our gun violence and violence in general is out of control. But using skewed metrics to push a point is always bad idea. Whether you do so because it’s aspirational or a matter of trusting their statistics does not matter. I’m simply pointing out that you should select a metric based on comparing similar things without cherry picking what data you wish to include when comparing this nation to others.
Honduras is not in the same OECD rank grouping so it should not be included in any comparisons.
I think you might be misunderstanding the metric used for comparison. The human development index lists 188 nations and ranks them using a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators. What metric are you using to decide what is and is not a developed country?
Indeed—how fucked up is it that so many people dismiss those lives like they don’t matter? They’re still people who would be alive if it weren’t for the guns. (Yes, it’s possible to kill yourself without a gun but the data has been clear that suicidal people who have access to guns are more likely to actually go through with it.)
approximately 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides (which just goes to show that if you own a gun you are more likely to be injured by it, because from time to time you have a sad day)… The pro-gun argument states that people will find another way to kill themselves however the evidence shows otherwise - when the UK switched from deadly coal gas for cooking the total number of suicides actually dropped. It seems that having a quick and easy method to kill oneself does make a difference.
