Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Remember the movie Tombstone (with Kurt Russel)? Do any of you think they had the right idea concerning gun control? I will have to agree with their approach but my idea would not be as broad but in some ways more restrictive as to where you would be allowed to keep
your weapons.

In the movie ( and perhaps historically correct) The Earps band all guns within city limits. You still had every right to own your firearms, but you were not allowed to bring them into the city limits, or to surrender them.

I propose something similar. Within city limits you would be allowed to keep hand guns and shot guns (rifles would not be permitted).

The major change in my policy would be that "assault" weapons would not be permitted within 50 miles of cities or 100 miles of metropolitan areas exceeding a determined population. Again you would not be restricted from OWNING such weapons aside from your ability to store them accordingly.

Furthermore: to purchase these weapons would require
1) Federal registration
2) You are subject to at will questioning and search when you enter a city of the determined population by federal/state/local authorities.

I kept this as brief as possible...not short enough for some I'm sure

I think it would be about as effective as the war on drugs

technically, you weren't allowed to bring guns into the theater either.

effective gun control has to come at the point of acquisition. it needs to be harder to get the weapon.

If the government would step up and hire Ninjas to manage gun control this would all be settled in about five minutes. Tell congress: Ninjas or bust!

no ninjas needed:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Violent_crime.2C_suicide_and_accidents_in_Canada

Not that this should be seen as a specific endorsement of Canadian gun laws, just that, it appears the system we have in place does have a positive impact.

Yeah, but I think the biggest thing is the mentality of Canada vs. the U.S. Generally more laid back up there, plus you guys don't have fear-mongering reporters and politicians trying to scare all of you daily into being afraid everytime you walk out your front door. I watched CNN's little Sunday gathering where all the main reporters have discussions and they were chuckling to themselves about how they don't like non-devisive stories. The American media sucks donkey balls and is without question part of the problem.

Saying "no guns here" isn't very effective. If you want to stop gun violence either you cut off the supply so its harder to get them or you up the penalties for having or using a gun. Britain has crazy harsh gun laws and consequently there is not much gun violence since it just isn't worth getting a gun. That didn't drop murder to zero though, they have incredible levels of knife crime.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Yeah, but I think the biggest thing is the mentality of Canada vs. the U.S. Generally more laid back up there, plus you guys don't have fear-mongering reporters and politicians trying to scare all of you daily into being afraid everytime you walk out your front door. I watched CNN's little Sunday gathering where all the main reporters have discussions and they were chuckling to themselves about how they don't like non-devisive stories. The American media sucks donkey balls and is without question part of the problem.

its a within-subject comparison though. Gun regulation in Canada brought down gun violence in Canada.

The argument isn't that gun regulation will bring America to Canadian levels of gun violence, simply that it will reduce it.

In my country they offered money for guns. The stockpile was huge. (Australia)

Still drug runner suppliers, gangs, survivalists and gun enthusiasts still keep the crimes up to a degree. But nowhere near the insane numbers the US has.

We have rare occurrences of drive-bys and robberies. But nothing compared to the casualties your country has.

It is very dangerous to allow guns,

Originally posted by Oliver North
no ninjas needed:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Violent_crime.2C_suicide_and_accidents_in_Canada

Not that this should be seen as a specific endorsement of Canadian gun laws, just that, it appears the system we have in place does have a positive impact. I heard that gun crime is increasing in places like Toronto, though. Is there any truth to that?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I heard that gun crime is increasing in places like Toronto, though. Is there any truth to that?

There has been a number of recent high profile incidents, but last I saw, the numbers were still consistent with the last few years, and crime in general is at it lowest in 40 years.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...they have incredible levels of knife crime.

Not really. High levels in some areas, perhaps, but nothing close to 'incredible', and don't confuse crime and murder. There is no real pattern by which knives are making up for a shortfall of guns in murders, and the US proportion of murders done without guns is higher than the UK's (obviously the amount with guns is much, much higher in the US), so knife murders are actually a bigger problem out there despite the prevalence of guns. I think this speaks against the idea that banning guns simply transfers murders to knives to any significant degree.

It is also unusual for more people to be killed with guns in a country than without them, and extremely rare in the first world. The US is one such country where this happens, and by a considerable margin (almost twice as many murdered by guns than by other means). I feel this points to a pattern.

It is, of course, impossible to make a direct link between gun control and lower murder/crime rates because we'd need to look into a parallel universe to compare two countries like for like, with and without. Nonetheless, I'm pretty confident that taking guns out the equation makes for a safer society here in the UK (more precisely in Britain, as the terrorism angle in Northern Ireland skews the stats history there), and it is still a point of pride that our policemen are, by default, not armed with guns.

On a straight statistical comparison, the US gun death rate is horrifying (those numbers truly do qualify as 'incredible')- but people who throw those numbers around aren't always aware that they relate to gun deaths from all causes, not just crime. Still, it doesn't have to be incredible to be a real issue and the whole world knows that the US has got to get on top of the guns issue.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I heard that gun crime is increasing in places like Toronto, though. Is there any truth to that?

Originally posted by Oliver North
There has been a number of recent high profile incidents, but last I saw, the numbers were still consistent with the last few years, and crime in general is at it lowest in 40 years.

Just to give some additional context, CBC talks about the issue:

GYKxbO_vC7s

Winnipeg is labeled, there, as the worst city (if Regina or Saskatoon were included on the list, Winnipeg might not be at the top). I live in Winnipeg, and we recently just had our 19th murder this year (knives seem to be the most common cause, 12 of the 19 murders were with knives, only 3 were shootings). The population is only 700 000, so by Canadian terms, that is a lot, but even for being the "worst in Canada", those numbers are small compared to most equally sized American cities.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really. High levels in some areas, perhaps, but nothing close to 'incredible', and don't confuse crime and murder. There is no real pattern by which knives are making up for a shortfall of guns in murders, and the US proportion of murders done without guns is higher than the UK's (obviously the amount with guns is much, much higher in the US), so knife murders are actually a bigger problem out there despite the prevalence of guns. I think this speaks against the idea that banning guns simply transfers murders to knives to any significant degree.

It is also unusual for more people to be killed with guns in a country than without them, and extremely rare in the first world. The US is one such country where this happens, and by a considerable margin (almost twice as many murdered by guns than by other means). I feel this points to a pattern.

It is, of course, impossible to make a direct link between gun control and lower murder/crime rates because we'd need to look into a parallel universe to compare two countries like for like, with and without. Nonetheless, I'm pretty confident that taking guns out the equation makes for a safer society here in the UK (more precisely in Britain, as the terrorism angle in Northern Ireland skews the stats history there), and it is still a point of pride that our policemen are, by default, not armed with guns.

On a straight statistical comparison, the US gun death rate is horrifying (those numbers truly do qualify as 'incredible')- but people who throw those numbers around aren't always aware that they relate to gun deaths from all causes, not just crime. Still, it doesn't have to be incredible to be a real issue and the whole world knows that the US has got to get on top of the guns issue.

What you said sounds legit based on research I had to do in one of my classes.


I did some fact finding to prove yours and my assumptions:


"The BCS suggests the number of violent incidents involving knives in 2005/2006 was, at 169,000. The BCS suggests the number of violent incidents involving knives in 2005/2006 was, at 169,000, around half the level of 340,000 in 1995, though it had increased on 2004 - 2005 and had been rising since the previous year The proportion of overall violent incidents involving knives was eight per cent in 1995 and seven per cent in 2005 - 2006."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0607.html

That's 6 year old old data and they report in the same article that violent knife crime was on an upward trend but overall knife crime was....down (I thought all knife crime was considered "violent"?

Population of the UK in 2006: 60,409,000.

The knife crime per 100,000 people in the UK in 2006: 377.56


For the US, there were 473.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


But that's an apples to oranges comparison. We need gun crime, only, not all violent crime (gun crime can include robbery just like the UK statistic).



The best I could find was this write-up by the UK Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

The chart at the bottom splits up gun crime (it's STILL an apples to oranges comparison) into 3 categories: Murders, Robberies, Assaults:

If we add those up, we get the total.

That's 89.29 gun crimes per 100,000 people. That's much much lower than the 377.56 per 100,000 knife crimes reported in the UK.



Why is that an Apples to Oranges comparison? The 377.56 UK knife crime figure is based off of REPORTED crime from individuals and the 89.29 US gun crime figure is based off of crime logged with local law enforcement (many crimes go unreported to local law enforcement and the FBI pulls that data annually for analysis, IIRC).


This means that yours and my assumption is still probably correct and this is also why Symmetric Chaos may still be correct: we are all right.


But I will note that SC's perception may not be fairly representing the picture. Do those stats show that the knife crime rate in the UK is "incredible"? Why, yes, it does: it's 4.22 times higher than our gun crime in the US. Is that a fair comparison? Probably not.





Comments? Criticisms? You know, I could totally be wrong and that is a legit comparison. Does anyone have a chart like the one presented by the UK Guardian for the UK instead of the US? If so, that would do MUCH better to give us a legit comparison. I could not find one and the report cited by the UK Telegraph was the best I could find under short notice.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Just to give some additional context, CBC talks about the issue:

GYKxbO_vC7s

Winnipeg is labeled, there, as the worst city (if Regina or Saskatoon were included on the list, Winnipeg might not be at the top). I live in Winnipeg, and we recently just had our 19th murder this year (knives seem to be the most common cause, 12 of the 19 murders were with knives, only 3 were shootings). The population is only 700 000, so by Canadian terms, that is a lot, but even for being the "worst in Canada", those numbers are small compared to most equally sized American cities.

It is interesting that you note the population as well. The most crime-ridden U.S. cities have a much higher population than Winnipeg, though realistically population density in both areas is likely similar. Regardless, I think it's the mentality of the population and government as a whole that contributes to the atmosphere of crime that is pervasive in most large U.S. cities. Probably doesn't help either that when John and Jane Poverty light up a doobie to forget their troubles for a while they're going to end up in lock up here in the U.S. Kind of a tangential point, but it does speak to the situation.

I don't think there's a useful comparison unless you can compare US knife crime to UK. I also don't think general knife crime is anywhere near as high as you say there; the London rate in 2006 was 164 per 100000, and London is one of the higher areas.

Regardless, the topic at hand was murders, not crime in general. SC's comment was about deaths, which is why I mentioned not to confuse the two.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
It is interesting that you note the population as well. The most crime-ridden U.S. cities have a much higher population than Winnipeg,

Oh, for sure, I'm not trying to put Winnipeg on the same level as major US crime centers, more pointing out that similar sized cities are still worse in America, whereas Winnipeg is the literal worst in Canada. Regina and Saskatoon are also really bad, so maybe saying Winnipeg is "among" the worst is more accurate.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
though realistically population density in both areas is likely similar.

maybe not. Just as sort of a trivial point, Winnipeg is a very spread out city with low density. lol

http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/006/085/6085/original.0

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Regardless, I think it's the mentality of the population and government as a whole that contributes to the atmosphere of crime that is pervasive in most large U.S. cities.

oh, for sure, culture plays a major role, such as in places like Switzerland where it is mandatory to own a gun but crime is so low they don't even keep statistics on gun violence.

Still, I think control would have a positive impact on America, if nothing else, it may be a way to start that cultural change.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Probably doesn't help either that when John and Jane Poverty light up a doobie to forget their troubles for a while they're going to end up in lock up here in the U.S. Kind of a tangential point, but it does speak to the situation.

lol, isn't legal here either

Hah, I know, but fines work out a whole lot better than jail time for minor possession.

Agreed though, until the mentality of this country changes something needs to happen with the weapon situation. Maybe some highly-enlightened alien overlords will come soon, take care of all that, and leave us a better place. Of course, I've seen Earth: Final Conflict, so maybe not. =p

Originally posted by Oliver North
Regina and Saskatoon are also really bad, so maybe saying Winnipeg is "among" the worst is more accurate.

Yeah, we've had a whole 4 murders in Saskatoon so far. It's so bad we even need to lock our doors at night.

Just a bit. Double post.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't think there's a useful comparison unless you can compare US knife crime to UK.

I agree. However, the knife crime stats are too low because the US people seem to get their jollies from guns. So the comparison may be more logical but as far as fairness, it probably is not a fair comparison.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
I also don't think general knife crime is anywhere near as high as you say there;

I'd like to note that it is not data that I made up: it was a survey conducted by the "Government's Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (OCJS)."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
the London rate in 2006 was 164 per 100000, and London is one of the higher areas.

That may be a more apples to apples comparison. That 164 number is representing crimes that come from law enforcement which is directly similar to the data the FBI pulls for the numbers I used. That number is still higher than the 89.29 gun crimes per 100,000 average for the ENTIRE US, but that's not based on city. I think the best "gun to knife crime comparison between the US and the UK" would be a Gun Crimes per 100,000 in New York City and Knife Crimes in London. I could do that if I have time later this evening: that should give us a better picture comparison.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless, the topic at hand was murders, not crime in general. SC's comment was about deaths, which is why I mentioned not to confuse the two.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Saying "no guns here" isn't very effective. If you want to stop gun violence either you cut off the supply so its harder to get them or you up the penalties for having or using a gun. Britain has crazy harsh gun laws and consequently there is not much gun violence since it just isn't worth getting a gun. That didn't drop murder to zero though, they have incredible levels of knife crime.

I don't know about that: SC specifically said "incredible levels of knife crime" not "incredible levels of knife murders". He also mentioned gun violence, not gun murders.


Maybe we should ask him for clarification?




But, if we do that comparison, I think the murder rate drops REALLY low for the UK?


Lemme check that.

"Homicides involving 'sharp instruments' - knives and bottles - have fallen since 1995 as a proportion of overall killings. There were 236 in 2004 - 2005."

That's REALLY low...but that is only for England and Wales.


Here's another question: is that 169,000 number from the OCJS a fair estimate if they only used England and Wales to pull their data? Are they assuming that Scotland and Northern Ireland have more (I believe they do) so they inflat?

I don't know.

So, I'm going to break down some numbers from this page:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/guns-ownership-around-the-world-graphic/

The graphic is huge but also fascinating, it lists nations by # of guns per 100 citizens, then breaks down the # of gun homicides per 100 000 citizens, % of murders done by guns, and total gun homicides for each.

From this, I will dispel what I am going to call "The Swiss Myth".

The Swiss Myth holds that, while gun ownership in America tends to be associated with violence, there is a large gun owning population in Switzerland, very little gun control, but subsequently very little gun crime.

The top nations break down like this in terms of guns per 100 citizens:

1 - US, 88.8/100
2 - Switzerland, 45.7
3 - Finland, 45.3
4 - Serbia, 37.8
5 - Cyprus, 36.4
6 - Uruguay, 31.8
7 - Sweden, 31.6
8 - Norway, 31.3
9 - France, 31.2
10 - Canada, 30.8

Ok, so, the first debunking comes from the idea that guns are, by a large stretch, more prevalent in Switzerland than they are in similar nations. Finland has .4 less per 100 people, while Sweden, Norway and France are very close, ~ 15 per 100 less. Switzerland has roughly half the number of guns per 100 people than does America. At the very least, if we were to divide the full list (or even the top 10 really) into segments of similar guns to civilian ratios, Switzerland would belong much more in a group with its European neighbours than it would with the United States.

The second part of the myth comes from the idea that Switzerland is a fundamentally safe society, in spite of such lax laws on gun ownership. If only compared to America, the rate of firearm homicides per 100 000 citizens for Switzerland is relatively low at 0.77, America having 2.97. But when compared to other nations in the top ten of gun ownership per citizen, they actually do not fare very well at all. Switzerland has a roughly 50% greater rate of firearm homicide than does Finland, Serbia, Cyprus, Sweden or Canada (ranging from .41-.51), in fact, besides America and Uruguay (2.8), Switzerland has the highest firearm homicide rate of these nations. Whats even more telling, France has a firearm homicide rate of .06 and Norway of .05, meaning that Switzerland has a greater than 1000% increase in firearm homicide than these nations. Remember, these are the nations with the greatest number of guns per capita, period. Clearly, when compared to relevant exemplars, rather than the US, Switzerland, in fact, does not fare very well in terms of gun safety.

What I find most revealing, however, is the statistic about the percentage of all murders committed with firearms. Switzerland, in fact, leads the top 10, with 72.2% of all murders committed by firearm. In America, this number is only 60%, for the rest of the top 10 this number is under 50%, generally around 30%, with both France and Norway under 10%. 70% puts Switzerland in the same range as nations like Panama (75), Venezuela (79.5), Jamaica (75.6), Brazil (70.8) or El Salvador (76.9). These are among some of the worst in the world (though not the worst by far).

Obviously there are some problems with the % of all homicides number, but I think it is fair to say, the accessibility of firearms probably facilitates a lot of that crime, and it is much easier to murder with a firearm than with other methods. Further, it suggests that Swiss society is not nearly as violent as the gun statistics suggest. Obviously any speculation on how great of a reduction would be seen without firearms is specious and largely subjective, I don't think it is unfair to say the trend would be less murders overall, or to suggest that many murders would not occur with less ready access to guns.

So, as a caveat, I am not trying to make specific policy arguments here. Columbia has a gun ownership rate of 5.9 per 100 persons but a firearm homicide rate of 27.09 per 100 000. Clearly the context of the nation is important. However, the point here was not to say, "Policy X is the best form of gun regulation", but to point out that the argument suggesting Switzerland is a gun owning Utopia is blatantly false. In fact, looking at comparable nations in terms of geography, wealth, gun ownership, etc, they have astonishingly high levels of gun violence, and a large portion of their violence as a direct result of guns. It is strange, as I've used the Swiss Myth before in arguments about gun control, but looking at the numbers, it doesn't add up at all.

Also, these stats are based on 2007 numbers. I don't think it was a specific choice of the author, but post 2007, possession of ammunition in Switzerland has become highly regulated, with only some select group of spec-ops allowed to own the government issued rounds. I can only imagine this has skewed the numbers from what are presented here, but that type of gun regulation itself destroys the Swiss Myth, so I don't think there is a confound in using this data.

Similar things can be said of the Swiss gun suicide rate:



http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804

Switzerland has the 16th highest suicide rate in the world, the greatest in Western Europe, South America (except Guyana) or North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Excellent post, ini.

thanks

I was actually blown away when I saw the numbers. I had taken the idea of Swiss gun Utopia on face value and with such little investigation, I felt I needed to at least put it up here.

My friend also posted something on FaceBook about the Swiss Myth, so there was that motivation as well /shrug

I do remember seeing a clipping about how much higher suicide rates are for gun owners in general, so all of that doesn't surprise me.