Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Durkheimenstein t1_j8u08wc wrote

Suicide rate is consistently tied to gun access. That’s one reason white men have by far the highest suicide rates. Most gun deaths are suicides. Here’s youth suicide rate by households w firearms per state. https://i.imgur.com/UX9dG9t.jpg

5

crimeo t1_j8uwilh wrote

Literally the whole point of them posting this was that people wanted the numbers without suicides from the other graph earlier today in a different thread. This is homicides.

15

Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j8vh6n4 wrote

There are better predictors of homicide rates and gun homicide rates than gun ownership. It just gets awkward to talk about them.

2

crimeo t1_j8vilil wrote

Name any that you can make anywhere near as cheap simple policy decisions to fix as banning guns.

−1

tomwilhelm t1_j8ydovy wrote

There is nothing cheap or simple about banning guns.

7

crimeo t1_j8yehc3 wrote

Dozens of countries have done it and didn't go into any sort of mysterious recession or have years and years of massive complications of any sort. So... wrong? Observably wrong.

/u/accurate_reporter252 that is assuming everyone having guns would somehow have led to fewer deaths in those cases. Please refer to the graph at the top of the screen... or the fact that everyone in WWII had guns...

The most proven effective way to cause societal change is NONVIOLENT protest, for which you don't need guns. It turns out to be more effective by not escalating into further violence and thus garnering more and more sympathy from the unconvinced population who join your side until strikes and such grind the country to a halt, unless change is made, which it then is. Violent protest is much more rarely successful

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

I will not be replying here again since reddit does not allow you to reply to third parties when some other guy your replied to blocked you, so you will have to take it to DMs if you like.

edit 2 "literally cannot reply here because of a bug" was confusing, I guess, so continued at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113twme/oc_gun_homicide_rate_vs_gun_ownership_rate_in_the/j932gyn/

−5

tomwilhelm t1_j8yhgxl wrote

The dozens of countries you're talking about: Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence Don't have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope

None of those things apply to the US.

I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.

3

Jexp_t t1_j90tte5 wrote

With so many parochial drama queens like this out there, I doubt America’s gun nuts have much to worry about.

Beyond being shot, that is.

−1

crimeo t1_j8yjken wrote

> Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned

Wow almost as if few guns has a relationship to low gun crime! Wacky!

They did not have by any means zero guns, however, and the point stands they encountered no significant issues in banning them.

> [Europe doesn't] have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos

You should probably learn anything at all about European history before replying to a conversation about Europe.

> Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence

Name a single instance in living memory where a notable group of people "Defended themselves against authority" with guns in America successfully. This does not happen. If you resist authority with guns, they bring bigger guns. You die. The end. Complete fantasy realities do not bear on actual real life policy considerations.

> Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope

What on earth does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Banning guns. "I had a good relationship with my mother and I like strawberry ice cream, therefore guns can't be banned" No you can't just list random ass things out of a hat and pretend it's an argument.

> I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.

I spent most of my life in the U.S. I also happen to know that almost nobody even gave two shits about the 2nd amendment prior to like the 1960s. It was not considered an even minorly significant aspect of the country's identity for the vast majority of its existence. To act like it is THE core pillar of American identity is absurd.

Edit since you blocked me: "I'm sure you'll succeed someday" I don't live in America anymore, so I already succeeded in escaping to a sane country that doesn't needlessly let its citizens die, but thank you for the unnecessary well wishes all the same.

−7

AftyOfTheUK t1_j9055is wrote

>Dozens of countries have done it

Sure, but the people in the US aren't going to let it happen, so it's neither simple nor cheap.

1

Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j930nge wrote

Accurate reporter 252 is assuming less deaths than what typically happens when governments have a unilateral access to use of force, especially when outside agencies--like the US and possibly NATO or the UN--are willing to put boots on the ground to stop massive killing by government.

So, Bosnia... that was interfered with (late in the game) by NATO.

Most of the sub-Saharan African "culls" of citizens like Rwanda played themselves out without much outside interference.

The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and others killed millions after disarming their countrymen.

As far as nonviolent protest...

Nonviolent protest is highly effective up to the point the government isn't willing to directly or indirectly use violence on people.

So, Chinese nonviolent protests haven't worked out for a long time. Likewise, Southern US efforts to stop Jim Crow didn't work for about a century until the rest of the country started seeing dead black men hung from trees in the news more often and made it a national issue instead of the state levels.

Until then, "nonviolent" protests by black people against being kept out of the ballot boxes usually resulted in a whole lot of violence done to them.

You should read a bit about the "Arab Summer" as well.

You play peace until it doesn't work, then you go to war.

Oh, and the Second Amendment?

That's insurance to try and keep the American government from using violence against non-violent protests. It's there to make the cost of violence against the people high enough to keep the government listening to non-violent complaints...

1

Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j8ztdti wrote

I'm not sure cheap is a term I would use with banning guns in the US.

First problem is that about 1/3 or more of the population disagrees and has the means--economic, hopefully--to make it very awkward to ban them and keep a government in power.

Additionally, the whole rest of the Bill of Rights would need to be tossed in order to succeed with banning guns in the US. No right to privacy (lest people get together to form resistance to the policy or make guns on their own), no right to assemble, no right to a jury trial (how do you convict people when a third or more of the jury agrees with the accused on these policies?), no right to a whole lot of other things.

And the black markets that will come up quick.

I mean, they banned alcohol for a decade or so and created organized crime families that lasted for decades beyond...

Ignoring, of course, the fact you'll likely have half the states in the country trying to start a Constitutional convention or secede or just stop listening to the Federal government.

Not sure cheap is the word I would use.

3

41tru t1_j91m6dh wrote

Why would you throw out the entirety of the Bill of Rights? You could just throw out amendment 2, or nullify it.

1

Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j92yw9z wrote

TLDR: Banning guns sounds easy, but you can't enforce it without trashing the other rights.

So, you ban guns.

There are over 400 million in circulation. These guns can last (effectively) over 100 years and people can make and do make them at home.

They also share how to make them with each other and that's protected under the 1st Amendment.

So, are you just going to leave 400 million guns out there with over 1/3 of the population who don't particularly care about gun laws?

No, you're going to have to go get them.

And then you're going to want to prosecute these people.

So, first you have to stop them from sharing information about guns, how to avoid getting caught, how to make guns, and how to hide them plus how to organize a resistance--violent or political--and that means chucking the right to free speech and privacy.

You're going to have to go into these people's homes and places of business to collect these guns.

There's no way in hell you're getting past all of the judges requiring definitive evidence to grant a warrant. There goes warrantless searches.

Oh, and once you have these people in hand, putting them in front of a jury to convict them when the odds are a good chunk of the jury isn't going to find them guilty is a massive waste of time, effort, and good will.

Beyond the fact you need at least 6 jurors typically and trying 100 million people for possession would require either career jury members or about 600 million people in a country with less than half of that in adults and--without knowing who is who--you're at risk of massive jury nullification.

Oh, and by convicting 1/3 of the population, who's going to grow the food and pay the taxes for the massive amount of new prisons?

You're probably going to need to bring back slavery to allow you to force them to grow food while in prison.

Finally, you can't take any new votes.

Once you piss off and alienate that many people, you're going to have an uphill battle every step of the way after that and it puts so many political hijinks on deck for the rest of the country's existence.

Imagine just losing enough of an election once to have people try to overturn such a policy?

Even if you stepped in militarily again, you start looking like Liberia in modern times: All the trappings of a good government and coup after coup with mock elections.

4

crimeo t1_j902wii wrote

> 1/3 or more of the population disagrees / Ignoring, of course, the fact you'll likely have half the states in the country trying to start a Constitutional convention or secede or just stop listening to the Federal government

Why would a state that voted to ban guns try to secede over banning guns? The whole starting premise of the conversation here is that 3/4 of states already agreed to an amendment.

It is implied of course in this hypothetical that the country actually wants to do it and is literate about the data and cares about people not randomly pointlessly dying etc. and decided to become a modern civilized country already.

> No right to privacy

Right to privacy isn't one of the bills of rights... but also you don't have privacy about sales of anything anyway, you need to report sales of things for taxes, for one, whenever asked. The main thing here is banning sales, not ownership.

> no right to assemble

? Nothing to do with the conversation

> no right to a jury trial

?? What on earth? Even less to do with the conversation. The parentheses explain nothing about how this is remotely relevant.

> And the black markets that will come up quick.

Black markets require something to sell. If legal guns aren't for sale anymore, where are they getting their stock from? Random reasonable citizens aren't just selling their guns to criminal syndicates, and you can't just whip up advanced firearms in your garage.

> I mean, they banned alcohol for a decade or so

  1. Like half the world has banned guns, where unlike alcohol, things worked completely fine. So they are clearly totally different situations.

  2. There's a pretty obvious REASON why they're different, too: You can make your own alcohol with some fruit, and buckets, and a bit of copper tubing. You cannot casually make your own AR-15 with scrap wood, plumbing pipe, and eyeglasses or whatever.

0