Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control

[Hemingway]

I was just reminded of an interview I saw with the rapper Immortal Technique. What he claims, which I find quite compelling, is that gun violence in the US is not an issue of gun control, but an issue of a violent society. Journalist and activist Chris Hedges says essentially the same thing: America is different, America is ... violent.

And I think it's obvious that the solution is not gun control. Unfortunately. Gun control might've worked if there had never been a second amendment in the first place. But you can't just uproot a system and expect everything to be fixed overnight. It should also be patently obvious that, contrary to the common rhetoric of criminals getting guns no matter what, not having guns does not inevitably and immediately lead to a criminal society.

That myth is very easily dismissed, by showing a comparison between two countries like the US and Norway, the ones I'm most familiar with. According to the site gunpolicy.org, there are 31.3 privately owned guns per 100 persons in Norway, and that's about a third of the number they have for the US ( 101.05 per 100 ). You'd expect, if you subscribed to the view that fewer guns leads to more crime, that the rate of gun homicides would be far higher in Norway. Spoiler: They're not. They're about 9 times higher in the US, at 3.6 per 100 000. There is apparently some correlation between number of guns and gun homicides, because the difference is smaller ( US only about 7.7 times larger ) when comparing homicides by any means.

Now, comparing all these numbers, we get the following: roughly 6% of intentional homicides in Norway were by guns ( in 2010 ), while the figure for the US is 70%. That's ... a considerable difference. More considerable, I think, than can be accounted for by the mere presence of guns in the society in question. Now, that's speculation on my part, but the numbers, at least, don't add up in a linear way. If guns led directly to homicides, you'd expect to see about three times as many in the US as in Norway. The actual figure is over 11 times. That, I think, is an important difference. Because either it means that homicides increase exponentially with the presence of guns, or it means that there are other factors involved that aren't directly related to the number of guns. I think the latter is more probable.

I can also tell you that, in my own experience, the missing factor is not security and securitization. It might, which will probably upset some conservatives, be socialism. Or social democracy, and a proper welfare state.

( Numbers for The US here, and for Norway here )

[LordMing]

@Hemingway
I concur with most of what you say here, however, the restriction of guns for legal ownership not leading to an increase in criminals acquiring firearms is flawed.  You would be correct if we did not already have a gun culture.  The problem is that America now has so many firearms in circulation, and a thriving black market, that over used cliche of "Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns" does hold a kernel of truth.  That said, I would welcome a, non rhetorical, debate amongst our legislators about firearms laws.  The existing laws are broken, the ones they are trying to pass are partly or wholly unenforceable due to being passed hastily and in reaction, rather than being discussed, debated and balanced.

The fact is that we ARE a violent society.  Our entire history is one of gaining what we wanted through revolution and war.  In reality that does not make America that much different than other countries, but we also have a sort of warrior culture, where Rambo and Harry Callahan are raised to heroic status, and men of intellect like Sherlock Holmes or Hercules Poirot are considered effete curiosities that must be able to do Wing Chun to be considered interesting.  We cannot consider someone truly capable, it seems, unless they can beat, or shoot their way through a small army.  When we originally based our society upon the ancient Spartans and Greeks, I wonder if our founding fathers considered that we would lean more to the warrior ethos rather than the academic?

[Hemingway]

That is more or less the point I was trying to make, though. There's a component to the debate that's largely ignored, namely culture.

Culture is difficult, though, in more ways than one. It's difficult because it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what is meant by "violent society" and "gun culture". I mean, it's possible to point to specific things, like the second amendment, or the government's use of force, or any number of things, but those are just examples. What's needed is a definiton, a framework for discussing the topic. Basically, an answer to the question of "what is a violent society?"

It's also difficult because it's unpopular to suggest that US society is violent. And you can't tackle the problems of a violent society unless you acknowledge that society is violent. Which means that until that becomes something like a mainstream view, there probably can't be any sort of effective solution to the problem.

[Ephiral]

The problem is that America now has so many firearms in circulation, and a thriving black market, that over used cliche of "Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns" does hold a kernel of truth.

Something that has always confused me about this stance: Where exactly do its advocates think illegal guns come from? In my country, at least, there are two answers: Either they're smuggled from the US, or they're stolen from legitimate owners. Either way, they're in criminals' hands because they started out as legal weapons. Given that this is the case, a decrease in the number of legal weapons seems to lead pretty inevitably to a decrease in the number of illegal ones.

[Neysha]

What country are you from?

[Retribution]

Something that has always confused me about this stance: Where exactly do its advocates think illegal guns come from? In my country, at least, there are two answers: Either they're smuggled from the US, or they're stolen from legitimate owners. Either way, they're in criminals' hands because they started out as legal weapons. Given that this is the case, a decrease in the number of legal weapons seems to lead pretty inevitably to a decrease in the number of illegal ones.

I have tried -really- hard not to comment on this one because well the reasoning in my way of looking at life and the world is just...flawed. That is like saying we should take all cars because we have drunk drivers, not allow people to fly because planes crash, or as this implies punish law abiding people because of how criminals behave. I just cannot get my mind around that sort of a world view. I am not making fun or anything like that I am just saying I cannot relate to that type thought process in the least.


I will go back to my post that in the US 2a is the law of the land. If there are those who think this is the way to go at things which I really hope there are not many who do, then the way to do it is amend the US constitution. I will fight those of that thought process tooth and nail with all I have in my being.

[Beguile's Mistress]

This thread is being locked at the request of the OP.

Please feel free to start a new thread to continue any current ongoing discussions.