Can we admit that homicide rates have little relation to gun control laws?

Can we all admit that homicide rates are primarily caused by factors other than what type of gun control laws are in place?

If we compare different parts of the U.S. and different countries in the world this should be the obvious conclusion anyone has to come to.

South Africa and Brazil are two countries with strict gun control laws, yet their homicide rates are very high and there's a lot of shootings.

Now I'm not going to claim in this post that gun control laws have absolutely no effect on the homicide rate, but there are obviously other overriding issues that make it impossible to observe any correlation between the laws and homicide statistics in different places.

There are some places with extremely low gun homicide rates, yet guns are everywhere, while there are other places where guns are all but illegal, yet these are dangerous places to live. So we see that gun control isn't always the solve-all solution to gun violence, and neither do guns always mean gun homicides.

Again, I'm not going to claim in this post that gun control is never appropriate to address problems in a certain place, but it seems obvious gun control is not really the optimum appropriate solution for every area. Some areas can have guns and there will be virtually no problems. For other areas with very bad gun problems gun control may do little to help make those problems go away.

Even if we look at the before & after in specific places after the laws changed, usually no obvious pattern emerges. (for example Australia)

 

You have made profound statements and a thinking process.

Study the U.C.R. by the F.B.I. for a good non partisan source of information, neutral, neither N.R.A. nor V.P.C. best non polarized information source.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/caution-against-ranking

 

It's not that the data doesn't hit the anti-gunners in the face. It's that they know in the era of snow flakes and the truly stupid that many of their minions will believe whatever garbage they spew. What they want and what they have always wanted is total disarmament.

 

No one suggests that guns are the only factor that impacts on homicide rates. Take South Africa, the brutalisation hypothesis (and the long term impact of apartheid) could be used to understand the crime upturn. You're therefore only attempting to make spurious conclusion.

 

No more spurious than to constantly trot out gun control as the solution to crime and Criminal activity.

 

Sounds like you don't understand the term spurious! Those in favour of gun control tend also to be in favour of other crime prevention measures. In terms of my bias, I'd certainly see economic opportunities as the key factor (ironically with some similarity to Ehrlich's crime approach, the granddaddy of capital punishment analysis)

 

I am not as simple as you would wish on me,
Spurious emissions were well covered in electronics, my first degree study.

 

Then you have no excuse and you need to amend your previous post. Clearly the OP is making spurious relationship. Rather than accepting the obvious, you made a ludicrous comment about 'trotting out gun control as the solution'. Its just one of many required policies. Basic criminology really.

 

Guns are like gasoline. Gasoline makes already existing fires worse. Easy access to guns in a place like Chicago will have a much more devastating effect than easy access to guns in some place like Montpelier, Vermont.

 

Guns are like guns. That's it. A gun has never shot anyone on it's own. Until existing laws are enforced, sentences are severe, and gun control focuses on the major factors of gun violence instead of the 1% of "scary" guns then further gun control is worthless.

 

However, gun control is not a part of criminology per say and has never been vinculated as such, guns are a tool of crime and Criminals, as are knives, assorted weapons, to include technology, and to associate firearms with criminal intent, is irrelevant immaterial and incompetent.

 

That gun control is part of criminology analysis is just obvious (just use a journal search engine and count the articles written in criminology journal). You've started with error in order to support someone making spurious conclusion. There's not much validity in that. Be honest now

 

Straw man. No has claimed that guns can shoot people on their own. However, they do empower and increase a criminal's ability to victimize other people.

 

So do numerous other things, and the gun control that is being spouted off wouldn't stop the crime. Like I said Until existing laws are enforced, sentences are severe, and gun control focuses on the major factors of gun violence instead of the 1% of "scary" guns then further gun control is worthless.

 

I'm not solely focused on the 1% of guns you think look scary. That is just another one of straw men. The real problem is people like you who won't give gun control a fair chance to succeed. You care about your guns and not about reducing gun violence.

 

Gun control is not a part of criminology, even the impact of guns related to crime is infinitesimal, no one picks up a gun and says, gee, lemme go rob a Bank anymore than, gee, lemme join the Police, Armed forces etc.
No causal effects can be proven.

Current and historical British Policing politics proactively predicts anybody as a potential criminal and to be treated as such.
Hence U.K. style gun control.

Criminology must needs study deeper issues rather than a mere tool as a gun, a computer device etc....
Simplistic approaches are not effective in any way.
Again in 1764, Cesar Beccaria well defined criminology in his essays on Crime and punishment.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation the World's leading institution on criminology, has studies of firearms and yet has never implied firearms to be part of any serious aspect of causality related to crime.

 

That sounds like more on an excuse than a cause.

 

It is not about caring about guns, it is the means to defend from those people that care about no one.

Gun control has had over from 50 - 100 years to prove its point, some gun laws circa 1850, and has failed, the best essay on firearms dating back to 1764.

Gun control is equal to placing a mere bandaid on a spurting arterial bleed, in a haste to "Do Something" anything !

Other than an effective remedy, is still just ineffective and achieves no useful end.

 

Don't disingenuously pretend to know me. I did not speak about you specifically and I would appreciate the same. The inability to enforce our current laws to their intent, the major and most talked about gun control focuses on trying to fix the 1% of "scary" guns and the crimes committed by people using them, and the sentencing of violations of gun laws have all been well documented and unhelpful. That is where we should start, before restricting law abiding citizens any more.

-Enforce the law.
-Severely punish those who break them.
-Turn national gun debate to the Constitution and the causes of the large percentages of violent crime.
-Stop pretending that gun crime is about guns and not about mental health.
-Enforce all citizens right to protect themselves with a personal firearm nationally.

Then you want to talk about gun control, I would be willing to listen.

 

The evidence, as usual, shows otherwise. The literature on the issue in criminology journal is significant. The only issue is the nature of the analysis, from standard econometrics in order to isolate gun effects to more specific psychological experiments.

Every country of note has gun control. UK gun control isn't anything novel. The handgun ban just reflected public perceptions and the lack of gun culture.

Criminology studies numerous factors. I would certainly support, as already mentioned, that economic factors dominate. However, to simply ignore guns would just be cretinous.

Criminology journals (and that's a little more interesting than an extra-government organisation) show otherwise. You just continue to play 'head in the sand'. Its a little silly.

 

How does legal self defense make a situation worse?

Easy access to guns in a place like Chicago will have a much more devastating effect than easy access to guns in some place like Montpelier, Vermont.[/QUOTE]

Explain the violent crime rate in the city of Chicago that existed prior to the McDonald ruling, when there was not a single legal circumstance under which a person could possess a handgun.

The argument could be made that criminals are more empowered and able to victimize others, by their actions having little in the way of actual consequences. Rape and murder are rarely prosecuted as such, and firearm-related offenses are almost always dropped rather than pursued. What is the motivation to behave when murdering someone earns nothing more than probation?

Do private individuals implement firearm-related restrictions into law? What does it matter if the public will not support such when it is politicians who enact legislation?

 

"Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895

Gun control should be part of the conversation and part of the solution.

 

The term "suggests" means it is speculation and is not actually confirmed as being fact. It means it cannot be said for certain, one way or another, if the implementation of firearm-related restrictions played any part in the results that were had. Each one of the studies is little more than guesswork at best, and cannot confirm the theory as being fact.

 

Teach yourself hypothesis testing and then get back to us!

 

Here's the hypothesis. T-bone is a Blood that owns a corner, but Icepick is a Crip that wants to take over the same corner. What is the likely outcome of this situation? Remember to test the hypothesis.