There are many parts of the U.S. that essentially are the wild west. Head out to Compton, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Baltimore or any other number of cities with high poverty rates and you'd be crazy not to carry a gun with you.

As for New Zealand gun crime rates, sure, they are lower than U.S. gun crime rates. But then, New Zealand's overall crime rate is five times lower to begin with. The disparity isn't limited to just gun crimes.

Like I said before, there's no clear correlation between gun control and crime rates. For every area that has strict gun laws and low crime, there's another area that has stricter gun laws and more crime. Conversely, there are areas with lax gun laws and lower crime rates than areas with strict gun laws. The data simply doesn't show any consistent trends other than the fact that poor areas have higher crime rates than prosperous areas.

Except that's not the truth at all. Massachusetts passed strict gun control laws in 1998 and its crime rates (including gun-related crimes) have increased significantly since then. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country but also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related crime. Conversely, Vermont has the lowest rate (about 59 times lower than D.C.) while also having extremely lax gun control laws.

So no, the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to suggest. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and gun crime rates. Banning something doesn't make it magically disappear and considering the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally, gun control really only affects people who obey the law (i.e. not criminals). Guns already exist. Criminals already have guns. Criminals already sell and distribute guns illegally. Gun control laws are completely irrelevant to these people.

The irony in all this is that the people calling for gun control are often the same ones calling for the legalization of drugs. We all know how effective the ban on drugs has been. Why would you think that a ban on guns would be any different?

What we do know is that guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. It's the reason why 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in schools or other places where people are least likely to be armed. It's the reason why a robber is less likely to rob someone he believes to be armed than someone he believes to be unarmed. Strict gun laws only bolster a criminal's confidence that he can get away unscathed because he's the only one with a gun.

Finally, are people seriously including suicide-by-firearm as a relevant statistic? If somebody wants to commit suicide, there a multiple ways they can go about it. Hanging, slit wrists, drug overdose, jumping out the window, etc. If a gun is unavailable, they'll just use another method.

1) The problem is that the U.S. is so large that even a single state is often larger than entire European countries. As such, there's a large amount of income and crime disparity between states. Michigan, for example, has a high crime rate because it contains Detroit, which would qualify as a third-world country by most standards. Other states have significantly lower crime rates. Just as in Russia, some regions are far more prosperous (and safe) than others.

For example, Minnesota has a comparable population to Norway. As of 2012, it had a murder rate of 1.8, which is admittedly higher than that of Norway. However, Louisiana had a murder rate of 10.8 and actually has a smaller population than either of the aforementioned regions. The murder rates per state ranged from 1.1 to 10.8. That's a huge range in this context. Both states are part of the U.S. If the U.S. only consisted of one state, the murder rates would be radically different based on which state it was. That's the inherent problem with comparing small countries to the U.S. The sample size of the European countries is so small that you can't derive any meaningful data for comparison.

2/3) A large amount of violence is the result of drugs. Either people committing crimes to obtain drugs, people committing crimes because they are on drugs or cartels committing crimes to distribute drugs and maintain their stranglehold on the market. Would legalizing narcotics alleviate these issues? Maybe. They might also cause a rise in other issues, like traffic accidents. Alcohol already causes an absurd amount of lethal and non-lethal accidents on the road and no doubt legally-obtainable PCP, cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, etc, would only exacerbate that.

1) Northern Europe is the closest comparison income wise to the US besides Japan which is culturally very different. I don't think it's unreasonable to aggregate these countries in comparing. There isn't going to be a perfect example, but Russia is very far from it.

Your argument about the death penalty is a null point because what you're proposing is impractical and thus not worth debating.

2) & 3) Greenland has a GDP per capita of 22K and is a highly idiosyncratic example given its population density. I think that's pretty much self evident. If Greenland is your best example I think I've proven my point.

I have no doubt that greater surveillance and enforcement will reduce crime rates. I'm not disputing that. Technology will naturally improve this through the likes of ever improving facial recognition. But I don't think a UK style CCTV policing system would be affordable given that the US is less densely populated in cities. As for enforcement, I don't think there's been a lack of money thrown in that direction. The issue, as this video points out, is more that if it was targeted at violent rather than drug offenders the overall benefit to society would be greater. There I would not disagree.

4)

Germany and the Netherlands are other examples where it has worked:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/11/14/some-european-prisons-are-shrinking-and-closing-what-can-america-learn

What you're proposing (visa vi death penalty) is something no democratic country has accepted (or will, I think). What I propose is at least accepted by to a large extent by many European developed countries. The US may shift eventually if it is recognised the current policies have been consistently failing.

5)

Yes there are many reasons why Venezuela is not a fair example. I think you make my point. Surveillance and enforcement are both necessary to reduce crime. Of course if you pick countries distinctly lacking in them then it supports your case.

But I'm arguing about which would be better given the baseline of current US policy. I think you would agree that both surveillance and enforcement are of a much higher standard in the US, with largely meritocratic and corruption free police forces. If that's the case then other developed countries, with roughly similar incomes and therefore tax revenues to afford comparable police force standards are a good reference. Venezuela is not.

@RedSky

1) I never said that wasn't any research showing that rehabilitation can reduce recidivism. I said there's not enough research. The cultural and economic situation of a small European country isn't quite analogous to the current state of the U.S. Also, how does the death penalty not eliminate recidivism entirely? You can't commit crimes if you're dead. Thus, guaranteed results.

2) So by "first-world," you're basically talking about Europe. Does Greenland qualify? They have a murder rate of 19.4. I'll concede that the U.S. has a higher murder rate than Europe. Is that due solely to how we deal with criminals? Possibly, but I doubt it. It certainly doesn't prove that increasing surveillance, enforcement and punishment wouldn't reduce crime rates.

3) Like I said before, most criminals are fully aware of the severity of their crimes. The problem is that they think they can get away with it. Harsher penalties mean nothing without the enforcement to back them, which is why I suggested increasing surveillance and enforcement in addition to harsher penalties. You need both in order to provide an effective deterrent.

4) If you can provide more data than Scandinavia's recidivism rates, I'll gladly accept that rehabilitation can work in the U.S. But even then, rehabilitation will never reduce recidivism completely whereas death would. Is it realistic to expect the U.S. government to enact the death penalty for all crimes? No, not at all. It's unrealistic to expect them to enforce breeding restrictions too. That doesn't change the fact these things would reduce crime rates. If we're stuck on realism, the likelihood of the government ever adopting a rehabilitation policy like in Norway's is pretty low.

5) One could just as easily argue that crime in Venezuela is a result of drug trafficking dominating the country, resulting in corrupt police and politicians that let the cartels do whatever they want. You exclude third-world countries because they undermine your argument. Third-world countries have a lot of poverty, yes, and nobody is going to deny the correlation between poverty and crime. However, they also suffer from a distinct lack of police surveillance and enforcement, either because the police are corrupt or there simply aren't enough to sufficiently enforce the law in all areas.

@Jerykk

Wouldn't a much better way to get the crime rate to go down be, oh I don't know...not criminalizing illnesses like substance addiction and instead getting those people the medical/psychological help they need?

Or maybe--and I'm just going out on a limb here--constructing a more equitable society so that people don't feel so disenfranchised that crime seems like a better way to accrue wealth than slaving at some minimum wage job where you'll never actually make enough to afford anything above the subsistence level?

Maybe we might want to consider these kinds of suggestions before we start executing people for jaywalking or sterilizing people "unqualified" for parenthood.

Also, I love how your answer to the problem of too many American's being incarcerated is more surveillance and enforcement so we can catch more people and put them in prison. I'm amazed no one has thought of this solution. Bravo.

You should read my complete post before posting reactionary statements. I never said current prison conditions are ideal. I said prison isn't working as a deterrent to criminals. As I said before, there are three potential ways of fixing that: make the punishment more severe, increase surveillance and enforcement or make prison safer and more comfortable in an attempt to rehabilitate criminals. The first two options are practically guaranteed to produce results. People litter, jaywalk, pirate and break traffic laws all the time because they know they can get away with it and even if they get caught, the punishment will be relatively minor. Conversely, it's much harder to get away with major crimes and the punishments are far more severe, which is why major crimes are committed far less often than minor ones. History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.

Rehabilitation is less proven. If prison were comfortable, safe and enlightening, it could reduce crime rates as criminals are taught the error of their ways and spread their new-found wisdom amongst other potential criminals. Or it could increase crime rates as prisons become a refuge where the desperate get free food, shelter, healthcare and other conveniences.

The ideal solution would be to ensure that only qualified parents are allowed to reproduce. The majority of criminals are the result of poor upbringings, with negligent, ignorant and/or abusive parents unwilling or unable to train their children to become productive members of society. In an ideal world, there would actually be prerequisites to parenthood. Aspiring parents would need to meet certain criteria like minimum income, education and a clean record. If these requirements were somehow enforceable, crime rates would drop drastically.

What's really terrifying is how often people make silly Nazi analogies on the internet.

Our prison system is broken but not because of how it treats prisoners. It's broken because it's not acting as an effective deterrent. The whole point of prison (or any other punishment) is to deter people from committing crimes. Our current prison system isn't accomplishing that.

If we replaced prison with immediate execution (no more sitting on death row for years), crime rates would probably go down. If we increased surveillance and enforcement, crime rates would probably go down. If we made prison nicer and tried to rehabilitate instead of punish criminals, would crime rates go down? Good question. If I knew that prison would be a safe and comfortable experience, I'd definitely be more inclined to break the law. If my current living conditions were bad enough, I might even be inclined to break the law just to gain the benefits of such a prison. Free food, free shelter, free healthcare. Not a bad deal if you don't have to worry about being beaten, raped or killed. I'd love to see what would happen if all the prisons in the U.S. were as posh as the Halden Prison in Norway.

The reason there are more African-American police deaths is because African-Americans have a 600% higher average murder rate.

Liberals think the police deaths are out-of-proportion only because they're not aware of the out-of-proportion crime rate among Africans (in all countries).


(On the other hand, treat everyone as individuals, and know that genetic engineering will eventually create equality where liberalism failed.)

Well, that's a better stance to take than most right wing people take, I'll applaud that. I would suggest that cutting assistance for all people would leave many in desperate situations, and desperate people have a tendency to ignore the law and societal norms, raising crime rates (and so costing more money). Desperate corporations have less of a track record getting away with that (although some still do).
I thought most right wing people blamed the poor for 'taking advantage' of the system, but corporations are seen as being smart to accept funding. I feel it's misinformation that makes them believe that most people availing themselves of the assistance are 'taking advantage of the system', and most corporations are simply properly following the law/rules to get any advantage possible, as they should. I can't understand the disconnect.
I blame anyone/anything 'taking advantage of the system', which does not mean anyone making use of it, only those gaming the system for advantage. My opinion is that more corporations fall into that category than individuals, or at least they get more out of the system.
Why labor in the fields instead of being a leach that requires illegal help? I think you answer your own question (perhaps you forgot the sarcasm button?). If field labor was paid appropriately they would need no government cheese or illegals to get it done. That would solve 2 issues for the right, I can't understand the resistance.
I think we actually agree that the system is set up to incentivize immoral behavior in an effort to create a safety net. (Perhaps we only disagree with the levels of immorality between people and corporations on this topic.) I think rational people could easily fix that problem without erasing the safety net with just a few reasonable requirements to qualify for assistance...too bad reasonable people are so few and far between.

This is Democrat failure of epic proportion.

From Wikipedia:
Politics

"Oakland was politically conservative from the 1860s to the 1950s, led by the Republican-oriented Oakland Tribune newspaper. In the 1950s and '60s, the majority stance shifted to favor liberal policies and the Democratic Party.[156][157] Oakland has by far the highest percentage of registered Democrats of any of the incorporated cities in Alameda County. As of 2009, Oakland has 204,646 registered voters, and 140,858 (68.8%) are registered Democrats, 12,248 (5.9%) are registered Republicans, and 41,109 (20.1%) decline to state a political affiliation.[158] Oakland is widely regarded as being one of the most liberal major cities in the nation.

The Cook Partisan Voting Index of Congressional District 13, which includes Oakland and Berkeley, is D+37; among the six most extremely Democratic congressional districts in the US."

Crime:
Oakland's crime rate began to escalate during the late 1960s, and by the end of the 1970s Oakland's per capita murder rate had risen to twice that of its neighbor city, San Francisco, or that of New York City.[125]

During the first decade of the 21st century Oakland has consistently been listed as one of the most dangerous large cities in the United States.[126] Until 2010 the homicide rate dropped four times in a row, and violent crime in general had dropped 27%.

Violent crime in general, and homicides in particular, increased during 2011.[127] In 2012 Oakland reported 131 homicides, the highest since 2006 (when there were 148 recorded).[128][129]"

Artician, minorities like Asian-Americans have lower average crime rates than the White-American average.

So it seems like you're talking about NAM (non-Asian minority) culture, but you're instead using the blanket term "minorities" inaccurately.

This is without doubt about money. What else could it be if it isn't about generating income through fines and securing funding by artificially creating a need for a bigger than necessary police force? If not this, for what the incentive to generate more arrests and tickets? Just as a career move by somebody higher up? I doubt that, as higher crime rates tend to reflect negatively on elected officials and cops. Especially when the rate is fixed like this.
Locking up people is a business in the states and it shouldn't be but that's why America has the biggest prison population in percentage and headcount. And the same goes for militarizing the police. There's money to be made and those who get it do everything they can (lobbying for example) to make sure they keep getting more. This is not different.

found this too:

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
Based on data from 1980 and 2008, males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).
The average age of both offenders and victims increased slightly in recent years, yet remained lower than they were prior to the late 1980s.

Not neccesarally relevent but it's interesting that the overall crime rate is down. (In Canada too) But the US has sold more that 12 million guns since Newtown.

soooooo not sure what it all means.... First sentence is a key one though



and this:

The FBI has released their 2007-2011 “Murder Victims by Weapon” report. The results are contradictory to anti-gun industry claims that relaxing the ban on assault weapons will cause more crime.

The report indicates you are more likely to be killed by hands or feet than by a rifle or shotgun.

Since 2007 there has been a 16.2% decline in murders committed with personal weapons which are defined as “hands, fists, feet etc.” The number of murders of this type in 2011 totaled 728.


While gun ownership has dramatically increased since 2007, murders for both the shotgun and rifle categories have seen declines faster than the rate of personal weapons related crime.

The rates of decline for the shotgun and rifle categories are 22.1% and 28.7% respectively. In 2011 there were 356 shotgun murders and 323 rifle murders for a total of 679 murders.

Total murders by hands and feet in 2011 exceed the total number of murders by shotgun and rifle. Does that mean gloves and shoes need regulation because they are concealing deadly weapons? No, but it does mean that there is no need for any further regulation of long arms.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/fbi-crime-stats-you-are-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-hands-and-feet-than-by-a-shotgun-or-rifle/#ixzz2ZGab74Pq

NOT saying this last is a great source but hey it's there.

SO it seems that there are more killings with hands and feet than with all shotguns and (dreaded ar 15) rifles total.

The US and Canada are very different. In contrast, every European country has a problem among their Muslim immigrant population with high-crime and low academic scores.

Witness, for example, the famously high rate of Muslim car-burnings across France, same as the recent violence in Sweden.


The best way to create a liberal utopia is to prevent liberals from importing millions of high-crime, low-academic-score foreigners who will be a problem for hundreds of years to come. Witness, for example, the US' intractable problems with its own sub-populations, who don't improve academically in later generations.

In contrast, importing impoverished East Asians increases the nation's average IQ, and lowers the average crime rate. That just goes to show that immigration decisions should be data-based, instead of trying to hide the downsides of our past decisions.


Thanks for the conversation