Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I know that, I lived in Washington and Oregon and that doesn't change my opinion on gun laws but I would still movr back there in a heart beat. The only place in California I liked was San Francisco.
I've been to SF. It was cold as hell. I was quite disappointed.
Norway is mostly in line with the rest of the Scandinavian countries. They have guns, but they are nowhere near the gun laws in the US. Not even close.
And your statistics are just wrong. South Korea's murder rate is more than quadruple Norway's. 2.6 vs 0.6.
Read my post again. I specifically said "gun homocides" not all homocides. Homocides are cause mostly by cultural and socioeconomic factors. South Korea's gun homocide rate is between 0-.14 per 100K. Here is a handy website that breaks down the difference between all homocides and gun homocides if you need help. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/south-korea
As you can see total homocides 2006 1,074, gun homocides 14.
I will say it again. There is a lot less breathing space in terms of gun regulation between the Scandanivian countries and the US then their is between Scandanavia and the East Asian Pacific rim. Relatively speaking Scandanavia and much of Europe in their guns law are much more close to the US then the Asian Tiger economies.
Read my post again. I specifically said "gun homocides" not all homocides. Homocides are cause mostly by cultural and socioeconomic factors. South Korea's gun homocide rate is between 0-.14.
I will say it again. There is a lot less breathing space in terms of gun regulation between the Scandanivian countries and the US then their is between Scandanavia and the East Asian Pacific rim. Relatively speaking Scandanavia and much of Europe in their guns law are much more close to the US then the Asian Tiger economies.
I'm not going to discuss gun homicides. Why? Because it is stupid to discuss gun homicides. I'll discuss homicides.
Any result of a discussion about gun homicides specifically is meaningless. If you're against violence, great. If you're against gun violence and gun violence alone, then there's really no point in talking to you because you're not rational.
And I'm still curious as to how you reach these conclusions about socio-economics. Edit - Disregard this, as it makes sense based on the argument you're making.
My only remaining question to you is, who gives a damn about gun homicides?
Japan with a complete ban on firearm has a suicide rate of 23.8 per 100,000 people v.s. USA's 12 where the number of firearms far exceeds the number of people.
I'm not going to discuss gun homicides. Why? Because it is stupid to discuss gun homicides. I'll discuss homicides.
Any result of a discussion about gun homicides specifically is meaningless. If you're against violence, great. If you're against gun violence and gun violence alone, then there's really no point in talking to you because you're not rational.
And I'm still curious as to how you reach these conclusions about socio-economics.
I am sorry, I thought I was originally responding to a post about mass shootings which is purely about gun homicides, basically if you want to get rid of gun violence and mass shootings as places like South Korea and Singapore have done you need South Korea and Singapore style laws. Other violence is going to require other solutions which as I said are socioeconomic.
As to conclusions of socio-economic factors. Basically, violence is very correlated to stuff like standard of living, HDI, etc. In general the poorer a country is the more violent it is. Basically the higher the standard of living the less violence thus why places like Sub-saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America tend to have much more violence then the developed world and the developed world countries in Scandinavia which tend to have the highest rankings in terms of those factors also tend to have some of the least violence of all.
So why bring up Norway when it doesn't fit what you are talking about. How many mass murders a decade happen in Norway? Did you know in Norway they churn their own butter too.
The mass shooting rate is higher in Norway than here. Do you want to emulate their laws? How many more do you want to have slaughtered?
Yeah, because there are no other factors at play here
You might as well have assumed that eating more sushi increases suicide or eating less Big Macs increases suicides because of this study.
Really? There are differences between Japan and the US? So maybe, in spite of the statistics cites by gun haters, Japans gun laws may NOT be why they have a low murder rate?
I am sorry, I thought I was originally responding to a post about mass shootings which is purely about gun homicides.
The entire gun control debate is, or should be, centered around violence.
People's problem is not with gun massacres, it's with massacres. Anyone who nitpicks between murder and gun murder is an anti-gun zealot, and not rational.
Now, I understand your point and maybe I'm going off on a tangent here, at least from the specific point you were trying to make.
I do not however see that point as being of any relevance to the larger issue of violence and crime. This may or may not be an argument you personally would make, hence I am not going to pick an argument with you specifically about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
As to conclusions of socio-economic factors. Basically, violence is very correlated to stuff like standard of living, HDI, etc. In general the poorer a country is the more violent it is. Basically the higher the standard of living the less violence thus why places like Sub-saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America tend to have much more violence then the developed world and among the developed world countries in Scandinavia which tend to have the highest rankings in terms of those factors also tend to have some of the least violence of all.
I understand what socio-economic factors are, I'm not asking for a definition.
But it is moot given that you're only trying to argue about gun violence.
Yes, strict gun laws may reduce the relative portion of homicides committed with guns. That's a given.
But while we're on the topic, I feel it must be again pointed out that with a population 1/63rd of ours, even if we have 63x the mass shootings that Norway has, we are on equal ground. And Norway is not South Korea, but their gun laws are substantially more restrictive than ours are.
So the effect of gun laws on mass shootings (as oppose to all gun homicides) appear to be weak. This is most definitely relevant in a discussion about the Norway massacre, as well as in a broader debate, which in large part is sparked by people's emotional response to mass shootings such as Columbine and Sandy Hook.
The entire gun control debate is, or should be, centered around violence.
People's problem is not with gun massacres, it's with massacres. Anyone who nitpicks between murder and gun murder is an anti-gun zealot, and not rational.
Now, I understand your point and maybe I'm going off on a tangent here, at least from the specific point you were trying to make.
I do not however see that point as being of any relevance to the larger issue of violence and crime. This may or may not be an argument you personally would make, hence I am not going to pick an argument with you specifically about it.
I disagree, I think you can have separate debates on different kinds of violence. In fact, I would argue that this type of argument has long been used by the right to try and ignore the obvious success places like South Korea have had in stopping gun homicides.
I understand what socio-economic factors are, I'm not asking for a definition.
But it is moot given that you're only trying to argue about gun violence.
Yes, strict gun laws may reduce the relative portion of homicides committed with guns. That's a given.
But while we're on the topic, I feel it must be again pointed out that with a population 1/63rd of ours, even if we have 63x the mass shootings that Norway has, we are on equal ground. And Norway is not South Korea, but their gun laws are substantially more restrictive than ours are.
So the effect of gun laws on mass shootings (as oppose to all gun homicides) appear to be even weaker. This is most definitely relevant in a discussion about the Norway massacre, as well as in a broader debate, which in large part is sparked by people's emotional response to mass shootings such as Columbine and Sandy Hook.
I don't think you understand my point. My point is that gun homicides can be controlled with gun laws as South Korea and Singapore have proven, that is a simple fact, with that said violence generally is dependent on socioeconomic factors. I don't see why you cannot understand this it is a fairly simple concept really.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
