The Gaming Den

K wrote:People hold up Switzerland and Israel as places with high amounts of guns and low gun deaths, but the fact that both are smaller than just the city of New York (not state) means that citing either is just cherry-picking. They aren't relevant to the discussion.

Doesn't this make a lot of the comparisons with the Nordic countries for things like healthcare, economic policies, and crime rate in general irrelevant?

virgil wrote:

K wrote:People hold up Switzerland and Israel as places with high amounts of guns and low gun deaths, but the fact that both are smaller than just the city of New York (not state) means that citing either is just cherry-picking. They aren't relevant to the discussion.

Doesn't this make a lot of the comparisons with the Nordic countries for things like healthcare, economic policies, and crime rate in general irrelevant?

Basically.

People like to fap to Norway's economic and social institutions without taking into account that it's a tiny country the size of a major US city but with vast mineral wealth. It's like looking at Kuwait and saying "well, they have free college education, so we should too" without taking into account Kuwait's role as a middleman in the oil trade.

That being said, looking at "the Nordic countries" means looking at a lot of nations. It's less clear at that point whether they are relevant.

virgil wrote:

K wrote:People hold up Switzerland and Israel as places with high amounts of guns and low gun deaths, but the fact that both are smaller than just the city of New York (not state) means that citing either is just cherry-picking. They aren't relevant to the discussion.

Doesn't this make a lot of the comparisons with the Nordic countries for things like healthcare, economic policies, and crime rate in general irrelevant?

Depends on what you're talking about. Some things, like prostate cancer, happen everywhere all the time. Other things, like murder sprees. This year, Norway had 77 people killed in a murder spree. Last year, it had zero. Next year it will probably have zero as well. It has a population that is about that of Colorado, which coincidentally also had 12 people killed in a murder spree this year. Comparing this year's tally of mass murder in Norway and Colorado would show that mass murder is more than six times as prevalent in Norway as in Colorado, but that is bad statistics. And it is obviously bad statistics.

On the other hand, comparing perinatal mortality and other health indicators of Norway versus Colorado would not be bad statistics. Everyone is born, so gathering statistics about that is not cherry picking black swan events.

-Username17

Fuchs wrote:In Switzerland, any soldier can opt to keep his assault rifle (which he stores at home during his time in the army or the reserves) after he is discharged, it'll just be converted to semi-automatic. Also, (in theory) every male citizen has to serve, if able to. That adds up to a shitload of military weapons in private hands, most of them trained to use them too. You can also rather easily buy a handgun, permits require a good record and a visit to the police, but that's it.

Yet Switzerland isn't exactly known for gun violence. I work at court and I don't remember many crimes where an assault rifle was used. Only one, actually, and that was a crazy soldier. And that's after over 10 years at court. Most of the crimes I remember where firearms were actually used were committed by people who had illegal guns.

When you look at things per capita, Switzerland does not have a low amount of gun deaths. If we restrict ourself to looking at Western countries, the list goes like this:
United States
Canada
Serbia (you may or may not define this as Western)
Finland
Switzerland
Everyone else.

It's not close, either. Switzerland has 3.5 firearms deaths per 100,000. The vast majority of Western Europe clocks in at less than half that, and most of the countries that are above 2.00 have some serious poverty/corruption/crime issues. If we restrict ourselves to looking at Western European countries, Switzerland earns itself a silver or bronze medal, depending on how we feel about Serbia. That is not the country you would point to in order to demonstrate that wide access to guns is not a problem, because it is a country in which an abnormally large number of people are dying because of gun violence. The only reason it seems insignificant is because our comparison includes the U.S., and we make everyone look small in the pants when it comes to murdering eachother with deathsticks.

K wrote:People like to fap to Norway's economic and social institutions without taking into account that it's a tiny country the size of a major US city but with vast mineral wealth. It's like looking at Kuwait and saying "well, they have free college education, so we should too" without taking into account Kuwait's role as a middleman in the oil trade.

That being said, looking at "the Nordic countries" means looking at a lot of nations. It's less clear at that point whether they are relevant.

I'm honestly not trying to sound like a concern troll here. Can the "tiny country, vast mineral wealth" reason for disregarding a country be compared to GDP per capita? Because by that rubric, only Luxembourg and Norway are richer than the States (among the Nordic countries). Granted, this is using the PPP basis, to better account for relative cost of living & exchange rates; while the nominal basis moves the States way lower (still top 10%).

virgil wrote:

K wrote:People like to fap to Norway's economic and social institutions without taking into account that it's a tiny country the size of a major US city but with vast mineral wealth. It's like looking at Kuwait and saying "well, they have free college education, so we should too" without taking into account Kuwait's role as a middleman in the oil trade.

That being said, looking at "the Nordic countries" means looking at a lot of nations. It's less clear at that point whether they are relevant.

I'm honestly not trying to sound like a concern troll here. Can the "tiny country, vast mineral wealth" reason for disregarding a country be compared to GDP per capita? Because by that rubric, only Luxembourg and Norway are richer than the States (among the Nordic countries). Granted, this is using the PPP basis, to better account for relative cost of living & exchange rates; while the nominal basis moves the States way lower (still top 10%).

I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for all factors. As Frank pointed out, some statistics are more relevant than others.

If this were easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

...You Lost Me wrote:

Ancient History wrote:Maybe he's a tad dyslexic and read it as "just not."

I actually did the exact same thing, and was wondering why sabs got all hissy about it.

I'm still wondering that, but it makes more sense now.

Yes, it was worded poorly. "It's not only" would have been better. It's like Sabs specifically wanted people to misunderstand him.

sabs wrote:

Shrapnel wrote:

sabs wrote:It's not just the right time to talk about gun violence.

No? Then when is? A major problem is that during and after these tragedies, we all say, "Yeah, things should change, but now's not the time." Well, when is the time?

We keep sweeping the issue under the rug. There have been eight school shootings alone this year. And after each one, almost nothing has changed. Oh, sure, they increase things like security at schools and such. But that only goes so far, and isn't all that effective in the long run. So, again, when is the time to talk about it?

Are you FUCKING RETARDED? or is english just NOT your first language.
DO you understand what "It's not JUST the time to talk about gun control, but also about Mental Illness" MEANS? Do you actually speak fucking English you illiterate asshole?

It's totally the time to talk about gun control.
It's ALSO the time to deal with how we treat Mental Illness in this country.

Holy Fuck you're an idiot.

Ah, the first time I've been insulted on the internet. Feels like sex.

First, let me say that I was saying it should be talked about. I thought you were saying that it wasn't. Second, I posted that about two minutes after waking up from five hour's of sleep, so that probably wasn't a good idea, since I'm not very coherant when I'm groggy. Third, I do speak English, thankyouverymuch. In fact, I love being grammatically correct. Which brings me to my other point: Mental illness is not capitalized. Neither is fuck. English is capitalized, however. And so should "Or", since it comes after an exclamatory. Speaking of which, if "not your first language" is a question, then there should be a ? mark.

Maybe you where so butthurt by your kneejerk reactions that you popped a vessel in your eye and paritally blinded yourself. That'd explain why you can't use English properly.

Fuchs wrote:Yet Switzerland isn't exactly known for gun violence.

Interestingly, it very nearly leads Western Europe/the EU in gun violence (especially handgun murders), and on a per capita thing (which is unfair given the tiny population) it is close to the US. So I wouldn't be too quick to say "You just need guns AND FORCED MILITARY SERVICE". Almost none of those deaths are from the military-issued rifles, however (because you have a specific amount of ammunition and that stuff is logged), it's with the handguns you can easily purchase.

And I can still see a point to going "I would love to ban all the guns, but we know that won't be allowed to happen in my lifetime. So here are the things we *can* do in the meantime to reduce murders. Which is good, reducing murders - it's just a shame we apparently aren't allowed to reduce it further." - tackling various economic factors, putting in some controls that you can manage to slip through, etc. But you really do need to acknowledge that the reason you're not going all the way is that it's doomed to failure.

Incidentally, the New York mayor said that they need better controls because "this shit only happens in America"*. Does this mean anything, that he wishes to take action, or is it just a statement to make people feel like someone cares?

Also, I read somewhere, or heard it, possibly from a guy at the pub, that the NRA happened to form the same day that the KKK was declared a criminal organisation and officially disbanded, what a fucking coincidence. Is there any truth to that?

*He probably didn't say shit.

Apparently the gun nuts think it's not okay to talk about gun control, but it is perfectly okay to talk about having elementary school teachers have conceal gun permits.
http://kfyo.com/harrold-isd-superintend ... ses-audio/

Holy crap America is fucked up.

Bloomberg, the NYC mayor, has been pretty strongly anti-gun for a while now. It's not clear how much he can do on a national level, though.

The NRA started in New York State in 1871, while the first iteration of the clan ended in the early 1870s, but, geographically, there's no overlap until later, s it wasn't the same people.

sabs wrote:Apparently the gun nuts think it's not okay to talk about gun control, but it is perfectly okay to talk about having elementary school teachers have conceal gun permits.
http://kfyo.com/harrold-isd-superintend ... ses-audio/

Holy crap America is fucked up.

Are the teachers supposed to supply their own firearms, or will they be issued by the school board? What sort of firearms will be permissible? Will the district pay for licensing and registration? Ammunition? Will there be mandatory (paid) training and qualification days? Will teachers be able to opt in or out of the program? Should the teachers form an armed posse in the event of a shooting, or stay with their students and return fire only if necessary? Should teachers provide fire-support to classrooms in their immediate vicinity, or should they hope that Mr. Hall in 3rd grade can handle the assailant(s) by himself?

What about body armor? Is there enough funding or all the employees, or do the lunch ladies have to fend for themselves with cafeteria trays? I want to know more about these plans.

Don't be so cynical! If all of those things happened we could certainly rest assured with the knowledge that all the teachers would be willing to do the reasonable thing and shoot the son of a coworker dead. Tragedy averted.

He wasn't the son of a co-worker. Far as we can tell, his mother had never worked or volunteered at that school. But yeah, it's completely crazy.

Ah, I guess I should probably read more about the damn thing sometime. I've been holed up in the garage painting lately so I mostly just know about this from facebook freakouts and the initial rumors. I feel sort of like a weird rubbernecker reading about this kind of thing though so I've been kinda avoiding it.

Lanza apparently had a fight with the school district and started homeschooling her kid. This somehow got conflated in early reports to her being a teacher and further to her working at the school. There is no connection that anyone has been able to find between the woman and the elementary school. It's not even the elementary school that the attacker went to as a child, since he moved to the city as a young teen.

Anyway, yeah Switzerland is a terrible example for gun advocates to bring up. This is a country with one fifth the homicide rate whose gun related deaths are between slightly more a third and slightly more than two thirds that of the US (depending on which set of statistics you read). Their proportion of gun deaths to overall criminal deaths is higher even than the United States.

-Username17

Fucking alcohol kills tons of people. Everyone knows it. We'd be a damn lot safer from both gun violence, knife killings, and plain old "fisticuffs" that leave people dead or crippled, we'd have far less domestic violence and car accidents if we had no alcohol. We'd have a shitton of people who'd not have died from liver failure. We'd have a ton of babies born healthier. Probably had a ton less unwanted pregnancies too.

Where are the campaigns to restore prohibition? Where are the cries to make sure you cannot buy alcohol legally anymore? Where are the posts sneering at people who claim that they can drink alcohol without endangering others? Where are the posts explaining that there is no damn reason at all to drink alcohol, other than a selfish desire to enjoy the taste and buzz, damn the consequences for society?

Where are the posts explaining just how many people die from and through alcohol abuse? Where are the posts explaining that just because the majority of people can drink alcohol in a responsible manner does not justify everyone being able to purchase drink alcohol?

Where are the posts that sneer at Frank for writing "drunk reviews", making alcohol abuse more acceptable?

What about a trade: You give up alcohol, I give up my guns (I don't drink alcohol anyway).

Fuchs wrote:Where are the campaigns to restore prohibition?

Here's the thing: when people banned alcohol, criminals just made their own and it was more dangerous than the regular kind, and America ended up with very successful criminal organisations. Never mind that those criminal organisations had easy access to guns, which made their jobs easier.

With the war on drugs, criminals have simply made their own, often more dangerous than just getting straight heroin or whatever it might be. So you get very successful criminal organisations (that are also well-armed).

What happens when the guns are banned? Criminals won't just go and make their own *more dangerous* ones. Sure you'll get people making their own, and those ones might even fire bullets sometimes. Or just jam. They won't be more dangerous than actual assault rifles.

Where are the cries to make sure you cannot buy alcohol legally anymore?

Again, they tried that and it failed. Miserably. But countries have successfully banned guns without it going very badly.

Where are the posts sneering at people who claim that they can drink alcohol without endangering others?

I don't know about posts here, but when people say they can drive/perform surgery/whatever when they've had a few, people call them dickheads.

Where are the posts sneering at Fuchs saying that if we can't solve both of these problems, then we shouldn't try to solve one of them?

Koumei wrote:

Fuchs wrote:Where are the campaigns to restore prohibition?

Here's the thing: when people banned alcohol, criminals just made their own and it was more dangerous than the regular kind, and America ended up with very successful criminal organisations. Never mind that those criminal organisations had easy access to guns, which made their jobs easier.

With the war on drugs, criminals have simply made their own, often more dangerous than just getting straight heroin or whatever it might be. So you get very successful criminal organisations (that are also well-armed).

What happens when the guns are banned? Criminals won't just go and make their own *more dangerous* ones. Sure you'll get people making their own, and those ones might even fire bullets sometimes. Or just jam. They won't be more dangerous than actual assault rifles.
.

Criminals already are not allowed to own or purchase firearms in most countries. Yet they do. If firearms are banned they'd simply be smuggled in since there are tons of them around world-wide. Like drugs. Sort of reminds me of the effects of prohibition.

And the fact remains: The vast majority of people can handle firearms without endangering anyone. Same goes for alcohol. Just as with alcohol, there is no need to have firearms.

There's just the fact that people like to drink, and accept that so many people a year die because of the easy access to alcohol (and the fucking attitude of society that drinking is ok, that getting drunk is cool, the peer pressure to drink at some social occasions, etc.).

Again, I'll trade in my firearms when you lot stop drinking. Fair trade - me having firearms doesn't edanger anyone, same as you drinking doesn't endanger anyone, but if no one did either we'd all be safer.

But get off the damn moral high ground. Your right to enjoy a drink means a shit ton of lives ruined by and of people who can't handle alcohol. But, hey, survival of the fittest, right? And we can't do aynthing about it, see prohibition, so we shouldn't work on controlling alcohol better, right? As long as we can drink we're fine, right?

Me? My stance is that shit happens, and as long as society tolerates so damn many deaths due to alcohol just so people can enjoy their drinks I don't see why I should not accept a lot less dead due to firearms and enjoy my hobby.

Do any of you have a single argument why it's ok to drink alcohol, but not to own a firearm?

Fuchs wrote:What about a trade: You give up alcohol, I give up my guns (I don't drink alcohol anyway).

Sold. I expect your guns to all be in a furnace by Wednesday.

RobbyPants wrote:Where are the posts sneering at Fuchs saying that if we can't solve both of these problems, then we shouldn't try to solve one of them?

Courts already use transdermal alcohol detectors in some cases which are worn. So, seriously, want to ban alcohol? Make every citizen wear one, and jail whoever drinks alcohol, and whoever removes the checker. You totally can, these days, wipe out drinking, as long as you wipe out a few of those pesky liberties and rights on the way. So... are you for or against making all people wear alcohol detectors just so no one can abuse it anymore?

If it's morally ok to have so many people die each year so some people can enjoy a beer, then it should also be ok to have so many people die each year so some people can enjoy their guns.

But ranting against firearms while enjoying a drink? That's just being a hypocrite of the worst order.

RobbyPants wrote:Where are the posts sneering at Fuchs saying that if we can't solve both of these problems, then we shouldn't try to solve one of them?

Courts already use transdermal alcohol detectors in some cases which are worn. So, seriously, want to ban alcohol? Make every citizen wear one, and jail whoever drinks alcohol, and whoever removes the checker. You totally can, these days, wipe out drinking, as long as you wipe out a few of those pesky liberties and rights on the way. So... are you for or against making all people wear alcohol detectors just so no one can abuse it anymore?

If it's morally ok to have so many people die each year so some people can enjoy a beer, then it should also be ok to have so many people die each year so some people can enjoy their guns.

But ranting against firearms while enjoying a drink? That's just being a hypocrite of the worst order.

The cases are in: big countries have banned guns and seen dramatic drops in gun deaths and machine shops didn't start making guns for cartels.

So any comparisons to Prohibition is just stupid.

Secondly, making guns and your own ammunition is actually pretty hard AND labor-intensive compared to making alcohol. I've been following a project to make guns with 3D printers and these guys are just failing all over the place even with the help of actual engineers. Making something that can fire even a few bullets and making your own gun powder is a non-trivial task that is beyond anyone but an expert unless you want to settle for the cutting edge of 1800s firearms technology.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is made by prisoners in their toilets and requires placing raisins and a handful of sugar together in water. Not hard by any stretch of the imagination.

Third, alcohol doesn't give individuals the power to kill lots of people in mere minutes, so equating the harm of alcohol and the harm of guns is just insane.

K wrote: Third, alcohol doesn't give individuals the power to kill lots of people in mere minutes, so equating the harm of alcohol and the harm of guns is just insane.

Alcohol kills people. A lot of people. It makes them lsoe control too, and is probably the main cause between a lot of violence.

Why is it ok to sacrifice so many people for alcohol, but not for firearms? What makes enjoying guns so much worse than enjoying drinks?