<div> </div>
<div>Joe, Mike, Dan...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As I mentioned to someone recently, different outcomes between nations may result from the imposition of a given firearm regulation policy. Thus the debate is not about a one size fits all application of social science and criminology principles. Firearm regulation can mean a wide variety of differing policies. Comparisons between nations need to be carefully considered in the total context of all critical variables in each nation that impact outcomes.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mike argued that violence will occur by other means if firearms are restricted, as he referenced the Harvard study on firearms:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Countries with very high firearms<br>ownership rates like Norway have low rates of murder while countries like Luxembourg and Russia, with very low rates of ownership have much higher rates of murder. The criminals just use other tools."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So by cherry picking examples without filling in critical details a result can be implied that is just what is wanted. What does "high rates of gun ownership" vs "low rates of gun ownership" mean in each nation? We may be comparing a nation with a population who enjoy a high standard of living in a peaceful society, and rarely have any need of using the weapon for self defense, to a nation that has low rates of firearm ownership, but murder by other means is more common because of negative social economic conditions. Assuming that in Luxembourg and Russia the criminals "just use other tools," does not prove this same outcome applies to all other nations. And firearm ownership needs to be correlated with gun registration and gun owner licensing, along with a list of other variables that can influence the effectiveness or lack thereof of firearm regulations. Like control over the black market in illegal weapons, for example.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The example of Finland suggests a positive outcome with high rates of gun ownership coupled with both gun registration and gun owner licensing. And comparisons between Canada and the USA suggest that more aggressive gun regulation than in the USA may be correlated with a reduction in the murder rate, even as the "criminals just use other tools." First, regarding Canada:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Read below quoted from the above web site:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html">http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html</a></div>
<div>
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">"• This is underscored by comparisons of the United States and Canada. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada. Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 77 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (
1.3 times) that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the Canadian rate."</font></p>
<p><font size="2">-----</font></p>
<p><font size="2">Murder without guns is about the same rate as the USA, while the handgun murder rate is 15 times higher? </font></p>
<p>These facts do not argue that even if Canada had the same firearm laws as the USA overall, with the same number of handguns per capita, that Canada's murder rate with handguns would increase to that of the USA, or that the USA's murder rate would drop to that of Canada's overall rate if we had Canada's per capita handgun rate and Canada's form of gun regulation. It might be that people in the USA, for a variety of reasons, are just more inclined to murder, and minus handguns, other tools would be used, and people in Canada would not murder with handguns that much more often, even if in every home.
</p>
<p>But the data presented, if correct, suggests that gun regulation and fewer handguns in Canada is correlated with a lower overall murder rate, and that high numbers of handguns in the USA is associated with the higher US murder rate. Even if in Canada other "tools" are used to attempt murder, they may not be as lethal, thus resulting in fewer deaths. Other weapons are often not as convenient and effective as firearms in inflicting serious harm, which is exactly the argument used by firearm advocates for why they are so effective for self defense.
</p>
<p>The chart at the website I quote above indicates that Finland has a higher rate of firearm ownership per household than the USA (in fact Finland has the highest rates of ownership on that chart), has both firearm registration and licensing of gun owners, and has a much lower rate of firearm homicide, although the firearm suicide rate is disturbing (still below the USA rate). So if Finland is a model, we might increase firearm ownership per household, and reduce the firearm murder rate, by requiring firearm registration and licensing of gun owners. And in Finland, the overall murder rate is dramatically lower than the USA, so criminals are not bypassing gun regulations to murder at a high rate.
</p></div>
<div>I do not claim that we would have the dramatic positive outcome suggested by Finland's high rates of gun ownership and low firearm murder rates, and much lower overall murder rate, if we followed Finland's firearm policies here in the USA. As I stated at the top of this post, each nation has differing social, economic and cultural influences that may give differing outcomes to a given policy.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, I continue to wonder why mandating firearm registration and licensing of gun owners is so vehemently opposed. This would not prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms for self defense, hunting or sport shooting, though we hear over and over that gun regulation is a slippery slope aimed at taking all firearms away, then only criminals will have guns. This argument is odd insofar as it argues for policies that make it easier for criminals to acquire guns!
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>What is also peculiar about this argument, in its cultural context, is how much it appears to presuppose a government that cannot be trusted to allow law abiding citizens to keep their rights, such as those for gun ownership, while those making this argument often support politicians who are enforcing policies that weaken our rights, with the hysteria and scare tactics involved in the war on drugs, weakening the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and now the war on terror...
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Anyone who voted for W. Bush because he supports gun rights should pause and consider what it means to have the fundamental principle of the right to habeas corpus undermined, a result the Bush administration has pursued.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/26/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Campbell</b> <<a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Mike,<br><br>With all due respect, this sort of pseudo-scientific analysis bugs the heck out of me.<br><br>
For one thing, in order to establish that guns are not dangerous you only consider gun DEATHS. There are no statistics cited in your 'analysis' about people who were harmed by guns in other ways.<br><br>On the other hand, you count as useful instances of gun use not merely cases in which someone kills a potential assailant but cases in which merely "displaying a gun" thwarts a crime. As if one COULD document such a vague category as this. In addition, most of the support for the usefulness of guns comes from a website entitled "
<a href="http://gunowners.org">gunowners.org</a>." (On a side note, you should be ashamed of yourself, Dan, for chiding me about using data from Wikipedia to making the case about Bush's drug use yet giving a big thumbs up to Mike for the data collected from "
<a href="http://gunowners.org">gunowners.org</a>." Give me a break!)<br><br>I don't want to say that guns are clearly more dangerous than useful but I will say that you've done nothing to disprove the claim. The question is, Is having a gun in your home more likely to protect folks from harm or more likely to cause harm? Unfortunately, for all your hard work, Mike, we still don't know, for the simple reason that you've failed to note the number of instances in which guns have led to harms other than death. There is not enough data here to make a reasoned judgment either way.
<br><br>Now maybe your own views about guns are something more than mere religious beliefs; maybe they are based on facts rather than emotion. But there is nothing in your post alone to indicate this.<br><br>--<br>Joe Campbell
<br><br>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net
</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>