<div>This post offers a reposting of Vision2020 content from July 2007. Some on Vision2020 object to reposting older posts, but I thought the history of discussion of this issue on this list is revealing. And given that many of the issues raised in this thread have already been parsed in detail on Vision2020 before, there is no point in writing a new response that covers ground I already addressed in detail, with references, in the following two posts from July 2007. The debate and the facts regarding firearms regulation have not substantially changed, and a surprising number of the same individuals are engaging now on this issue. At least six of the Vision2020 participants who were engaging on firearm rights/regulations on Vision2020 in July 2007 are also now engaging on this issue on Vision2020:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>dateFri, Jul 27, 2007 at 3:20 AM<br>subjectRe: [Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?<br><a href="http://mailed-bygmail.com/" target="_blank">mailed-bygmail.com</a></div>
<div>hide details 7/27/07 Reply</div>
<div><br> <br>Joe, Mike, Dan...<br> <br>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. <br>
<br>Mike argued that violence will occur by other means if firearms are restricted, as he referenced the Harvard study on firearms:<br> <br>"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." <br>
<br>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. <br>
<br>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: <br>
<br>Read below quoted from the above web site:<br> <br><a href="http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html" target="_blank">http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html</a><br>"• 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."<br>
-----<br>Murder without guns is about the same rate as the USA, while the handgun murder rate is 15 times higher? <br>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. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
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. <br>
<br>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! <br>
<br>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... <br>
<br>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. <br>
<br>Ted Moffett</div>
<div>----------------------------------------</div>
<div>subjectRe: [Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?<br><a href="http://mailed-bygmail.com/" target="_blank">mailed-bygmail.com</a></div>
<div>hide details 7/29/07 Reply</div>
<div><br>Mike et. al.<br> <br>I will enumerate 5 critical issues, in responding to Mike's post:<br> <br>Mike wrote "People who stress the danger of gun ownership without putting it in context are not giving you the full story, for whatever reason."<br>
<br>In pursuing the full story, perhaps you can respond to each numbered point below?<br> <br>Mike wrote:<br> <br>Total homicide and suicide rates around the world don't appear to be related to the rate of firearms ownership.</div>
<div>----<br> <br>1) This statement is highly questionable. There is reliable data correlating lower or higher rates of firearm ownership in many nations with either a lower or higher rate of murder. Consider one example, comparing Canada's murder rate to the USA's, where the murder rate by other means in Canada is about equal to the USA, while the murder rate from handguns is 15 times higher in the USA than Canada. To claim that there is no causal relation between the 77 million hand guns in the USA (compared to the roughly 1 million in Canada) and the 15 to 1 ratio in the handgun murder rate between the USA and Canada requires explanation. Perhaps no proof can be offered that this greatly increased access to handguns in the USA is casually related to the greatly larger US murder rate, but to prove it is not is also problematic. <br>
<br>Info comparing Canada to the USA on murder and handguns:<br> <br><a href="http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html" target="_blank">http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html</a><br>-------------<br>
<br>2) As is often stressed by those who promote less firearm regulation, firearms are a preferred means of self defense, because they are so effective and convenient when needed for this purpose. If other forms of "tools" were as effective and convenient as firearms in inflicting enough damage to stop an attacker, there would be no need to focus so exclusively on firearms for this purpose. We'd be discussing knife or baseball bat or taser, etc. rights of ownership. This exposes that in fact, firearm use is associated with a higher risk this will result in death or serious injury, compared to many other weapons that might be employed by those doing violence. Easy access to firearms cuts both ways, offering powerful self defense, but also more easy access to firearms for criminals who may kill someone without intending this level of harm in the commission of their crime, due to the power of firearms to inflict damage. <br>
<br>I located research on the subject of the rate of firearms when used inflicting death or serious injury, compared to rate of other common "weapons" when used inflicting death or serious injury, but the information was not available for public posting. <br>
<br>Mike wrote:<br> <br>Firearms are dangerous, but most of the people who are being killed are already involved in criminal behavior and the death rate among children is very much lower than other types of accidents. <br>
-----<br>3) So criminals deaths are not to be considered in the human and financial costs to society from firearm violence? Consider the amount of violence among urban youth using firearms. Many of these youth are involved in criminal behavior, but standing on a street corner selling dime bags of cannabis renders someone a criminal. Of course self defense is always justified when confronting a violent criminal. But why put the fuel of easy access to firearms (at unregulated gun shows, for example) onto the fire of underground gang and drug crime, often youth related? <br>
<br>Mike is not offering the shocking data on youth deaths from firearm violence in the USA. Youth (or someone of any age) being killed by firearm violence, even when engaged in criminal behavior, are still human beings, with mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and loved ones, and their deaths are a tragedy for all of us, an expression of an out of control culture of violence in the USA, while placing a burden upon hospital emergency rooms, and long term medical care, when firearm violence results in serious injury not death. Note that by "youth" the Centers For Disease Control web site below offers data for 10-24 year olds: <br>
<br><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm</a><br> <br>In 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day. Of these victims, 82% were killed with firearms (CDC 2006). <br>
<br>4) Regarding the Hamilton case, while you focus on the mental health issue, and what sort of firearms he used, you do not mention that the primary reason he should have had his firearms seized by law enforcement, was that he was convicted in court of violent crime, attempted strangulation. <br>
<br>5) I posted to this list information regarding the gun show loopholes that make it easy for criminals and others wishing to bypass scrutiny for their firearm purchases. So what if there is a registry for those with mental problems to not be allowed to purchase firearms, if the sale of firearms can be conducted at advertised gun shows bypassing this registry? <br>
<br>I am curious if you would agree that gun shows should be monitored via more strict nationwide regulations, like the strict regulation of gun shows in California, to prevent sales to criminals, straw purchases, or purchases that skip background checks, such as what occurs in other states that do not have California's more strict gun show regulations? <br>
<br>If you did not read the post on the gun show loophole issue, please read the information at this web link:<br> <br><a href="http://www.physorg.com/news100839164.html" target="_blank">http://www.physorg.com/news100839164.html</a><br>
<br>------<br>Ted Moffett<br></div>