patrick.net

Most gun violence in the U.S. is due to the drug war. The same pattern can be observed in Mexico, and in the history of prohibition. Just as prohibition elevated Al Capone and others to fight over the revenue from "rum-running" (and control of territory etc.), so now drug prohibition enables very similar personalities to fight over the revenue from drug running (and control of territory etc.). Even within cities, you can see that homicide tends to be very narrowly concentrated:

http://www.crimemapping.com

Which brings up the conundrum: If we legalize drugs but do not regulate firearms then we may have a bunch of gun nuts who are now taking drugs in larger quantities.

Actually, if we can medicate some of these people with marijuana instead of SSRI's it may prevent mass shootings.

Moderate Infidel says

it may prevent mass shootings.

Cheech, where did we leave the ammo? Oh, man, I can't believe we spaced that again dude. This is embarrassing! (Why Cheech & Chong never managed to blow up their high school, and had to settle for a career in film instead.)

They would pack extra snacks instead of extra ammo.

Moderate Infidel says

Which brings up the conundrum: If we legalize drugs but do not regulate firearms then we may have a bunch of gun nuts who are now taking drugs in larger quantities.

Firearms are already quite regulated, in fact I believe one of the questions they ask on the forms is regarding the use of illegal drugs. But I would be more concerned about the users/abusers of legal drugs which are more ubiquitous and every bit as dangerous. And probably the most dangerous thing you can do while impaired is drive. It seems driving while intoxicated or under the influence of legal/illegal drugs is much more prevalent concern than gun violence.

It's a false argument to bring up other concerns and dismiss the gun concern by saying it is less than another. You could argue we should all be more concerned with Icelandic volcanoes wiping us off the planet.
Also, if driving intoxicated is a major concern then obviously what is needed is more car regulation.

My point is that firearms are quite regulated. Much more regulated than automobiles, and also much less dangerous than a huge hunk of metal capable of high speeds. And it certainly IS relevant to compare one form of prohibition and regulation to another.

Actually I think it is reasonable to put risks into perspective by comparing them to other risks. Car crashes are a major concern, which is why I'm glad to see progress in autonomous vehicles. Cancer and heart disease are major concerns, which is why I'd like to see more research into helping people live longer and healthier lives while spending less on medical intervention. Epidemics are a major concern, which is why I'd like to see more vaccine research. Somehow the TV news seem to focus on very rare concerns, e.g. children abducted by strangers or shot at school, which grab attention but aren't anywhere near the top 10 hazards in terms of risk.

Vaticanus says

Much more regulated than automobiles,

Exactly how much more is that. Please provide numbers.

Go to the newspaper. How many guns are for sale? How many cars are for sale? This is just one example of how much easier it is to buy a car and drive it recklessly than it is to buy a gun and use it recklessly.

I had to go through a lot more time and expense to earn the right to drive a car than I did to buy two guns. And I'm in California. I imagine it's even easier elsewhere.

Vaticanus says

Go to the newspaper. How many guns are for sale? How many cars are for sale? This is just one example of how much easier it is to buy a car and drive it recklessly than it is to buy a gun and use it recklessly.

What's a "newspaper"?

Thank you for that great video.

Crime is primarily driven by demographics, second by culture. Gun ownership plays a very minor role in crime.

I'm glad it mentioned the terrific wave of violent crime in England & Wales, which is 350% higher than the United States.

thunderlips11 says

violent crime in England & Wales....

...is defined differently for statistical purposes. In America, most violent crime arrests are at the state level, and the federal statistics capture only a subset. I would not call England and Wales three times more violent than the USA. More relevant is the fact that gun crime in the USA is concentrated in certain areas, mainly turf wars between drug gangs. Subtracting the "drug war", the homicide rate in both the USA and Mexico resembles other countries.

Politicians and their patronage networks seek power, and use every policy failure to rationalize more power for themselves:
"drug war" -> gun violence -> gun control
9/11 -> "Patriot Act"
fee-for-service Medicare/Medicaid -> rising medical spending -> Obamacare
etc.
It's a bipartisan problem, so we can think of it as "bipartisanship."

There is no reasoning with a professional nut.
Especially the well armed ones.

IDDQD says

We might get mass face-eatings instead:

Using a bizarre and over-reported anecdote as the basis of a policy prediction is a waste of time. That incident was a personal tragedy for someone, but it has no predictive value on a national scale.

IDDQD says

Exactly my point.

Sorry - I misunderstood. Nevermind.

Is it just me, or are these two avatars freakishly similar?

Vaticanus says

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Most crime today is white collar because the Baby Boomers are no longer violent teenagers, but executives, managers, and day traders.

But since crime and violence are so low, let's end the war on terror and the war on drugs and cut the military. In exchange, the other side will end the war on guns.

IDDQD says

If you want fair comparison, compare right to use a car with right to use a gun, i.e. with CCW permit.

It is a fair comparison because I didn't try to get a CCW permit.

Moderate Infidel says

I had to...earn the right to drive a car....

Where did you earn a "right" to drive a car? Are you sure you have one?

I don't understand the naive of the people who support this president to issue gun control laws.

This is the president that promoted Bush's warrant-less gestapo wiretapping, the same president that promoted secret killings, and now the same president wants to take your rights away and you people are just totally fine with it because he told you it is for your own good?

Isn't that what slave owners told the blacks back in the 1800's... you can't vote because that is for your own good?

IDDQD says

Moderate Infidel says

It is a fair comparison because I didn't try to get a CCW permit.

Go and try it then if you want to make a valid comparison based solely on your own experience.

BTW, buying a car for off-highway use, which would be a proper equivalent of buying a gun for use on gun range or BLM land, is 10-minute deal if you have cash in hand. With non-C&R gun in California it's 10 days + FFL fee.

Really, you don't need a drivers license? I remember weeks of drivers training to get a license. Must be different in your state.

curious2 says

Moderate Infidel says

I had to...earn the right to drive a car....

Where did you earn a "right" to drive a car? Are you sure you have one?

Your "right", I should have said privilege.

I also don't have to buy gun insurance. Or get my gun smogged. Or pay fees each year for the privilege of owning it. I don't have to show any sort of proof that my gun is in good working order or that I even know how to shoot the damn thing properly.

That's the difference between a right and a privilege. Latter can be taken away.

FortWayne says

That's the difference between a right and a privilege. Latter can be taken away.

Yup, got it. Even a mentally ill individual or someone with a criminal history should be able to get any guns just for the asking. After all, we don't take away from them the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc. And no annoying waiting periods or mandatory safety training either; you don't need those for freedom of speech after all.

Sheesh, this whole discussion feels like I've gone to the planet of the apes and have to teach people to wipe after they take a crap...

Call it Crazy says

curious2 says

Somehow the TV news seem to focus on very rare concerns, e.g. children abducted by strangers or shot at school, which grab attention but aren't anywhere near the top 10 hazards in terms of risk.

Ahhhh, the truth!!! Somebody gets it!!!

Why does the TV media focus on it???... for the entertainment value and to increase viewership so they can get a nice return for their shareholders and gain higher revenue from their advertisers...

....Because talking about deaths from medical illness isn't very exciting to the general public....

... and because mental illness is "Hard" and "Complicated". Most schizophrenics never harm a fly. Most depressed people never hurt themselves or others. But some do, and we don't know exactly why and the triggers probably vary greatly from person to person.

Blaming objects, however, is easy.

The school shooting was a tragedy. You had a working single mother with an autistic kid, who if anything was afraid of his own shadow. She should have never taught him how to use weapons, but if the kid flees from all strangers, why would she think he'd ever attack people? It's just plain sad - and a bit frustrating, because these things are impossible to prevent, even if we went full 1984 with video screens watching everybody all the time.

As for the 'dangers' [sic] of schools, even my wife believes this bullshit. Not only are public schools the safest place for kids, but they're also the safest place for teachers and staff. A teacher is much more likely to be the victim of a violent crime outside of school (including inside their own homes) than in it, even though they spend 8 hours a day there for years on end.

curious2 says

...is defined differently for statistical purposes. In America, most violent crime arrests are at the state level, and the federal statistics capture only a subset.

Here I must disagree.

The UCR is the Uniform Crime Report; every level of police, state or federal, city or county, police or sheriff, even tribal, ATF, FBI and US Marshall, report using the same set of standards, not according to a myriad local standards. The UCR is uniform because it's the brain child of a national police chief association, who wanted a means to compare crime across jurisdictions and measure crime nationwide who got the first laws introduced in the 1930s.

For the past few decade, participation is required of all Federal and almost all State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies by law (and backed with subsidies); it encompasses > 90% of the US population.

thunderlips11 says

Here I must disagree.

You seem perhaps to have misunderstood? The issue is the comparison to England and Wales, not within the USA.

curious2 says

thunderlips11 says

Here I must disagree.

You seem perhaps to have misunderstood? The issue is the comparison to England and Wales, not within the USA.

I might have! Here is the part two:

The US and UK have very similar laws; I find it hard to believe that stabbing somebody would be considered a violent crime in Manchester, NH but not a "Crime against the person" in Manchester the Original.

To be lazy and quote from Wikipedia:

In criminal law, an offence against the person usually refers to a crime which is committed by direct physical harm or force being applied to another person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offence_against_the_person

Crime Against the Person is more or less the same set of offenses as "Violent Crime" the US. Stabbings, Beatings, Smacking somebody with a vehicle on purpose, etc. as well as "Criminal negligence" (sometimes "Reckless Endangerment"), just like the US.

The Home Office also strips out Murder, Sexual Assault from Violent crime into separate categories in their reporting just like the UCR does.

After all, the Common Law is the mother source for both British and American Law, and the definitions for these most of these crimes have existed since antiquity, long before the US existed.

I'm sure there are minor differences, but it doesn't account for the huge discrepancy in violent crime.

FortWayne says

I don't understand the naive of the people who support this president to issue gun control laws.

This is the president that promoted Bush's warrant-less gestapo wiretapping, the same president that promoted secret killings, and now the same president wants to take your rights away and you people are just totally fine with it because he told you it is for your own good?

Isn't that what slave owners told the blacks back in the 1800's... you can't vote because that is for your own good?

Gun control is a ruse to cover up the NDAA and it's expansion of the Patriot Act.

On a peripherally related note, some dummies want to publish names and addresses of gun owners. Good way to let criminals know which houses to rob

http://wizbangblog.com/2013/01/06/ex-burglars-admit-gun-owner-outing-map-helps-criminals/

here's some more 'reason' for the anti gun nut crowd. Because this is an event unlikely to happen in an upper middle class neighborhood in California

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html

of course not, they live in gated communities.

FortWayne says

now the same president wants to take your rights away

My opinion has been Obama would have left the issue of guns alone, he still might, but you have to agree that the killing of school children, in cold blood, one at a time, in day light, has to shake you confidence.

So, I think with Biden on point the whole thing will need to go to Congress, no Congress person wants to be voted out of office, so I think they will manufacture a vote that will kill a ban, but keep things like education, and funding for mental illness.

When I was in school we had tornado drills. Now days they have lockdown drills. I still think the tornado is more likely and more devastating. Paranoia from the cold war era reborn.

I bet there were more gun related school deaths in the last 12 months than tornado related school deaths.

Let's look at a longer time frame seeing as how 12 months is a bit near sided.