Scandinavia and the World
 

Comments #9823251:


Armed to immobilize 12 10, 4:49pm

@Isdaril "The best proof being that while almost everybody in the US posess a gun, crimes are 3 times more likely to happen than in France where regular citizen seldom have such things. "
a) not true, only about 40% of population is armed and in many states their right to carry a gun is limited by local law (state or county) or rules of certain establishment (aka church, shopping mall or cinema theater may prohibit concealed carry).
b) crime rate is not uniform across different states.
c) look specifically at Texas, Arizona, Louisiana, Maryland, Illinois, California and, as a bonus, Vermont and South Dakota.
d) I used looting and spree killings as examples of crime that overwhelmingly succeeds in absence of armed resistance. It's a very limited example, but one that is undeniable.

But since you're interested in systemic reasons, again I'll point to an organized crime. US is already having a problem with drugs that are manufactured or brought into country and sold completely illegally. Let's imagine that an absolutely effective confiscation of legally owned guns happens overnight. That means that 1) organization that already specializes in procurement and distribution of illegal goods just got a new item on the menu, 2) those guns will be only available to criminals connected to such organizations, 3) guns will be either military in origin or scratch-built to have similar functionality. So while number of guns in possession will vastly decrease, number of illegally owned guns will be unaffected or even increase. Even worse, you just gave organized crime a boost, because now there is a big incentive in being connected to a large gang or criminal network.

"Sure they do (well actually, suicides often become suicide attempts when they don't involve a gun), but they are way less deadly if they do not involve guns"
Nope, I will not trust that. I have some personal experience with topic at hand and firmly convinced that the only thing that counts is seriousness of intent. Methods that are not reliant on access to guns can be either no less lethal, or damaging to a point where there failed attempt is worse than completed, or will lead to a second (or third) attempt. Someone seeking for attention will use self-harm or threat of suicide, someone serious enough will opt for gun, noose, gas or poison. Oh, and for a bit of comical circling back, car is a suicide tool as well.

"That is why deadly accidents and suicides are positively correlated with gun ownership. Also it would be quite irrational to incriminate cars for it but not guns."
Oh, I incriminate both. Number of fatal gun-related accidents per year in US looks to be in very low thousands or high hundreds. I wouldn't be surprised if that number is comparable with number of people killed and permanently blinded by angle grinders.









America wearing England's shirt