Thread: The am show this morning

The Swiss seem to have this a bit more worked out than the US.

What is really at issue is the of the cascade that seems to be pervasive in regulation of society.

Guns are bad, so licence the owners. That didn't work, so ban the worst guns (whatever they may be). That didn't work, so register all guns. That didn't work, so make guns illegal. That didn't work... You get the picture?

Here's an interesting article on gun ownership, gun crime and gun 'culture'
https://theconversation.com/us-shoot...n-crime-183933

Think you'll find that 'less guns equals less gun crime' at least as far as the US is concerned.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

These US centric findings are probably influenced by high handgun sales/ownership and not relevant elsewhere (such as Finland, Sweden and Norway with high gun ownership)

danger mouse highlighted the nub of it above and hard to see how it could have gone another way in NZ.

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" documentary , way back in 2002 explained it pretty well.

If you watch some period movies (watching 1883 right now) you will see how the possession and use of firearms was intricately woven into their patchwork of life.

In a nutshell Michael Moore identified easy access to firearms, combined with massive wealth inequality primarily to blame.

The recent shooting and killing was sorrow, but it does `t change my opinion about guns. Still it `s people killing people, even banned all the firearms, people will continue to kill people. They can use knifes, bombs, or even a bus or truck. In the history, if a Govt do `t allow people to own weapons, those govt was and is not a govt as freeman wanted.

Originally Posted by Black Rabbit

The recent shooting and killing was sorrow, but it does `t change my opinion about guns. Still it `s people killing people, even banned all the firearms, people will continue to kill people. They can use knifes, bombs, or even a bus or truck. In the history, if a Govt do `t allow people to own weapons, those govt was and is not a govt as freeman wanted.

Can that be true if the homicide rate corresponds directly with the number/availability of firearms?

I mentioned Sweden, Finland and Norway in my post. They all have high gun ownership rates (mostly sporting arms) and have low homicide rates in comparison with USA but are high in comparison with other European countries.
Here's Sweden as an example

https://www.barrons.com/news/sweden-...ws-01622034913

Originally Posted by Longrun

I mentioned Sweden, Finland and Norway in my post. They all have high gun ownership rates (mostly sporting arms) and have low homicide rates in comparison with USA but are high in comparison with other European countries.
Here's Sweden as an example

https://www.barrons.com/news/sweden-...ws-01622034913

You need to understand why the homocide rate in Sweden has skyrocketed. That is a combination of factors due mostly to open boarders and gangs of new arrivals jockying for dominance in the drug trade. Not "Lars Erikkson" brassing up the systembolaget with his Hunting Rifle.

Sweden, Finland and Norway are very safe and law abiding countries outside the big cities.

With regard to preferring to be shot at with a shotgun than a semi-auto.... What if it's a semi-auto shotgun?

That has to be quote of the year when Ryan looks at Parker and asks "Do you think the gangs gave back all their semiautomatics" and ffs Park says "yes". The look on Ryans face is priceless.

and how does Parker know which guns were used?

I understand that perfectly well. The article attached says as much.
Unfortunately the rule makers are looking at the simple metrics that I've highlighted.
I'm not saying I agree with it...it is however, happening.

Originally Posted by Longrun

I understand that perfectly well. The article attached says as much.
Unfortunately the rule makers are looking at the simple metrics that I've highlighted.
I'm not saying I agree with it...it is however, happening.

No you are mistaken,the artical does not mention ethnicity nor Swedens liberal immigration policy.Which may well be factors?

Anyhoo I am off to Stockholm on Thursday, its a loverly time of year over there.

Here's what a Russian citizen interested in the subject says.

'Because you have to go deeper.

In the US the intentional homicide rate is 4.9 and 2.83 of that is firearm-related (more than half). In Russia the homicide rate is 9.2 and while there are no good sources on the firearm related rate, neighboring Belarus and Ukraine have similar to Russian firearm possession laws and both have the firearm-related death rate less than 0.1. So basically guns doesn't contribute that much to the homicide rate in Russia. Note, that it doesn't really mean that the homicide rate doesn't depend on gun control laws.

As for the question why the homicide rate is so high in Russia: once again, we have to go deeper. When we slice and dice data we will see that most of homicides are connected with alcohol intoxication and while Moscow has the rate of 3.5, Siberia region has the rate of 15, which roughly correlates with the alcohol consumption by region. Another thing is percentage of homicides as a result of domestic violence. As much as 70-80% of murders in Russia are results of domestic violence (and again due to alcohol intoxication), this is much higher percentage than in the US.

So basically your chances of being murdered on the streets in Russia is actually smaller than in the US.'

Yes it is. The Harvard review was focussed on western developed nations and was consistent.

You can focus on outliers/anomalies if you will though the rule makers of western nations are not.

Them's just the facts.