http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/01/uk-guns Comments On: UK Guns by Charles Mudede en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Thu, 23 May 2013 11:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss "Is it possible that there were many reasons for the decline in crime in the 1930s and that the end of Prohibition and restrictions on private ownership of tommy guns both played a role?"

That is possible.
But the Tommy guns were still in the hands of private citizens.
Exactly as they were during Prohibition.
So claiming that Tommy guns were in any way responsible for the level of violence DURING Prohibition appears to be contrary to the facts.
But don't let the facts stop you.
There's always some other thing you can claim when the facts contradict your original claim.

And, of course, you ignore that the violence seems to have peaked in 1933.
But instead of addressing the specific facts, you will try to over-generalize with "the 1930s"
While
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
all show a continuing decline in homicides.
Despite Tommy guns still being in the hands of private citizens.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:24:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:01:16 -0800 The Stranger "No two human societies are exactly alike. No two periods in history are exactly alike."

Now what was it that I had just posted?
Similar is NOT the same as exactly alike.
So you think you are making a point by claiming something that I just had to clearly spell out for you?

"The best we can do is compare situations that are roughly similar."

No.
The BEST we can do is to look at the FACTS instead of your racist imaginings.
And the FACTS show a sharp drop in the number of homicides immediately after Prohibition was revoked but while Tommy guns were still owned by private citizens.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:45:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:07:32 -0800 The Stranger "So, if I could find an instance of a similar level of violence to 1920s America, but w/o alcohol prohibition, would that mean that Prohibition didn't cause any violence?"

First off, correct your statement there.
Similar is NOT the same as exactly alike.
So you'd have to show:
a. the absence of restrictions SIMILAR to Prohibition.
b. a comparable level of violence.
c. the presence of Tommy guns (or equivalent).
d. NOT during a war or religious conflict or ethnic cleansing or mass killings of Native Americans (examples I have already provided).
e. And because YOU keep bringing it up, it has to be in "developed nation."
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:23:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:40:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:36:32 -0800 The Stranger "No, I'm arguing that America's weak gun laws were one of many reasons for the high level of violence in the 1920s."

Then you have to show a time similar to Prohibition WITHOUT the Tommy guns where the violence level was less than during the Prohibition era.
Otherwise your "one of many reasons" has ZERO effect (or at least immeasurably small).

I've already shown instances of similar levels of violence WITHOUT Tommy guns.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:15:09 -0800 The Stranger
No, I'm arguing that America's weak gun laws were one of many reasons for the high level of violence in the 1920s.
Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:57:01 -0800 The Stranger "Then America's weak gun laws would be a cause of Prohibition era violence, but not the only cause."

You'd FIRST have to show some evidence that the same level of violence would NOT happen if Tommy guns were not present.
I've shown that there are LOTS of examples of similar levels of violence in different societies PRIOR to the invention of the Tommy gun.

"... things can have more than one cause."

Except YOU are the one who keeps arguing that there is one reason and that reason is Tommy guns.
I'm saying that the reason for increased violence during the Prohibition era IS that it was the Prohibition era when Prohibition was enacted and before Prohibition was repealed.
Which is why gang-related and drug-related crimes are the ones CURRENTLY most associated with shootings.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:42:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:14:46 -0800 The Stranger "Nobody is arguing that people having guns is the sole determinant of the level of violence in a society."

And what was that you had just posted?

"Do you really believe that the fact that in 1920s any kid w/ a paper route could own a tommy gun was completely unrelated to the epidemic of gang violence that swept America at that time? Come on."

Well it looks like that is EXACTLY what you had just argued.
But now it looks like you're arguing for the position that "randoma" had posted.
What was that I had posted before about the circular logic of the racist?

"If it's not the guns what is it?"

And now you're back to claiming that it IS the presence of guns.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:51:54 -0800 The Stranger
BTW FU you never did give me an answer as to why the US has the highest murder rate of any developed nation. If it's not the guns what is it?
Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:44:54 -0800 The Stranger "Do you really believe that the fact that in 1920s any kid w/ a paper route could own a tommy gun was completely unrelated to the epidemic of gang violence that swept America at that time? Come on."

To determine that you'd have to look for examples where there were at least the same number of people killed but without guns similar to the Tommy gun being available. And not a military war.
Now that I have phrased it like for you that I'm sure that anyone with any decent level of education can provide multiple examples. Religious conflicts and ethnic cleansing are two examples.
Even the mass killings of Native Americans would often fit that criteria.
But that is the point.
You don't bother looking for examples to refute your claims.
You skip anything that contradicts you.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:14:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:29:57 -0800 The Stranger
As far as the UK's 1920 Firearms Act can you produce any evidence that any of the UK's gun control edicts have reduced overall violence? If you look at Northern Ireland, which has much more permissive gun laws than England, you'll note that their homicide rates are almost identical. If you look at historic homicide rates you'll see very little change in trends that can be attributed to gun control.

Here's an interesting essay on Gun Prohibition in England:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/hist…
Posted by randoma]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:28:06 -0800 The Stranger "In 1929 the murder rate in the US was ..."

The question was:
What year was the National Insurance Act passed in England?

The answer is:
1911
In other words, over one hundred years ago.

No one asked whether the murder rate in the US in 1929 blah blah blah.
The point being that you refuse (as exhibited above) to address any fact that contradicts your position.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:08:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:04:33 -0800 The Stranger What year was the National Insurance Act passed in England?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:24:14 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:06:54 -0800 The Stranger
You say, "I am simply suggesting that rates of private gun ownership are one of these many factors - and the evidence supports that."

What evidence supports that? In the UK, guns were banned, homicides rose. In the USA overall gun related incidents (including 'accidents', suicides, homicides..etc.) has been in pretty stable, or a slight decline per/capita over the last couple decades, while levels of gun ownership have nearly doubled. The figures YOU cite do not support your assertion unless you make a comparison to a completely different country. If you look at trends in the United States, access to firearms (more firearms, more states allowing concealed carry..etc.) has not had a corresponding rise in firearms related incidents.
Posted by randoma]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:03:15 -0800 The Stranger "You seem to be suggesting that guns have nothing to do with gun deaths, and so steps to regulate guns will achieve nothing."

You have two completely different concepts in that sentence.
Of course GUNs have something to do with GUN deaths.
Back in the 8th century there were zero GUN deaths.
Mostly because GUNs had not been invented yet.
But there were still lots of non-GUN deaths.

Then you fail to define what "regulate" means in the second part of that sentence.
Did the "assault weapon" ban "achieve nothing"?
Of course it achieved something.
It achieved cosmetic changes for guns so that they could still be sold.
What it did NOT achieve was any reduction in the number of deaths from gun shots.

"A gun control measure must be capable of eliminating all deaths from guns to be worthwhile."

No.
But it is up to YOU to show which deaths would have been prevented and how they would have been prevented as a direct result of a proposed regulation..
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:32:07 -0800 The Stranger
I am simply suggesting that rates of private gun ownership are one of these many factors - and the evidence supports that.

You seem to be suggesting that guns have nothing to do with gun deaths, and so steps to regulate guns will achieve nothing. A gun control measure must be capable of eliminating all deaths from guns to be worthwhile. That is a fairly common argument from anti-gun control advocates. Like @46:

@46: "If you take guns out of the equation won't some suicides and homicides that would have been committed w/ firearms happen anyway?"

Yes. Some would. Though in the case of suicide, use of a firearm is associated with very high levels of success as compared to other reasons. Overall statistics suggest that lower levels of gun ownership don't necessarily lead to fewer attempts, but to fewer completions. And as to accidental gun homicides...
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:16:30 -0800 The Stranger
Of course, but if you take guns out of the equation won't some suicides and homicides that would have been committed w/ firearms happen anyway but by different methods? Isn't it the overall rate of homicide and suicide we should care about?

@42 I'm not a gun-control-nut, quite the opposite in fact. However, I do think the availability of firearms plays a role in the prevalence of violence in society. I think it is only one of many factors and that a change in the number of guns in circulation won't necessarily correspond to a change in the murder rate.
Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:04:23 -0800 The Stranger
Canada has much better health care (particularly for those most at risk), nearly 1/3rd as many people living in poverty (roughly 5-10% for Canada, compared to 15-20% for the USA), income inequality, based on the Gini scale is roughly .35 for Canada compared to .45 for the USA.

If you look at where the majority of violence comes from, you'll note that the vast majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by poor people against other poor people. Additionally, the majority of violent crimes are in major metropolitan areas - the USA has a lot more large cities than Canada does.

As far as availability of guns and correlation with accidents and gun related suicide.. Suicide rates in the USA have been fairly stable in the last 20 years (with a slight per capita rise, which happens to directly correlate with the rise in income inequality). From the Gunpolicy.org website: Suicide, by any means, per capita, 1999 @ 10.46 (1993 was 12.06), rising to 12.3 in 2011. An increase of roughly 15%. In comparison, gun related suicides went from 5.95 in 1999 to 6.3 in 2011 or an increase of roughly 5%.

However by the figures provided by the National Institute of Justice, in 2000 there were approximately 259 million firearms owned by private citizens. By 2011 that number had increased to approximately 320-330 million. An increase of 23%. Yet, somehow, despite there being more firearms owned by private citizens, the use of firearms for suicide went down in that period, as did the number of firearms related 'accidents'. (Violent crime in general is down despite a widespread increase in the availability of firearms in the last 10-20 years.)

I wrote about accidental injuries in @42 - perhaps you should read it.

Incidentally, I believe, although as far as I know there is no data to support it, that one of the reasons for the USA's higher rates of gun violence is the 'cowboy mentality' that pervades American culture. Canada certainly doesn't have that mentality, nor does the UK. American culture reveres the "Hero with a gun".

Furthermore, as I've stated before, I support every one of Obama's Executive Actions on gun control, while I think the majority of them are not going to help, I think some will and I don't think they'll hurt. I also support liability for negligent gun owners (if you own a firearm and it is used in a crime or injures someone due to an 'accident' you should be criminally and civilly liable) and establishing real penalties for straw purchasers. I would also support a tax, or ban, on "Saturday Night Specials" (which are used for the vast majority of firearms-related crime).

I do not support a ban on "Assault Weapons". It is a meaningless ban that impacts a huge number of law-abiding citizens while having very little impact on criminal use, and is a terrible waste of political capital.
Posted by randoma]]> Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:41:42 -0800 The Stranger