Gun Control UK Style

Do you think the US has lower deterrence rates than other developed nations, given their drastically lower prison populations?

 

If there was deterrence here, we wouldn't have gun crime, would we?

 

You don't seem to have a bleedin clue how deterrence works. I'm getting a little bored of ignorance tonight. Don't let me down.

 

You don't seem to have a bleedin' clue how the US works, but you're still here.

 

I know Americans range from clever to sheep. I also know, when I informed you that you were clueless over deterrence, you couldn't dispute it.

 

Then if such is indeed known by yourself, go about actually explaining such, rather than pointing out how the interpretation of others is incorrect.

 

Pro gunners don't know pro gunner theory? Golly gosh, I'm shocked. I need to educate them their theory? Do one!

 

I've lived in your country so I know just how obsessed you really are with guns . You just don't care about the consequences of that obsession as your gun death figures attest. That puts you at odds with every other developed nation in the world

 

The above does little more than suggest that knowledge of how deterrence works is not possessed on the part of yourself, otherwise the question would have been answered.

 

So what concerns you about my Mig 23 avatar then ?

 

I know all of deterrence theory. I have to tell you, for example, that it derives from Ehrlich and Becker. Try and at least pretend realistic whinge?

 

None. The US is quite unique in that regard ...... and by a very long way



The US obsession with guns means you are some 5 times more likely to meet a violent end in the US. If you are a women that figure is 9 times if you are a child under 14 some 17 times. Yet your society tolerates this and calls this 'freedom'. Thankfully I live in a society where I'm free from the worry of being shot

 

Yes and our firearms are ground defense fighters.

 

The big difference is that far too many Americans are keen on the idea and think that killing each other for whatever reason is a good thing.... heads up it isn't

 

Then start elaborating on precisely what the deterrence theory does and does not mean, and what it does and does not do. Stop acting as if the sole knowledge on the subject is possessed exclusively by yourself and that there is no interest in sharing it with everyone else.

 

The united states is not a first world, developed nation. It is as simple as that.

 

And such a fact is not going to change simply because of efforts to legally restrict firearms from the public. That desire to commit murder for whatever reason will remain, and it will be acted upon just as readily. Nothing of meaning or substance will change, so there is no point in even bothering to try, much less care.

 

You want me to tell you have pro-gunners use deterrence theory? Ha!

Why do pro-gunners know so little? Genuine question! You'd think they'd bother with the theory used by Lott, Kleck and co to try and justify their conclusions.

 

Regrettably, the term "Developed Countries" has become an artificially fabricated euphemism hijacked by gun control/ban advocates for cherry picking countries in the world that have lower homicide rates but have little in common with the US. (1)

None of the "Developed Countries" cited maintains a costly global military presence or is deeply involved in ongoing regional conflicts thousands of miles away.

All of the "Developed Countries" have some form of universal health care while the US has none.

None of the "Developed Countries" subjectively chosen by gun ban ideologues has the equivalent of America's 2nd Amendment or are nearly as ethnically diverse nor do they spend nearly as much on defense.

For example, the oft cited Canada spends about $20 Billion on Defense while the US spends approximately $680 Billion on defense.

For the purposes of comparing homicide rates, it makes more sense to compare the US to the other superpower, Russia or to the other "American" democracies to the South (i.e. Central & South America) yet those higher homicide rates do not yield the results sought by gun ban ideologues.

It is enough to say that even though the US is the only country in the world that so clearly guarantees its citizens the right to possess a wide variety of private firearms, it still has a homicide rate well below the global average.



(1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.



Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED

 

It was a simple question. No need to have a tantrum. Next question: why do you think pro-gunner researchers, such as Lott, control for economic variables?

 

To a hoplophobe, even someone with a passing interest in firearms is "obsessed" with guns so your vague observations have little basis in fact or reality.
Additionally, the oft abused term "developed nations" is as vague as it is disingenuous & subjective (1)



(1) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED

 

My response to your first question was hardly a tantrum. It was simply a summary of why I feel that that it is disingenuous to make false comparisons of America to a handful of dissimilar countries.

It's an old & dishonest ploy to attempt to shame Americans into supporting gun bans even though gun bans & draconian gun laws have failed in 80 countries to make their citizens any safer.

Before I answer another question, please clearly articulate precisely what it is that you are asserting & why.

 

It's a little obvious! Separating developed and developing country is basic sense. This sense is of course also accepted by pro-gunning researchers who, as a matter of standard practice, control for economic variables. Why do you think they do that? (or is this going to be the third question you haven't answered...)

 

What is wanted, is for yourself to actually provide answers when questioned, rather than jumping about in an effort to avoid the issue.

Why do those who support greater firearm-related restrictions know so little?

 

Proof?