Let me start by saying that this is a nice post, data, clear arguments and an attempt to anticipate some arguments and address them. I wish more people would put this kind of thought into their posts. That said:
"I don't believe that cross cultural comparisons are sufficient to rebut the issue about self defense"
why not? Presumably, if guns are really effective for self defense that would ultimately manifest itself in lower crime rates. If you're telling me that in Country X there are few guns, much less crime but also far fewer incidents of people defending themselves with guns as compared to Country Y, that hardly seems like a very convincing argument for less gun control. For one thing, it seems that the evidence is at least consistent with lax gun control laws (a) creating a culture of violence and (b) guns not being a very effective detterent of crime.
"Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide."
You can't just wave your hands like this and claim to have refuted the argument. Which factors? why are they important and/or why do they trump the prima facie evidence in favor of gun control? why isn't it reasonable to argue that controlling guns at the "macro level" can reduce crime/violence/suicide if a strong correlation between the factors exist? Of course, one determined to save the hypothesis that gun control doesn't decrease violence but that's a helluva long way from showing that controlling gun ownership rates at a macro levels fails to reduce crime/violence/suicide.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 1/4/10 20:06 (UTC)"I don't believe that cross cultural comparisons are sufficient to rebut the issue about self defense"
why not? Presumably, if guns are really effective for self defense that would ultimately manifest itself in lower crime rates. If you're telling me that in Country X there are few guns, much less crime but also far fewer incidents of people defending themselves with guns as compared to Country Y, that hardly seems like a very convincing argument for less gun control. For one thing, it seems that the evidence is at least consistent with lax gun control laws (a) creating a culture of violence and (b) guns not being a very effective detterent of crime.
"Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide."
You can't just wave your hands like this and claim to have refuted the argument. Which factors? why are they important and/or why do they trump the prima facie evidence in favor of gun control? why isn't it reasonable to argue that controlling guns at the "macro level" can reduce crime/violence/suicide if a strong correlation between the factors exist? Of course, one determined to save the hypothesis that gun control doesn't decrease violence but that's a helluva long way from showing that controlling gun ownership rates at a macro levels fails to reduce crime/violence/suicide.