Simple measures that bring down the rate of violent death in a moment of passion? Thank you. Let's talk gun control.

In Sri Lanka? Ummm ... it's a second order issue, related to the civil war.

I think that headline should read Indian-made auto-rickshaws not scooters. Scooters (in india) are two-wheeled motorized vehicles while AR's are three-wheeled. I was wondering how the driver of the scooter balanced the suicide-victim on the seat behind him while he sped to the hospital.

In Sri Lanka?

In the U.S. What's a day without some good-natured triple-V-baiting?

Simple measures that bring down the rate of violent death in a moment of passion? Thank you. Let's talk gun control.

Uhhhh, no. let's talk demographics:

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries. Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

So they're required to keep assault rifles in the house. The BBC is wrong about "statistics not being kept" but a glance at Interpol data shows that the crime rate is low. More here. Bottom line: demographics are the determinant of crime, not guns.

In any case, given that the police & military are overwhelmingly Republican, I could never understand why left-wingers are so eager on giving them all the guns...

The main point was actually re: reducing suicides.

Demographics are determinants, guns are enablers. Restrict guns and you're restricted to less lethal methods (see UK stats).

Anyhow, it was off-topic bait.

Last month I read a couple of articles on increasing suicide rates in india and I thought (since not many people in india have guns)poverty, AIDS, social evils/stigma's,dowry pressures,inlaws troubles, lack of jobs/unemployment could all be the reasons for suicide in india.check these sites out , very interesting and sad suicide statistics specially in india and all over the world and reasons behind those suicides (kerala and karnataka recording the highest suicide rate and specially young women).Even newscientist published articles on that. And unfortunately half the indians are too poor to buy prozac's or medicines for psychological depression.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/789412.cms
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994846
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/15spec.htm

Ok, it is off topic, but
In any case, given that the police & military are overwhelmingly Republican, I could never understand why left-wingers are so eager on giving them all the guns...
stats? Why is it that the majority of former military(maybe police also?) legislators (i.e. congress and senate) are all democrats? Besides, GC, they already purchased the guns might as well put them to the good use :P

gc: Are you suggesting that republicans and democrats hate each other so much that they might need guns to protect themselves from each other? That goes against everything this country stands for and it’s irresponsible to even suggest it.

And for all you people who believe in the right to bear arms, do you really think that a couple of guns will really keep you safe — either from criminals or from an oppressive government? Get real.

Guns are dangerous and kill people. I think all guns should be banned. I don't care what the stats are. There's a real person behind every number.

And all you hunters there — get another sport. This one is barbaric.

Just in case you haven't got the memo: Hello hunters, we've evolved. We don't kill for pleasure anymore.

Sorry if this is off the topic.

There is a real person behind every stabbing.

There is a real person behind every poisoning, strangling, beating, etc.

There is a real person behind every murder. That is the key - The act of murder. Plenty of items around other than guns that enable these acts. If one person has decided to kill another there are many ways to go about doing it. Banning all guns in the world simply would not work for one reason. It has already been invented. In countries like India where gun control is pretty strict, people make their own homemade guns when other options are not available(Bihar). The idea of a bullet, barrel, and gunpowder exists.

Plus it is not a pratical solution since there are millions of weapons already in existence (Soviets flooded the markets with AKs. They can be bought cheaper than a pair of Nike shoes). The idea is effective and efficient control of guns keeping them out of the wrong hands is the key.

In spite of its population and poverty, there is very little violent crime in India. Could it be because owning a gun is illegal. Compare this to next-door Pakistan where everyone owns a gun — violent crime is out of control there.

Homemade guns and illegal guns may show up but it's so much easier to spot those in a society without guns.

And comparing Switzerland to the US is like comparing apples and oranges. They have their own separate and distinct set of circumstances that makes it statistically safe for them to own guns. Change those dynamics a little — like adding in job loss, crime and an influx of immigrants — and then the situation might change.

Why not do what Chris Rock suggested, make the bullets cost like $5000.00 each. Then you would just have to use the guns like a club. Or better yet, why not just legalize murder? I'm sure that Vinod, Razib, and GC could expand on the nature of man and why we are the way we are... It could be the ultimate reality show.

On desi's & guns -

Mahatma Gandhi was no fan of gun control. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Mahatma Gandhi was no fan of gun control. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Wow! A totally useless quote without context. Look, I can do it too -- Khaaan!

Ok, I'm an agnostic on the whole gun thing, but one thing I don't get. How do laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals - people who by definition, break laws? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely want to know. Is that because it reduces the amount of guns in circulation?

Anyway, I think it is a complicated issue and that guns are problems in some communities (urban) and not in others (rural). Guns are a problem in Chicago, not so much in Maine or New Hampshire or Vermont. I don't understand federal legislation. Seems like a perfect local issue.

How do laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals

It's not all-or-nothing. Effective interdiction makes supply more difficult and raises prices, e.g. the drug war. It's fairly linear: x units of supply constraint mean y fewer guns on the street. Criminals aren't superhuman, when it takes too much time and effort to get something they want, they switch to alternatives. Interdiction hasn't been set up very effectively to date.

I don't understand federal legislation. Seems like a perfect local issue.

Local regulation weakens interdiction because criminals simply travel across state lines to get their guns.

sluggo, are you a bot running out of the basement of the dnc? some of the "arguments" you put forth sound like they come straight from the splc/dave neiwert smear machine.

let's take this one at a time...

1) The military are overwhelmingly Republican.

On the question of "self-identified ideology," 77 percent of the military were Conservative, 14 percent Moderate, and 9 percent were Liberal. In contrast, the Media were only 17 percent Conservative, 28 percent Moderate, and 55 percent Liberal, while Labor leaders were 6 percent conservative, 20 percent moderate, and 73 percent Liberal.

That's from 2000, but I doubt the stats have changed much. Is there any wonder why? The Democrats persist in thinking of the military as a social experiment rather than the one place where efficiency is paramount. Thus you have the Defense Women's Policy Board pushing this nonsensical GI Jane myth, Clinton & "Don't ask Don't tell", not to mention the constant bashing of the military by the left (e.g. F 9/11 & the "we don't need no water" scene) as well as constant attacks on the very legitimacy of nationalist sentiment.

2) I know I've seen police stats around, but I couldn't find them on the web. However, police generally don't like leftists - just like their all-too-successful attempts to feminize/GI Jane the military, the leftists have declared a jihad against efficient policing by blasting "racial profiling" when 89.2% of violent criminals named by their victims in NYC are black & Hispanic (see page 5). That's why Hillary was showered with boos:

Hillary Clinton was jeered and booed by thousands gathered at Madison Square Garden as she took to the stage -- unannounced -- to introduce a movie clip.

VH1 cameras captured firemen and police heroes wildly booing Clinton, who attempted to raise her voice above the shouting crowd.

"Get off the stage! We don't want you here!" yelled one New York City police officer just feet from the senator.

After spending years and years bashing cops as racist because a highly disproportionate fraction of thugs happen to be nonwhite (as shown above - also see FBI Table 43)...now Hillary & co. wanted to turn on a dime and embrace those heroic cops she'd slammed for a decade. No dice.

3) As for your idea that we could make bullets "$5000"...if you're even being semi-serious, you just don't understand basic economics. You set a price like that, you ensure a black market in ammo.

4) Bottom line: Sluggo, T, and Manish refuse to confront the fact that it's demographics - specifically, the percentage of a district that is black & Hispanic - that is far & away the primary determinant of the crime rate. Guns are not even on the list. Consider:

DC: highest crime rate in the nation, essentially banned guns, 80% black
Nebraska: low crime, high gun ownership rate, 90% plus white
Switzerland: ASSAULT RIFLES in every house, ultra-low crime rate
Britain: guns seem to be banned, but it has a higher violent crime rate than the US. Who's committing those violent crimes, you ask? Good question. (see Tables 5.1-3 in the first link).

Bottom line: don't be PC. There are facts out there. If you want to reduce crime you want to reduce the immigration of crime prone groups. Gun control is a diversion. It has done nothing for DC & Britain, and is obviously not responsible for Nebraska & Switzerland's low crime rates.

Those are hardly outliers - they are characteristic of the general trend. Midwestern states with tons of guns have low crime rates. Guns do not lead to crime. Groups prone to violence do. The problem is that urban lefties are afraid to state this fact baldly. However, they want to disarm the dangerous groups in their midst. Thus they promote the "universalist" morality of gun control and direct their anger at the mystified midwestern hunter...because it's not PC to point the finger at Harlem or South Central.

Please...

Just in case you haven't got the memo: Hello hunters, we've evolved. We don't kill for pleasure anymore.

Do you support the legality of eating meat? Of using shampoo? Of wear leather shoes? Or of legalized abortion, for that matter?

Then obviously you're in favor of allowing people to terminate lives that you don't consider human in many circumstances, even if you find the actual act distasteful. The Kassian argument-from-distaste you direct towards hunting could easily be turned on you: abortion, porn, all sorts of things you probably are likely targets.

I'd think twice before declaring such a weapon in-bounds.

Clash, please?

Demographics are determinants, guns are enablers. Restrict guns and you're restricted to less lethal methods (see UK stats).

Demographics are determinants, guns are enablers. Restrict guns and you're restricted to less lethal methods (see UK stats).

Perhaps you aren't aware that the UK has FAR higher violent crime rates than the US despite much more restrictive gun laws:

1) 1.5 million violent crimes in England and Wales, 28.9 crimes per 1000.

2) 1.4 million violent crimes in the US, 5.04 crimes per 1000

No matter how you slice it, the US has a much lower violent crime rate than the UK. So just what UK stats are you talking about?

Bottom line: Restricting guns reduces freedom with no benefit. It is a totalitarian imposition by city dwellers on rural people which is usually justified in crime terms...but it has NO IMPACT on crime. Demographics are destiny. Guns make NO DIFFERENCE.

gc: Hunting is killing for pleasure. People who hunt do so because they get a thrill out of killing. It's not the same as killing for food or medical research. There's no pleasure derived in the act. You can point out that some people eat the meat they kill or hunt for the purposes of culling. Meat that's inspected is safer for consumption and culling should be done by forest rangers or someone citizens licensed by the government.

Killing or hurting for personal pleasure is wrong — you don't need demographics, focus groups or outdated quotes to tell you that.

And let's not open the abortion or capital punishment debate here. I'm finding it hard just posting a few lines now and then. How do you guys find the time to publish daily blogs??

yo, my bad on the England stats - the numbers are considerably higher than the US, but not 28.9 to 5.04. (That number includes burglary, but not murder - b/c it's a survey of victims who can't tell who attacked them if they're dead.)

If you go here you can break out individuals. Here they quote:

Note: Violent crime, as measured by the BCS, includes common assault, wounding, robbery and snatch theft. It does not include homicide (as the victims cannot be surveyed) and other types of violent crime, like firearms offences.

# In 2002/03, the total number of violent offences in England & Wales was 2,781,000.

# These included:

* 501,000 incidents of domestic violence
* 942,000 incidents where the offender was an acquaintance
* 949,000 incidents where the offender was a stranger
* 388,000 incidents of mugging

So let's just take the 949000 stranger attacks and 388000 muggings. Note that this *doesn't* include murders and is a lower bound. We're still going to get a violent crime rate well in excess of the US number (around 1.3 million). The BCS victim surveys match up well with the police reports, so no matter how you slice we're talking a UK violent crime rate well in excess of the US rate (though not 5.5 times as high - my bad above).

gc: Hunting is killing for pleasure. People who hunt do so because they get a thrill out of killing. It's not the same as killing for food or medical research. There's no pleasure derived in the act. You can point out that some people eat the meat they kill or hunt for the purposes of culling. Meat that's inspected is safer for consumption and culling should be done by forest rangers or someone citizens licensed by the government.

Killing or hurting for personal pleasure is wrong — you don't need demographics, focus groups or outdated quotes to tell you that.

But "it's just wrong" is not an argument. It can be applied to anything.

You are objecting to the psychological state in their brain: killing a rabbit for fun! oh no! You can't do that. In your view you can only eat a burger without even thinking about where it came from.

I bet you object to boxing, and contact sports, and violent video games, and competitions with winners and losers...no?

the US has a much lower violent crime rate than the UK.

You're still not clashing. Violent crime (e.g. by knife) is different from murders and gun deaths:

England and Wales have been described as having "notably low death rates by firearms with less than 1 death per 100 000 people".

Your argument boils down to a non sequitur. To commit murder you need A) a violent person and B) a gun. Reducing A helps and reducing B helps.

Common sense: restrict guns around children, the suicidal, the frequently passionate/violent, and felons. For the remaining population, regulate heavily and train well.

Demographics are destiny. Guns make NO DIFFERENCE.

Reductio ad absurdum. Take an average population with some entirely rational people, some mostly rational, some mostly irrational, and some entirely irrational. Divide into three groups. Group one is unarmed. Group two allows knives. Group three allows machine guns. In which group is the murder rate highest?

Demographics are destiny. Guns make NO DIFFERENCE.

By your logic, we'd pursue terrorists without limiting nuclear proliferation and fissile materials. It's just silly on the face of it.

without limiting nuclear proliferation and fissile materials

handguns are not nukes, silly example.

Your argument boils down to a non sequitur. To commit murder you need A) a violent person and B) a gun. Reducing A helps and reducing B helps.

B is false. You can commit murder with knives and all kinds of weapons. Increasing gun ownership does not increase the murder rate. Increasing the percentage of violence prone groups predictably does. That's the long & short of it.

If you're not violent you're not going to use a gun to kill someone. The NRA is just being PC when it says "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". What they mean is "guns don't kill people, SOME PEOPLE kill people". Who some people disproportionately are is an exercise for the reader.

Hint: it's not midwestern whites. No regulation or training is necessary to reduce the crime rate in gun-heavy Nebraska. Can you admit that?

Reductio ad absurdum. Take an average population with some entirely rational people, some mostly rational, some mostly irrational, and some entirely irrational. Divide into three groups. Group one is unarmed. Group two allows knives. Group three allows machine guns. In which group is the murder rate highest?

Given that guns enable modern policing and serve as a deterrent against aggression, and given that Stephen Pinker estimates that premodern societies had up to 60% of deaths from murder:

What to do to combat the natural response of violence?

A governing body with a guaranteed monopoly on the legitimate use of violence neutralizes most of the above reasons for people to be violent. Adjudication of armed authority is the most effective general violence reduction technique ever devised. In pre-state societies, up to 60% of men died in murder. Expanding our empathic group is also a way to reduce violence to "outsiders."

You fail to account for the fact that policing and self-defense are enabled by gun ownership. Otherwise your ability to survive and to deter aggression is entirely a function of your physical strength. That's why there is the saying: God made man, but Samuel Colt made man equal.

Imagine every encounter with a larger man or group of men carrying the chance of death and robbery, with nothing to defend yourself but your fists, and you'll see what life in a premodern society was like. You're subscribing to a Gaia/noble savage myth here where it's the tool rather than the human who generates the violent impulse.

handguns are not nukes, silly example.

Ah, so lethality matters when discussing gradations of arms.

Q.E.D.

Ah, so lethality matters when discussing gradations of arms. Q.E.D.

please. you've make the spurious and wrong and PC argument that guns cause crime, that premodern societies had low rates of violence without guns, and too many other logic-free constructions to name.

this is yet another. who is arguing for private nukes? there is a huge difference between having the ability to protect yourself vs. having the ability to lay waste to a city.

there is a BIG gap in between. It's about as big as, i dunno, the gap between IQ and late german fascism. That doesn't stop sophists from speeding right over it, though...

btw, manish, would appreciate response to this comment of mine: No regulation or training is necessary to reduce the crime rate in gun-heavy Nebraska. Can you admit that?

Also, you said earlier: Common sense: restrict guns around children, the suicidal, the frequently passionate/violent, and felons. For the remaining population, regulate heavily and train well.

But you oppose racial profiling, right? Restricting gun ownership to felons and the "frequently violent" would have disparate impact. How do you square *that* circle?

gc: Don't presume to know me. No I don't object to boxing, contact sport, violent video games, cartoons, movies, or tv shows, paintball and competitions with winners and losers. Okay, maybe boxing. There's a difference between real violence and simulated violence. And good competition in sports and academics is healthy.

One sport I wouldn't mind though would be one where hunters and people who love guns and violence go to some deserted island every time they gut the urge to kill and hunt each other. See everyone's happy!!

you've make the spurious and wrong and PC argument that guns cause crime

False... (demographics are a determinant)

that premodern societies had low rates of violence without guns

False... (noble savage is a myth)

there is a huge difference between having the ability to protect yourself vs. having the ability to lay waste to a city.

Like the difference between handguns and assault weapons...

No regulation or training is necessary to reduce the crime rate in gun-heavy Nebraska. Can you admit that?

I have near-zero knowledge of the gun situation in Nebraska.

But you oppose racial profiling, right? Restricting gun ownership to felons and the "frequently violent" would have disparate impact.

There are significant but subtle differences between racial profiling and locking up convicted criminals, between race-based aff action in work and income-based aff action in universities, between all violent crime and murder by gun. See whether you can figure 'em out.

In the meantime, keep arguing with the invisible, granola-crunching leftist in the room. Please don't let me interrupt.

Manish, why is violent crime by knives different than violent crime by guns? I guess the difference is a matter of degree in that a lot more people can be killed by guns in a short period of time (so I've just answered my question). I guess, growing up in a rural state, I just want to know what is the best way to balance the right of the many law-abiding citizens in Iowa or Nebraska, etc. with the problems urban areas like DC and Chicago have. I don't have any answers. Keep up with the good comments guys, I am learning a lot.

Stabbing requires more strength, as well as proximity for a longer period of time. Shooting is far far easier. I also suspect that it's easier to patch up a stabbing victim than a shooting victim.

Then there's the psychological differences (read "On Killing" for an extensive elaboration of this from a military stand point). People have, in every society, a far easier time killing from a distance. The closer you are, the more you get involved in the death, the greater the psychological resistence from anybody except a psychopath.

This would've been nice to know before I submitted my paper on the affects of globalization...