If the problem was just “guns”, we should expect to see their unarmed crime stats be similar or even greater than US numbers. Canadian violent crime stats are lower across all categories, not just the “gun” categories.
Canada has a vastly superior social safety net. They address poverty conditions far better than the US. Gangs thrive in poverty, so when Canada attacks income inequity, they greatly reduce their gang problems relative to the US. Their social programs - including a universal healthcare provision - reduce their crime rates across the board.
The single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun deaths (and all forms of criminality, violent and non) in the US would be to adopt Medicare for all.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Even so, the child firearm mortality rate in the U.S. (3.7 per 100,000 people ages 1-17) is 5.5 times the child and teen mortality rate in Canada (0.6 per 100,000 people ages 1-19).
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
I reject your claim that Canada is our closest peer in anything but geographical proximity.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe. Neither Canada nor Europe have areas with economic conditions comparable to our high crime areas. Nations like Mexico and Brazil have areas economically similar to our high crime areas, and similar crime rates.
But let’s set all that aside for a moment, and look at the math. 48,000 people die to guns in the US per year, 2/3rds are suicides. Absolutely perfect gun control can save a maximum of 48,000 people, and it certainly won’t be perfect.
Conservative estimates put the number of lives saved from universal healthcare at 335,000 per year.
Now, the politics: gun rights have been steadily expanding for the past 30 years. CCW permits have expanded from fewer than 1 million to more than 30 million. A majority of states have adopted permitless “constitutional carry”. The last time a significant gun control measure passed was 1994, and it sparked an event known as the “Republican Revolution” in 1996.
If you think “perfect” gun control has a chance at being adopted in the US, “you’re not approaching this issue honestly”. The only thing that a serious push for gun control will certainly accomplish is to drive the country toward the GOP, which opposes universal healthcare.
The options in front of you are a Quixotic attempt at saving a small fraction of 48,000 people that will prevent us from saving 335,000 people; or, push for universal healthcare and similar social programs that will save an order of magnitude more.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
It is absolutely true, and you would see that if you drilled down to zip codes instead of looking broadly at the state level. We have some zip codes with homicide rates near 200 per 100k, and some cities over 80 per 100k. The economic conditions in those areas are more comparable to third-world countries and active war zones than wealthy nations. These poverty-stricken hellholes are where our violence comes from. They also happen to boast some of the lowest rates of gun ownership and strictest firearms laws and enforcement in the nation. Guns are an expensive luxury item: poor people don’t tend to own them, unless they are actively engaged in criminal behavior.
The “50% higher” statistic is interesting. We should not see a drop in unarmed crime if the cause for the drop in gun crime is strict gun control. And yet, your “50% higher” statistic applies to all crime, not just gun crime. This is inconsistent with your “gun control” theory, and perfectly consistent with my “poverty control” theory.
It’s ok to want two good things.
Your position is like that of a little kid, pestering his mother while shopping. She’s got a new game console in the cart, but he’s begging for a slushie. She asks him to stop. She tells him to stop. His brother warns him that Mom is getting pissed off and is about to leave without buying anything, and that he can have the first turn on the new console, but he goes ahead and throws a temper tantrum about that goddamn slushie. So we all go home, no game console, no slushie, and we’re both grounded for good measure. (The events of this analogy may or may not have happened on my 8th birthday, and I may or may not still be salty about it.)
If the problem was just “guns”, we should expect to see their unarmed crime stats be similar or even greater than US numbers. Canadian violent crime stats are lower across all categories, not just the “gun” categories.
Canada has a vastly superior social safety net. They address poverty conditions far better than the US. Gangs thrive in poverty, so when Canada attacks income inequity, they greatly reduce their gang problems relative to the US. Their social programs - including a universal healthcare provision - reduce their crime rates across the board.
The single most effective thing we could do to reduce gun deaths (and all forms of criminality, violent and non) in the US would be to adopt Medicare for all.
Sure, income inequality and poverty are drivers of all forms of crime. And the US in addition to uniquely lax gun restrictions also has uniquely terrible social support.
But if you look at the above article you’ll see this:
Guns kill children in the US at a rate 5.5 times higher than all causes of child death in Canada. And it is our closest peer, in other wealthy countries this would be even more lopsided. We can talk about why that is, and there are many reasons including social inequalities, but if you’re not considering access to guns a driver of gun deaths plus the abundance of published scientific evidence that supports this, you’re not approaching this issue honestly.
I reject your claim that Canada is our closest peer in anything but geographical proximity.
I reject the idea that the US should be considered a “wealthy” country in this context: the areas of the US with economic statues comparable to Canada, or Europe, have violent crime rates and gun crime rates comparable to Canada, or Europe. Neither Canada nor Europe have areas with economic conditions comparable to our high crime areas. Nations like Mexico and Brazil have areas economically similar to our high crime areas, and similar crime rates.
But let’s set all that aside for a moment, and look at the math. 48,000 people die to guns in the US per year, 2/3rds are suicides. Absolutely perfect gun control can save a maximum of 48,000 people, and it certainly won’t be perfect.
Conservative estimates put the number of lives saved from universal healthcare at 335,000 per year.
Now, the politics: gun rights have been steadily expanding for the past 30 years. CCW permits have expanded from fewer than 1 million to more than 30 million. A majority of states have adopted permitless “constitutional carry”. The last time a significant gun control measure passed was 1994, and it sparked an event known as the “Republican Revolution” in 1996.
If you think “perfect” gun control has a chance at being adopted in the US, “you’re not approaching this issue honestly”. The only thing that a serious push for gun control will certainly accomplish is to drive the country toward the GOP, which opposes universal healthcare.
The options in front of you are a Quixotic attempt at saving a small fraction of 48,000 people that will prevent us from saving 335,000 people; or, push for universal healthcare and similar social programs that will save an order of magnitude more.
This is not true. Our state with the lowest gun death rate (Massachusetts 3.4/100k) still has an over 50% higher rate than all of Canada (2.1) and fairs worse when compared to other wealthy nations Source
I’m not going to argue on any other point because I’m not going to argue against universal healthcare? It’s ok to want two good things.
It is absolutely true, and you would see that if you drilled down to zip codes instead of looking broadly at the state level. We have some zip codes with homicide rates near 200 per 100k, and some cities over 80 per 100k. The economic conditions in those areas are more comparable to third-world countries and active war zones than wealthy nations. These poverty-stricken hellholes are where our violence comes from. They also happen to boast some of the lowest rates of gun ownership and strictest firearms laws and enforcement in the nation. Guns are an expensive luxury item: poor people don’t tend to own them, unless they are actively engaged in criminal behavior.
The “50% higher” statistic is interesting. We should not see a drop in unarmed crime if the cause for the drop in gun crime is strict gun control. And yet, your “50% higher” statistic applies to all crime, not just gun crime. This is inconsistent with your “gun control” theory, and perfectly consistent with my “poverty control” theory.
Your position is like that of a little kid, pestering his mother while shopping. She’s got a new game console in the cart, but he’s begging for a slushie. She asks him to stop. She tells him to stop. His brother warns him that Mom is getting pissed off and is about to leave without buying anything, and that he can have the first turn on the new console, but he goes ahead and throws a temper tantrum about that goddamn slushie. So we all go home, no game console, no slushie, and we’re both grounded for good measure. (The events of this analogy may or may not have happened on my 8th birthday, and I may or may not still be salty about it.)