Re: You want to know the ugly truth?

Ultimately the effect is minimal because the health care system in the US is fucking atrocious.

But not atrocious enough that infants are all dying of diarrhea, as they do in the really poor countries. OK maybe that's overall wealth and not the health care system per se, but still. For a change, look at the causes of death in the youth brackets in poor countries - whether or not they are violent, you will find diseases that American kids do not fall ill with, much less die. Do you realize that polio hasn't been eradicated?

My grandma, who does have Medicaid, is currently going through the last stages of cancer and will be gone in a matter of weeks if not days. They caught it far too late. It's a common story. It was the same with my paternal grandfather, who died from lung cancer.

Sorry about that.

But please, again, are you talking about children and youths or everyone?

(You yourself posted that homicide is not a prominent cause after 55 - that is the effect precisely of disease, not of a sudden lack of guns)

Americans have horrendous eating and life habits--too much fat, carbs and cholesterol, not enough exercise, a lot of smoking and drinking. We're #13 out of all countries for heart disease. We're #9 for cancer. We're #1 for diabetes among Western countries. I don't think there's a significant difference between deaths by disease in the US and most of the rest of the world, even if the diseases that kill them are different.

But life habits are exactly that: lifetime lasting. Infants are not dying of fat, cholesterol, smoking, drinking and Type II diabetes. Adults are. So again, that means that violence in adults has to compete against cholesterol, while in infants it doesn't.

The points you introduce do not have as significant an effect on the stats you claim.

I am sure the Drug Wars swell the number of murders in the USA and most Latin America and Caribbean countries. I don't know by how much - but I am sure the "real" rate is lower in all of the Americas. This probably varies by state and city, of course. (In your own map you will notice that the leading northern states in murder are Illinois and New York - why do you think that is?) And I can believe the same applies between Latin American countries and regions and cities within countries - it sure explains the coloring of Mexican states; and I would love to see the coloring of Colombian departments and Peruvian regions.

Oh, come on. Do you even really believe that? Source this claim, please.

Yes, I do.

(Roughly speaking. There is also the question that cartels don't care about collateral damage - which also increases the number of homicides. Even al Qaeda have clearer rules for collateral damage.)

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/34

Notice the graphic with the historic homicide rates. I have every reason to believe the rate in America should not be higher than 6 and possibly as low as 4 in the absence of the War on Drugs. That would still be higher than Scandinavia or Japan and South Korea, but within the range of the rest of developed countries. Also notice that this is the total homicide rate. I have no doubt that the largest percentage of homicides are committed with guns, but just remember that not 100% of them are.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32348

This is also good, to see how the breakup could be if use-related crimes, which cops lump together with illegal-market-system crimes, were considered separately.

Now remember about use-related crimes that In state prisons, 21 percent of inmates in prison for violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol--and no other substance--when they committed their crime; in contrast, at the time of their crimes, only three percent of violent offenders were under the influence of cocaine or crack alone, only one percent under the influence of heroin alone

So, generally speaking, yes, I do believe that criminals shoot each other or perish in conflict with police most of the time someone is violently and intentionally killed (when a criminal is shot by police, the "cause" of death is still homicide, even if the officer faces no criminal charges for murder). And while I don't deny collateral damage, I think it's disingenuous to think collateral damage is more the product of gun laws than the product of drug laws.

The fact is, most murders are committed by people who should never have had access to guns in the first place, but it's nowhere near difficult to obtain a gun here, no matter who you are or what kind of criminal record you have.

Well I would argue that if you commit murder you should never have had access to guns. If you had to kill for a legitimate reason, that should not be called murder.

My problem is that I don't see how to make a law that takes weaponry away from criminals [*] without taking it away from the innocent; much less how to make effective but non-intrusive enforcement of it. Does the American South and West go too far? Maybe. But American liberals, and world liberals, go too far in the other direction too. And I think the key is there; that nobody knows how to reconcile these needs, all legitimate but whose application contradicts each other.

[*] Forget about criminal record: remember the case of the British tweens who tortured a toddler to death but were released, names changed, at 18? Leaving aside that I would have executed them, when they did it, they had no record at all, and yet theirs is one of the gruesomest crimes I've ever read about. On the other extreme, although I do not believe in the rehab model or that our actual prisons are even suited for that; what if a criminal does rehab and change and become a better person? Rare as it may be, it can happen. And many a charity who work with inmates will give you a heart-wrenching story to confirm this.

Maybe now that more research is being conducted, electric shock weapons will become more commonplace. If so, maybe that is the missing balance. Electric shock weapons can be easily used for defense to temporarily incapacitate an attacker without killing them, which makes them safe even against legitimate accidents or children's curiosity or play. But they still only work at close range, impractical as an actual alternative to guns against someone that does have a gun. And neither are they entirely safe - you can cause someone an epileptic seizure or kill someone that has a pacemaker. Though I would guess that is still relatively small side effects compared to firearms.

How so? Without the strict tribal and governmental codes controlling the people, you don't think the homicide rates would be much higher? Patriarchal rule can be useful for controlling others, but at what price?

Careful!

You're one step away from being unfalsifiable.

[Patriarchy leads to violence]
[Western Europeans kill each other less than Americans, Latins and Africans because they are less patriarchal]
[But Middle Easterners and Asians kill each other less than Americans, Latins and Africans, despite being even more patriarchal, because in their case patriarchy controls violence]

Hmâ¦
"Patriarchy leads to violence except when it controls violence."???
You have to change your argument to fit the data.
What is more, Eastern Europe would make your argument totally unfalsifiable. Eastern Europe is not significantly more patriarchal than Western Europe, but is above the USA in homicides. I personally don't like to mention it in the context of patriarchy/matriarchy because I think its crime rates are related to the sudden downfall of totalitarian regimes - BUT that's still an ad hoc argument to fit the data, whether you or I make it.

My point was that you're constantly griping about lack of freedom here, and yet you frequently idealize Islamic cultures, which are nothing if not highly restrictive. Balance, man!

I idealize the cultures, not necessarily the regimes.

Same as how broad American Conservative values resonate with me, but I will criticize American conservatives who I think deserve to be. And I certainly criticize the majority of American conservatives who think that criticizing the USA is somehow itself anti-American (though it might be in some - what I mean is lumping together a bin Laden with a Ron Paul or a Noam Chomsky).

Same here. Broad Islamic values resonate with me, but that doesn't mean everyone who claims to profess them or defend them, or their countries and nationalities, is above criticism. And no, this criticism is not itself anti-Islamic, though it might be in some.

Well, you and Baldur were talking about giving guns to kids. How else am I supposed to interpret that?

Not a normal situation. Kids are being kidnapped, mutilated, killed! Tell me where in the USA is there the same problem? The balance of dangers to protect from and dangers from the protection itself is very different. I can see why limit gun exposure to children in a generally safe society; but in a society with so active dangers to children, at some point you risk the accident so as not to risk the kidnapping.