> What about proposing encryption as an EU human right? Has that been attempted?
Rights conflict. Every new right influences the others. It is easy to shorthand every problem to a human rights declaration. But just like the right to bear arms, that can have unintended consequences.
The U.S. certainly has a problem with gun violence, but I fear gun access is the proximal problem while our cultural relationship with violence and revenge is the root of the problem. (See also death penalty support, recent violent protests in Oregon and Washington, etc.) Note that the areas with very high rates of legal gun ownership aren't the hotspots of gun violence [0]. Switzerland and several other Eurpean countries have very high rates of gun ownership, but low rates of gun violence. Certainly, fixing a sick culture is more difficult than reducing gun access, but I think long-term, we need to figure out how to be a more peaceful and forgiving society, or much of the gun violence will just shift to (granted, much less efficient) knife violence. I think improving America's culture of violence and revenge will also pay mental health dividends. Sometimes you really need a crutch or a bandaid, but it's important not to mistake it for an end-goal solution.
Do any of you have any insights into ways individuals can ensure they at least leave the culture less violent than they found it?
> Switzerland and several other Eurpean countries have very high rates of gun ownership, but low rates of gun violence.
They also have vastly stricter gun regulation laws, and while ownership rates are high in some, the US is an extreme outlier and no other country comes even close.
Because nobody in any European country thinks they have a "right" to own a gun, most of them could if they wanted to, but they simply don't want to deal with the hassle that owning a properly regulated firearm entails.
As it should be, owning a deadly weapon is a lot of responsibility that not everybody is up for/actually wants. The importance of that responsibility gets completely lost when firearms are treated like cool toys that everybody should have and exist in abundance.
That's why headlines like "toddler shoots mother" or "dog shoots owner" don't exist in Europe, but are a sad somewhat regular thing out of the US. These toddlers and dogs didn't do that because they watched too much violent media, they did that because the actual owners of the guns where irresponsible individuals and never should have owned one in the first place.
The fact so many people feel they need a gun for safety is the first and biggest issue IMO.
This is fueled by movies and culture - have the gun in your possession and you’ll automatically win the fight - that was easy!
I’ve read countless comments from Americans that they have a gun to shoot intruders. Statistics telling you there’s a bigger chance someone else will get hurt be damned.
These ideas are have to be fueled by big money is my guess.
Also we humans really like our toys, so I can get that aspect of it. Wanna take my toy? Forget about it.
>The fact so many people feel they need a gun for safety is the first and biggest issue IMO.
And the reason for that is simple - marketing.
Here in Switzerland I basically see no guns unless I go to the shooting club. There's none sold in the shops, there's none advertised in newspapers, tv or on the radio. And there is definitely no gun offered when opening a bank account.
Basically if you want a gun for whatever reason - usually for recreational shooting at the shooting club, then you have to go out and look for it.
In the US I have the feeling that they're marketed as a penis extension, and you're not a proper man unless you shoot things, with the view that you'd be quite happy to project a slug of lead into somebody else at high velocity to prove you're more of a man than they are.
To solve the problem in the US I think you need to ban the advertising - like cigarettes.
Caution: This weapon inflicts pain suffering and death to others. User may be incarcerated for murder if ever used. If in a situation of conflict, gun only increases likelihood of extreme violence - leave at home.
I spent over 30 years in the U.S., mostly in the upper Midwest, and the only gun advertisements I remember seeing were in sporting magazines or in sporting goods stores. I think your perceptions of U.S. gun advertising is either greatly exaggerated, or your experience is from a very different part of the country. Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it.
Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it.
I think they have. I've also seen more gun stores opening, with provocative names.
I've no problem with firearms used responsibly for hunting or recreation, but in the very few cases I've seen someone open carrying a handgun (once at a very crowded national park, and once at a residential picnic area, both just this year) it was clear they didn't have a gun to defend themselves (if that were the case you don't need to show it off), but to threaten others. And for defending yourself against wild animals, bear spray is far more effective.
Crazy. How often do you see TV ads for firearms, firearms dealers, or gun shows these days?
I figured that the US just seemed to get crazy around 2012 because I switched to primarily external news coverage of the U.S. when I moved abroad.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have seen TV ads for both Remington and Beneli shotguns in duck hunting and fishing shows in the U.S. But, I'm pretty sure I've never seen TV ads for pistols in the U.S., or long guns outside of hunting/fishing shows.
One of the dudes was wearing a t-shirt with wording that strongly supports my evaluation. But even if you aren't trying to threaten, the visible presence of a deadly weapon (especially a sleek semi-auto as opposed to a revolver) creates a pretty negative "vibe". Note that I'm talking about handguns stuffed into a belt or on a leg holster, not e.g. a hunting rifle or shotgun.
Agreed, people who aren't in to firearms or firearms-related sports will basically never see an ad for a gun in the U.S. I do think the penis-extension bit gets the gist of much of the marketing that does exist right, though.
It's the wild west mentality that the US never grew out of. Can't blame them either, given the apparent incompetence of the police.
It's an issue that won't be solved by banning weapons. Educating people (e.g. mandatory background checks, operation and safety training, and safe storage) and solving the underlying problems will work. I mean a lot cite defense from home invasions as the reason to own a gun. Why do people invade homes? If they had a reasonable income and comfortable life they wouldn't have a reason to.
This is only effective with a gun registry which gun owners will not accept.
> operation and safety training
Are you required to take civics to vote?
> safe storage
If you simply mean prosecution for being negligent, that's fine. If you mean it has to be in a safe unloaded, that defeats their use for self-defense in the home. It would likely be held unconstitutional.
> Statistics telling you there’s a bigger chance someone else will get hurt be damned
Nobody believes the statistics are relevant to them. Statistics are about all those dumb other people; but I'm always the smart, responsible exception.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I think those urban-legend statistics are probably wrong in aggregate. That said, people do have knowledge about their specific situation that they bring to bear in a valid way. Crazy, violent ex? Yeah, your ratio of chances of using a gun in a way that makes sense to chances of accidentally hurting someone is way better than average.
I think you're on the mark talking about them as toys for adults. I don't think most people want them because they really fear for their safety without, though the ability to defend oneself may be a bonus. My feeling is mostly it's just a fun hobby and it's also a clear signal of group membership.
I think your claim about there being a higher chance of accidental injury vs. self defense is probably wrong. The issue is a little muddy, but there are only ~800 firearms accidental deaths per year (0.00024% of pop.) and about 50,000 self-defense uses per year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf)
I'm also not convinced about movies. I bet other places have very similar mixes of actual watching and the same selection given the internet.
People who would like to take guns away should start working on changing the Constitution. Looking at the current lineup in the Supreme court all I can say is good luck. I totally support a country's choice to de-arm their populace. However I also wish they would quit trying to push their beliefs on the USA as well. Nothing in this world is safe, from driving to work, to walking down a street you don't know, to repelling off a cliff, or parachuting for fun yet no one says "don't do that, let's make it illegal", yet with guns they freak out.
Saying Switzerland has "vastly" stricter gun laws /might/ be true if mushing the U.S. into a whole, but it ignores the very important variations at the state level. Some states have very strict regimes that compare to Switzerland's, and in some you can just walk into a store and buy long guns if you're of age.
I totally agree about the responsibility thing.
Concerning the "dog shoots owner" headlines, you should ignore that sort of thing. Those sorts of incidents are super rare. They hit headlines /because/ they're rare and therefore interesting.
> Some states have very strict regimes that compare to Switzerland's, and in some you can just walk into a store and buy long guns if you're of age.
Which is exactly why the regulation in the US does not work; Anybody who disagrees with their states particular laws can just cross into another state to get their fix there.
That why any proper regulation needs to happen on a federal level so individual states won't act as a loophole.
> Concerning the "dog shoots owner" headlines, you should ignore that sort of thing. Those sorts of incidents are super rare. They hit headlines /because/ they're rare and therefore interesting.
It's something that should be non-existent, I haven't seen it anywhere else in the world. But only a couple of days ago there was yet another example out of the US [0].
These are the kind of absurd situations that simply do not happen in any other place as other places lack the "firearm saturation" that enables this in the US. So something that should be improbable, still ends up being a regular thing.
> Anybody who disagrees with their states particular laws can just cross into another state to get their fix there.
If you mean purchase something you cannot buy in your state, that's not true. Interstate handgun purchases are completely banned and long guns can only be sold if the sale complies with both state laws.
I mean bypassing state-level mandatory background checks by travelling to a state where those are not required for private sales and just buy a firearm there with zero regulation and documentation.
Personally I believe it’s about individualism vs the collective.
Here in Sweden we’ve seen a horrible development regarding gun violence - easy to chalk up to “immigration” and “soft laws” but in my mind it’s a lot deeper - interesting enough this is at the same time we have a record amount of dollar millionaires in the country.
We used to work as a collective but our economic policies are turning more and more neoliberal and thus individual. This exacerbates the issue of creating a new “class” of citizens already left partly out of the loop of riches.
If we take care of each other in a better way as a collective there’s a chance to turn things around. It’s all about increasing the chance of a good outcome per individual. This is the secret to a lot of the success in northern Europe - if you’re born here chances are great that you’ll get an education and that you live a long and healthy life.
Regarding crime and violence specifically I’ve read a lot about the “group violence intervention” program and a lot of it is about cooperation and taking care of people in a humane way.
Here’s David Kennedy speaking in Sweden where this has been worked successfully:
In short - don’t be to afraid of taxes, and vote in a manner where money can be spent more wisely. Funneling tax money to havens by way of “entrepreneurs” seems less well spent... problem is that when such a system is set it will want to be conserved - looking at the US and it’s kinda dark over here as well.
All I can do is try to mold my children into caring human beings hoping to influence culture that way.
It appears this study shows that the majority of suspects for crimes are immigrants, which is an important distinction. I have no knowledge about the situation in Sweden, but in Germany there are known statistical problems like immigrants both having a higher chance of becoming suspects ("Tatverdachteffekt") and crimes where an immigrant is suspected are more likely to be reported ("Anzeigeeffekt").
Stastistics about suspects are most commonly used in studies like these because the police, due to the seperation of powers, usually has no or at least less statistics of the actual results of charges.
That low resolution rate alone introduces a margin of error that is larger than the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant suspects. It is therefore possible that the much higher immigrant suspect rate is entirely a result of biases.
I’m not suggesting however that because they are immigrants they commit more crime.
Note most violence is committed by 2nd generation immigrants - so they’ve been born here. How’s that for a failure of society...
They are simply people on the outside living surrounded by people leading lives they cannot relate to.
We’ve made it terribly difficult to attain this norm life as well making it even more unrelatable.
One thing that's great for societal stability is not too much inequality of wealth. Another thing is cultural homogeneity. We're probably seeing both at play in Sweden.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: You think the strong trend toward more incidents of more extreme violence in Swedish society is because we have more dollar millionaires?
This is a bit of a hobby interest of mine. While it's possible that your statement is true, I think it misses the point. Gun murders in the U.S. are a very low percentage of deaths (0.39%) and preventable deaths (~1.1%, there's some disagreement about what's "preventable"). This excludes suicides. You may wish to include them if that makes sense given your interests. People love to focus on relative comparisons (e.g., Scotland vs. US), but miss the forest for the trees. Some tiny proportion being 5x some other country's tiny proportion is irrelevent.
If your goal is to prevent untimely, unwanted deaths there are oh so many other ways to apply your resources that will yield orders of magnitude more improvement per dollar / per minute.
People like to pay attention to it anyway for a few reasons. One is that we evolved to think specifically about interpersonal violence (~5-15% of prehistoric deaths, but way more than that for non-old people), which makes us good at luridly imagining interpersonal violence, and so comparatively we're bad at thinking about an early death due to diabetes and therefore bad at caring about it. Another reason is it's a hot-button red team/blue team political issue, so it's not so much about the issue per se but rather whether $OTHER_SIDE gets what it wants or not.
Rights conflict. Every new right influences the others. It is easy to shorthand every problem to a human rights declaration. But just like the right to bear arms, that can have unintended consequences.