Individual Right to Bear Arms

[Asher]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, the more immigrants who come, both legally and illegally, to this country, creates more poor people. The US has a HUGE influx of immigrants from developing nations, who don't exactly start off rich.

So does Canada. Ever been to Vancouver or Toronto?

We also have a large number of poor minorities, such as blacks, who are poor NOT because of Libertarian policies, but partyly because of the existence of NON-LIBERTARIAN policies (slavery, Jim Crow, etc.).

So the fact that the public education system in urban areas lacks necessary funding is not because of libertarian policies?

Crime isn't linked to race, and the root cause of crime also isn't the tools used to commit crime. Crime is linked to poverty. Or do you disagree?

You can absolutely have crime without poverty. Look at Enron, the mafia, the triads, Asian gangs in Canada, car jacking rings in suburbia, etc.

You're blaming poor people for all of your problems, but the policies you support help keep them poor and raise the gap between rich and poor. You are creating the immense amount of poor people and then giving them guns to kill eachother, shrugging, and saying it's all 'cause they're poor...

[LordShiva]

Individual Right to Bare Arms

[David Floyd]

So does Canada. Ever been to Vancouver or Toronto?

Let's address this in the context of illegal immigration, as I will readily admit that Canada's immigration rate is extremely high.

As of 2007, the US had an estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants living with it's borders, the majority of whom are pretty poor. That's between about 5-8% of our population.

The corresponding number of illegal immigrants in Canada does not exceed 125,000, which is less than half a percent of Canada's population of around 34 million.

So yes - the influx of illegal immigrants into US cities absolutely raises the poverty level of those cities. But we're getting off point here.

So the fact that the public education system in urban areas lacks necessary funding is not because of libertarian policies?

Guess which city's education system receives some of the best funding in the US? WASHINGTON, DC!!!

So now, additional funding is the sole answer to education, just like banning guns is the sole answer to gun crime!

You can absolutely have crime without poverty. Look at Enron, the mafia, the triads, Asian gangs in Canada, car jacking rings in suburbia, etc.

Enron and car jackings are the only relevant examples in the US, and Enron had nothing to do with gun violence. As for car jackings, you don't think that the majority are committed by poor people?

You're blaming poor people for all of your problems, but the policies you support help keep them poor and raise the gap between rich and poor. You are creating the immense amount of poor people and then giving them guns to kill eachother, shrugging, and saying it's all 'cause they're poor...

I'm not blaming poor people for our problems, I'm simply saying that poor people commit more crimes than rich/middle class people, and certainly commit more violent crimes than rich/middle class people.

As for our policies making people poor? Well, yes, in the context of the War on Poverty and social welfare programs, which do nothing to get people out of poverty, but rather get people dependent on handouts. I don't support those policies, though.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And yet, even with handguns banned in DC, crime remains extremely high, including gun crime.

It's very easy to get a gun in neighboring VA.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh yes, a minor difference in age is entirely the whole reason behind this.

Three years is huge.

You might not think so, but it means that the population of young men 18-35 is much larger in Texas then it is in Alberta.

You ask why the crime rate is higher, the younger the population, the higher the rate, all other things considered equal.

[Ben Kenobi]

So does Canada. Ever been to Vancouver or Toronto?

Vancouver and Toronto are in Alberta?

News to me.

[Ninot]

Americans are criminals

[David Floyd]

It's very easy to get a gun in neighboring VA.

Shouldn't the crime rate be higher, then, in Virginia?

The county neighboring DC, Fairfax County, has a SUBSTANTIALLY lower rate of violent crime, despite "easier", or at least legal, access to firearms. This holds true for Virginia as a whole.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Shouldn't the crime rate be higher, then, in Virginia?

1) No, since the whole point was that it's just as easy for a DC resident to get firearms as a VA resident, because they just have to cross the Potomac.

2) DC is a bigger, denser city than anything in Virginia.

The county neighboring DC, Fairfax County, has a SUBSTANTIALLY lower rate of violent crime, despite "easier", or at least legal, access to firearms.

Duh? Fairfax County is an extremely affluent suburb.

This holds true for Virginia as a whole.

See #2 above. Also, the proportion of DC that's urban (basically all of it) is much larger than of VA, obviously.

(Hint: I live in Fairfax County.)

[David Floyd]

So, then, you agree with my point that it isn't the availability of firearms that causes gun-violence so much as it is the level of poverty in the area?

[Kuciwalker]

No? It can easily be a function of both. My point was that DC can't be used as a counterexample because it's not actually hard to get firearms there.

[David Floyd]

I agree it can be a function of both. Asher seems to think that the sole act of banning firearms will solve gun crime. The crime rates in DC, Fairfax Co., and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as the gun laws in those areas, were examples to show him that the simple question of the legality of firearms isn't a sufficient way to address the problem of gun crime.

As to the availability issue, though, how do you propose to make the tens of millions of guns in the US unavailable to would-be criminals?

[Kuciwalker]

I agree it can be a function of both. Asher seems to think that the sole act of banning firearms will solve gun crime.

Those two positions aren't inconsistent.

As to the availability issue, though, how do you propose to make the tens of millions of guns in the US unavailable to would-be criminals?

I don't have a position here. I'm just debunking an incorrect argument.

[David Floyd]

Those two positions aren't inconsistent.

Perhaps, but even a FEDERAL ban on firearms wouldn't solve the availability problem, which is essentially impossible to solve. A federal ban on alcohol was ineffective, and we all see the results of the War on Drugs.

I'm fully aware there is more to the argument, and that comparing Fairfax Co. to Washington DC is invalid for precisely the reasons we both mentioned, and I feel like I made that point myself when I talked about poverty, not guns, being the cause of crime.

[Kuciwalker]

Poverty causes crime. Poverty and guns cause gun crime.