Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Pogo]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

So you think reasonable gun control is the same as disarming the country. Typical gun nut.

I actually don't own any guns, as of yet.

So, no I'm no gun nut.

However, I fail to see any correlation between gun control, and decreased murders.

Actually, if we look at gun ownership by country, if anything the exact opposite pattern occurs, with murder being higher in the nations with less guns on the whole.

Logic Lesson the Second: causation

Places (nations, states, towns, whatever) that implement some kind of gun control are usually doing so in reaction to a disturbing amount of gun violence, i.e. the gun violence leads the laws; the laws react to (trail) the gun violence. That amounts to in effect slamming the barn door after the horse is gone. It doesn't mean the gun violence was a product of the former dearth of gun control laws, but rather, we say, sprang up independent of them. Therefore it's not reasonable to presume implementing such laws would automatically decrease gun violence. They are for practical purposes independent of each other, that is, gun violence does not happen on a consideration of "are there laws or not".

Therefore, trying to pin down a pattern between gun laws and gun violence, is an exercise in futility. It's an apples/oranges comparison.

And btw it's "fewer guns", not "less guns". Less of much, fewer of many. Less rain, fewer raindrops.

 

[Pogo]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Gun control doesn't do much but empower tyrants...

Is that better Mr. OCD?

I see the point sailed over your head, ricocheted on a rock and left a piece of shrapnel in a bystander's kneecap.

Your first point is that gun control laws are ineffectual (a point with which I happen to agree).

GIVEN THAT ---- you cannot argue that it "empowers tyrants". If it's ineffectual it doesn't empower anybody.

So ----------- pick one. ARE gun control laws ineffectual.......... or are they not?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Disarm the public and the tyrants have no resistance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.

No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.

How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?

You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.

Our government really needs to combat this problem.

Personally I think criminals, idiots, and the poor should be fined for having kids, while the non-criminals, intelligent, and rich should be giving tax incentives for having kids.

Exactly. If it were up to me, nobody would be allowed to apply for any social program unless they were fixed first. That goes for men and women. No more having kids on welfare.

As you pointed out, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. How can we ever reduce poverty when we reward people for creating more poverty children? And middle-class children are restricted because of their middle-class income.

Some here have called me Hitleresque for even the idea, but what do middle-class parents do when they can't afford anymore children? They get themselves fixed or otherwise practice strict birth control methods.

 

[Pogo]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Disarm the public and the tyrants have no resistance.

Ummm no. We weren't talking about "disarming the public" -- we were talking about gun control laws. Two different things.

Or do you actually think that passing a law against something automatically removes it?
Wanna by some pot?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you are poor, you should take a second job to support your family and upgrade your education so you can get out of your minimum wage job.

No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.

How can you work two jobs and be a parent to your children? How can you take classes to get ahead and do homework, work full time, run a house hold and give your children any kind of quality time?

You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.

The problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.

And that's what really needs to be addressed.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Gun control doesn't do much but empower tyrants...

Is that better Mr. OCD?

I see the point sailed over your head, ricocheted on a rock and left a piece of shrapnel in a bystander's kneecap.

Your first point is that gun control laws are ineffectual (a point with which I happen to agree).

GIVEN THAT ---- you cannot argue that it "empowers tyrants". If it's ineffectual it doesn't empower anybody.

So ----------- pick one. ARE gun control laws ineffectual.......... or are they not?

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

So you think reasonable gun control is the same as disarming the country. Typical gun nut.

I actually don't own any guns, as of yet.

So, no I'm no gun nut.

However, I fail to see any correlation between gun control, and decreased murders.

Actually, if we look at gun ownership by country, if anything the exact opposite pattern occurs, with murder being higher in the nations with less guns on the whole.

Logic Lesson the Second: causation

Places (nations, states, towns, whatever) that implement some kind of gun control are usually doing so in reaction to a disturbing amount of gun violence, i.e. the gun violence leads the laws; the laws react to (trail) the gun violence. That amounts to in effect slamming the barn door after the horse is gone. It doesn't mean the gun violence was a product of the former dearth of gun control laws, but rather, we say, sprang up independent of them. Therefore it's not reasonable to presume implementing such laws would automatically decrease gun violence. They are for practical purposes independent of each other, that is, gun violence does not happen on a consideration of "are there laws or not".

Therefore, trying to pin down a pattern between gun laws and gun violence, is an exercise in futility. It's an apples/oranges comparison.

And btw it's "fewer guns", not "less guns". Less of much, fewer of many. Less rain, fewer raindrops.

Jamaica's murder rate was only slightly higher than the USA in the 1970's, then they implemented gun control, by the 2000's Jamaica's murder rate was about 10X higher than the USA.

What's there to get?

Why didn't the gun control measures in Jamaica work out well, what so ever?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Gun control doesn't do much but empower tyrants...

Is that better Mr. OCD?

I see the point sailed over your head, ricocheted on a rock and left a piece of shrapnel in a bystander's kneecap.

Your first point is that gun control laws are ineffectual (a point with which I happen to agree).

GIVEN THAT ---- you cannot argue that it "empowers tyrants". If it's ineffectual it doesn't empower anybody.

So ----------- pick one. ARE gun control laws ineffectual.......... or are they not?

I think the only point you're making is that you have severe OCD issues.

 

[Pogo]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Gun control doesn't do much but empower tyrants...

Is that better Mr. OCD?

I see the point sailed over your head, ricocheted on a rock and left a piece of shrapnel in a bystander's kneecap.

Your first point is that gun control laws are ineffectual (a point with which I happen to agree).

GIVEN THAT ---- you cannot argue that it "empowers tyrants". If it's ineffectual it doesn't empower anybody.

So ----------- pick one. ARE gun control laws ineffectual.......... or are they not?

I think the only point you're making is that you have severe OCD issues.

I think the point I just made is that you're trying to swing a point both ways. "This" way when the positive serves one point; "that" way when the negative serves another point. That's invalid argument.

 

[Pogo]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Gun control doesn't do much but empower tyrants...

Is that better Mr. OCD?

I see the point sailed over your head, ricocheted on a rock and left a piece of shrapnel in a bystander's kneecap.

Your first point is that gun control laws are ineffectual (a point with which I happen to agree).

GIVEN THAT ---- you cannot argue that it "empowers tyrants". If it's ineffectual it doesn't empower anybody.

So ----------- pick one. ARE gun control laws ineffectual.......... or are they not?

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

So you think reasonable gun control is the same as disarming the country. Typical gun nut.

I actually don't own any guns, as of yet.

So, no I'm no gun nut.

However, I fail to see any correlation between gun control, and decreased murders.

Actually, if we look at gun ownership by country, if anything the exact opposite pattern occurs, with murder being higher in the nations with less guns on the whole.

Logic Lesson the Second: causation

Places (nations, states, towns, whatever) that implement some kind of gun control are usually doing so in reaction to a disturbing amount of gun violence, i.e. the gun violence leads the laws; the laws react to (trail) the gun violence. That amounts to in effect slamming the barn door after the horse is gone. It doesn't mean the gun violence was a product of the former dearth of gun control laws, but rather, we say, sprang up independent of them. Therefore it's not reasonable to presume implementing such laws would automatically decrease gun violence. They are for practical purposes independent of each other, that is, gun violence does not happen on a consideration of "are there laws or not".

Therefore, trying to pin down a pattern between gun laws and gun violence, is an exercise in futility. It's an apples/oranges comparison.

And btw it's "fewer guns", not "less guns". Less of much, fewer of many. Less rain, fewer raindrops.

Jamaica's murder rate was only slightly higher than the USA in the 1970's, then they implemented gun control, by the 2000's Jamaica's murder rate was about 10X higher than the USA.

What's there to get?

Why didn't the gun control measures in Jamaica work out well, what so ever?

Because gun control measures are irrelevant to the phenomenon, that's why. Whatever increase in murders Jamaica experienced --- it cannot have been because there were or were not "laws". Ergo, adding new ones cannot be expected to have an effect. It's treating the symptom and not the disease.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Disarm the public and the tyrants have no resistance.

Ummm no. We weren't talking about "disarming the public" -- we were talking about gun control laws. Two different things.

Or do you actually think that passing a law against something automatically removes it?
Wanna by some pot?

Not at all. Passing a law only affects law abiding citizens. The criminals will not obey laws. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

 

[Pogo]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Disarm the public and the tyrants have no resistance.

Ummm no. We weren't talking about "disarming the public" -- we were talking about gun control laws. Two different things.

Or do you actually think that passing a law against something automatically removes it?
Wanna by some pot?

Not at all. Passing a law only affects law abiding citizens. The criminals will not obey laws. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Exactly. So what's the point?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Gun control doesn't do much but empower tyrants...

Is that better Mr. OCD?

I see the point sailed over your head, ricocheted on a rock and left a piece of shrapnel in a bystander's kneecap.

Your first point is that gun control laws are ineffectual (a point with which I happen to agree).

GIVEN THAT ---- you cannot argue that it "empowers tyrants". If it's ineffectual it doesn't empower anybody.

So ----------- pick one. ARE gun control laws ineffectual.......... or are they not?

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

So you think reasonable gun control is the same as disarming the country. Typical gun nut.

I actually don't own any guns, as of yet.

So, no I'm no gun nut.

However, I fail to see any correlation between gun control, and decreased murders.

Actually, if we look at gun ownership by country, if anything the exact opposite pattern occurs, with murder being higher in the nations with less guns on the whole.

Logic Lesson the Second: causation

Places (nations, states, towns, whatever) that implement some kind of gun control are usually doing so in reaction to a disturbing amount of gun violence, i.e. the gun violence leads the laws; the laws react to (trail) the gun violence. That amounts to in effect slamming the barn door after the horse is gone. It doesn't mean the gun violence was a product of the former dearth of gun control laws, but rather, we say, sprang up independent of them. Therefore it's not reasonable to presume implementing such laws would automatically decrease gun violence. They are for practical purposes independent of each other, that is, gun violence does not happen on a consideration of "are there laws or not".

Therefore, trying to pin down a pattern between gun laws and gun violence, is an exercise in futility. It's an apples/oranges comparison.

And btw it's "fewer guns", not "less guns". Less of much, fewer of many. Less rain, fewer raindrops.

Jamaica's murder rate was only slightly higher than the USA in the 1970's, then they implemented gun control, by the 2000's Jamaica's murder rate was about 10X higher than the USA.

What's there to get?

Why didn't the gun control measures in Jamaica work out well, what so ever?

Because gun control measures are irrelevant to the phenomenon, that's why. Whatever increase in murders Jamaica experienced --- it cannot have been because there were or were not "laws". Ergo, adding new ones cannot be expected to have an effect. It's treating the symptom and not the disease.

So, if gun control didn't work in Jamaica, why should we expect results in gun control working anywhere?

What evidence do you have that gun control reduces crime, murder, rape, etc.?

There doesn't seem to be much of any evidence.

The biggest factor truly seems to be genetic, and those genes most certainly aren't equal among ethnic groups.

Yes, I'd agree poverty can make it worse, but plenty of impoverished people don't commit murder, so absolutely it's mostly genetic, perhaps just that poverty makes the biology worse.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Gun control doctrine assumes that criminals won't get guns.... That's not true... There will always be a black market for guns.

Gun control doctrine assumes that guns are the only way to murder.... That's not true ... There's knives, vehicles, blunt objects etc.

It is completely possible that gun control might actually do the opposite of what it wishes to achieve.... Reason being that criminals fear guns in the hands of heroes.

But, reviewing the data, I see little evidence that gun control deters crime, nor that more guns deter crime.

It seems that the impact naturally offsets each other, making the results rather null, and void.

 

[Pogo]

So, if gun control didn't work in Jamaica, why should we expect results in gun control working anywhere?

Why indeed. I'm not the one to ask.

What evidence do you have that gun control reduces crime, murder, rape, etc.?

I neither have any such evidence nor claim it exists. Strange question. Far as I'm concerned gun control laws are simply a case of politicians making noises to look like they're doing something. Again, it's treating the symptom and ignoring the disease, with predictable (lack of) results.

The biggest factor truly seems to be genetic, and those genes most certainly aren't equal among ethnic groups.

Yes, I'd agree poverty can make it worse, but plenty of impoverished people don't commit murder, so absolutely it's mostly genetic, perhaps just that poverty makes the biology worse.

So you're a eugenicist. That's cute but it too is ignoring the disease. The disease is cultural, not "genetic". It goes back to the values instilled socially, including basic respect for life and the fascination with killing and violence. I've already waxed loquacious on that in this thread and countless others. It goes ignored. And as long as it does ---- nothing changes.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

[

The biggest factor truly seems to be genetic, and those genes most certainly aren't equal among ethnic groups.

Yes, I'd agree poverty can make it worse, but plenty of impoverished people don't commit murder, so absolutely it's mostly genetic, perhaps just that poverty makes the biology worse.

So you're a eugenicist. That's cute but it too is ignoring the disease. The disease is cultural, not "genetic". It goes back to the values instilled socially, including basic respect for life and the fascination with killing and violence. I've already waxed loquacious on that in this thread and countless others. It goes ignored. And as long as it does ---- nothing changes.

If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?

There's most certainly factors involved in murderers.

- There's less developed portions of the brains of serial killers.

Serial Killers Have Under-Developed Brains, Says New Study

- There's the warrior gene, a variant of low MAO-A levels that's more common in murderers.

The Murder Gene | William Landay

 

[Pogo]

Gun control doctrine assumes that criminals won't get guns.... That's not true... There will always be a black market for guns.

Agree, completely.

Gun control doctrine assumes that guns are the only way to murder.... That's not true ... There's knives, vehicles, blunt objects etc.

That's true --- BUT ... you're also making the assumption that the gun violator's objective in the first place was murder (or suicide). Many times it is, but the notorious case of the mass shooter is a notable exception. The mass shooter is not out for "murder" even if that applies as a technical term.

Murder is personal --- a cheating business partner, a straying spouse, a witness who knows too much. That's not what mass shooters do -- exactly who their target is makes no difference; they're out for carnage. They're seeking the visual feedback of spraying blood and body parts, the aural feedback of helpless people screaming and cowering in fear and the body count. That's all a psychological climax of their own powerlessness but it's something only a gun can deliver, because it lets the operator do it from a distance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jamaica's murder rate climbed significantly after implementing gun control.

So, I don't think that gun control does much of anything.

However, gun control has historically been used by tyrants, they disarmed Natives, and Black slaves in the USA, while they disarmed Holocaust Jews in Nazi Germany, the Islamic Turks disarmed the Armenians during the Armenian genocide, the British disarmed India during their India genocides, and Soviets disarmed citizens too, as did Communist China, and countless others.

So, it seems that gun control does nothing but empower tyrants.

Uhhhh........ if gun control "doesn't do much of anything" ................... then................. why would it do anything for tyrants?

Can't have it both ways --- either it does or it doesn't. Pick one and stay there.

Disarm the public and the tyrants have no resistance.

Ummm no. We weren't talking about "disarming the public" -- we were talking about gun control laws. Two different things.

Or do you actually think that passing a law against something automatically removes it?
Wanna by some pot?

Not at all. Passing a law only affects law abiding citizens. The criminals will not obey laws. That's why they are criminals in the first place.

Exactly. So what's the point?

The point is gun laws, restrictions, and additional red tape will not change the problems we have with armed criminals today. It would likely create problems for law abiding citizens, but not criminals.

 

[Pogo]

If it's cultural why are murderers rare in all cultures?

I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.

This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Women are always less violent than Men, even though they've historically been more likely to be subjected to oppression, or poverty....

But, Women, and Men both come from the same culture, in many cases, do they not?

So, what's your explanation?

Sure, I guess it's just that we treat Men differently.... Yeah, that must be it.

It must be coincidental that even Male babies tend to be more aggressive than Female babies, even though they've not lived long enough to be taught this behavior.

Also, it must be coincidental that Males have lower MAO-A levels linked to criminality, and lower Dopamine levels linked to impulsivity.