:facebook: Is gun control a solution?


I didn’t know on where to post my comment, so I opened a new topic. Mods fell free to move it to where it seems more suitable.

Every time a mass shooting occurs, people tend to come back to the same discussion about gun laws and how easy is to get your hands on a firearm.
Sometimes, some one throws the argument about how restringing the access to guns affects freedom, while others says that this is the very root cause of the issue.
I’d like to point out that the discussion is much more complex than just freedom rights and gun laws. It is also about culture, and how a country ended up being the way it is.
To better clarify what I mean, check the table below:

Country Homicide Rate Legislation Regime
Austria 0.52 Permissive 15 (Democracy)
Panama 9.67 Permissive 45 (Democracy)
Japan 0.28 Restrictive 23 (Democracy)
El Salvador 82.84 Restrictive 65 (Democracy)
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.28 Permissive 102 (Hybrid regime)
Honduras 56.52 Permissive 82 (Hybrid regime)
Thailand 3.24 Restrictive 107 (Hybrid regime)
Uganda 11.52 Restrictive 98 (Hybrid regime)
United Arab Emirates 0.89 Permissive 147 (Authoritarian)
Republic of the Congo 9.32 Permissive 132 (Authoritarian)
Bahrain 0.52 Restrictive 146 (Authoritarian)
Russia 10.82 Restrictive 135 (Authoritarian)

It shows a comparison between different countries homicide rate, firearm regularion and political regime.

  • Homicide Rate is measured as the number of victims of homicide per 100,000 people, sourced from UNODC or WHO estimation
  • Gun Legislation qualified in permissive or restrictive, according to gunpolicy.org
  • Political Regime classified as Democracy, Hybrid regime or Authoritarian, using the Economist Democracy Index as reference

My point is that one can see that the criminality can be high or low, regardless the legislation or regime of the country.
Just focusing in one aspect of the problem as the solution for everything is a big mistake.


This +100.

1 Like

You break the problem into smaller problems.
You tackle the ones you can tackle first.

Assault rifles ?
Seems like folks don’t need assault rifles but can still be armed and protect themselves and hold onto their constitutional rights.

1 Like

Deliberately ignoring steps which could help contribute to a solution is also a big mistake.


So you’ve shown that there is no direct correlation between type of government and homicide rates.



The classification of regime doesn’t seem to match the Wiki page, which also sources from The Economist.

Panama is ‘Flawed Democracy’ and El Salvador is ‘Hybrid Regime’ from 2018.

adding economic indicators?

1 Like


How any of this makes the US not enacting sensible legislation like bans on assault rifles in public places, some background checks, licensing, bans on assault weapons any more acceptable I don’t know but…

1 Like

That’s laughable. Homicide rate is not related to a country’s democratic status, it’s related to wealth and income.

1 Like

I’m willing to updated the comparison with other parameters. What ranking do you suggest?

Yeah nah, issue guns at birth to all Americans. Make it compulsory to carry a gun at all times.

There’s a fucking solution.

Idiots. (not the OP, the open carry proponents)


Bosnia and Herzegovina
Homicide rate: 1.28

A country known for its wealthy individuals and a per-capita GDP that step aside Silicon valley, you’re not lucrative anymore!

I agree that gun legislation (such as assault rifle bans) is an important measure to be taken in the US, but I don’t think the OP was saying otherwise. I think the OP was rightfully pointing out that the rhetoric from both the political left and right in America is not actually a well thought out system for dealing with gun violence. Each side is focusing only on a small part of the issue (e.g., broad/narrow interpretation of the second amendment), but that no matter where you come down on that issue, gun violence is a consequence of many complex, interconnected factors, and any real solution must study and address those factors. I think the point isn’t to say that we should ban assault rifles. The point is to say that we should demand better thinking from our politicians about what else to do.


I couldn’t have worded it better myself (and apparently, I didn’t).

1 Like

It’s flawed to say homicide rates are connected to just one factor, such as wealth and income. Homicide rates are connected to many factors. Wealth and income are definitely among such factors, along with political ideology, the historical context of a country, race, religion, education, immigration, trade, the criminal justice system, the ideology of the criminal justice system, and many other issues. All of these factors interact with and influence one another.


Whether it’s due to a bunch of factors or not, how does that make it acceptable to not do everything we can to limit these events?

i see no upside in allowing civilian access to assault rifles. What good is that doing anyone? The point is the US has the ability to do more than it presently is now.

Ah well, that settles that question then. Next complex global problem with obvious solution?

I completely agree with you; especially the “everything we can” to limit these events part. Banning assault rifles is one of the things we should do. It’s not the only thing. And the larger point is, if we only focus on banning assault rifles, these things will not be solved. A complex about what really causes gun violence needs to occur before the decisions about what else to do can be made.

Wealth is a better parameter than democracy. The countries with really high homicide rate all have one thing in common: they are all poor. You won’t find any rich country with a huge homicide rate (except the US).


Doesn’t that pretty much disprove your theory?

I won’t argue that wealth is not an indicator. However, if you want to find causative factors, you might want to consider why some countries generate wealth more easily than others.