I agree 100% - in the unregulated environment, the real evils of sex-traffiking and prostitution of minors exist side-by-side with quasi-legal adult prostitution.
Properly regulated brothels don't have traffiked workers or minors, do have STD testing and are safer for the workers and the johns. As with drugs, many of the problems are created by prohibition, and those who insist on prohibition are responsible for the continuance of those problems.
Mexico has fairly broad prohibitions on private ownership of firearms. Mexico has a fairly high rate of firearms being used for antisocial behavior. Switzerland, on the other hand mandates that a significant portion of its population keep assault rifles and ammunition at home. Switzerland has a fairly low rate of firearms being used for antisocial behavior.
It seems to me that prohibition of firearms has fairly little direct effect on firearm-related crime. There may be other differences between Mexico and Switzerland worth considering as explanations for the difference in crime rates, and it seems likely that similar factors might better exp.lain crime rates in other countries.
(Note: I'm looking for something a bit stronger than "Country X has gun prohibition, a different social structure, different demographics and different laws, and has lower homicide rate than Country Y which does not have gun prohibition.")
Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working.
I don't know that countries that have prohibitions on drugs reduce drug taking by the same amount, or countries with prohibitions on prostitution reduces prostitution by a similar amount.
Mexico is an outlier because of its large porous border with the US. Switzerland is just an outlier.
> Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working.
Who cares? You're working from a premise that having fewer firearms is a good thing. I'm not going to say I disagree, but I'm not sure I agree either.
The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms.
There's also the question of whether firearm use matters in some crimes. Take these two scenarios:
1. Burglar commits armed (firearms) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt.
2. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt.
They are essentially the same crime, but now #2 is not lumped in with the "firarms-related crime" group.
And let's try keeping #1 as it is, but now #2 is this:
2'. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house think a knife isn't too scary and fight back. One owner gets stabbed and dies.
I don't know about the frequency of stuff like this, but it's certainly not a quick "look at the numbers" thing to decide which is better.
The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms.
No, the real metric is whether or not firearms cause a net increase in the amount/severity of crimes - firearm crimes are not the only relevant ones.
There are all sorts of factors which make it a tricky question. Deterrence (burglar is afraid to rob a house, since homeowners might shoot him) is a fairly big effect. Substitution (criminal 1 wants to kill criminal 2, since no guns are around he uses a knife) are some of the biggies. If criminals stab 20 people instead of shooting 15, that's not a good thing.
Actually, I think US cultural exports are a large factor in the increase of gun crime in the UK and Ireland, a certain glorification of the weapon that gang members feel they need to live up to.
North Dakota in 2008 had 2 murders (both by stabbing) and has a pretty high percentage of the population owning guns. People who look at the "how" in political matter instead of the "why" really bug me and do not serve society well. People who want to kill others will find a means.
// I have a cousin who would not be alive today if he didn't have a gun in his youth (damn city people dropping off dogs after they are no longer cute)
Properly regulated brothels don't have traffiked workers or minors, do have STD testing and are safer for the workers and the johns. As with drugs, many of the problems are created by prohibition, and those who insist on prohibition are responsible for the continuance of those problems.