Are there (gated) communities in US where guns are not allowed?

[fskimospy]

What I've found, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the UK reports convictions while in the US it's incidents. If you have a sources which have a neutral bias (AKA no agenda) which accurately compares death rates by the same standard I'd like to see it.

If anyone wants to compare US statistics without regards to the vast diversity of the US as a whole I suggest looking at VT where there are virtually no handgun restrictions and allow for statistical variation and I think we'd find that it sits well with fixed cultures in the EU.

Some areas of the US don't care about life and some do.

As per the UN the US has a homicide rate nearly four times that of the U.K.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are actual crime statistics we can compare.

The US has a murder rate of 3.9 per 100k, meanwhile Belgium has a rate less than half (1.8).

So yes, the US is more violent, but also a very large country, so lots of opportunities to make news. Crime tends to be concentrated, so some cities come off like 3rd world hell holes.

That said, banning guns as part of a private community? Sounds like a sure-fire plan to attract lawsuits and media attention for arguably little benefit. Not going to happen.

That may be true. How do you know the standards used to determine crime are similar? The UK reports convictions, the US incidents, a very different thing. What about locality? The OP worries about guns and he ought to run terrified from VT which may be safer than where ever he or she is from.

There is no international standard for anything crime related but there should be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As per the UN the US has a homicide rate nearly four times that of the U.K.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6

And that right there is a problem What the UN used is data collected and defined very differently from country to country, submitted by each nation. Since there is no normalization to a reference standard what you see is invalid from any scientific perspective. It's not that anyone is biased, it's different methodology and that is sufficient to screw up any analysis. Incidents are not convictions for example and using the latter makes a nation "safer" but not in reality.

If the UN wants to do something useful in this regard, create an international standard then compare.

 

[fskimospy]

And that right there is a problem What the UN used is data collected and defined very differently from country to country, submitted by each nation. Since there is no normalization to a reference standard what you see is invalid from any scientific perspective. It's not that anyone is biased, it's different methodology and that is sufficient to screw up any analysis. Incidents are not convictions for example and using the latter makes a nation "safer" but not in reality.

If the UN wants to do something useful in this regard, create an international standard then compare.

These problems are exactly why homicide is one of the only valid comparisons between countries. All of your arguments are true... except when it comes to what I just linked. While what comprises an assault or a rape or whatever varies widely between countries definitions of homicide vary far less because the vast majority of the time you have a dead body.

So no, definitely not invalid. From an empirical perspective the US has a far higher homicide rate than the U.K.

 

[fskimospy]

Just from a common sense perspective it makes sense that the US has a much higher homicide rate. When people in the U.K. try to kill someone they use a knife or a bat or whatever most of the time. When someone tries to kill another person in the US they are far more likely to reach for a gun. Guns are simply far more effective killing tools than anything else available so even if everything else was identical you would expect more homicides here.

Empirical research shows this as well. Having a gun nearby increases your risk for both homicide and suicide. It's the main reason why owning a gun for self protection is usually a bad idea.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I'm from Europe and find it very disturbing how everybody in the US is allowed to walk around with a gun. I'm not talking about mass shootings but I read that most people are killed by guns in domestic situations.

Therefore I was wondering if there are any neighbourhoods where gun posession is not allowed, so if you wanna live somewhere where no guns are allowed except for police like in Europe.

And what are the rules in certain gated communities? Do some of those have ristrictions on gun posession?

You'd be better off asking about gated communities that don't permit vehicles, as you're far more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. To answer your question though, the only real place I can think of in the US would be a (ironically) military base, which I guess by definition is a gated community. On military bases, personal firearms are to be stored within the armory.

Knives don't tend to kill you from the other side of the street

Depends on how hard it's thrown.

 

[fskimospy]

You'd be better off asking about gated communities that don't permit vehicles, as you're far more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. To answer your question though, the only real place I can think of in the US would be a (ironically) military base, which I guess by definition is a gated community. On military bases, personal firearms are to be stored within the armory.

Depends on how hard it's thrown.

Yes, but the cars vs. guns analogy is not a good one. Cars serve an essential function for daily living in most of the country. Guns do not. It would be very difficult for a carless community to function but it would be very easy for a gunless one to. While I'm not positive I feel it's pretty likely that no one in my co-op owns a gun and we get along just fine.

Again, if your goal in owning a gun is to protect your life or the lives of those who live with you then on average a gun provides negative value.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes, but the cars vs. guns analogy is not a good one. Cars serve an essential function for daily living in most of the country. Guns do not. It would be very difficult for a carless community to function but it would be very easy for a gunless one to. While I'm not positive I feel it's pretty likely that no one in my co-op owns a gun and we get along just fine.

Again, if your goal in owning a gun is to protect your life or the lives of those who live with you then on average a gun provides negative value.

The OP's premise was that he was surprised at gun ownership rates, and permissability of gun ownership within gated communities, if they were so commonly associated with the loss of human life. Vehicles can be substituted for that.

Yes, in all likelihood most people can get by just fine without a gun, still doesn't make his assessment less absurd considering death rates by guns vs death rates by everything else. This is the same as focusing your fiscal change policies on low-incidence but artificially high-profile financial changes (like 'welfare queens') as opposed to the shit that actually matters, like overarching social programs (medicare, medicaid, Social Security) or defense spending. It's focusing on the wrong thing that gets far more attention than it's worth.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

These problems are exactly why homicide is one of the only valid comparisons between countries. All of your arguments are true... except when it comes to what I just linked. While what comprises an assault or a rape or whatever varies widely between countries definitions of homicide vary far less because the vast majority of the time you have a dead body.

So no, definitely not invalid. From an empirical perspective the US has a far higher homicide rate than the U.K.

I can't find anything that says the UK varies from its policies in the case of deaths. I looked at some UK sites and apparently the government isn't very forthcoming even with its own citizens. The FBI methodology is fairly straightforward, but I cannot find anything equivalently unambiguous. In the case of suicide for example, is that a reported gun crime in both the US and the UK? Again I'm not saying we don't have more gun crime, but I find no uniform and cohesive basis for what constitutes a gun crime and specifically how murder is strictly defined and the basis of reporting. Besides using the word "murder" how do we know the particulars of the influence of a different legal system? For example it is my understanding that if someone is found "not guilty" of a murder it is still a murder for reporting purposes and how do you know either way?

To what degree does the politics of "looking good" enter into it and create a bias for the purpose of CYA? I don't know and I don't know how anyone else knows besides declaration of unverifiable facts.

I think these are serious problems in analysis and exactly why we need an uniform standard apart from legal interpretations of each nation.

Apples to apples.

 

[fskimospy]

I can't find anything that says the UK varies from its policies in the case of deaths. I looked at some UK sites and apparently the government isn't very forthcoming even with its own citizens. The FBI methodology is fairly straightforward, but I cannot find anything equivalently unambiguous. In the case of suicide for example, is that a reported gun crime in both the US and the UK? Again I'm not saying we don't have more gun crime, but I find no uniform and cohesive basis for what constitutes a gun crime and specifically how murder is strictly defined and the basis of reporting. Besides using the word "murder" how do we know the particulars of the influence of a different legal system? For example it is my understanding that if someone is found "not guilty" of a murder it is still a murder for reporting purposes and how do you know either way?

To what degree does the politics of "looking good" enter into it and create a bias for the purpose of CYA? I don't know and I don't know how anyone else knows besides declaration of unverifiable facts.

I think these are serious problems in analysis and exactly why we need an uniform standard apart from legal interpretations of each nation.

Apples to apples.

The figures aren't for murder, they are for homicide, which is a determination made by the police and medical examiners that says the cause of death for that person is some sort of human action. Whether or not anyone is ever convicted of a murder doesn't factor in.

Again, legal standards for what constitute any crime vary between nations but they tend to vary far less when it comes to homicide because again, you have a dead body. Are there some incidents that would be classified differently between countries? Sure. Are those differences sufficient to make up a 400% difference? Not a chance. Homicide comparisons aren't perfect but they are good enough. It's why empirical researchers on comparative violent crime tend to stick to homicide rates. This isn't an accident, it's because the data is good enough to use.

The idea that the UN or anyone else could create a uniform standard for crime reporting that would filter down to how local police departments conduct their reporting is never going to happen.

 

[fskimospy]

The OP's premise was that he was surprised at gun ownership rates, and permissability of gun ownership within gated communities, if they were so commonly associated with the loss of human life. Vehicles can be substituted for that.

Yes, in all likelihood most people can get by just fine without a gun, still doesn't make his assessment less absurd considering death rates by guns vs death rates by everything else. This is the same as focusing your fiscal change policies on low-incidence but artificially high-profile financial changes (like 'welfare queens') as opposed to the shit that actually matters, like overarching social programs (medicare, medicaid, Social Security) or defense spending. It's focusing on the wrong thing that gets far more attention than it's worth.

Again I have to say that analogy is terrible. Cars have daily utility that carries risks with it but most people simply can't live without a car so you accept it. Guns don't have that utility and so you don't have to accept it. You can't draw an analogy between something you basically have to have and something you choose to have. It would be like saying owning a gun is like owning a bathtub because lots of people die by slips in their bathtub.

Also by the way, homicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 15-24, the third leading cause of death for people 25-34, and the fifth leading cause of death for people 35-44 in the US. It is by no standard an artificially high profile thing to focus on.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_all_deaths_by_age_group_2010-a.pdf

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Again I have to say that analogy is terrible. Cars have daily utility that carries risks with it but most people simply can't live without a car so you accept it. Guns don't have that utility and so you don't have to accept it. You can't draw an analogy between something you basically have to have and something you choose to have. It would be like saying owning a gun is like owning a bathtub because lots of people die by slips in their bathtub.

Also by the way, homicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 15-24, the third leading cause of death for people 25-34, and the fifth leading cause of death for people 35-44 in the US. It is by no standard an artificially high profile thing to focus on.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_all_deaths_by_age_group_2010-a.pdf

Shrug, you can live without any of the above. Maybe not 'reasonably' (you'd have to live closer to where you work, or be smelly), but you need a)air, b)food, c)water. Everything else improves your life in some way but isn't necessary for survival.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2014-a.pdf

Updated, it's now 3rd for 1-4, 15-24, and 25-34. It's also at a quarter the rate of unintentional deaths. Also, that's all homicides... per this link...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
approximately 66% of them are caused by firearms. If we assume the ratios maintain (they probably don't), that would put it at number 4 for 25-34, maintained at 3 for 15-24, number 4 for 1-4, and somewhere around 6-8 for 35-44.

I'm not saying it's a completely insignificant problem, just that you could have a greater impact by banning vehicles in a gated community than you could by banning firearms, which was the OP's original premise (restricting a_thing to preserve life).

EDIT: I'll also point out that homicide doesn't register top 10 for totals, and the values added for top 10 causes within that chart for all homicides only adds up to 11534. That's about a quarter the number of total suicides in the US. Basically, the reason homicides even make the top 10 is because there's so few causes of deaths among people before the 35-44 age range (where heart disease starts to really pick up) and 45-54 where everything else falls apart. All the numbers for a given cause of death aside from homicide and suicide basically double to triple somewhere between the 25-34 age range and 55-64.

People die, a lot. In fact, life has a 100% mortality rate. Homicide is a very, very low incidence occurrence compared to everything else that actually affects 99% of people on a daily basis, and dramatically affecting personal liberties and opening up said personal liberties for future exploitation to reduce it is absurd on its face.

 

[spacejamz]

Does Belgium have a raging war on drugs going on for decades? I'd love to see our murder rate if we got rid of the turf wars over black market drug sales.

how many gang members are there in Belgium? Does Belgium enforce their borders to reduce crimes by illegal immigrants?

 

[fskimospy]

Shrug, you can live without any of the above. Maybe not 'reasonably' (you'd have to live closer to where you work, or be smelly), but you need a)air, b)food, c)water. Everything else improves your life in some way but isn't necessary for survival.

I guess, but that's a pretty unreasonable standard.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2014-a.pdf

Updated, it's now 3rd for 1-4, 15-24, and 25-34. It's also at a quarter the rate of unintentional deaths. Also, that's all homicides... per this link...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
approximately 66% of them are caused by firearms. If we assume the ratios maintain (they probably don't), that would put it at number 4 for 25-34, maintained at 3 for 15-24, and number 4 for 1-4.

I'm not saying it's a completely insignificant problem, just that you could have a greater impact by banning vehicles in a gated community than you could by banning firearms, which was the OP's original premise (restricting a_thing to preserve life).

Sure, but I think any reasonable person would assume that a person has many competing priorities such as employment, which often either requires a car or is greatly assisted by owning a car. If saving your life was your ONLY consideration maybe the car analogy would be good but that's never the case. In this case saying he doesn't want to live around guns is a perfectly reasonable position to hold considering they are a risk factor for death and they have little utility. The same can't be said for cars as they have high utility.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I guess, but that's a pretty unreasonable standard.



Sure, but I think any reasonable person would assume that a person has many competing priorities such as employment, which often either requires a car or is greatly assisted by owning a car. If saving your life was your ONLY consideration maybe the car analogy would be good but that's never the case. In this case saying he doesn't want to live around guns is a perfectly reasonable position to hold considering they are a risk factor for death and they have little utility. The same can't be said for cars as they have high utility.

Alright, going by that logic, I've got a bigger target for you, alcohol:
https://www.cdc.gov/features/alcohol-deaths/
2006-2010, 10% of deaths from adults 20-64 were caused in some way, shape, or form by excessive alcohol use. 88,000 deaths per year, which is about 7.5x as many deaths as caused by homicide as a whole, and around 11x as many as firearm related homicides, with some skew for alcohol-related deaths in 2006-2010 and homicides in 2014.

Alcohol has zero utility beyond a 'want' (just like guns, according to you), causes an order of magnitude more deaths than firearms, and we're more than capable of living without, so let's start with Alcohol, and work our way down, shall we?

 

[momeNt]

I guess, but that's a pretty unreasonable standard.



Sure, but I think any reasonable person would assume that a person has many competing priorities such as employment, which often either requires a car or is greatly assisted by owning a car. If saving your life was your ONLY consideration maybe the car analogy would be good but that's never the case. In this case saying he doesn't want to live around guns is a perfectly reasonable position to hold considering they are a risk factor for death and they have little utility. The same can't be said for cars as they have high utility.

Considering that on every apartment or home searching website, there is a "walk score" or something to that effect, there is a high number of people searching exactly for that. You also have crime maps and such so obviously that is also a consideration. I don't really see why you are so unwilling to offer that as advice though?

https://www.walkscore.com/professional/case-studies.php

There is a list of the clients of walk score that publish the results on their website. You can search for that OP, and also compare crime stats, and have a really low risk life. Good luck.

 

[fskimospy]

Alright, going by that logic, I've got a bigger target for you, alcohol:
https://www.cdc.gov/features/alcohol-deaths/
2006-2010, 10% of deaths from adults 20-64 were caused in some way, shape, or form by excessive alcohol use. 88,000 deaths per year, which is about 7.5x as many deaths as caused by homicide as a whole, and around 11x as many as firearm related homicides, with some skew for alcohol-related deaths in 2006-2010 and homicides in 2014.

Alcohol has zero utility beyond a 'want' (just like guns, according to you), causes an order of magnitude more deaths than firearms, and we're more than capable of living without, so let's start with Alcohol, and work our way down, shall we?

Cities, counties, and states can and have banned alcohol so I'm not sure what your point is? If someone wanted to live in a dry city or county because of the negative effects it has that would certainly make sense to me. It's not what I would prefer but I would understand why someone else would.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Cities, counties, and states can and have banned alcohol so I'm not sure what your point is? If someone wanted to live in a dry city or county because of the negative effects it has that would certainly make sense to me. It's not what I would prefer but I would understand why someone else would.

Banned the sale of, not the consumption of. An equivalent comparison would be banning the sale of firearms within a gated community, but still permitting the ownership of, which doesn't really help OP's (or your) case. Deaths aren't caused by the sale of a_thing, but by the usage of a_thing.

Also, as someone who grew up in a dry county, hint: everyone still drinks, they just drive to the 1 sq mile county that's wet, buy all their booze, then go home. 99% of people who live in a dry county either don't want or don't care that it's dry, it was a policy change to yank the religious vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Considering that on every apartment or home searching website, there is a "walk score" or something to that effect, there is a high number of people searching exactly for that. You also have crime maps and such so obviously that is also a consideration. I don't really see why you are so unwilling to offer that as advice though?

https://www.walkscore.com/professional/case-studies.php

There is a list of the clients of walk score that publish the results on their website. You can search for that OP, and also compare crime stats, and have a really low risk life. Good luck.

Living in a very walkable area usually does not obviate the need for a car. What percentage of people who desire a walkable area do you think still require a car for other aspects of their life? My guess is the overwhelming majority. So the reason I would be unwilling to offer that as advice is that it's probably useless.

Avoiding cars entirely would certainly make someone safer but that is probably not possible for most people and it would come with a significant lifestyle penalty. Avoiding guns in the home is a smart move for almost everyone as they confer a negative safety benefit and in most cases people who have them for recreational purposes could store them outside of the home.

 

[trenchfoot]

Just move to NYC if it scares you that much. Neighbors killing neighbors randomly is a very negligible kind of homicide afaik, so unless you live in a bad neighborhood (in which case you're fucked no matter the gun prevalence) or if you have some kind of lawn dispute with an ex-Vietnam veteran or something, I wouldn't be so worried.

Hey you, I served there in 'Nam and there's nn-n--nnn-nuth'in w-www--ww--rong with mmmm-mm-m-m-eeee, *snick* *huurrrr* INCOMING!!!! See? *blink-blink*

 

[momeNt]

Living in a very walkable area usually does not obviate the need for a car. What percentage of people who desire a walkable area do you think still require a car for other aspects of their life? My guess is the overwhelming majority. So the reason I would be unwilling to offer that as advice is that it's probably useless.

Avoiding cars entirely would certainly make someone safer but that is probably not possible for most people and it would come with a significant lifestyle penalty. Avoiding guns in the home is a smart move for almost everyone as they confer a negative safety benefit and in most cases people who have them for recreational purposes could store them outside of the home.

We are talking about this specific OP and saving their life, not the entirety of the US. So I think giving the advise is the prudent thing to do. If he is not aware of the resources at his disposal and isn't able to adequately search for places that have high walk scores both for personal needs as well as employment, which is a fair assumption just by looking at the OP (could have googled, not familiar with the USA in general, lacks basic research skills) then we are doing him a disservice by completely ignoring the fact that living in a vehicle free life is a complete possibility on an individual basis, even if it doesn't hold true for the great majority of Americans.

I'm interested in saving his life, you seem to be interested in justifying the needs of a vehicle.

Summary for the OP

Look for high walk score living areas that are close to your employment - generally speaking these places will ALSO be low crime.

If you are already employed and unable to change employment to an area that you can live nearby and has high walk score, then just search crime maps for low crime. These places will have less people willing to use a gun to commit violence.

Stay safe, stay alive.

zillow, realtor, apartments.com and redfin all show walk score. Redfin in major metro areas will give you a rebate on your home sale so the net commission is only like 4.5% as opposed to the usual 6.

 

[fskimospy]

Banned the sale of, not the consumption of. An equivalent comparison would be banning the sale of firearms within a gated community, but still permitting the ownership of, which doesn't really help OP's (or your) case. Deaths aren't caused by the sale of a_thing, but by the usage of a_thing.

Also, as someone who grew up in a dry county, hint: everyone still drinks, they just drive to the 1 sq mile county that's wet, buy all their booze, then go home. 99% of people who live in a dry county either don't want or don't care that it's dry, it was a policy change to yank the religious vote.

Of course it's just a policy change for conservatives, I don't support dry counties, I think they are stupid. Regardless it's hard to see why this is relevant. I would be perfectly fine if an HOA decided to ban alcohol on its premises and unless there's some state law that says they can't do that it would be entirely within their powers. I wouldn't want to live there myself but that's beside the point. Are you trying to think of things that are greater threats to human health than gun ownership? If so, why do you think that is relevant to the OP's question or to any of my points? It is this simple: gun ownership is a meaningful threat to human health and the OP is perfectly reasonable for not wanting to live around a lot of guns. If the OP wanted to live in an HOA that didn't allow alcohol that would also be reasonable.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Of course it's just a policy change for conservatives, I don't support dry counties, I think they are stupid. Regardless it's hard to see why this is relevant. I would be perfectly fine if an HOA decided to ban alcohol on its premises and unless there's some state law that says they can't do that it would be entirely within their powers. I wouldn't want to live there myself but that's beside the point. Are you trying to think of things that are greater threats to human health than gun ownership? If so, why do you think that is relevant to the OP's question or to any of my points? It is this simple: gun ownership is a meaningful threat to human health and the OP is perfectly reasonable for not wanting to live around a lot of guns. If the OP wanted to live in an HOA that didn't allow alcohol that would also be reasonable.

That's exactly what I'm doing, because the OP's argument is based on protecting human life through the exclusion of a_thing. Starting with guns is a silly place when there are other factors which would have a far greater impact on the original goal. Not sure how to make that clearer.

 

[fskimospy]

We are talking about this specific OP and saving their life, not the entirety of the US. So I think giving the advise is the prudent thing to do. If he is not aware of the resources at his disposal and isn't able to adequately search for places that have high walk scores both for personal needs as well as employment, which is a fair assumption just by looking at the OP (could have googled, not familiar with the USA in general, lacks basic research skills) then we are doing him a disservice by completely ignoring the fact that living in a vehicle free life is a complete possibility on an individual basis, even if it doesn't hold true for the great majority of Americans.

I'm interested in saving his life, you seem to be interested in justifying the needs of a vehicle.

Summary for the OP

Look for high walk score living areas that are close to your employment - generally speaking these places will ALSO be low crime.

If you are already employed and unable to change employment to an area that you can live nearby and has high walk score, then just search crime maps for low crime. These places will have less people willing to use a gun to commit violence.

Stay safe, stay alive.

zillow, realtor, apartments.com and redfin all show walk score. Redfin in major metro areas will give you a rebate on your home sale so the net commission is only like 4.5% as opposed to the usual 6.

You are trying way too hard. Nothing in the OP indicated that he had any interest in not owning a car and you're wasting both your time and his time by trying to give him advice about a topic he didn't ask for advice on.

I'm interested in talking about the issue the OP asked about, you seem to be interested in deflecting the conversation away from the dangers of firearms.

 

[Cozarkian]

An HOA is not subject to the constitution. They could absolutely ban guns if they wanted to.

Sort of. Restrictions prohibiting homes from being sold to Black people were indirectly struck down by court decisions stating while the homeowners could privately agree to them, it is unconstitutional for the government to enforce them.

The same theory likely applies to restrictions on gun ownership.