Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
When the constitution was written the Weak (US residents) taking on the Strong state (the British crown) *was* a very real concern. It made sense then, it does't make as much sense now. Unless of course you plan on taking on 'the state' (United states military).
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Indeed. The failure of various American gun-control schemes counts for something, but the relative success abroad counts for quite a bit as well.
Of course, there's also weight in the predictable counter-point: that gun-control isn't everything, and America is generally quite violent, not just in terms of guns.
What success? The UK is an island, in case you didn't notice. Australia is too. It's much easier to prevent the smuggling of contraband (like weapons) into an island than into a country with vast, undefended borders.
The UK is Great Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, some other pieces, and some of those are partially self-governing (I don't know much about how the Irish Free State works, etc). And then we have the ex-colonies and client states which still consider the Queen their head of state.
"Ireland" can mean either the island or the country called the Republic of Ireland, which is about 80% of the island. The Republic is not part of the UK, it is a completely independent country. Northern Ireland (the northern 20%) is part of the UK. The "Irish Free State" was the name of what is now the Republic of Ireland in the 1920s and 30s and is not a term used any more.
Technically true, but this doesn't really address Grishnakh's main point: an island (and it's not unreasonable to treat the UK as an island, all in all) is indeed probably easier to keep things out of. (Forgive the end-of-sentence preposition.)
Grishnakh's argument falls down [slashdot.org] when you compare the USA to France.
The problem with these stats is that they lump everyone in together. Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster. Homicides are the important stat. However, even here most gun-related homicides in this country are likely because of gang-related violence. If you're not a gang member or other violent criminal, you have much less to worry about. So how about some stats which exclude gang members? It'd be interesting to see how the US ranks there.
Last I heard, El Salvador was the most dangerous country for an adult male to live in, as every adult male there has a 1 in 9 chance of being murdered in their lifetime. What are the gun laws like there?
As for first-world countries, the US doesn't really count there. There's too much poverty and income disparity for the US to really be considered an advanced nation. Mexico has the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim), and lots of affluence too, but no one considers them an advanced nation either. It's not gun proliferation that causes America's problems with crime, violence, and poverty. Somehow liberals seem to think that if we just get rid of the guns, we'll suddenly turn into a gigantic version of Sweden or Norway. It doesn't work that way. Those countries are ultra-safe because of their culture. We don't have that kind of culture. Our culture is more like that of El Salvador, in many areas of the country.
Reminds of this bit [theonion.com] from The Onion: Oh, sure, if you’re going to compare us to first-world countries, we’re definitely not going to come out looking so good.
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
That's not backhanded, that's intended. The problem is that liberals in this country think that just by adopting policies of, say, Sweden, that somehow the USA will become just like Sweden. It doesn't work like that. A country can't just will itself to be like some prosperous Scandinavian country. You mi
Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster.
Actually no. A lot of people back out of suicide because it takes so long and requires enough preparation to give them a chance to reconsider. There is plenty of statistical and clinical evidence of them. Being able to pull a trigger results in more people going through with it.
The problem with these stats is that they lump everyone in together. Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster. Homicides are the important stat. However, even here most gun-related homicides in this country are likely because of gang-related violence. If you're not a gang member or other violent criminal, you have much less to worry about. So how about some stats which exclude gang me
Ok then, compare against France instead. Still not looking good.
France is #12 in the world [wikipedia.org] in firearm ownership, with over 30 guns per 100 residents.
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture. You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture.
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots. You might be right about the specific topic of guns, though. I don't know of any significant cultural shifts regarding guns, to point to.
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
Would they? They have a totally different culture, plus they have better social support systems. I don't think they're in danger of having the kind of ghettos that we have in Detroit any time soon.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots.
Those aren't prohibitions, they're exactly the opposite. People wanted something to be legal,
Germany isn't as anti-gun as the UK by a long shot. See this list. [wikipedia.org] Germany has 1/3 the gun ownership the US does, and about 5 times the gun ownership of the UK. Germany comes in at #15 worldwide. 30 guns (privately-owned) per 100 residents isn't a small number.
"Ownership" is quite a broad term and not a good measurement for this discussion. For example, according to the WaffG (gun's law), when inheriting a gun you need to prove that you've got a need for a (working) gun. If you can't prove that, but still want to own the gun, a blocking device needs to be mounted to the gun and all rounds handed over.
Blank guns - if you want to carry them around - also need to be registered and therefore are part of those numbers.
"Owning guns" and "owning guns capable to kill" is
As someone that's neutral on weather we have too much or too little gun control (it seems unlikely we have the perfect amount, but I suppose it's possible), I find the specifics boring and useless, because we have the second amendment, and I want the constitution to count for something./me naive
And these mass shootings, what percentage of firearm violence do they account for? Also, in these mass shootings, how often are handguns used to kill people?
Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.
Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If yo
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.
Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:1, Insightful)
Bruce, there's a reason why the gun is called The Great Equalizer.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the constitution was written the Weak (US residents) taking on the Strong state (the British crown) *was* a very real concern. It made sense then, it does't make as much sense now. Unless of course you plan on taking on 'the state' (United states military).
Every gun used in a crime in America was purchased legally by a Law Abiding Gun Owner. Every. Single. One. Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:3)
How many mass shootings has the UK experienced since they banned ownership of handguns?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The failure of various American gun-control schemes counts for something, but the relative success abroad counts for quite a bit as well.
Of course, there's also weight in the predictable counter-point: that gun-control isn't everything, and America is generally quite violent, not just in terms of guns.
Re: (Score:1)
What success? The UK is an island, in case you didn't notice. Australia is too. It's much easier to prevent the smuggling of contraband (like weapons) into an island than into a country with vast, undefended borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ireland" can mean either the island or the country called the Republic of Ireland, which is about 80% of the island. The Republic is not part of the UK, it is a completely independent country. Northern Ireland (the northern 20%) is part of the UK. The "Irish Free State" was the name of what is now the Republic of Ireland in the 1920s and 30s and is not a term used any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true, but this doesn't really address Grishnakh's main point: an island (and it's not unreasonable to treat the UK as an island, all in all) is indeed probably easier to keep things out of. (Forgive the end-of-sentence preposition.)
Grishnakh's argument falls down [slashdot.org] when you compare the USA to France.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then, compare against France instead. Still not looking good. [wikipedia.org]
As first-world countries go, the US isn't doing great.
Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with these stats is that they lump everyone in together. Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster. Homicides are the important stat. However, even here most gun-related homicides in this country are likely because of gang-related violence. If you're not a gang member or other violent criminal, you have much less to worry about. So how about some stats which exclude gang members? It'd be interesting to see how the US ranks there.
Last I heard, El Salvador was the most dangerous country for an adult male to live in, as every adult male there has a 1 in 9 chance of being murdered in their lifetime. What are the gun laws like there?
As for first-world countries, the US doesn't really count there. There's too much poverty and income disparity for the US to really be considered an advanced nation. Mexico has the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim), and lots of affluence too, but no one considers them an advanced nation either. It's not gun proliferation that causes America's problems with crime, violence, and poverty. Somehow liberals seem to think that if we just get rid of the guns, we'll suddenly turn into a gigantic version of Sweden or Norway. It doesn't work that way. Those countries are ultra-safe because of their culture. We don't have that kind of culture. Our culture is more like that of El Salvador, in many areas of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
All reasonable points.
Reminds of this bit [theonion.com] from The Onion: Oh, sure, if you’re going to compare us to first-world countries, we’re definitely not going to come out looking so good.
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
Re: (Score:3)
It strikes me as quite ironic that a lot of your comment is essentially a backhanded concession that there are considerable advantages to a country with substantially more left-wing culture and policies.
That's not backhanded, that's intended. The problem is that liberals in this country think that just by adopting policies of, say, Sweden, that somehow the USA will become just like Sweden. It doesn't work like that. A country can't just will itself to be like some prosperous Scandinavian country. You mi
Re: (Score:2)
Gun-related suicides, for instance, aren't even worth considering in these stats; people will kill themselves one way or another, guns just make it easier and faster.
Actually no. A lot of people back out of suicide because it takes so long and requires enough preparation to give them a chance to reconsider. There is plenty of statistical and clinical evidence of them. Being able to pull a trigger results in more people going through with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then, compare against France instead. Still not looking good.
France is #12 in the world [wikipedia.org] in firearm ownership, with over 30 guns per 100 residents.
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture. You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, they have far less gun-related deaths because they have much less crime. That's a function of their culture.
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
You can't change culture with prohibition laws.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots. You might be right about the specific topic of guns, though. I don't know of any significant cultural shifts regarding guns, to point to.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems an oversimplification. If you quadrupled the unemployment rate in France, I'm sure you'd see an increase in crime.
Would they? They have a totally different culture, plus they have better social support systems. I don't think they're in danger of having the kind of ghettos that we have in Detroit any time soon.
The civil rights and gay rights movements didn't start with law, they started with grassroots.
Those aren't prohibitions, they're exactly the opposite. People wanted something to be legal,
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you don't accept the UK, take Germany as an example. Although you might argue that Europe + Asia "is just an island" ...
Re: (Score:2)
Germany isn't as anti-gun as the UK by a long shot. See this list. [wikipedia.org] Germany has 1/3 the gun ownership the US does, and about 5 times the gun ownership of the UK. Germany comes in at #15 worldwide. 30 guns (privately-owned) per 100 residents isn't a small number.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ownership" is quite a broad term and not a good measurement for this discussion. For example, according to the WaffG (gun's law), when inheriting a gun you need to prove that you've got a need for a (working) gun. If you can't prove that, but still want to own the gun, a blocking device needs to be mounted to the gun and all rounds handed over.
Blank guns - if you want to carry them around - also need to be registered and therefore are part of those numbers.
"Owning guns" and "owning guns capable to kill" is
Re: (Score:2)
So work on an Amendment repealing the Second Amendment. Noone's going to stop you from trying to get things changed.
But don't pretend it doesn't exist because it offends your sense of rightness. It's there, deal with it. Either by accepting it or repealing it.
Oh, and good luck with that. I'm pretty sure you'll have about as much luck as trying to repeal the First Amendment, but that's your business....
Re: (Score:1)
This, yes, thank you.
As someone that's neutral on weather we have too much or too little gun control (it seems unlikely we have the perfect amount, but I suppose it's possible), I find the specifics boring and useless, because we have the second amendment, and I want the constitution to count for something. /me naive
Re: (Score:3)
Red herring much? Mass shootings are relatively isolated incidents that account for a negligible percentage of firearm violence, and predominantly involve long guns. Handguns are responsible for a majority of firearm violence, but they're used in inner city gang-related violence, not mass shootings.
Besides, you're comparing the US and the UK. If yo