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 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
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: (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)
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)