Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
Proximity to Middle East making it easier for terrorist to blend in with other asylum seekers leaving the area and support for the Iraq War (Britain) or attacks on Muslim culture (for example France /w Charlie Hebdo).
Guns have nothing to do with it.
Guns have everything to do with massacres happening in the US however.
The other way the terrorist attacks in Europe are different is that in many cases, the perpetrators are members of terrorist organizations. So they have access to a support structure that includes drug smugglers and gun-runners. Most mass shootings in the US are carried out by people with no criminal background or connections and thus have no ready source of illegal weapons.
The other way the terrorist attacks in Europe are different is that in many cases, the perpetrators are members of terrorist organizations. So they have access to a support structure that includes drug smugglers and gun-runners. Most mass shootings in the US are carried out by people with no criminal background or connections and thus have no ready source of illegal weapons.
Marijuana is illegal in MANY us states. Anyone believe that is hard to get illegally the drug?
Chicago has a lot of gang related violence. Anyone believe that gangsters use legal firearms?
So, if you support an rifle ban, you should support an law forcing everyone to become weaker in order to reduce homicides with personal weapon. This is not Whataboutery, is a logic conclusion of your own argument.
When multiple people are saying you are arguing in bad faith, maybe pause, and consider if they're right?
This is an incredibly bad faith argument, along with your bomb argument from above. This would be impossible to legislate. Banning certain kinds of weapons is very do-able, as a number of other wealthy countries have demonstrated.
Try and stick with real-world, realistic examples. Otherwise you are just flooding this thread with nonsense arguments.
And the idea that someone who is planning to commit mass murder will stop by anti gun legislation despite it never stopped anyone in any country is a realistic idea???
Again, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada and a number of other high-wealth countries have homicide rates around 1/3 to 1/4 of the US. The idea that nothing has been stopped by laws is belied by the real world evidence.
Evidence that's been stated before on here, but that you continue to ignore.
The other way the terrorist attacks in Europe are different is that in many cases, the perpetrators are members of terrorist organizations. So they have access to a support structure that includes drug smugglers and gun-runners. Most mass shootings in the US are carried out by people with no criminal background or connections and thus have no ready source of illegal weapons.
Marijuana is illegal in MANY us states. Anyone believe that is hard to get illegally the drug?
Chicago has a lot of gang related violence. Anyone believe that gangsters use legal firearms?
Once again, this point has NOTHING to do with mass shootings.
If you make it harder to get a tool whose only purpose is to kill people, you will have less deaths because a majority of these people have zero connection to organized crime or gangs.
The other way the terrorist attacks in Europe are different is that in many cases, the perpetrators are members of terrorist organizations. So they have access to a support structure that includes drug smugglers and gun-runners. Most mass shootings in the US are carried out by people with no criminal background or connections and thus have no ready source of illegal weapons.
Marijuana is illegal in MANY us states. Anyone believe that is hard to get illegally the drug?
Chicago has a lot of gang related violence. Anyone believe that gangsters use legal firearms?
Yes, I most definitely think it's harder to get marijuana when it was illegal versus when it's legal.
Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
They're not at all similar problems in terms of scale, in terms of numbers of actual deaths.
The other way the terrorist attacks in Europe are different is that in many cases, the perpetrators are members of terrorist organizations. So they have access to a support structure that includes drug smugglers and gun-runners. Most mass shootings in the US are carried out by people with no criminal background or connections and thus have no ready source of illegal weapons.
Marijuana is illegal in MANY us states. Anyone believe that is hard to get illegally the drug?
Chicago has a lot of gang related violence. Anyone believe that gangsters use legal firearms?
Once again, this point has NOTHING to do with mass shootings.
If you make it harder to get a tool whose only purpose is to kill people, you will have less deaths because a majority of these people have zero connection to organized crime or gangs.
Wrong, tools who can stop criminals will be an criminal monopoly.This is why the cities on US with stronger gun control are more violent. Chicago is extremely violent and guns are very restricted.
The other way the terrorist attacks in Europe are different is that in many cases, the perpetrators are members of terrorist organizations. So they have access to a support structure that includes drug smugglers and gun-runners. Most mass shootings in the US are carried out by people with no criminal background or connections and thus have no ready source of illegal weapons.
Marijuana is illegal in MANY us states. Anyone believe that is hard to get illegally the drug?
Chicago has a lot of gang related violence. Anyone believe that gangsters use legal firearms?
Yes, I most definitely think it's harder to get marijuana when it was illegal versus when it's legal.
But no war on drugs managed to prevent someone who wanna do drugs from purchasing it. Right?
List of terror attacks on Europe, Switzerland, one of the most armed countries had ZERO terrorist attacks.
OK. I haven't commented before on the Swiss attitude to guns, so I'll do that here. It's true that the Swiss are fond of guns, but the gun culture there is very different from that in the US. Guns in Switzerland are seen as a way of demonstrating adult responsibility, not a way of expressing personal power.
That difference from the US is enshrined in legislation. While assault rifles are still legal (within limits - there are restrictions on magazine capacity for example), there are plenty of laws that apply to them. For instance:
- if you want to buy a gun you need to submit paperwork to confirm who you are and have a recent (no more than 3 month old) criminal records check. The seller also has to confirm you are in good mental health.
- the rules for buying ammunition are the same as for guns (and many categories of ammunition are banned entirely).
- guns are registered and records of any gun (or gun component) sale or transfer must be kept for at least 10 years.
- carrying guns in public requires a permit and those are very rarely given (the main exception is for security personnel). In order to apply for such a permit you need to pass both practical tests (to demonstrate your training and ability) and theoretical tests (to demonstrate knowledge of both guns and gun law).
- whenever guns are being transported, the guns and ammunition must be carried separately.
The US has always had a certain cultural tendency to regard guns as a 'macho' tool. Decades of propaganda from the NRA, talking about your god-given right to a gun, have helped to strengthen that aspect of culture. It's therefore no great surprise that men with a grudge (and it is virtually always men), or who feel powerless over some aspect of their lives, turn to guns to show their manly qualities by demonstrating their power over others.
Switzerland does not have the same association between guns and power and therefore does not have the same problem as the US.
I am curious how they are defining "attacks" in that chart. Is that incidents? Casualties? Deaths?
And more than just Switzerland had 0 attacks, in fact, I see more than 20 countries that had 0 attacks.
I also find it interesting in your own graph that the NUMBER OF PEOPLE licensed to have guns has stayed ROUGHLY THE SAME, yet the NUMBER OF GUNS has INCREASED. And those are REGISTERED guns, so not illegal.
So it might be plausible, even actually what happened, that the people who own guns, for some reason or another, want to own more guns. I don't know what they intend to do with 3 registered guns per licensee that they couldn't do with 2 guns per licensee over a period of 20 years, but whatever.
Edit-To be clear, I don't consider the country "more armed" when the same number of people have more and more guns. At some point, just because 1 gun nut has 1,000 guns in a country of 1,000,000, does not make the country heavily armed.
Your argument would have more weight if more PEOPLE were getting armed with more guns. Plus, again by the graph, the peak ownership was in 2001, 14 years before whatever ban it refers to was announced.
OK. I haven't commented before on the Swiss attitude to guns, so I'll do that here. It's true that the Swiss are fond of guns, but the gun culture there is very different from that in the US. Guns in Switzerland are seen as a way of demonstrating adult responsibility, not a way of expressing personal power.
That difference from the US is enshrined in legislation. While assault rifles are still legal (within limits - there are restrictions on magazine capacity for example), there are plenty of laws that apply to them. For instance:
- if you want to buy a gun you need to submit paperwork to confirm who you are and have a recent (no more than 3 month old) criminal records check. The seller also has to confirm you are in good mental health.
- the rules for buying ammunition are the same as for guns (and many categories of ammunition are banned entirely).
- guns are registered and records of any gun (or gun component) sale or transfer must be kept for at least 10 years.
- carrying guns in public requires a permit and those are very rarely given (the main exception is for security personnel). In order to apply for such a permit you need to pass both practical tests (to demonstrate your training and ability) and theoretical tests (to demonstrate knowledge of both guns and gun law).
- whenever guns are being transported, the guns and ammunition must be carried separately.
The US has always had a certain cultural tendency to regard guns as a 'macho' tool. Decades of propaganda from the NRA, talking about your god-given right to a gun, have helped to strengthen that aspect of culture. It's therefore no great surprise that men with a grudge (and it is virtually always men), or who feel powerless over some aspect of their lives, turn to guns to show their manly qualities by demonstrating their power over others.
Switzerland does not have the same association between guns and power and therefore does not have the same problem as the US.
This speaks exactly to the point almost everyone is implicitly(or explicitly) making right now: You cannot simply look at a given situation (Say gun ownership rates in Switzerland) and broadly suggest that homicide rates there are only correlated to that one aspect without also considering other socioeconomic factors that come into play.
Switzerland is different from the USA in Culture, Poverty Rate, Urbanization, Racial Diversity, etc, etc
Any (and all) of those things will have significant effects on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control vs homicide rates.
Not to mention there's no accounting for states or countries with lax gun laws neighboring states or countries with gun laws vs. islands with strict gun laws.
Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
They're not at all similar problems in terms of scale, in terms of numbers of actual deaths.
I worry more about dying in a car accident than I do from EITHER a mass shooting OR a terror attack.
They are oversensationalized, your chances of being in either is pretty slim.
Now, people who are shot in gang violence, and yes, there are cartloads of those, guess what, they TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN GANGS.
I am for gun control, but that's because I care mainly about the least talked aspects of who dies the most: suicides, especially veteran suicides. If gun control saves 10,000 potential suicidees and has a happy side effect of stopping 2,000 homicides, I'd be happy.
That's why I mainly stop my goal for "control" at "require registration, background checks, and mental health checks". If those don't cause a drop in gun violence in 3 years, I would be amazed.
Again, what gets the most media coverage and what ACTUALLY kills the most people are almost never the same thing. I prefer to worry about what is statistically likely to kill me: car accidents, common infectious disease, heart disease, and various cancers.
Switzerland does not have the same association between guns and power and therefore does not have the same problem as the US.
My point was not that Switzerland is an gun paradise, is just that is more free than UK and France and by it has much less gun problems. But finally you understood that the problem is that the CULTURE is much different on US now than on US in wild west times for eg.
This speaks exactly to the point almost everyone is implicitly(or explicitly) making right now: You cannot simply look at a given situation (Say gun ownership rates in Switzerland) and broadly suggest that homicide rates there are only correlated to that one aspect without also considering other socioeconomic factors that come into play.
Switzerland is different from the USA in Culture, Poverty Rate, Urbanization, Racial Diversity, etc, etc
Any (and all) of those things will have significant effects on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control vs homicide rates.
So, are you agreeing with white nationalists who say that US is more violent than other developed countries due the high presence of black population??? And that if racial minorities disappear, US would be more peaceful than European countries???? I an not agreeing with then, just asking an question.
Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
They're not at all similar problems in terms of scale, in terms of numbers of actual deaths.
I worry more about dying in a car accident than I do from EITHER a mass shooting OR a terror attack.
They are oversensationalized, your chances of being in either is pretty slim.
Now, people who are shot in gang violence, and yes, there are cartloads of those, guess what, they TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN GANGS.
I am for gun control, but that's because I care mainly about the least talked aspects of who dies the most: suicides, especially veteran suicides. <...>
So, are you saying that the state shold punishes people who commit crime without any victim to protect suicides from themselves??? And that someone who wanna suicide will not use any other method? Or do with an illegal firearm?
The unique way from the state to be able to prevent someone from owning an improvised firearm is if the state has godly powers...
Not to mention there's no accounting for states or countries with lax gun laws neighboring states or countries with gun laws vs. islands with strict gun laws.
Of course is much easier for the Japan to prevent illegal guns from reaching Japan soil than for eg, Brazil who in his borders has the most armed country of Latin America(Uruguay), an country with heavily hunting tradition with and more unregistered firearms than registered ones(Argentina), most gun free country, in some aspects freer than US(Paraguay), narco states like Colombia, countries almost in civil war(Venezuela), etc. And the unique country without direct access is exactly the most developed one who is safer than US and richer than some EU countries(Chile)
But US government could't prevent 30 mi illegals on US. And people are bigger and can't be disassembled, so, no way that gun control could prevent anyone from owning guns.
Only for me is ironic how an ''third world'' city who received tons of war criminals after ww2(Bariloche) is much safer than most big cities on US?
Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
They're not at all similar problems in terms of scale, in terms of numbers of actual deaths.
I worry more about dying in a car accident than I do from EITHER a mass shooting OR a terror attack.
They are oversensationalized, your chances of being in either is pretty slim.
Now, people who are shot in gang violence, and yes, there are cartloads of those, guess what, they TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN GANGS.
I am for gun control, but that's because I care mainly about the least talked aspects of who dies the most: suicides, especially veteran suicides. <...>
So, are you saying that the state shold punishes people who commit crime without any victim to protect suicides from themselves??? And that someone who wanna suicide will not use any other method? Or do with an illegal firearm?
A "crime without a victim" is a myth.
And yes, it will reduce the rate of suicides. Sure, MAYBE the same amount of people will ATTEMPT suicide, but they are less likely to SUCCEED. It is a FACT that first-time suicides with a gun are almost guaranteed to succeed.
Right now the people who suicide don't need to do it with an illegal firearm, because they're so easy to get that they can get one legally. Again, veterans are a disproportionate demographic, they suicide at roughly twice the rate of the general population, and are about 10% of all suicides (and about 5% of the general population). You don't think most of those veterans HAVE legal guns?
Can you actually man up and present a valid argument for why we should NOT have at least some barebones gun regulation? We are barely above "own whatever you want".
Switzerland does not have the same association between guns and power and therefore does not have the same problem as the US.
My point was not that Switzerland is an gun paradise, is just that is more free than UK and France and by it has much less gun problems. But finally you understood that the problem is that the CULTURE is much different on US now than on US in wild west times for eg.
That sounds insulting, but I dare say you didn't intend that. However, I'll point out that I've been posting about the problems of gun culture for years now.
By US standards, no Western European country has a significant gun problem and I agree that is largely a cultural issue. However, culture and the law are related, not independent. While cultural attitudes can lead to a change in the law, the reverse is also possible. I've used before the example of drink driving laws in the UK. In my lifetime those have been a major part of the reason that drink driving has become socially unacceptable. It's too early to be sure yet, but I suspect that 20 years from now it will be clear the same thing has happened in relation to use of phones while driving.
I don't think a change in the law should stand alone. I'd also like a lot more education about the issue as well and collection of better quality data (as @Quickblade pointed out that should include providing information about suicides and accidental deaths, which are very much part of the gun problem). However, I think changing the law would greatly increase the chances of getting a significant shift in the cultural attitude to guns. As I set out in my previous post there are very considerable gun restrictions in Switzerland, which go far beyond those covering most of the US. I think it would be politically easier to just ban assault rifles rather than introduce a comprehensive package of restrictions - though I would certainly support the latter if anyone dared to propose it.
But no war on drugs managed to prevent someone who wanna do drugs from purchasing it. Right?
The argument you're making here is a kind of implied strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that gun control alone would eradicate homicide by gun. All people are arguing is that it would *reduce* gun homicide.
This is more bad faith arguing from you, imo. You should perhaps take some more time and read folks' posts a little more carefully. That is, if you're interested in discussion, and not just lecturing people.
Bait and switch and more bad faith arguments. We were talking gun massacres in relationship to gun laws and you put up a unrelated terrorist chart.
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
They're not at all similar problems in terms of scale, in terms of numbers of actual deaths.
I worry more about dying in a car accident than I do from EITHER a mass shooting OR a terror attack.
They are oversensationalized, your chances of being in either is pretty slim.
Now, people who are shot in gang violence, and yes, there are cartloads of those, guess what, they TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN GANGS.
I am for gun control, but that's because I care mainly about the least talked aspects of who dies the most: suicides, especially veteran suicides. <...>
So, are you saying that the state shold punishes people who commit crime without any victim to protect suicides from themselves??? And that someone who wanna suicide will not use any other method? Or do with an illegal firearm?
A "crime without a victim" is a myth.
And yes, it will reduce the rate of suicides. Sure, MAYBE the same amount of people will ATTEMPT suicide, but they are less likely to SUCCEED. It is a FACT that first-time suicides with a gun are almost guaranteed to succeed.
Right now the people who suicide don't need to do it with an illegal firearm, because they're so easy to get that they can get one legally. Again, veterans are a disproportionate demographic, they suicide at roughly twice the rate of the general population, and are about 10% of all suicides (and about 5% of the general population). You don't think most of those veterans HAVE legal guns?
Can you actually man up and present a valid argument for why we should NOT have at least some barebones gun regulation? We are barely above "own whatever you want".
IS a myth? If i own an illegal firearm, who is the victim of it? No one. See?
And veterans suicide more due mental diseases, not due guns
And i offered many arguments, like :
Failing to prevent gangsters from owning illegal firearms
Failing to prevent terrorists from owning illegal firearms
European countries with more guns being more peaceful
Making private security more expensive which obviously reduces the security
The tact that the state is deadliest institution in the human history by far, if you can magically erase all homicides from private institutions, including mercenary armies, you will not save an fraction of the victims of the state on the last century
Historical arguments about how gun control was used by the government to control, not for security.
The fact that the state dependency is awful. Imagine if an politician "A" pressures the police to ignore crimes in a area who everyone votes in candidate "B"? Or if an cataclysm happens? Or if the state got bankrupted?
An untreated suicide guy can fail using another method is very likely that he will try again. And seriously that the state who failed to prevent prisoners on suicide watch from committing suicide, should regulate it? Are lawmakers deities? Sorry, but considering someone capable of defending politicians interests overseas in ultra expensive wars and the same guy unable to defend themselves is treat the state like an deity.
Switzerland does not have the same association between guns and power and therefore does not have the same problem as the US.
My point was not that Switzerland is an gun paradise, is just that is more free than UK and France and by it has much less gun problems. But finally you understood that the problem is that the CULTURE is much different on US now than on US in wild west times for eg.
That sounds insulting, but I dare say you didn't intend that. However, I'll point out that I've been posting about the problems of gun culture for years now.
By US standards, no Western European country has a significant gun problem and I agree that is largely a cultural issue. However, culture and the law are related, not independent. While cultural attitudes can lead to a change in the law, the reverse is also possible. I've used before the example of drink driving laws in the UK. In my lifetime those have been a major part of the reason that drink driving has become socially unacceptable. It's too early to be sure yet, but I suspect that 20 years from now it will be clear the same thing has happened in relation to use of phones while driving.
I don't think a change in the law should stand alone. I'd also like a lot more education about the issue as well and collection of better quality data (as @Quickblade pointed out that should include providing information about suicides and accidental deaths, which are very much part of the gun problem). However, I think changing the law would greatly increase the chances of getting a significant shift in the cultural attitude to guns. As I set out in my previous post there are very considerable gun restrictions in Switzerland, which go far beyond those covering most of the US. I think it would be politically easier to just ban assault rifles rather than introduce a comprehensive package of restrictions - though I would certainly support the latter if anyone dared to propose it.
Traffic accidents kills far more than guns, but obviously, you don't care about then...
As for law changing the culture, that is tyranny, lawmakers should create laws to enforce the society costumers, not the other way around. And the law should be local.
Why you wanna an federal gun ban? You can live in cities with strict gun control(and high crime obviously), but why the southern part of Florida to the northern part of Alaska should be subjected to the same law? That makes no sense. If 100% of an small city is happy with everyone owning an AR-15 sporting rifle(mislabeled as an assault rifle), would you spend millions in tax payer money to put then in jail? Who benefit from it? Nobody...
UK and France have draconian gun laws an it din't prevent then from being one of the most terror impacted countries.
This is the third time you make this exact same argument, and the third time you ignore people explaining how vastly different this situation is from the U.S. and how the gun laws in France weren't that strict and basically had loop holes back in 2015 that have been fixed since then.
As for suicide, we have the classic pattern that if you put up suicide barriers on a bridge, you actually do get fewer suicides, rather than the same number but in other areas. Because it's often an impulsive thing, and if what seems like an obvious way to end your life just isn't around, a lot of people end up not doing it.
UK and France have draconian gun laws an it din't prevent then from being one of the most terror impacted countries.
This is the third time you make this exact same argument, and the third time you ignore people explaining how vastly different this situation is from the U.S. and how the gun laws in France weren't that strict and basically had loop holes back in 2015 that have been fixed since then.
As for suicide, we have the classic pattern that if you put up suicide barriers on a bridge, you actually do get fewer suicides, rather than the same number but in other areas. Because it's often an impulsive thing, and if what seems like an obvious way to end your life just isn't around, a lot of people end up not doing it.
You mentioned Australia too ignoring that other types of homicides raised.
And gun control is not just suicide barriers. MAinly an federal one. First. No barrier put people who commit crimes without victim into an hell on earth and can lead to an civil war...
But one question. They still find firearms in maximum security prisons made by inmates. To enforce the full out gun ban, all U.S. Citizens would be forced into conditions worst than inmates in maximum security prison. Would you pay this insane price to make only the government with guns?? An politician say that he wanna ban guns and suddenly a lot of guns start to being sold. Lets suppose that 95% of an city don't wanna your gun regulations. Would you spend military resources to enslave then to your will?
I don't see any point in writing anything more as you are once again not answering to anything I actually said. My talk of suicide barriers was because you claimed that people who commit suicide will just find an alternative way, which often isn't the case. I haven't mentioned Australia. I haven't proposed a total gun ban (I don't think anyone in this thread has). And your talk of the military enslaving all citizens of the U.S. is just... Yeah, I don't know where that came from.
I don't see any point in writing anything more as you are once again not answering to anything I actually said. My talk of suicide barriers was because you claimed that people who commit suicide will just find an alternative way, which often isn't the case. I haven't mentioned Australia. I haven't proposed a total gun ban (I don't think anyone in this thread has). And your talk of the military enslaving all citizens of the U.S. is just... Yeah, I don't know where that came from.
Sorry i i sound a little pedantic, my point is just that most people here seens to have an hate/bias against firearms ie, they talk about accidents ignoring the fact that swimming pools kill more children than guns by accident and i saw with my own eyes how gun control can't work and tends to put so much faith in the government... And the bias is particularly against rifles despite rifles being barely never used on crimes.
Anyway, if you wanna help veterans, is very common for veterans to work on ranges, gun stores, as private security, the idea of making their lives harder via regulation will not help IMO.
Note that US had an sporting rifle ban via Federal Assault Weapons Ban and had no impact on the overall crime. ]
PS : I din't said that i an against all regulations, only that the community should regulate it, if an city don't wanna guns, let then live without guns. This should't be an matter for the federal government and that IMO if someone is considered capable of fighting in a desert overseas, say that the same person is incapable of defending his family makes no sense. Just like in some medieval cities, owning an crossbow was an serious crime and in others, you in order to be an citizen of certain cities needs to have an weapon.
Just going back to the Swiss firearm situation (I lived there for a while):
The Swiss have mandatory National Service for males which starts in their early twenties (an initial basic training camp) and continues thereafter with annual training exercises of a week or two every year until their early thirties. Throughout the entirety of this time they must keep the firearms they were issued with at home (locked in the bombproof cellar which every Swiss residential property is obliged to have). At the end of their period of service they are then entitled to apply for a permit to keep the firearms that they were issued with.
Context is everything: Facts without context are like knowledge without understanding - useless and potentially dangerous.
I don't see any point in writing anything more as you are once again not answering to anything I actually said. My talk of suicide barriers was because you claimed that people who commit suicide will just find an alternative way, which often isn't the case. I haven't mentioned Australia. I haven't proposed a total gun ban (I don't think anyone in this thread has). And your talk of the military enslaving all citizens of the U.S. is just... Yeah, I don't know where that came from.
Sorry i i sound a little pedantic, my point is just that most people here seens to have an hate/bias against firearms ie, they talk about accidents ignoring the fact that swimming pools kill more children than guns by accident and i saw with my own eyes how gun control can't work and how people tends to put so much faith in the government... And the bias is particularly against rifles despite rifles being barely never used on crimes.
Anyway, if you wanna help veterans, is very common for veterans to work on ranges, gun stores, as private security, the idea of making their lives harder via regulation will not help IMO.
Note that US had an sporting rifle ban via Federal Assault Weapons Ban and had no impact on the overall crime. ]
PS : I din't said that i an against all regulations, only that the LOCAL community should regulate it, if an city don't wanna guns, let then live without guns. This should't be an matter for the federal government and that IMO if someone is considered capable of fighting in a desert overseas, say that the same person is incapable of defending his family makes no sense. Just like in some medieval cities, owning an crossbow was an serious crime and in others, you in order to be an citizen or an permanent resident of certain cities needs to have an weapon. People has an bias against monarchy and system that worked far before the "modern rational state" and an pro centralization bias, due the public education system.
For eg, owning an .454 Cassull revolver could be an waste of money in a big city(except for hunting outside of the city) but an necessity in certain places of Alaska. Cities and states needs more autonomy... This not only on US. In fact, US is less centralized than most countries.
@SorcererV1ct0r there are so many things I could argue with in your recent posts, but I won't post further on this topic for the time being (whether or not new information is introduced). I would though suggest again that you seek information in places other than sites which support your views on matters like gun control. Seeing a wider range of viewpoints makes it easier to spot when information provided by some sites has been so badly distorted that it becomes meaningless.
While I was considering whether to respond in more detail, I came across this site. It's a commercial site aiming to sell home security and doesn't take a specific stance on whether gun control is a good thing. However, it has put together US state by state information in some interesting ways, e.g. there's a graph comparing strictness of gun controls with gun deaths. It won't surprise you there's something of an inverse relationship there, but if you want to make the effort you could then correlate that against the overall homicide rate by state - found here. That may challenge your perception that the safest place to be is the one with the most guns.
there are so many things I could argue with in your recent posts, but I won't post further on this topic for the time being (whether or not new information is introduced). I would though suggest again that you seek information in places other than sites which support your views on matters like gun control. Seeing a wider range of viewpoints makres it easier to spot when information provided by some sites has been so badly distorted that it becomes meaningless.
While I was considering whether to respond in more detail, I came across this site. It's a commercial site aiming to sell home security and doesn't take a specific stance on whether gun control is a good thing. However, it has put together US state by state information in some interesting ways, e.g. there's a graph comparing strictness of gun controls with gun deaths. It won't surprise you there's something of an inverse relationship there, but if you want to make the effort you could then correlate that against the overall homicide rate by state - found here. That may challenge your perception that the safest place to be is the one with the most guns.
they must keep the firearms they were issued with at home (locked in the bombproof cellar which every Swiss residential property is obliged to have)
This I did not know. Please explain more about this requirement to have bombproof cellars in EVERY home.
Oh, Wikipedia says that it's not entirely mandatory. If the house doesn't, it has to have directions to the closest one.
And pls check the references before accusing me of trolling
Check your own references. Your leads to a biased organization without any credible numbers. The 2.5 million number is ludicrously high given the total amount of crime.
The government statistic is for 2007-2011. This is a five year span, not a one year span.
Your argumentation here does not reflect well on you.
Comments
Europe has an problem with terror attacks
US has an problem with massacres.
Both are very similar in the aspect that a lot of innocent die, instead of blaming an tool that can be obtained illegally or replaced by other tool, why not ask why Europe is having much more terror attacks and Us much more massacres???
Proximity to Middle East making it easier for terrorist to blend in with other asylum seekers leaving the area and support for the Iraq War (Britain) or attacks on Muslim culture (for example France /w Charlie Hebdo).
Guns have nothing to do with it.
Guns have everything to do with massacres happening in the US however.
Marijuana is illegal in MANY us states. Anyone believe that is hard to get illegally the drug?
Chicago has a lot of gang related violence. Anyone believe that gangsters use legal firearms?
Again, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada and a number of other high-wealth countries have homicide rates around 1/3 to 1/4 of the US. The idea that nothing has been stopped by laws is belied by the real world evidence.
Evidence that's been stated before on here, but that you continue to ignore.
Once again, this point has NOTHING to do with mass shootings.
If you make it harder to get a tool whose only purpose is to kill people, you will have less deaths because a majority of these people have zero connection to organized crime or gangs.
Yes, I most definitely think it's harder to get marijuana when it was illegal versus when it's legal.
They're not at all similar problems in terms of scale, in terms of numbers of actual deaths.
Wrong, tools who can stop criminals will be an criminal monopoly.This is why the cities on US with stronger gun control are more violent. Chicago is extremely violent and guns are very restricted.
Also, 97% of massacres happens on gun free zones https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/09/over-98-of-mass-shootings-occurred-on-gun-free-zones-research-shows
Solution? Turn everything, from the southern part of Florida to the Northern part of Alaska into an gun free zone.
But no war on drugs managed to prevent someone who wanna do drugs from purchasing it. Right?
OK. I haven't commented before on the Swiss attitude to guns, so I'll do that here. It's true that the Swiss are fond of guns, but the gun culture there is very different from that in the US. Guns in Switzerland are seen as a way of demonstrating adult responsibility, not a way of expressing personal power.
That difference from the US is enshrined in legislation. While assault rifles are still legal (within limits - there are restrictions on magazine capacity for example), there are plenty of laws that apply to them. For instance:
- if you want to buy a gun you need to submit paperwork to confirm who you are and have a recent (no more than 3 month old) criminal records check. The seller also has to confirm you are in good mental health.
- the rules for buying ammunition are the same as for guns (and many categories of ammunition are banned entirely).
- guns are registered and records of any gun (or gun component) sale or transfer must be kept for at least 10 years.
- carrying guns in public requires a permit and those are very rarely given (the main exception is for security personnel). In order to apply for such a permit you need to pass both practical tests (to demonstrate your training and ability) and theoretical tests (to demonstrate knowledge of both guns and gun law).
- whenever guns are being transported, the guns and ammunition must be carried separately.
The US has always had a certain cultural tendency to regard guns as a 'macho' tool. Decades of propaganda from the NRA, talking about your god-given right to a gun, have helped to strengthen that aspect of culture. It's therefore no great surprise that men with a grudge (and it is virtually always men), or who feel powerless over some aspect of their lives, turn to guns to show their manly qualities by demonstrating their power over others.
Switzerland does not have the same association between guns and power and therefore does not have the same problem as the US.
And more than just Switzerland had 0 attacks, in fact, I see more than 20 countries that had 0 attacks.
I also find it interesting in your own graph that the NUMBER OF PEOPLE licensed to have guns has stayed ROUGHLY THE SAME, yet the NUMBER OF GUNS has INCREASED. And those are REGISTERED guns, so not illegal.
So it might be plausible, even actually what happened, that the people who own guns, for some reason or another, want to own more guns. I don't know what they intend to do with 3 registered guns per licensee that they couldn't do with 2 guns per licensee over a period of 20 years, but whatever.
Edit-To be clear, I don't consider the country "more armed" when the same number of people have more and more guns. At some point, just because 1 gun nut has 1,000 guns in a country of 1,000,000, does not make the country heavily armed.
Your argument would have more weight if more PEOPLE were getting armed with more guns. Plus, again by the graph, the peak ownership was in 2001, 14 years before whatever ban it refers to was announced.
This speaks exactly to the point almost everyone is implicitly(or explicitly) making right now: You cannot simply look at a given situation (Say gun ownership rates in Switzerland) and broadly suggest that homicide rates there are only correlated to that one aspect without also considering other socioeconomic factors that come into play.
Switzerland is different from the USA in Culture, Poverty Rate, Urbanization, Racial Diversity, etc, etc
Any (and all) of those things will have significant effects on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control vs homicide rates.
I worry more about dying in a car accident than I do from EITHER a mass shooting OR a terror attack.
They are oversensationalized, your chances of being in either is pretty slim.
Now, people who are shot in gang violence, and yes, there are cartloads of those, guess what, they TEND TO BE INVOLVED IN GANGS.
I am for gun control, but that's because I care mainly about the least talked aspects of who dies the most: suicides, especially veteran suicides. If gun control saves 10,000 potential suicidees and has a happy side effect of stopping 2,000 homicides, I'd be happy.
That's why I mainly stop my goal for "control" at "require registration, background checks, and mental health checks". If those don't cause a drop in gun violence in 3 years, I would be amazed.
Again, what gets the most media coverage and what ACTUALLY kills the most people are almost never the same thing. I prefer to worry about what is statistically likely to kill me: car accidents, common infectious disease, heart disease, and various cancers.
My point was not that Switzerland is an gun paradise, is just that is more free than UK and France and by it has much less gun problems. But finally you understood that the problem is that the CULTURE is much different on US now than on US in wild west times for eg.
So, are you agreeing with white nationalists who say that US is more violent than other developed countries due the high presence of black population??? And that if racial minorities disappear, US would be more peaceful than European countries???? I an not agreeing with then, just asking an question.
So, are you saying that the state shold punishes people who commit crime without any victim to protect suicides from themselves??? And that someone who wanna suicide will not use any other method? Or do with an illegal firearm?
The unique way from the state to be able to prevent someone from owning an improvised firearm is if the state has godly powers...
Of course is much easier for the Japan to prevent illegal guns from reaching Japan soil than for eg, Brazil who in his borders has the most armed country of Latin America(Uruguay), an country with heavily hunting tradition with and more unregistered firearms than registered ones(Argentina), most gun free country, in some aspects freer than US(Paraguay), narco states like Colombia, countries almost in civil war(Venezuela), etc. And the unique country without direct access is exactly the most developed one who is safer than US and richer than some EU countries(Chile)
But US government could't prevent 30 mi illegals on US. And people are bigger and can't be disassembled, so, no way that gun control could prevent anyone from owning guns.
Only for me is ironic how an ''third world'' city who received tons of war criminals after ww2(Bariloche) is much safer than most big cities on US?
A "crime without a victim" is a myth.
And yes, it will reduce the rate of suicides. Sure, MAYBE the same amount of people will ATTEMPT suicide, but they are less likely to SUCCEED. It is a FACT that first-time suicides with a gun are almost guaranteed to succeed.
Right now the people who suicide don't need to do it with an illegal firearm, because they're so easy to get that they can get one legally. Again, veterans are a disproportionate demographic, they suicide at roughly twice the rate of the general population, and are about 10% of all suicides (and about 5% of the general population). You don't think most of those veterans HAVE legal guns?
Can you actually man up and present a valid argument for why we should NOT have at least some barebones gun regulation? We are barely above "own whatever you want".
That sounds insulting, but I dare say you didn't intend that. However, I'll point out that I've been posting about the problems of gun culture for years now.
By US standards, no Western European country has a significant gun problem and I agree that is largely a cultural issue. However, culture and the law are related, not independent. While cultural attitudes can lead to a change in the law, the reverse is also possible. I've used before the example of drink driving laws in the UK. In my lifetime those have been a major part of the reason that drink driving has become socially unacceptable. It's too early to be sure yet, but I suspect that 20 years from now it will be clear the same thing has happened in relation to use of phones while driving.
I don't think a change in the law should stand alone. I'd also like a lot more education about the issue as well and collection of better quality data (as @Quickblade pointed out that should include providing information about suicides and accidental deaths, which are very much part of the gun problem). However, I think changing the law would greatly increase the chances of getting a significant shift in the cultural attitude to guns. As I set out in my previous post there are very considerable gun restrictions in Switzerland, which go far beyond those covering most of the US. I think it would be politically easier to just ban assault rifles rather than introduce a comprehensive package of restrictions - though I would certainly support the latter if anyone dared to propose it.
The argument you're making here is a kind of implied strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that gun control alone would eradicate homicide by gun. All people are arguing is that it would *reduce* gun homicide.
This is more bad faith arguing from you, imo. You should perhaps take some more time and read folks' posts a little more carefully. That is, if you're interested in discussion, and not just lecturing people.
IS a myth? If i own an illegal firearm, who is the victim of it? No one. See?
And veterans suicide more due mental diseases, not due guns
And i offered many arguments, like :
An untreated suicide guy can fail using another method is very likely that he will try again. And seriously that the state who failed to prevent prisoners on suicide watch from committing suicide, should regulate it? Are lawmakers deities? Sorry, but considering someone capable of defending politicians interests overseas in ultra expensive wars and the same guy unable to defend themselves is treat the state like an deity.
Traffic accidents kills far more than guns, but obviously, you don't care about then...
As for law changing the culture, that is tyranny, lawmakers should create laws to enforce the society costumers, not the other way around. And the law should be local.
Why you wanna an federal gun ban? You can live in cities with strict gun control(and high crime obviously), but why the southern part of Florida to the northern part of Alaska should be subjected to the same law? That makes no sense. If 100% of an small city is happy with everyone owning an AR-15 sporting rifle(mislabeled as an assault rifle), would you spend millions in tax payer money to put then in jail? Who benefit from it? Nobody...
This is the third time you make this exact same argument, and the third time you ignore people explaining how vastly different this situation is from the U.S. and how the gun laws in France weren't that strict and basically had loop holes back in 2015 that have been fixed since then.
As for suicide, we have the classic pattern that if you put up suicide barriers on a bridge, you actually do get fewer suicides, rather than the same number but in other areas. Because it's often an impulsive thing, and if what seems like an obvious way to end your life just isn't around, a lot of people end up not doing it.
You mentioned Australia too ignoring that other types of homicides raised.
And gun control is not just suicide barriers. MAinly an federal one. First. No barrier put people who commit crimes without victim into an hell on earth and can lead to an civil war...
But one question. They still find firearms in maximum security prisons made by inmates. To enforce the full out gun ban, all U.S. Citizens would be forced into conditions worst than inmates in maximum security prison. Would you pay this insane price to make only the government with guns?? An politician say that he wanna ban guns and suddenly a lot of guns start to being sold. Lets suppose that 95% of an city don't wanna your gun regulations. Would you spend military resources to enslave then to your will?
Sorry i i sound a little pedantic, my point is just that most people here seens to have an hate/bias against firearms ie, they talk about accidents ignoring the fact that swimming pools kill more children than guns by accident and i saw with my own eyes how gun control can't work and tends to put so much faith in the government... And the bias is particularly against rifles despite rifles being barely never used on crimes.
Anyway, if you wanna help veterans, is very common for veterans to work on ranges, gun stores, as private security, the idea of making their lives harder via regulation will not help IMO.
Note that US had an sporting rifle ban via Federal Assault Weapons Ban and had no impact on the overall crime. ]
PS : I din't said that i an against all regulations, only that the community should regulate it, if an city don't wanna guns, let then live without guns. This should't be an matter for the federal government and that IMO if someone is considered capable of fighting in a desert overseas, say that the same person is incapable of defending his family makes no sense. Just like in some medieval cities, owning an crossbow was an serious crime and in others, you in order to be an citizen of certain cities needs to have an weapon.
The Swiss have mandatory National Service for males which starts in their early twenties (an initial basic training camp) and continues thereafter with annual training exercises of a week or two every year until their early thirties. Throughout the entirety of this time they must keep the firearms they were issued with at home (locked in the bombproof cellar which every Swiss residential property is obliged to have). At the end of their period of service they are then entitled to apply for a permit to keep the firearms that they were issued with.
Context is everything: Facts without context are like knowledge without understanding - useless and potentially dangerous.
Sorry i i sound a little pedantic, my point is just that most people here seens to have an hate/bias against firearms ie, they talk about accidents ignoring the fact that swimming pools kill more children than guns by accident and i saw with my own eyes how gun control can't work and how people tends to put so much faith in the government... And the bias is particularly against rifles despite rifles being barely never used on crimes.
Anyway, if you wanna help veterans, is very common for veterans to work on ranges, gun stores, as private security, the idea of making their lives harder via regulation will not help IMO.
Note that US had an sporting rifle ban via Federal Assault Weapons Ban and had no impact on the overall crime. ]
PS : I din't said that i an against all regulations, only that the LOCAL community should regulate it, if an city don't wanna guns, let then live without guns. This should't be an matter for the federal government and that IMO if someone is considered capable of fighting in a desert overseas, say that the same person is incapable of defending his family makes no sense. Just like in some medieval cities, owning an crossbow was an serious crime and in others, you in order to be an citizen or an permanent resident of certain cities needs to have an weapon. People has an bias against monarchy and system that worked far before the "modern rational state" and an pro centralization bias, due the public education system.
For eg, owning an .454 Cassull revolver could be an waste of money in a big city(except for hunting outside of the city) but an necessity in certain places of Alaska. Cities and states needs more autonomy... This not only on US. In fact, US is less centralized than most countries.
While I was considering whether to respond in more detail, I came across this site. It's a commercial site aiming to sell home security and doesn't take a specific stance on whether gun control is a good thing. However, it has put together US state by state information in some interesting ways, e.g. there's a graph comparing strictness of gun controls with gun deaths. It won't surprise you there's something of an inverse relationship there, but if you want to make the effort you could then correlate that against the overall homicide rate by state - found here. That may challenge your perception that the safest place to be is the one with the most guns.
"gun death", "gun death", "gun death", if an woman kills an rapist in self defense, it enters in "gun violence" statistics??? Study : Guns Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
And using you posted map, the most violent states are exactly the hottest ones, on the south.
On Argentina, states more locate on South are richer and has less criminality
That 2.5 million number is pure BS fantasyland.
This I did not know. Please explain more about this requirement to have bombproof cellars in EVERY home.
Oh, Wikipedia says that it's not entirely mandatory. If the house doesn't, it has to have directions to the closest one.
you can use the government statistics. estimates people defend themselves 235,700 times each year with guns. [3]
source http://jpfo.org/articles-2015/guns-and-crime-prevention.htm
And pls check the references before accusing me of trolling
Check your own references. Your leads to a biased organization without any credible numbers. The 2.5 million number is ludicrously high given the total amount of crime.
The government statistic is for 2007-2011. This is a five year span, not a one year span.
Your argumentation here does not reflect well on you.