Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
I don't even care if we do a buyback at this point. Not interested in hunting rifles or shotguns but if people want to turn in their assault guns and handguns for money I'm fine with that. What would we pay? $100 - $200 per gun? If 100 million guns were turned in (unlikely to say the least) that'd cost us $10 billion or in the neighborhood of $50 per tax payer. It'd likely be far less than that and we'd save money on medical costs and incarcerations...
Edit: Even though I wouldn't pay money for hunting rifles or shotguns, if people wanted to get rid of them, I'd take 'em for free...
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Re: the recoil: A 5.56mm round has 1/3 the momentum of a .30-06 even though it's got 3 times the muzzle velocity. Factor in the recoil buffer in an M-16/AR-15 and you barely feel it. You can fire an M-16 from the hip in three round burst mode without any problem. I once fired a magazine through an AR74 on full auto with a compensating muzzle brake and I didn't even have to grip the handguard. It just sat in my hand and chattered away.
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Re: the recoil: A 5.56mm round has 1/3 the momentum of a .30-06 even though it's got 3 times the muzzle velocity. Factor in the recoil buffer in an M-16/AR-15 and you barely feel it. You can fire an M-16 from the hip in three round burst mode without any problem. I once fired a magazine through an AR74 on full auto with a compensating muzzle brake and I didn't even have to grip the handguard. It just sat in my hand and chattered away.
That must have been fun. I'd love to try it myself! I don't mind people wanting to do that in a regulated environment. I sure as Hell don't want a 21 year-old with a troubled past being able to legally own one of those weapons and keep it in his house though...
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Re: the recoil: A 5.56mm round has 1/3 the momentum of a .30-06 even though it's got 3 times the muzzle velocity. Factor in the recoil buffer in an M-16/AR-15 and you barely feel it. You can fire an M-16 from the hip in three round burst mode without any problem. I once fired a magazine through an AR74 on full auto with a compensating muzzle brake and I didn't even have to grip the handguard. It just sat in my hand and chattered away.
That must have been fun. I'd love to try it myself! I don't mind people wanting to do that in a regulated environment. I sure as Hell don't want a 21 year-old with a troubled past being able to legally own one of those weapons and keep it in his house though...
The Soviet familiarization range was one of my favorite things when I was stationed in Germany. Our regular practice and qualification ranges were more tightly controlled, but on the Soviet range things were a bit looser since we were just getting a bit of hands-on experience.
BTW: I really haven't had some kind of emotional epiphany. I've been looking at all kinds of statistics and articles since the Dayton and El Paso shootings. My change of heart is purely logical. I've had enough, in my brain!
Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
Edit: Brazil and US are #1 and #2 in deaths and #8 and #20 in death rates. Not something to brag about.
Brazil is the 1 in gun deaths but has an Draconian gun law. "but Brazil is a third world country", compare with neighbor countries. Compare with Uruguay and Argentina, countries who are relative armed and gun free(not an fraction of US), but in some aspects, Argentina gun regulations aren't that bad. I mean, is possible for tourists to hunt boar in Argentina with rented weapons. Can tourists do the same in US?
And Mexico has draconian gun laws too, similar to Brazil and is the third on the ranking.
This talking on ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. Homicides / 100 k hab is a better metric and
Hell, the US virgin islands who had more gun control than US appears on 7th on that list. Puerto Rico, an US territory with more toughter gun laws is on 8th and us on 20th
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Look, is someone is determined to commit an massacre, do you REALLY think that he will not ilegally modify the weapon cartridge to an more effective cartridge? Or cut the barrel to make more easy to conceal? Or purchase illegal weapons?
Sorry, but i can't buy that criminals will respect the gun laws and that the state who failed to prevent 30 mi illegal from entering and staying in the country, who failed to prevent an pedophile from suicide inside an max security prison can prevent an criminal from owning illegal firearms. And take out the rights of the majority due an fault of an tinny minority is unjust.
Look, you can't prove that they would have broken the law because they DIDN'T HAVE TOO! There is no law! If it happens AFTER there is a law then you have an argument. You may be right, but guess what? You may be wrong. My 11 year-old daughter has to go to school and I'd like to think we at least did SOMETHING to make sure she's safe while she's busy learning reading/writing/arithmetics...
This is rather the point. Yeah, people CAN buy guns illegally. But almost none of the mass shooters have actually done so. Buying a gun illegally requires far more effort and knowledge of how to do so than walking into a Wal-Mart or Cabela's. Let's say even HALF of them could have been prevented with something like a mandatory 1-week waiting period and liability insurance. How many of them might have lost their nerve or had second thoughts if these obstacles were put into place?? Impossible to say, but I bet anything at LEAST one or two of them, if not many more. By using an assault rifle, they are basically signalling that they are going down the path of least resistance to commit their murders. It is the easiest way to do so. Placing obstacles in the way makes it NOT the path of least resistance. It makes it harder. In the case of liability insurance, it may in fact make it impossible for them to obtain the weapon, either because they couldn't meet the standards or they would be priced out of the market.
Wrong, buying guns illegal is not much different than buying marijuana or illegal medicaments...
Is not uncommon for countries with strict gun controls to have more unregistered firearms than registered/ legal firearms.
I was looking for percentage of gun deaths involving shotguns and I found this. What I would argue is the best weapon for home defense is only involved in 2% of gun deaths. You'll have to dig into the article a bit to find the statistic but I find it very enlightening. The only other real use for shotguns is bird-hunting (mine was used for ducks back in the day). Sawed off they're more dangerous, but that's 'illegal'.
Do you wanna know why Brazil has an draconian gun control law?
Started with the 1932 revolution, an Dictator(Vargas) who got into the power via a coup started to violate the constitution and centralize the power into the state, the richest state who received a lot of Italian immigrants(São Paulo) started to protest, protest and protest and he send the army to kill the protesters. it generated an movement MMDC in memories of the students killed by the dictator.
It sparked an civil war, São Paulo against the rest of the country; 40k soldiers vs 100k, an fraction of armed vehicles imported or homemade vs professional vehicles and São Paulo almost wins, if Vargas din't had managed to capture the port... ( here is more details > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_Revolution )
What was the first thing that Vargas did after the revolution? restricted cartridges, importation of firearms, how many ammo you can buy and other things. Was not to protect the population, was to protect the tyrannical state from the population. The R105 was created exactly like the NFA on US was created to protect the government... And in 90s, institutions receiving donations from meta capitalists pushed the gun control further. And the result? The murder rate is skyrocketing... Now, there are politicians who are in favor of making owning an illegal 9mm an more serious crime than permanently blinding an man. That is how insane gun controls goes. Each day, more draconian.
And the Rebels managed to have even an "air force" Curtiss A-3 Falcon
Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
Edit: Brazil and US are #1 and #2 in deaths and #8 and #20 in death rates. Not something to brag about.
Brazil is the 1 in gun deaths but has an Draconian gun law. "but Brazil is a third world country", compare with neighbor countries. Compare with Uruguay and Argentina, countries who are relative armed and gun free(not an fraction of US), but in some aspects, Argentina gun regulations aren't that bad. I mean, is possible for tourists to hunt boar in Argentina with rented weapons. Can tourists do the same in US?
And Mexico has draconian gun laws too, similar to Brazil and is the third on the ranking.
This talking on ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. Homicides / 100 k hab is a better metric and
Hell, the US virgin islands who had more gun control than US appears on 7th on that list. Puerto Rico, an US territory with more toughter gun laws is on 8th and us on 20th
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Look, is someone is determined to commit an massacre, do you REALLY think that he will not ilegally modify the weapon cartridge to an more effective cartridge? Or cut the barrel to make more easy to conceal? Or purchase illegal weapons?
Sorry, but i can't buy that criminals will respect the gun laws and that the state who failed to prevent 30 mi illegal from entering and staying in the country, who failed to prevent an pedophile from suicide inside an max security prison can prevent an criminal from owning illegal firearms. And take out the rights of the majority due an fault of an tinny minority is unjust.
Look, you can't prove that they would have broken the law because they DIDN'T HAVE TOO! There is no law! If it happens AFTER there is a law then you have an argument. You may be right, but guess what? You may be wrong. My 11 year-old daughter has to go to school and I'd like to think we at least did SOMETHING to make sure she's safe while she's busy learning reading/writing/arithmetics...
This is rather the point. Yeah, people CAN buy guns illegally. But almost none of the mass shooters have actually done so. Buying a gun illegally requires far more effort and knowledge of how to do so than walking into a Wal-Mart or Cabela's. Let's say even HALF of them could have been prevented with something like a mandatory 1-week waiting period and liability insurance. How many of them might have lost their nerve or had second thoughts if these obstacles were put into place?? Impossible to say, but I bet anything at LEAST one or two of them, if not many more. By using an assault rifle, they are basically signalling that they are going down the path of least resistance to commit their murders. It is the easiest way to do so. Placing obstacles in the way makes it NOT the path of least resistance. It makes it harder. In the case of liability insurance, it may in fact make it impossible for them to obtain the weapon, either because they couldn't meet the standards or they would be priced out of the market.
Wrong, buying guns illegal is not much different than buying marijuana or illegal medicaments...
Is not uncommon for countries with strict gun controls to have more unregistered firearms than registered/ legal firearms.
Yes, but your everyday average person is not going to have contacts for illegal firearms purchases in the US. I'm not saying that my proposals will lower the overall firearm death rate, just the death-toll of these active-shooter massacres. The drug cartels have a large influence on the homicide rates in Latin-America. That and the corruption/ineffectiveness of their governments.
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Do you wanna know why Brazil has an draconian gun control law?
Started with the 1932 revolution, an Dictator(Vargas) who got into the power via a coup started to violate the constitution and centralize the power into the state, the richest state who received a lot of Italian immigrants(São Paulo) started to protest, protest and protest and he send the army to kill the protesters. it generated an movement MMDC in memories of the students killed by the dictator.
It sparked an civil war, São Paulo against the rest of the country; 40k soldiers vs 100k, an fraction of armed vehicles imported or homemade vs professional vehicles and São Paulo almost wins, if Vargas din't had managed to capture the port... ( here is more details > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_Revolution )
What was the first thing that Vargas did after the revolution? restricted cartridges, importation of firearms, how many ammo you can buy and other things. Was not to protect the population, was to protect the tyrannical state from the population. The R105 was created exactly like the NFA on US was created to protect the government... And in 90s, institutions receiving donations from meta capitalists pushed the gun control further. And the result? The murder rate is skyrocketing... Now, there are politicians who are in favor of making owning an illegal 9mm an more serious crime than permanently blinding an man. That is how insane gun controls goes. Each day, more draconian.
And the Rebels managed to have even an "air force" Curtiss A-3 Falcon
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
The Falklands has likely close to 100% employment too. That has a major impact on crime in general.
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
The Falklands has likely close to 100% employment too. That has a major impact on crime in general.
Edit: I checked, in 2010 the unemployment rate was 4.1%. Comparable to Western countries...
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
The Falklands has likely close to 100% employment too. That has a major impact on crime in general.
And is cold and remote. I visited Bariloche on Argentina, an relative small town and .... Only 0,63 homicides / 100k hab. IMO there are an strong correlation between weather and crime.
An photo of the city
The woman there is gorgeous. I mean, the first waitress that attended me was redhead(not sure if natural), but i dont wanna go off topic. IMO cold climate correlates with criminality due the fact that cold climates tends to generate cultures more focused on long therm.
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
The Falklands has likely close to 100% employment too. That has a major impact on crime in general.
And is cold and remote. I visited Bariloche on Argentina, an relative small town and .... Only 0,63 homicides / 100k hab. IMO there are an strong correlation between weather and crime.
An photo of the city
The woman there is gorgeous. I mean, the first waitress that attended me was redhead(not sure if natural), but i dont wanna go off topic. IMO cold climate correlates with criminality due the fact that cold climates tends to generate cultures more focused on long therm.
You should say cold climate 'negatively' correlates with crime. That may be true, or it may be that hot climate correlates with higher crime rates. Although, I'd say that it's more likely that European influence muddied the waters for those countries below the Tropic of Cancer...
Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
This is the fundamental issue with some of these arguments - they ignore socioeconomic context. There were less shootings in 1934 as you like to trot out not because there wasnt any legislation, but because the USA was a fundamentally different country 80 years ago. It's not comparable with today.
Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
This is the fundamental issue with some of these arguments - they ignore socioeconomic context. There were less shootings in 1934 as you like to trot out not because there wasnt any legislation, but because the USA was a fundamentally different country 80 years ago. It's not comparable with today.
It doesn't matter anyway because at it's peak it's still nowhere near where Brazil and the US are today. It trends up, whoop-de-do, it's still nowhere near the top 20 like Brazil and the US...
Edit: Not to mention, violence against minorities was NOT likely to even be reported in the US before 1965...
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
The Falklands has likely close to 100% employment too. That has a major impact on crime in general.
Edit: I checked, in 2010 the unemployment rate was 4.1%. Comparable to Western countries...
It's even likely that with that few people in the general population, you'd probably know the unemployed people personally. That would make it hard to demonize them...
@BelleSorciere: To nationalize something is to have the government take control of it--that can mean the people control it, if we're talking about a democracy, but a non-democratic government can also nationalize something, and in that case "the people" would not control it.
If we go by the definition of socialism as "state control of the means of production," then that definition is also very unreliable. There are only two possibilities, which depend on the meaning of the word "control":
1. "Control" means full control of the market--the government does not permit capitalist enterprise without specific authorization. In that case, the only socialist governments would be explicitly communist ones, and North Korea is the only extant example.
2. "Control" means selective control of the market--the government regulates the free market but otherwise lets capitalism proceed. In that case, every government in history would be socialist.
I didn't really want to respond to this but it started to bug me.
That is not the definition of socialism. Socialism is, among other things, the workers owning the means of production. It's not the state owning the means of production under any definition. One of the intended goals of actual socialism is that the state withers away. I'm not sure I agree that would happen, but it's at least an accurate reference to socialism.
I suppose @BelleSorciere's definition of socialism is accurate, but I don't think it quite covers every aspect of socialism. Regulating the free market is part of it, but so is providing social welfare policies like our Social Security and Medicare systems. A country with a generous social safety net would qualify as socialist even if it didn't actually regulate or restrict free enterprise, so "the people control the means of production" wouldn't quite capture every possible kind of socialist system.
Literally none of these things is socialism. At best, some of these things are social democrat or democratic socialist stances, and some democrats in the US. Socialism is not when the government does things, and it's really misleading and actually bad scholarship to claim that it does.
I'd say socialism and capitalism are a spectrum, with communism as the extreme end of the former and anarcho-capitalism as the extreme end of the latter. Most governments have some socialistic policies; it's just that the degree of socialism varies. Socialism would just be "the government regulates the free market and/or compensates for the side effects of the free market." Banning cigarettes, taxing cigarettes, funding anti-smoking campaigns, and providing treatment for smokers with lung cancer would all be examples of socialist policies aimed at a free market problem: cigarette companies have a financial incentive to get people addicted to carcinogens.
The free market as it is envisioned by libertarians, ancaps, conservatives, liberals, etc. is not a socialist thing. A socialist society wouldn't have need for an unregulated or mostly unregulated market, and if you regulate it, at some point it ceases being a free market. To be fair, a "free market" is extremely bad, actually. Bad as in contributing significantly to the Holocene extinction event. Bad as in it's actually possible that the temperature will increase sufficiently in the next century that clouds will simply no longer form. Bad as in people living near fracking can set their tapwater on fire. Bad as in people having their water heavily contaminated with lead or other toxic substances. Bad as in 1% of the population controlling 38% of the wealth in the US, which is actually more than the bottom 90% of the population combined. A free market gives us people dying because they can't afford cheaply produced insulin and have to resort to over the counter varieties that aren't as good. Heck, a free market gives us people dying from all kinds of preventable causes either from exposure to the aforementioned toxic substances, or from lack of access to medical care due to the extremely high costs of same.
That is, if you're going to correct someone on what socialism is, you should at least try to learn what it is first.
If you're afraid of getting SWAT'ed you're better off training yourself to lay down on the ground with your arms extended. You will not get shot no matter your skin color if you do that. Don't try to run and don't try to defend yourself. It's as simple as that. You will not win.
Except even people who have laid down have still been shot in at least two cases I can think of.
And when exactly did "you ran" become justification for being shot in the back? I can think of at least FOUR cases of that.
Otherwise, I do agree with the rest of the post which I snipped. Semi-auto assault rifles do not even begin to compare to the might the federal government, let alone the military itself, can bring.
Better protection is civil control of the military, a good set of laws against military use domestically and against civilians in general, and having moral and ethical people in command.
The free market as it is envisioned by libertarians, ancaps, conservatives, liberals, etc. is not a socialist thing. A socialist society wouldn't have need for an unregulated or mostly unregulated market, and if you regulate it, at some point it ceases being a free market. To be fair, a "free market" is extremely bad, actually. Bad as in contributing significantly to the Holocene extinction event. Bad as in it's actually possible that the temperature will increase sufficiently in the next century that clouds will simply no longer form. Bad as in people living near fracking can set their tapwater on fire. Bad as in people having their water heavily contaminated with lead or other toxic substances. Bad as in 1% of the population controlling 38% of the wealth in the US, which is actually more than the bottom 90% of the population combined. A free market gives us people dying because they can't afford cheaply produced insulin and have to resort to over the counter varieties that aren't as good. Heck, a free market gives us people dying from all kinds of preventable causes either from exposure to the aforementioned toxic substances, or from lack of access to medical care due to the extremely high costs of same.
That is, if you're going to correct someone on what socialism is, you should at least try to learn what it is first.
In THEORY, a free market would be fine if you included all externalities in the costs. Thing is, a lot of those externalities cannot have costs allocated to a particular economic action, or can even be predicted to occur. They might exist or not based on scale for one reason.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
Harris is a waste as a VP. California is in the bag already. What about O'Rourke and a grab at Texas? Thinking strategically now for a party I don't even like much. I can't help it, I love statistics!
Beto should be running for Senate against John Cornyn and it's pissing alot of people off that he isn't. This is despite his very humanizing response to what happened in El Paso.
Beto is wasting his time. He claims he will not run for Senate. Well he isn't going to be the Dem nominee so his career is over basically and he's wasting his time.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
Harris is a waste as a VP. California is in the bag already. What about O'Rourke and a grab at Texas? Thinking strategically now for a party I don't even like much. I can't help it, I love statistics!
Good point about Harris. She can be the AG - or stay in the Senate.
There's a lot of candidates that would be interesting to me: Gabbard, Yang, Warren, Sanders all have good ideas. No thanks for Biden "nothing will fundamentally change".
Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
So yes, killers don't care about gun laws. This is supposed to be an obvious statement but is an "radical libertarian statement"...
@SorcererV1ct0r it's a good thing that you are looking for evidence to support your arguments, but I think you need to look at wider sources than mises.org. Even mises though I don't think provide any evidence that a reduction in gun deaths is matched by an equivalent (or greater) rise in other deaths - I quoted the passage yesterday in the Australian report you referred to previously from mises that specifically said this did not happen in Australia.
Here are the number of gun homicides in the UK since 1996.
With numbers in recent years of around 20 per year (around 0.04 per 100,000 people), it's difficult to see how the UK can reasonably be used as an example of the failure of gun control. That information is taken from a database maintained by the University of Sydney, that provides an easy way to compare a range of information across countries - you might find that useful.
Grond0, what about my historical arguments? And again, why look only to homicide with firearms? Passionate Crimes are probably the unique type of crime that gun control can make an effect and even in passionate crimes, will only be an change of an tool "A" by the tool "B".
Anyway, i explained why Brazil has draconian gun laws, and that an armed population fought against an tyrannical state, in Japan, the gun control laws was made to maintain the privileges from the elite and the most violent period on Japan history was during Sengoku era. When an modern government started to consolidate on Japan.
An civilian armed can't defeat an modern army in conventional warfare, maybe guerrilla warfare, but still very hard. Anyway, an civilian with an good long range anti materiel rifle and armor piercing ammo, can for eg, put an hole in an dictator inside his armored vehicle. And Anti materiel rifles are used in almost no crime. Why they are banned in so many states? Exactly because gun control is about protect politicians, not the population!!
And look to Ronnie Barrett. Anyone thinks that he would be designed Barrett M82 if he was born in any country with strong gun control? The army profited by his invention.
And Balrog99, the distance between Mexico city and Ushuaia(southernmost city in the world) is almost 5 times greater than the distance between London and Istanbul. The problem of "drug cartels" that you mentions doesn't exist on southern cone and the cowboy culture is extremely strong there.
Your starting point for argument is different from most others posting in this thread and your historical arguments reflect that. I think you see governments as essentially tyrannical and weapons as a means for citizens to defend themselves against this tyranny. Most people living in western democracies don't share that perspective. My concentration is more on how to ensure that democratic governments don't become tyrannical - and I think an armed population is a hindrance not a help in that aim.
And again, why look only to homicide with firearms?.
As I've said before I don't think reductions in gun homicides are replaced by increases in other forms of homicide. Therefore, if you're interested in reducing gun homicides, it doesn't make sense to provide more general figures which mask the particular problem with guns.
Anyway, an civilian with an good long range anti materiel rifle and armor piercing ammo, can for eg, put an hole in an dictator inside his armored vehicle. And Anti materiel rifles are used in almost no crime. Why they are banned in so many states? Exactly because gun control is about protect politicians, not the population!!
As a member of the population, I feel much safer not having random wackos firing AMRs at politicians, thanks.
Anyway, an civilian with an good long range anti materiel rifle and armor piercing ammo, can for eg, put an hole in an dictator inside his armored vehicle. And Anti materiel rifles are used in almost no crime. Why they are banned in so many states? Exactly because gun control is about protect politicians, not the population!!
As a member of the population, I feel much safer not having random wackos firing AMRs at politicians, thanks.
There are extremely rare cases of AMRs being used on crimes. Politicians wanting to ban AMRs only shows that they don't care about safety. They only care about power. When the population fears the politicians, we have tyranny, when politicians fear the population, we have freedom.
Your starting point for argument is different from most others posting in this thread and your historical arguments reflect that. I think you see governments as essentially tyrannical and weapons as a means for citizens to defend themselves against this tyranny. Most people living in western democracies don't share that perspective. My concentration is more on how to ensure that democratic governments don't become tyrannical - and I think an armed population is a hindrance not a help in that aim.
And again, why look only to homicide with firearms?.
As I've said before I don't think reductions in gun homicides are replaced by increases in other forms of homicide. Therefore, if you're interested in reducing gun homicides, it doesn't make sense to provide more general figures which mask the particular problem with guns.
An homicide is a homicide, doesn't matter if was made with an knife, fire, poison, an vehicle, an legal firearm, an illegal firearm, an bow, an crossbow, electricity, an axe, etc. Why focus so much on gun homicide?
Comments
It took me literally 30 seconds to find this on the web. No UK or Australia in the top 20.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands
Edit: Brazil and US are #1 and #2 in deaths and #8 and #20 in death rates. Not something to brag about.
Edit: Even though I wouldn't pay money for hunting rifles or shotguns, if people wanted to get rid of them, I'd take 'em for free...
Re: the recoil: A 5.56mm round has 1/3 the momentum of a .30-06 even though it's got 3 times the muzzle velocity. Factor in the recoil buffer in an M-16/AR-15 and you barely feel it. You can fire an M-16 from the hip in three round burst mode without any problem. I once fired a magazine through an AR74 on full auto with a compensating muzzle brake and I didn't even have to grip the handguard. It just sat in my hand and chattered away.
That must have been fun. I'd love to try it myself! I don't mind people wanting to do that in a regulated environment. I sure as Hell don't want a 21 year-old with a troubled past being able to legally own one of those weapons and keep it in his house though...
The Soviet familiarization range was one of my favorite things when I was stationed in Germany. Our regular practice and qualification ranges were more tightly controlled, but on the Soviet range things were a bit looser since we were just getting a bit of hands-on experience.
Brazil is the 1 in gun deaths but has an Draconian gun law. "but Brazil is a third world country", compare with neighbor countries. Compare with Uruguay and Argentina, countries who are relative armed and gun free(not an fraction of US), but in some aspects, Argentina gun regulations aren't that bad. I mean, is possible for tourists to hunt boar in Argentina with rented weapons. Can tourists do the same in US?
And Mexico has draconian gun laws too, similar to Brazil and is the third on the ranking.
This talking on ABSOLUTE NUMBERS. Homicides / 100 k hab is a better metric and
Hell, the US virgin islands who had more gun control than US appears on 7th on that list. Puerto Rico, an US territory with more toughter gun laws is on 8th and us on 20th
source > https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/theres-a-new-global-ranking-of-gun-deaths-heres-where-the-u-s-stands
Wrong, buying guns illegal is not much different than buying marijuana or illegal medicaments...
Is not uncommon for countries with strict gun controls to have more unregistered firearms than registered/ legal firearms.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Started with the 1932 revolution, an Dictator(Vargas) who got into the power via a coup started to violate the constitution and centralize the power into the state, the richest state who received a lot of Italian immigrants(São Paulo) started to protest, protest and protest and he send the army to kill the protesters. it generated an movement MMDC in memories of the students killed by the dictator.
It sparked an civil war, São Paulo against the rest of the country; 40k soldiers vs 100k, an fraction of armed vehicles imported or homemade vs professional vehicles and São Paulo almost wins, if Vargas din't had managed to capture the port... ( here is more details > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_Revolution )
What was the first thing that Vargas did after the revolution? restricted cartridges, importation of firearms, how many ammo you can buy and other things. Was not to protect the population, was to protect the tyrannical state from the population. The R105 was created exactly like the NFA on US was created to protect the government... And in 90s, institutions receiving donations from meta capitalists pushed the gun control further. And the result? The murder rate is skyrocketing... Now, there are politicians who are in favor of making owning an illegal 9mm an more serious crime than permanently blinding an man. That is how insane gun controls goes. Each day, more draconian.
And the Rebels managed to have even an "air force" Curtiss A-3 Falcon
Even woman fought against the dictator
source of images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist_Revolution
An improvised armored vehicle
Yes, but your everyday average person is not going to have contacts for illegal firearms purchases in the US. I'm not saying that my proposals will lower the overall firearm death rate, just the death-toll of these active-shooter massacres. The drug cartels have a large influence on the homicide rates in Latin-America. That and the corruption/ineffectiveness of their governments.
Do you have any insight into why the murder rate is so high in Latin America? The statistics I've seen are really troubling. Brazil is pretty high but not even close to some of your neighbors...
Edit: I know you think gun-control has an adverse affect, but that can't be the only reason. Many nations with gun-control laws are far, far below the murder rate in Central/South America.
It doesn't seem like your armed citizens are fighting the government though. It seems like they're killing each other.
Latin America is not an homogenous group. Argentina(5.10 homicides / 100 k) and Chile(4.30) are more pacific than US ( 5.30 - sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and even on Argentina, it is concentrated on North, an region who suffers a lot from illegal immigrants from Bolivia. In the Chile case, Chile is more developed than some European countries, but Argentina is under an heavy crisis due the socialist/peronist government and the criminality is lower than US.
But the most armed per capita "country" of south america is Falklands, an tinny British territory and .... Decades without an single homicide. In my opinion, the weather have an heavily impact on violence in general. French Guiana in other hands, is relatively violent but an paradise compared to Venezuela.
The Falklands has likely close to 100% employment too. That has a major impact on crime in general.
Edit: I checked, in 2010 the unemployment rate was 4.1%. Comparable to Western countries...
And is cold and remote. I visited Bariloche on Argentina, an relative small town and .... Only 0,63 homicides / 100k hab. IMO there are an strong correlation between weather and crime.
An photo of the city
The woman there is gorgeous. I mean, the first waitress that attended me was redhead(not sure if natural), but i dont wanna go off topic. IMO cold climate correlates with criminality due the fact that cold climates tends to generate cultures more focused on long therm.
You should say cold climate 'negatively' correlates with crime. That may be true, or it may be that hot climate correlates with higher crime rates. Although, I'd say that it's more likely that European influence muddied the waters for those countries below the Tropic of Cancer...
Sigh. We keep having the exact same conversation.
1960 -2000 in the UK. I wonder if there was some historical event that caused a massive uptick in violence in that region.
Oh right. The Troubles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
This is the fundamental issue with some of these arguments - they ignore socioeconomic context. There were less shootings in 1934 as you like to trot out not because there wasnt any legislation, but because the USA was a fundamentally different country 80 years ago. It's not comparable with today.
It doesn't matter anyway because at it's peak it's still nowhere near where Brazil and the US are today. It trends up, whoop-de-do, it's still nowhere near the top 20 like Brazil and the US...
Edit: Not to mention, violence against minorities was NOT likely to even be reported in the US before 1965...
It's even likely that with that few people in the general population, you'd probably know the unemployed people personally. That would make it hard to demonize them...
I didn't really want to respond to this but it started to bug me.
That is not the definition of socialism. Socialism is, among other things, the workers owning the means of production. It's not the state owning the means of production under any definition. One of the intended goals of actual socialism is that the state withers away. I'm not sure I agree that would happen, but it's at least an accurate reference to socialism.
Literally none of these things is socialism. At best, some of these things are social democrat or democratic socialist stances, and some democrats in the US. Socialism is not when the government does things, and it's really misleading and actually bad scholarship to claim that it does.
The free market as it is envisioned by libertarians, ancaps, conservatives, liberals, etc. is not a socialist thing. A socialist society wouldn't have need for an unregulated or mostly unregulated market, and if you regulate it, at some point it ceases being a free market. To be fair, a "free market" is extremely bad, actually. Bad as in contributing significantly to the Holocene extinction event. Bad as in it's actually possible that the temperature will increase sufficiently in the next century that clouds will simply no longer form. Bad as in people living near fracking can set their tapwater on fire. Bad as in people having their water heavily contaminated with lead or other toxic substances. Bad as in 1% of the population controlling 38% of the wealth in the US, which is actually more than the bottom 90% of the population combined. A free market gives us people dying because they can't afford cheaply produced insulin and have to resort to over the counter varieties that aren't as good. Heck, a free market gives us people dying from all kinds of preventable causes either from exposure to the aforementioned toxic substances, or from lack of access to medical care due to the extremely high costs of same.
That is, if you're going to correct someone on what socialism is, you should at least try to learn what it is first.
Except even people who have laid down have still been shot in at least two cases I can think of.
And when exactly did "you ran" become justification for being shot in the back? I can think of at least FOUR cases of that.
Otherwise, I do agree with the rest of the post which I snipped. Semi-auto assault rifles do not even begin to compare to the might the federal government, let alone the military itself, can bring.
Better protection is civil control of the military, a good set of laws against military use domestically and against civilians in general, and having moral and ethical people in command.
In THEORY, a free market would be fine if you included all externalities in the costs. Thing is, a lot of those externalities cannot have costs allocated to a particular economic action, or can even be predicted to occur. They might exist or not based on scale for one reason.
Beto is wasting his time. He claims he will not run for Senate. Well he isn't going to be the Dem nominee so his career is over basically and he's wasting his time.
Good point about Harris. She can be the AG - or stay in the Senate.
There's a lot of candidates that would be interesting to me: Gabbard, Yang, Warren, Sanders all have good ideas. No thanks for Biden "nothing will fundamentally change".
@SorcererV1ct0r it's a good thing that you are looking for evidence to support your arguments, but I think you need to look at wider sources than mises.org. Even mises though I don't think provide any evidence that a reduction in gun deaths is matched by an equivalent (or greater) rise in other deaths - I quoted the passage yesterday in the Australian report you referred to previously from mises that specifically said this did not happen in Australia.
Here are the number of gun homicides in the UK since 1996.
Anyway, i explained why Brazil has draconian gun laws, and that an armed population fought against an tyrannical state, in Japan, the gun control laws was made to maintain the privileges from the elite and the most violent period on Japan history was during Sengoku era. When an modern government started to consolidate on Japan.
An civilian armed can't defeat an modern army in conventional warfare, maybe guerrilla warfare, but still very hard. Anyway, an civilian with an good long range anti materiel rifle and armor piercing ammo, can for eg, put an hole in an dictator inside his armored vehicle. And Anti materiel rifles are used in almost no crime. Why they are banned in so many states? Exactly because gun control is about protect politicians, not the population!!
And look to Ronnie Barrett. Anyone thinks that he would be designed Barrett M82 if he was born in any country with strong gun control? The army profited by his invention.
And Balrog99, the distance between Mexico city and Ushuaia(southernmost city in the world) is almost 5 times greater than the distance between London and Istanbul. The problem of "drug cartels" that you mentions doesn't exist on southern cone and the cowboy culture is extremely strong there.
As I've said before I don't think reductions in gun homicides are replaced by increases in other forms of homicide. Therefore, if you're interested in reducing gun homicides, it doesn't make sense to provide more general figures which mask the particular problem with guns.
As a member of the population, I feel much safer not having random wackos firing AMRs at politicians, thanks.
There are extremely rare cases of AMRs being used on crimes. Politicians wanting to ban AMRs only shows that they don't care about safety. They only care about power. When the population fears the politicians, we have tyranny, when politicians fear the population, we have freedom.
An homicide is a homicide, doesn't matter if was made with an knife, fire, poison, an vehicle, an legal firearm, an illegal firearm, an bow, an crossbow, electricity, an axe, etc. Why focus so much on gun homicide?