George Floyds 4 YO niece shot while sleeping..

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Introducing those gun laws into the U.S now would help, but also wouldn’t change the fact there are too many guns in that country to count. Doubt they would mostly be turned in or destroyed.

In other countries where gun laws were introduced, the level of firearms circulating wasn’t anywhere close to what the U.S is dealing with, making those laws pretty effective.

Ya, I know, they are screwed, and have no easy ways out of it. But not recognizing the number of guns and ease of access as a massive component of the problem is just sticking your fingers in your ears.

[metallicat]

Less guns means less problems. It’s obvious. If people can’t get guns easily there’d be less shootings. The problem with the US is the genie is way the hell out of the bottle and there’s no going back. If I was US President I’d shut down all gun manufacturers and make it illegal to make guns in America. Nobody ever gets to buy a new gun other than police, the military, and legit hunters. You want a gun for home defence? Nope. You want a little gun for your purse for your trip to Starbucks? Nope. Concealed carry holster for your jeans? Nope.

[Red Slinger]

I think Envitro has a point that the root cause of all the violent death in the US is the culture of violence. The US was founded on a platform of violence and, somewhat ironically, puritanical virtue. Violence has always been part of American culture, whether it be domestic or international. Guns are an accessible tool that makes the violence fast, efficient and impersonal. Addressing the 'gun problem' would likely help reduce mass killing events and many other issues around gun deaths (drive-by shootings, accidental gun deaths, etc.) but doesn't address the root cause of the violence. I think they have to be addressed in parallel, otherwise, guns will be replaced with knives, bombs or whatever. Certainly, not as fast and effective but still problematic.

[Fuzz]

What about all the accidental shootings? Same with suicides. That's not caused by a culture of violence. It's caused by easy access to guns.

[Envitro]

Getting rid of all guns doesn't get rid of violent crime, and in fact can lead to a rise of violent crime.

Look at this paper from the Fraser Insitute and Dr. Gary Mauser, as published by Public Safety Canada, circa 2003.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/...n32226-eng.pdf

Britain
In the past 20 years, both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearm laws; even banning all handguns in 1997. Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The public is not any safer and may be less safe.

Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing.

In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and, in fact, since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. The firearm laws may even have increased criminal violence by disarming the general public. Despite Britain’s banning and confiscating all handguns, violent crime,
and firearm crime, continue to grow.

And may I mention that in the last 7-10 years knife attacks in the UK have skyrocketed, so much so that they have knife drop boxes and are considering banning sharpened or pointy knives.

So, yeah, it's complicated. The stats don't always back up what people seem to think is the logical or easy answer.

Also, in the U.S., with the highest civilian gun ownership in the world, violent crimes rates have dropped a 49-74% since 1993.

As per this Pew Research article: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...me-in-the-u-s/

Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2019, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-68%), murder/non-negligent manslaughter (-47%) and aggravated assault (-43%). (It’s not possible to calculate the change in the rape rate during this period because the FBI revised its definition of the offense in 2013.) Meanwhile, the property crime rate fell 55%, with big declines in the rates of burglary (-69%), motor vehicle theft (-64%) and larceny/theft (-49%).

Using the BJS statistics, the declines in the violent and property crime rates are even steeper than those reported by the FBI. Per BJS, the overall violent crime rate fell 74% between 1993 and 2019, while the property crime rate fell 71%.

Meanwhile, during the same time frame the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" happened and made the AR15 platform sales soar. Coincidentally the patent owned by Colt expired and it was basically a free-for-all with manufacturers making their own version of the AR upper and lower receiver, driving the price down so much that it became the highest selling modern sporting rifle platform in the world.

So no, it does not appear, according to the data, that less guns means less deaths or less crime.

[Fuzz]

Ya, I don't think I'll be wasting my time looking at a paper from The Frasier Institute(circa 2003) from a gun advocate. Thanks for the solid source...


spoilering, just because they are big graphs

Spoiler!

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...e-and-policing


Violent crime has clearly been decreasing. And if you want to compare the UK and US, you see pretty stark differences.




https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime

By most stats, the US is 4x higher.

I'm not sure what the Pew study can say with regards to firearms. Violent crime has decreased over time. Without comparing it to other countries, it doesn't tell you anything.

[Derek Sutton]

Another strategy would be ridiculously raising the piece of ammunition to like $100 a shell. This was suggested by Chris Rock years ago. The second amendment says nothing about supply, availability or cost of bullets. This would force many to reload their own shells which would be a further blessing as some would blow themselves up, while many would overfill the casings which would ruin their guns.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Another strategy would be ridiculously raising the piece of ammunition to like $100 a shell. This was suggested by Chris Rock years ago. The second amendment says nothing about supply, availability or cost of bullets. This would force many to reload their own shells which would be a further blessing as some would blow themselves up, while many would overfill the casings which would ruin their guns.

Sure.... I'll leave your expertise on the subject speak for itself.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, I don't think I'll be wasting my time looking at a paper from The Frasier Institute(circa 2003) from a gun advocate. Thanks for the solid source...


spoilering, just because they are big graphs

Spoiler!

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...e-and-policing


Violent crime has clearly been decreasing. And if you want to compare the UK and US, you see pretty stark differences.




https://www.nationmaster.com/country.../Violent-crime

By most stats, the US is 4x higher.

I'm not sure what the Pew study can say with regards to firearms. Violent crime has decreased over time. Without comparing it to other countries, it doesn't tell you anything.

Ad-hominem, sure. Attack the author of the source material, but not the data in the study itself.

So a professor from one of the top schools in the country is apparently a shill for the "gun industry"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Another strategy would be ridiculously raising the piece of ammunition to like $100 a shell. This was suggested by Chris Rock years ago. The second amendment says nothing about supply, availability or cost of bullets. This would force many to reload their own shells which would be a further blessing as some would blow themselves up, while many would overfill the casings which would ruin their guns.

I think if you need insurance to drive cars, you should need insurance to own a gun. Let the insurance companies make it hideously expensive if they're going to cover shootings accidental shootings and crime based shootings.



I mean one benefit is that the insurance companies would probably go after the gun industries and lobbies to make guns in theory safer and the insurance companies are the one group that can financially take on the gun industry.


Also would allow legal reform on guns. If your caught with a gun with no insurance its a massive fine plus a massive boost in your coverage costs. Or even jail time. Certainly gets around the illegal guns argument. If you need to get a carry permit the costs of insurance could be punitive and discouraging.



Plus it would open a way to compensate victims.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by metallicat

Less guns means less problems. It’s obvious. If people can’t get guns easily there’d be less shootings. The problem with the US is the genie is way the hell out of the bottle and there’s no going back. If I was US President I’d shut down all gun manufacturers and make it illegal to make guns in America. Nobody ever gets to buy a new gun other than police, the military, and legit hunters. You want a gun for home defence? Nope. You want a little gun for your purse for your trip to Starbucks? Nope. Concealed carry holster for your jeans? Nope.

The US was founded on violence, guns, and the idea of overthrowing Government. Any US President that did this would immediately be ignored. Most States would simply say the President doesn't have the authority to legally make or enforce a law like that within their borders. Not to mention that it's a multi billion dollar industry, good luck just shutting that down and having the Senate actually approve it.

You can't compare the US to other countries on this matter. This isn't a problem that will be solved by laws, it's going to take many decades of slow social changes

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Another strategy would be ridiculously raising the piece of ammunition to like $100 a shell. This was suggested by Chris Rock years ago. The second amendment says nothing about supply, availability or cost of bullets. This would force many to reload their own shells which would be a further blessing as some would blow themselves up, while many would overfill the casings which would ruin their guns.

I'm on your side, but all this would do would be to create a massive underground ammo market run by the worst gangs in the world. It wouldn't stop the truly determined to own a gun crowd.


Plus criminals usually don't got into a bullets are us and buy ammo. They get them the same place that they get their illegal unregistered guns. They steal it, it falls off a truck, its smuggled through the major ports.



I don't think $100 per round ammo would make much difference, and might make things worse.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by metallicat

Less guns means less problems. It’s obvious. If people can’t get guns easily there’d be less shootings. The problem with the US is the genie is way the hell out of the bottle and there’s no going back. If I was US President I’d shut down all gun manufacturers and make it illegal to make guns in America. Nobody ever gets to buy a new gun other than police, the military, and legit hunters. You want a gun for home defence? Nope. You want a little gun for your purse for your trip to Starbucks? Nope. Concealed carry holster for your jeans? Nope.

Wouldn't pass the supreme court let along Congress and the Senate.

And lets say that you did. As I stated below. It would create a massive underground economy, except it would be guns coming out of Russia, China, Singapore, India etc.


The American's can't win the war on drugs, Law enforcement would never win a war on gun, I think that history shows that prohibition style policies don't work. The costs in this case would be massive. Massive expansion on border and port inspections, massive expansion of police especially since suppossedly the only people that buy guns would be criminals, so as President your term would be short by the way. Massive expansion of the TFA and FBI. You'd probably see guns being shipped in on small planes and boats.


The culture has to change, the need and desire to own guns have to change. That's education, that's stronger enforcement against gun crime. That's finding a way to make everyone feel safe and protected in their own home. That doesn't even start to address the stupidity of the whole Militia movement and the live and die by the 2nd amendment.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Ad-hominem, sure. Attack the author of the source material, but not the data in the study itself.

So a professor from one of the top schools in the country is apparently a shill for the "gun industry"

I don't bother reading anything from the Frasier Institute because everything I have seen in the past is presented with a strong agenda behind it. Is this one any different? Who knows, probably not. But he is described on his Wikipedia page as being a gun rights advocate, so clearly he's pushing an agenda. It's also from 2003, so totally out of date. So what point is there in me looking through an outdated study written by a guy with an agenda? Should I attempt to suss out the inaccuracies? Again, not worth my time. The data I presented is much more recent, and probably refutes everything he said.


Anyway, if your thesis is that guns aren't really a problem in the States, there is no other way of approaching that than telling you you are wrong, and their is a plethora of facts out there to support it.

[Fuzz]

Just for ####s and giggles, I read his conclusion, carrying this gem:

Murder has been illegal for thousands
of years: we need only remember the saga of Cain and
Abel. The mass media find gun crimes more newsworthy
but multiple civilian murders by arson have historically
claimed more lives than incidents involving firearms.
The truth is we live in a dangerous world and the govern-
ment cannot protect us, if for no other reason than the
police cannot be everywhere. We must ultimately rely
upon ourselves and it is only right we have the necessary
tools to do so.

Yes, why not reference a story from the fricken' bible to make a point? How's that for walking in the world of reality? Then he goes on to insinuate the only way for people to protect themselves is to arm themselves. So ya, your source is exactly what I expected it would be. Full of ####.

[Envitro]

Well, they say that a gun is the great equalizer when it come to self-defense.

If you can't see that through your skewed world-view, then I wish you luck.

I wished that we lived in a world where you don't have to worry about anyone doing you or your family any harm, but unfortunately that's not the world that we live in. Feel free to disagree with me.

I'm not saying that I need or want to carry, but you can't tell me that in the middle of the night when someone is rummaging through your house and coming up the stairs you wouldn't want to have a tool to defend your family with?
Is the intruder armed, or are they only after my stuff? Or do they have something else in mind? Who knows?

You don't know, and do you really want to find out by being completely helpless? The police may show up 2 or 3, or 10-15 minutes later, or more, but at the end of the day the whole thing may be over in less than 1.

I know, this is the extreme scenario, but you make your choice on how you want to live and protect your family, and let the rest of do the same.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Well, they say that a gun is the great equalizer when it come to self-defense.

If you can't see that through your skewed world-view, then I wish you luck.

I wished that we lived in a world where you don't have to worry about anyone doing you or your family any harm, but unfortunately that's not the world that we live in. Feel free to disagree with me.

I'm not saying that I need or want to carry, but you can't tell me that in the middle of the night when someone is rummaging through your house and coming up the stairs you wouldn't want to have a tool to defend your family with?
Is the intruder armed, or are they only after my stuff? Or do they have something else in mind? Who knows?

You don't know, and do you really want to find out by being completely helpless? The police may show up 2 or 3, or 10-15 minutes later, or more, but at the end of the day the whole thing may be over in less than 1.

I know, this is the extreme scenario, but you make your choice on how you want to live and protect your family, and let the rest of do the same.

I like guns, own several, but no it is not some great equalizer and no I would never use one to shoot someone that broke into my house. It's simply not the right tool for the job.

I'm not sure what your family is up too but personally, I don't just have people that are out to get us. Shooting an intruder is hardly something most people fantasize about. I've got enough on my plate as it is without having the murder of some strung-out kid on my conscience

[jayswin]

nm

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Well, they say that a gun is the great equalizer when it come to self-defense.

If you can't see that through your skewed world-view, then I wish you luck.

I wished that we lived in a world where you don't have to worry about anyone doing you or your family any harm, but unfortunately that's not the world that we live in. Feel free to disagree with me.

I'm not saying that I need or want to carry, but you can't tell me that in the middle of the night when someone is rummaging through your house and coming up the stairs you wouldn't want to have a tool to defend your family with?
Is the intruder armed, or are they only after my stuff? Or do they have something else in mind? Who knows?

You don't know, and do you really want to find out by being completely helpless? The police may show up 2 or 3, or 10-15 minutes later, or more, but at the end of the day the whole thing may be over in less than 1.

I know, this is the extreme scenario, but you make your choice on how you want to live and protect your family, and let the rest of do the same.

You say you don't want or need to carry a gun, but then immediately pivot to defending and justifying carrying and saying you don't know what people are up to and don't want to find out?

[Fuzz]

Fortunately I live in Canada where I'm not at all worried about someone breaking into my house in the middle of the night. Is this a thing that happens often enough to be an actual concern? Random break ins with armed robbers? And isn't what you describe illegal, anyway? Does anyone else here think the same way, and I'm just totally out to lunch?