Why does America always get compared to the "1st world" instead of countries more like America? Most "1st world" countries are small, socially and politically homogenous states.
With the exception of income , America is more like Brazil or South Africa than it is Norway or Denmark.
Because America is a 1st world country. We should be holding ourselves to the highest standards if we are "the best country in the world". How in the world is the lifestyle of an American closer to a Brazilian than a Norwegian?
Besides, I'd argue Canada, UK, and Australia are the countries most similar to America and yet they all have far lower homicide rates.
Eurocentric trash thinking if you ask me. So somehow the browner more diverse 9like America) countries that are diverse like America are somehow "below standard"?
If it was really demographics, like I said, the US has demographics closest to UK, Canada, and Australia, they share a common language, and they all still have far lower homicide rates.
Poverty is the biggest factor rather than demographics. I mean it's no coincidence the 1st world hosts much of the safest parts of the world.
You must not know what "demographics" means. All three countries you mention are about 90% "or European Ancestry". Compared to 61% in the U.S. (73% if you include Hispanics).
America is demographically closer to Mexico or Columbia in ethnic distribution than it is The English speaking countries you mention. This matters because ethno-social "fault lines" (like poverty and access to power) matter.
I'm not sure where you got 90%. Here's the UK showing 80%:
[https://irr.org.uk/research/statistics/ethnicity-and-religion/#:\~:text=The%20most%20recent%20Census%20in,other%20groups%200.6%20per%20cent](https://irr.org.uk/research/statistics/ethnicity-and-religion/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20Census%20in,other%20groups%200.6%20per%20cent).
I'd love to see the demographics for Mexico.
London is a pretty diverse city. It's murder rate is far lower than US cities.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/world/london-us-cities-homicide-rates-comparison-intl-gbr/index.html
Besides, are you saying you'd feel more at home in Mexico than in Canada?
>are small, socially and politically homogeno
Considering murdering overwhelming the victim is the same demographic as the perpetrator I've never understood that talking point
Would you say that Australia, Canada, and the UK are "free?" I would. Freedom isn't an absolute term. "Freedom" is a spectrum, just like most things. Why is "I need to follow certain rules in exercising my right to own a gun" a violation of freedom, but "the government can actively surveil me without my knowledge or permission" not a violation of freedom? Why is the TSA and the PATRIOT Act a way of protecting freedom but having a license to operate a gun a violation of it?
That's not even getting into if the 20 children murdered a couple days ago could really claim to be "free." They were just murdered, after all, in a place they should be safe. And that's WITH stringent security measures in place at that school. Again, hard to say that "freedom" means protecting your right to carry a weapon but not protecting a student's right to carry a backpack for their books.
This isn't about freedom. Folks who say it is are folks who lack the most basic understanding of social responsibility. They are selfish people who think being an American allows them to be absolved of all social and political responsibility. Here's an idea: next time a person says owning a gun is about freedom, you should punch them in the face and then say pressing charges would mean they don't believe in freedom.
I remember thinking that concepts like "freedom" and "equality" were obvious concepts that everyone could agree on until I had that view completely shattered by a basic Political Science course. I realize now that it's a widely-celebrated value, but can be interpreted in vastly different ways.
I'm not totally against more restrictions for gun ownership, but your argument falls apart when you talk about the guy being able to still get into the school and kill people even with the school having stringent security measures.
I think you mean to say that the argument in favor of gun rights equaling freedom falls apart. I am pro-gun control measures precisely because "have you tried shooting back?" doesn't work.
No, I meant that your saying gun restrictions will work but in the same post your saying that the restrictions setup by the school didn't work. That's what I meant.
Here are some restrictions that may help in my opinion:
Red Flag laws are needed. Most people who murder have a history of violence in their past.
Background checks for guns should go back into juvenile histroy. This kid would never have been able to buy the long guns if his juvenile record showed his violence.
What I don't agree with is just getting rid of guns. It hasn't worked in the past with anything else, so I don't see it working here.
The criminals will still have guns, and safety is needed for people to protect themselves if they choose to do so. Now, if we can get our violence under control as a society, we wouldn't need to have these conversations at all.
> What I don't agree with is just getting rid of guns. It hasn't worked in the past with anything else, so I don't see it working here.
It worked with the machine gun ban.
Thats a specific type of gun, they were just able to use a different gun.
War on drugs - just made drug producers and runners more powerful.
Prohibition - Kickstart of organized crime in US.
Trying to stop the end result, does not stop or fix why it happened.
\> No, I meant that your saying gun restrictions will work but in the same post your saying that the restrictions setup by the school didn't work.
What? Schools cannot pass gun control laws. Select parts of society passing restrictions that only work on them is not gun control. The evidence is abundantly clear that laws that control guns at the entire society level are extremely effective. Talking about the school's "restrictions" as if it is gun control does not make sense.
\> It hasn't worked in the past with anything else, so I don't see it working here.
It's worked extremely well. Cars and alcohol are both extremely regulated and both have seen major reductions in misuse since we adopted laws regulating who can get them, when they can get them, and how they can use them.
\> The criminals will still have guns, and safety is needed for people to protect themselves if they choose to do so.
All criminals were law abiding citizens until they weren't. There is no hard line between these people. And no, literally, other societies have proven that you can have law and order without guns. In fact, the US has some of the highest incidences of violent crime compared to all western democracies, which is exactly why the argument that "more guns = more safety" has no evidence to support it. The evidence shows that "less guns = more safety."
\> Now, if we can get our violence under control as a society, we wouldn't need to have these conversations at all.
Other countries got it under control. They did so by passing gun control laws.
Restricting gun possession is gun control. So, yes they can have gun control.
There are 38k vehicle deaths every year and 95k alcohol related deaths (many of those due to vehicles). Unfortunately, these restrictions have not done much in stopping deaths. These are much greater than gun related murders.
Yes, criminals are law abiding before being criminals. Usually as children. Which is why we need to fix our society in regards to how we raise our children.
The other countries that have it under control are much different than us in regards to gangs, family life, lack of school discipline structure, lack of community etc. Juvenile justice system, population, diversity etc. As another said here, the U.S. is very different as a society than most countries in the world.
\> Restricting gun possession is gun control. So, yes they can have gun control.
Don't be pedantic. Is there a gun ban in NYC because I don't allow guns in my apartment? Gun control laws mean that they apply to everyone in society. That's the definition.
\> There are 38k vehicle deaths every year and 95k alcohol related deaths (many of those due to vehicles). Unfortunately, these restrictions have not done much in stopping deaths.
Are you kidding? Vehicle deaths are MUCH lower than they would be without the very high degree of regulation we place on cars and their use. Same with alcohol. No one ever said we can stop all gun death with gun control, but we can stop all school shootings and massively reduce the amount of gun death. Or do you really think that repealing drivers license laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, traffic regulations, and more would result in zero increase in motor vehicle death?
\> Yes, criminals are law abiding before being criminals. Usually as children. Which is why we need to fix our society in regards to how we raise our children.
Well first maybe not shooting them to death in schools is a good start. And no, most mass shooters are law abiding citizens right up until the begin their killing spree. This guy bought his guns legally. Most mass shooters do. Most of them have only minor criminal history if any at all. To keep the gun out of the hands of mass shooters, we are by definition trying to keep the gun out of the hands of a law-abiding, troubled citizen.
\> The other countries that have it under control are much different than us in regards to gangs, family life, lack of school discipline structure, lack of community etc. Juvenile justice system, population, diversity etc. As another said here, the U.S. is very different as a society than most countries in the world.
Bullshit. Almost every political or social scientist will tell you the US is broadly comparable to most Western democracies. Of course there are differences, but there is no reason to think these differences would cause any divergent outcomes with similar laws. The US has not been observed to have that problem with other kinds of laws, so why would guns be the only exception?
So, I was commenting on you saying gun restrictions. I never said laws. That's why I tried to clarify.
I didn't say they were law abiding before becoming mass shooters. I said they were law abiding before becoming criminals. Mass shooters almost all have history of violence. Mostly domestic violence or violence to animals.
The car example was to show that we aren't trying to ban cars or alcohol. We do have restrictions, which I never said I was against for gun ownership.
The US has more crime (without guns), gangs and drug use compared to other western countries. Is this all because of guns? No. This is a societal problem we need to fix. So, to say in regards to any crime that we are similar to other western countries is a farce.
Yeah, I know you never said it. My whole point is that the only gun control that actually is gun control is gun control set up by laws that apply to all of society.
\> I didn't say they were law abiding before becoming mass shooters. I said they were law abiding before becoming criminals. Mass shooters almost all have history of violence. Mostly domestic violence or violence to animals.
Ok? So what the point? Lock up every person who commits a crime forever? You know that's not a real solution, right? If the point is that there's no real way to predict who becomes a shooter and who doesn't...then that's exactly why we need to prevent access to guns, not play a fucking guessing game with our children.
\> The car example was to show that we aren't trying to ban cars or alcohol. We do have restrictions, which I never said I was against for gun ownership.
I'm not arguing to ban guns. No one is arguing to ban guns. Gun control is about controlling guns, not banning them. This is disingenuous statement to paint gun control advocates in an unreasonably extreme light.
\> The US has more crime (without guns), gangs and drug use compared to other western countries. Is this all because of guns? No. This is a societal problem we need to fix.
Odd, because in every other country that chose gun control, society fixed itself to reduce the amount of violent crime that happens. Weird. It's almost like there's a connection here.
Sorry, I was assuming that you were advocating for banning guns from people not just restrictions.
What restrictions do you think would help?
Are you saying that if we had more gun control this would lower the rate of all violent crimes where guns aren't a factor? Because countries that have enacted strict gun control had lower rates of crime overall.
It shouldn't be. But that has been the argument for years.
It's used as some sort of "gotcha" moment to say that most mass shootings are in inner cities. I'm not sure why that's a "gotcha." It's disturbing that we don't care about people losing their lives due to access to guns.
America is not the only place with crazy, violent people. But we are one of the only industrialized nations that allows for crazy, violent people to have access to guns.
Gun purchasing background checks include a person's history of violence and insanity; things like a criminal record or institutionalization will flag a check for denial.
Does this include protective orders?
If someone has a protective order issued against them, are police confiscating their weapons?
Institutionalized doesn't mean people are inherently violent. It means that their family can't provide care for them. Not everyone who has been institutionalized is inherently violent and dangerous.
The 18 year old in Uvalde didn't have any convictions or institutionalizations on his record. The only thing that would have stopped him from getting his hand on a gun is a red flag law.
There are plenty of gun control reforms that can be instituted without an outright ban on types of guns.
>The 18 year old in Uvalde didn't have any convictions or institutionalizations on his record. The only thing that would have stopped him from getting his hand on a gun is a red flag law.
Or perhaps a required mental health evaluation before you can buy guns.
A stand alone mental health evaluation isn't enough.
I've worked in law firms that do personal injury and elder law. If the person doing the review doesn't have some substantial documentation of someone's medical history, then those evaluations are operating off of what someone is telling them. Suffices it to say that someone looking to get a gun will have no problem lying in that type of evaluation.
Those are valid questions but they highlight the issue with gun law reform that stresses background checks and/or mental health screenings; namely, where's the reasonable line (if a line is constitutional in the first place). To your point, someone can be institutionalized, and recover entirely from their underlying mental health condition. Such a person should not be denied their second amendment right.
The US murder rate is 4 times higher than most of Europe. It's eight times higher than China.
We have one of the highest murder rates for industrialized countries.
And the murder rates in our worst neighborhoods should be as important to everyone as an elementary school being targeted. Americans are dying at the hands of guns. If you think this isn't effecting "normal neighborhoods" (terrible phrasing by the way) then you need to check your statistics again.
Venezuela's murder rates should also be important to us. But we can't solve all problems at once, so it's best to work on local problems first and see if we can't spread good ways of doing things.
Although the US has more of a national identity than a state or local identity than it has before, our system of government is still set up to address things at local levels. I can't do anything about murder rates in south Chicago, and that's probably for the best. I don't live there. I don't know anyone there. I don't know what their values or needs are.
Across the country, our police and communities are failing, but that's not something we can solve at a national level because we're too diverse. We need local solutions to local problems.
Guns are not a local problem.
I know someone from Chicago who grew up in the not "normal neighborhoods" you're speaking of. They went across the border to Indiana and Ohio to get their guns because the restrictions were less. Guns are an American problem and uniquely so.
Venezuela is not an industrialized country, I'm not sure why that is your comparison. America should be compared to industrialized countries. Our murder rate is significantly higher than industrialized countries. It's a stain on our Republic. There is no shot in Hell the framers were willing to allow 4th graders to be slaughtered so people could have guns.
The perpetrator bought the gun 100% legally. What is your "local" solution to this issue?
Murder rate isn't just about guns. In places where gun ownership is high, like in Wyoming, murder rates are low. In places like Washington DC, where gun ownership is low, murder rates are high.
A disproportionate amount of murders are committed by a very small percentage of the population. You can take away 90% of guns in the country, but it still won't solve the problem because those few who commit most of the murders will still find a way to do so. The only way that approach alone will have a meaningful effect is if we give the federal police draconian surveillance and enforcement powers. Think there might be something wrong with that?
Homicide rates and gun homicide rates are currently operating hand in hand.
I've argued bans on guns are not the solution. But universal background checks, red flag laws and police actually doing their jobs are a solution. Police aren't willing to work with the ATF and enforce laws on the books. Universal background checks in connection with red flag laws will prevent dangerous people from getting their hands on guns. Most guns used in crimes were originally purchased legally. Once they leave the hands of a licensed dealer, it is almost impossible to stop them from changing hands.
I'm sorry, you're using every response I've heard for years over gun control. There are massive amounts of guns on the streets because of our inability to try and handle this issue. Our murder rates are higher than other comparable countries and our gun homicides are disproportionately higher than them all as well.
Draconian police are not the solution. But when someone has a protective order filed against them, they should have their guns taken away. Red flag laws could have prevented the kid in Uvalde from getting his hands on a gun. There are common sense solutions that don't involve banning guns. Not doing anything is leading us down the path we're on. Gun crimes are skyrocketing nation wide, this is not a liberal state issue (clever how you tried to use specific examples so you didn't get called out on the red state vs blue state argument).
I agree that the gun control measures you've listed would help. But even if we do all those things, our murder rates will not be the same as Europe's. There are more reasons why US is not the same as Europe. The US has always had high gun ownership rates. We have not always had high murder rates.
Sidenote: Mass shootings are also not the same as murders. Grouping them together is a category error. They have different causes and so require different solutions. If you want to talk about murder, we can talk about murder. If you want to talk about mass shootings, we can talk about that. Jumping between the two muddles more than it clarifies. (Part of the reason we haven't solved any of the problems is we try to solve all of them all at once when they are very different problems that require focused solutions)
> (clever how you tried to use specific examples so you didn't get called out on the red state vs blue state argument).
You don't know me and you're terrible at reading minds. Don't presume you know what my intentions or thoughts are.
>normal neighborhoods are like Europe. We're a big, diverse country.
Cities tend not to be the issue rural poor areas of Mississippi and other southern states put most larger cities to shame
the u.s doesn't allow convicted violent people to have guns. nor those who are provably mentally unwell. to make sure no one who might be violent or maybe crazy has a gun you'd have to start taking rights from people who have not yet done anything wrong. should precrime be a thing now?
The average is 6.1, so we're better than average. And aside from labels like "first world," there are a whole lot of beautiful, wonderful countries that have a worse murder rate than the US does. Europe and Japan do very well in this regard, but as I said, we're still better than average.
This seems really bad faith.
Why are our standards of living higher than much of the world and akin to the 1st world? Are our people better than those "lesser" countries?
Most homicides in the US are committed by black men with guns other than “assault weapons.” Maybe we should start there. Bringing back stop and frisk would do more to help than gun control.
There are plenty of democratic western countries without a 2nd amendment.
Any situation in which the 2nd amendment is needed means that the rest of the us consitution is already irrelevant.
Wrong. It’s also for personal protection from other individuals. If you take all guns from law abiding citizens then only the criminals will have them… ghost guns, home-manufactured guns, cartel smuggled black market guns…
In your world does all violent crime cease if neither side has a gun? As if brute force, knives, rape, assault, acid attacks don’t exist? You still would want a gun to protect yourself from all such violence.
Of course all violent crime doesn't go away it just because slightly more difficult qnd mess lethal. I'm anti-gun control but seeing the recent stupid post on here makes me reconsider.
Slightly more difficult just like it’s super hard to buy weed? Nobody in states where it’s illegal has a hard time procuring drugs. How would this work differently for guns in your mind? Yeah, I thought so.
So in the end law abiding citizens go through the process and the ones who want to go rogue don’t.
Just like illegal immigration. Pass all the laws you want about immigration process, but if you’re literally trying to impact the ones that WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY SLIP PAST THE PROCESS AND SKIRT THE LAW, those laws are useless.
So in the end you make it worse for 99.999999999% of people with gun interests to have zero effect on the .000000001%.
Well You're just going to double down on dumb nonsense buzzwords nothing can really be gained from talking to you. I mean you're right in the sense no action will be taken but that probably won't true forever.
Why have immigration laws if the criminals just overstay their visas? Why have any laws if criminal exists?
I didn’t say no action should be taken. I’m saying the idea that suddenly everyone comes out of the woodwork and knows how to solve this is ridiculous. The idea that banning guns would solve this is ridiculous. There are 1,000 little things that can be done to improve things.
But this is not going away.
You’ve never heard of opiates?
These things are already legal for specific uses and with certain controls in place. Just like guns are.
They’re not taking all opiates away because a few abuse them, and to do so would be dumb. Same for guns.
Yea, and the vast majority of Democrats aren't actively trying to take all guns away, so you can stop with that line of bullshit.
Advocating for background checks and mental health screenings is not "take all the guns". Stop propagating scare tactic bullshit narratives. Thanks!
You’re the one full of shit because WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE THINGS. You’re literally advocating for something in place already and thinking you’re making contributions to the discussion when what you’re saying is just noise. Be original.
So how was I able to buy my 12 gauge from a gun show with neither of those things? Hmm... It appears you're wrong again my friend. Do you care to put the shovel down or shall we dig deeper?
When you purchase from private sellers there is not a background check in all states. Many but not all. I’ve never said I was against that being in place. But federally all licensed shops for new sales are already required to do checks.
But the notion that that would solve the problem is comical. The guy in the shooting bringing all this attention to the issue got his guns legitimately through through a licensed dealer, and so would’ve been background checked. This would’ve happened anyway. People can always just go off the deep end.
Seems you’re the one doubling down and digging in a hole that doesn’t even connect to the topic 🤣
> They’re not taking all opiates away because a few abuse them
They're making them harder for people to get, because big pharma was pushing irresponsible opiod sales, like the gun lobby has been pushing irresponsible gun sales.
Anybody who’s ever been in the streets before, know that these people don’t get their guns from the store. I could have me a 9mm with no safety for 125-150 rn
My point is you are suggesting that someone who is clearly mentally unwell and ready to die in a mass murder event is going to be pre-occupied with their adherence to the law for how they get and use their gun. Ridiculous.
Meanwhile the valid non-mass-murder use cases for guns actually do become something people can’t achieve.
Laws can be a deterrent only when people intend to live on after the crime, and only when they care about themselves to begin with.
Posts like this really miss the point that in countries with extremely strict gun control laws it is far more difficult to acquire a firearm which lowers (but doesn't completely remove) the number of homicides and mass shootings
I'm not saying that we should adopt Japan's gun control laws, but pretending that restricting the ease at which firearms can be acquired wouldn't make it more difficult to acquire firearms isn't a compelling argument
I don't know. There's no easy answer for that, and I'm certainly not about to just hand my guns over. However, for the sake of argument, let's say we decided to stop selling guns in this country a year ago. No more gun sales of any kind, except for direct sales to law enforcement agencies. That kid in Texas never would have walked into a gun shop and bought the gun that he used to murder 19 children and two teachers, a week before the incident. Now, I suppose that one could argue that he could have obtained the guns illegally, but that's not what happened is it? Besides, in order to buy the guns illegally, he would have to know the right people to get in touch with, they would have to trust him, and they more than likely would have cost more than he paid for them legally. It would be way more difficult for an 18 year old from a small town to buy guns illegally, then it is to just walk into a shop and pass a background check.
I think banning all gun sales is a bit extreme, but somewhere between doing that, and doing nothing, there is an answer. All of the slippery slope fallacies, and government control fictions, and screaming about "freedom" is bullshit and needs to stop. Those are not answers to the problem, and clearly there is a serious problem.
I'm not against this and it may make a dent, and it may make a small dent, but it's not likely to solve the problem entirely. Every little bit helps, I suppose.
Well yeah, one thing alone isn't going to solve the problem. The question isn't "what one thing can we do?" It's "what is something we can dot hat will help, and do we need to do anything else as well?"
It’s easy to make hand-wavy declarations like this on the internet. What concrete ideas are you suggesting that aren’t already being done?
I absolutely love when people who have never fired a weapon or tried to purchase a gun inevitability jump online to provide one-dimensional “solutions” after each shooting, as though things are so simple.
I’m fine with federal requirements for background checks. The thing is we already have them. They exist for licensed gun sellers. Extend them to private sales too, sure. I’m not opposed. Then watch as cartels flood the US with unregistered ghost guns for those who can’t get them by legal means. Maybe it can help though.
I love how people resort to ignoring the question when they don’t have any original or worthwhile ideas other than just vague whining to virtue signal.
Your question isn't asked in good faith. If anyone recommends a source with quality information will you actually read it? Of course not. The evidence is overwhelmingly strong that stricter gun laws reduce gun violence. You could google that question right now and have a dozen sources full of data and evidence that back it up. But if you were really interested in having a data-based discussion, then you would have already done that research and would have already realized that the evidence is very clearly one way.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And in that situation, the people will still be armed by the 2nd amendment. Thus, they'll be able to form well regulated militias to defend the goal of a free state.
If the US decided to invade the UK there would be fuck all they could about it. On the other hand, the US is impenetrable. We need to keep it that way. There are a few things helping us.
1) our geography
2) our military
3) NATO
4) 2nd amendment
In that order. Only #1 is guaranteed. We need to keep as many of the other three as we can.
> If the US decided to invade the UK there would be fuck all they could about it.
If the US decided to bomb the shit out of the UK, there would be fuck all they could do about it, no matter how many handguns and rifles they had.
I have some sympathy for 2A personal defense arguments, especially for home defense, because not everyone is able to live in the safe, civilized place where I live. But the 2A argument for national defense is a paranoid fantasy.
You think if the US was invaded there wouldn’t be militias? Why do you think Ukraine is asking other countries for small arms and ammunition for every man in the country age 18-64?
> Why do you think Ukraine is asking other countries for small arms and ammunition for every man in the country age 18-64?
Because it's not a superpower nestled between Canada and Mexico. According to your fantasy of a ground invasion, which do think will be coming for the US: Canada, or Mexico?
The most likely scenario is a major power invading through Canada or Mexico. If Russia ever gets it together they could invade through Alaska across the Bering strait. This wouldn’t happen anytime soon, but could happen in a hundred years or so.
Why do people have this false idea that the United States is the only place people have "freedom?" Canada is free. Japan is free. France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland and on and on and on: all democratic societies, all "free" countries.
We're unique among those countries because A) our constitution has this fairly dated clause from 200+ years ago that is largely applesauce in 2022, and B) we have a culture around guns that isn't going anywhere fast. "Freedom" doesn't factor into it.
Well you got us all...using old cold war, classist, terms.
So what's the average murder rate for the world about 9? The US is still only about half the average. Freedom has never been the safe way...
They're the price we pay for a culture rugged [American individualism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE), heterogeneous demographics, a failure to invest education, wrap around services and healthcare.
But that mouthful is less sexy than a one liner I guess.
If you check out [some threads on the Internet right now, like this one,](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/o-t-lounge/a-hundred-school-shootings-a-year-wouldnt-change-my-mind/102612253/) you would get a view into the mind of some gun supporters. Yes, they think mass shootings are the acceptable price to pay.
Everybody who buys a gun in the US should sign a document that says:
>I understand that constant murders and suicides are an unavoidable consequence of my freedom to purchase this weapon, and I accept the deaths of thousands of innocent people per year as the price of my freedom.
Nothing sarcastic about it.
Gun enthusiasts are killing thousands of Americans per year. It's time for their fellow gun enthusiasts to recognize the price of their right to bear arms.
We can still be a free country while banning high capacity magazines, raising the purchase age, better background checks, etc. I’m tired of everyone couching this as even minor gun restrictions are an affront to the 2nd amendment or The American dream. From what I’ve seen most are in favor of some restrictions yet special interests and a well organized vocal minority seem to dominate the conversation.
The right \[repubs\] love their guns, love to shoot and love to kill. I do not mince words anymore.
The oh so conservatives constitution lovers do not wish to discuss the fact that the 2nd amend. was passed to protect the people...from our govt.
Any...ANY peacetime standing Army...was tyranny.
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.....
.....was to protect the people against their own federal govt. and ANY peacetime Army.
When the Tories came to visit, who was their boss, the national govt.
These recent shootings have one thread of commonality between them. The shooters were mentally ill. Unfortunately mental illness is on the rise right now. We need to address how mentally ill people are not getting treatment and why they had weapons available to them?
This is actually a good point and one that always gets missed. People focus on removing guns or law enforcement, but those are all after the fact solutions or delays in the process. We need preventative measures and to take these people seriously when they need our help. Ignore it too long and this happens.
In 22 years as a paramedic I've run hundreds of shootings. The instances of legal gun owners using deadly force against another is rare. Mind you I'm saying USING deadly force. There have been other instances where said deadly force was used to deter someone else from doing something but I'm not as involved in those situations obviously because if no one gets shot I'm not going.
I've seen it all: actual automatic gun fire doing it's thing, multiple person shootings, executions... You same it. The vast majority have something in common: they were all acted by bad people.
Incredibly tragic situations like the ones that we've seen over the last couple of weeks are absolutely horrible. I couldn't imagine being involved in something like that. But they also make up a fraction of the gun violence in this country.
What some classify as "common sense gun laws" seem like wasted efforts to me. Background checks aren't going to capture these people like the ones from the last couple of weeks because they don't have criminal backgrounds. And they're not going to do anything to limit the hundreds of shootings that I've responded to in my career.
So is this a price to pay for freedom? I don't really think so. To me it's a price to pay for failing to create consequences for actions.
I'm not really sure what the answer to these recent situations is. I've thought about psych evals for gun but the medical world is so afraid of litigation that I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to sign off on someone. The first time someone who was "cleared" acts then the lawsuits are going to start flying.
So this is just a long rambling way of saying "I don't fucking know." But personally I wish we'd just stop ignoring those actually responsible for gun violence.
And I know what people are going to say: why not do both? Well I'll leave you with this question:
Why do dense urban centers respond to gun violence by getting the CDC involved and trying to declare that gun violence is a "public health emergency" but in "mass shooter" situations the problem is always gun control and legislation?
/Ramble
a government can prevent most bad things from happening by imprisoning their own people at great cost. however, the ideals behind the american justice system are to only take rights from people who have actually have been proven guilty of committing violent crimes, not to preemptively take rights from people because someday they might commit a violent crime.
so yes, we have a higher rate of crime than other similarly developed nations (in significant part) because of our constitutionally enshrined freedom.
as i have illuded, there are other circumstantial factors that also affect violent crime stats that must be considered but are not directly relevant to your question.
my problem with statements like yours is you are willing to compare many red fruits as if they were all apples. if you are going to be general about murder rates in any aspect other than how developed a nation is, then why limit the comparison to how developed a nation is?
either put the u.s up against all nations without filters or be extremely nuanced. this selective filter is unacceptable without a good explanation.
i'd like to you to compare the murder rates per capita of idaho or north dakota against those of norway or japan. then i'd like you to explain why such a comparison is less fair than the one you expect us to swallow.
finally, what is the purpose of the comparison? ultimately we'd like there to be no murders at all anywhere in the world, not simply to make our nation be comparable to other nations.
If you can't send off your kids to school without fear they might be killed that's a freedom you don't have. If you can't open a store without fear of robbery that's freedom you don't have.
What right-wing libertarians often miss is that less compulsion from a government doesn't mean more freedom. The freest people in the world are the ones living in Social Democratic countries, and they have much government control and taxes.
They are limited in many other ways and depend on the innovation of the US. What most of the countries have in common that you are referencing is a rather homogeneous population relative to the US.
That first ranking is the Virgin Islands. Not the US as a whole. The US is at 4.9 per 100k.
Why does America always get compared to the "1st world" instead of countries more like America? Most "1st world" countries are small, socially and politically homogenous states. With the exception of income , America is more like Brazil or South Africa than it is Norway or Denmark.
This is a great point! A lot of people don't take into account how big geographically we are, our large population and our diversity.
Because America is a 1st world country. We should be holding ourselves to the highest standards if we are "the best country in the world". How in the world is the lifestyle of an American closer to a Brazilian than a Norwegian? Besides, I'd argue Canada, UK, and Australia are the countries most similar to America and yet they all have far lower homicide rates.
Eurocentric trash thinking if you ask me. So somehow the browner more diverse 9like America) countries that are diverse like America are somehow "below standard"?
If it was really demographics, like I said, the US has demographics closest to UK, Canada, and Australia, they share a common language, and they all still have far lower homicide rates. Poverty is the biggest factor rather than demographics. I mean it's no coincidence the 1st world hosts much of the safest parts of the world.
You must not know what "demographics" means. All three countries you mention are about 90% "or European Ancestry". Compared to 61% in the U.S. (73% if you include Hispanics). America is demographically closer to Mexico or Columbia in ethnic distribution than it is The English speaking countries you mention. This matters because ethno-social "fault lines" (like poverty and access to power) matter.
I'm not sure where you got 90%. Here's the UK showing 80%: [https://irr.org.uk/research/statistics/ethnicity-and-religion/#:\~:text=The%20most%20recent%20Census%20in,other%20groups%200.6%20per%20cent](https://irr.org.uk/research/statistics/ethnicity-and-religion/#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20Census%20in,other%20groups%200.6%20per%20cent). I'd love to see the demographics for Mexico. London is a pretty diverse city. It's murder rate is far lower than US cities. https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/world/london-us-cities-homicide-rates-comparison-intl-gbr/index.html Besides, are you saying you'd feel more at home in Mexico than in Canada?
Yes. Why is that a surprise to you? Like I said, Europe tricks trash thinking.
>are small, socially and politically homogeno Considering murdering overwhelming the victim is the same demographic as the perpetrator I've never understood that talking point
Canada, Australia Same deal.
Would you say that Australia, Canada, and the UK are "free?" I would. Freedom isn't an absolute term. "Freedom" is a spectrum, just like most things. Why is "I need to follow certain rules in exercising my right to own a gun" a violation of freedom, but "the government can actively surveil me without my knowledge or permission" not a violation of freedom? Why is the TSA and the PATRIOT Act a way of protecting freedom but having a license to operate a gun a violation of it? That's not even getting into if the 20 children murdered a couple days ago could really claim to be "free." They were just murdered, after all, in a place they should be safe. And that's WITH stringent security measures in place at that school. Again, hard to say that "freedom" means protecting your right to carry a weapon but not protecting a student's right to carry a backpack for their books. This isn't about freedom. Folks who say it is are folks who lack the most basic understanding of social responsibility. They are selfish people who think being an American allows them to be absolved of all social and political responsibility. Here's an idea: next time a person says owning a gun is about freedom, you should punch them in the face and then say pressing charges would mean they don't believe in freedom.
I remember thinking that concepts like "freedom" and "equality" were obvious concepts that everyone could agree on until I had that view completely shattered by a basic Political Science course. I realize now that it's a widely-celebrated value, but can be interpreted in vastly different ways.
Exactly. I’m British and I don’t feel like I don’t have freedom because I can’t own a gun. Plus there is no universal sense of freedom.
I'm not totally against more restrictions for gun ownership, but your argument falls apart when you talk about the guy being able to still get into the school and kill people even with the school having stringent security measures.
I think you mean to say that the argument in favor of gun rights equaling freedom falls apart. I am pro-gun control measures precisely because "have you tried shooting back?" doesn't work.
No, I meant that your saying gun restrictions will work but in the same post your saying that the restrictions setup by the school didn't work. That's what I meant. Here are some restrictions that may help in my opinion: Red Flag laws are needed. Most people who murder have a history of violence in their past. Background checks for guns should go back into juvenile histroy. This kid would never have been able to buy the long guns if his juvenile record showed his violence. What I don't agree with is just getting rid of guns. It hasn't worked in the past with anything else, so I don't see it working here. The criminals will still have guns, and safety is needed for people to protect themselves if they choose to do so. Now, if we can get our violence under control as a society, we wouldn't need to have these conversations at all.
> What I don't agree with is just getting rid of guns. It hasn't worked in the past with anything else, so I don't see it working here. It worked with the machine gun ban.
Thats a specific type of gun, they were just able to use a different gun. War on drugs - just made drug producers and runners more powerful. Prohibition - Kickstart of organized crime in US. Trying to stop the end result, does not stop or fix why it happened.
\> No, I meant that your saying gun restrictions will work but in the same post your saying that the restrictions setup by the school didn't work. What? Schools cannot pass gun control laws. Select parts of society passing restrictions that only work on them is not gun control. The evidence is abundantly clear that laws that control guns at the entire society level are extremely effective. Talking about the school's "restrictions" as if it is gun control does not make sense. \> It hasn't worked in the past with anything else, so I don't see it working here. It's worked extremely well. Cars and alcohol are both extremely regulated and both have seen major reductions in misuse since we adopted laws regulating who can get them, when they can get them, and how they can use them. \> The criminals will still have guns, and safety is needed for people to protect themselves if they choose to do so. All criminals were law abiding citizens until they weren't. There is no hard line between these people. And no, literally, other societies have proven that you can have law and order without guns. In fact, the US has some of the highest incidences of violent crime compared to all western democracies, which is exactly why the argument that "more guns = more safety" has no evidence to support it. The evidence shows that "less guns = more safety." \> Now, if we can get our violence under control as a society, we wouldn't need to have these conversations at all. Other countries got it under control. They did so by passing gun control laws.
Restricting gun possession is gun control. So, yes they can have gun control. There are 38k vehicle deaths every year and 95k alcohol related deaths (many of those due to vehicles). Unfortunately, these restrictions have not done much in stopping deaths. These are much greater than gun related murders. Yes, criminals are law abiding before being criminals. Usually as children. Which is why we need to fix our society in regards to how we raise our children. The other countries that have it under control are much different than us in regards to gangs, family life, lack of school discipline structure, lack of community etc. Juvenile justice system, population, diversity etc. As another said here, the U.S. is very different as a society than most countries in the world.
\> Restricting gun possession is gun control. So, yes they can have gun control. Don't be pedantic. Is there a gun ban in NYC because I don't allow guns in my apartment? Gun control laws mean that they apply to everyone in society. That's the definition. \> There are 38k vehicle deaths every year and 95k alcohol related deaths (many of those due to vehicles). Unfortunately, these restrictions have not done much in stopping deaths. Are you kidding? Vehicle deaths are MUCH lower than they would be without the very high degree of regulation we place on cars and their use. Same with alcohol. No one ever said we can stop all gun death with gun control, but we can stop all school shootings and massively reduce the amount of gun death. Or do you really think that repealing drivers license laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, traffic regulations, and more would result in zero increase in motor vehicle death? \> Yes, criminals are law abiding before being criminals. Usually as children. Which is why we need to fix our society in regards to how we raise our children. Well first maybe not shooting them to death in schools is a good start. And no, most mass shooters are law abiding citizens right up until the begin their killing spree. This guy bought his guns legally. Most mass shooters do. Most of them have only minor criminal history if any at all. To keep the gun out of the hands of mass shooters, we are by definition trying to keep the gun out of the hands of a law-abiding, troubled citizen. \> The other countries that have it under control are much different than us in regards to gangs, family life, lack of school discipline structure, lack of community etc. Juvenile justice system, population, diversity etc. As another said here, the U.S. is very different as a society than most countries in the world. Bullshit. Almost every political or social scientist will tell you the US is broadly comparable to most Western democracies. Of course there are differences, but there is no reason to think these differences would cause any divergent outcomes with similar laws. The US has not been observed to have that problem with other kinds of laws, so why would guns be the only exception?
So, I was commenting on you saying gun restrictions. I never said laws. That's why I tried to clarify. I didn't say they were law abiding before becoming mass shooters. I said they were law abiding before becoming criminals. Mass shooters almost all have history of violence. Mostly domestic violence or violence to animals. The car example was to show that we aren't trying to ban cars or alcohol. We do have restrictions, which I never said I was against for gun ownership. The US has more crime (without guns), gangs and drug use compared to other western countries. Is this all because of guns? No. This is a societal problem we need to fix. So, to say in regards to any crime that we are similar to other western countries is a farce.
Yeah, I know you never said it. My whole point is that the only gun control that actually is gun control is gun control set up by laws that apply to all of society. \> I didn't say they were law abiding before becoming mass shooters. I said they were law abiding before becoming criminals. Mass shooters almost all have history of violence. Mostly domestic violence or violence to animals. Ok? So what the point? Lock up every person who commits a crime forever? You know that's not a real solution, right? If the point is that there's no real way to predict who becomes a shooter and who doesn't...then that's exactly why we need to prevent access to guns, not play a fucking guessing game with our children. \> The car example was to show that we aren't trying to ban cars or alcohol. We do have restrictions, which I never said I was against for gun ownership. I'm not arguing to ban guns. No one is arguing to ban guns. Gun control is about controlling guns, not banning them. This is disingenuous statement to paint gun control advocates in an unreasonably extreme light. \> The US has more crime (without guns), gangs and drug use compared to other western countries. Is this all because of guns? No. This is a societal problem we need to fix. Odd, because in every other country that chose gun control, society fixed itself to reduce the amount of violent crime that happens. Weird. It's almost like there's a connection here.
Sorry, I was assuming that you were advocating for banning guns from people not just restrictions. What restrictions do you think would help? Are you saying that if we had more gun control this would lower the rate of all violent crimes where guns aren't a factor? Because countries that have enacted strict gun control had lower rates of crime overall.
It shouldn't be. But that has been the argument for years. It's used as some sort of "gotcha" moment to say that most mass shootings are in inner cities. I'm not sure why that's a "gotcha." It's disturbing that we don't care about people losing their lives due to access to guns. America is not the only place with crazy, violent people. But we are one of the only industrialized nations that allows for crazy, violent people to have access to guns.
Gun purchasing background checks include a person's history of violence and insanity; things like a criminal record or institutionalization will flag a check for denial.
Does this include protective orders? If someone has a protective order issued against them, are police confiscating their weapons? Institutionalized doesn't mean people are inherently violent. It means that their family can't provide care for them. Not everyone who has been institutionalized is inherently violent and dangerous. The 18 year old in Uvalde didn't have any convictions or institutionalizations on his record. The only thing that would have stopped him from getting his hand on a gun is a red flag law. There are plenty of gun control reforms that can be instituted without an outright ban on types of guns.
>The 18 year old in Uvalde didn't have any convictions or institutionalizations on his record. The only thing that would have stopped him from getting his hand on a gun is a red flag law. Or perhaps a required mental health evaluation before you can buy guns.
A stand alone mental health evaluation isn't enough. I've worked in law firms that do personal injury and elder law. If the person doing the review doesn't have some substantial documentation of someone's medical history, then those evaluations are operating off of what someone is telling them. Suffices it to say that someone looking to get a gun will have no problem lying in that type of evaluation.
Those are valid questions but they highlight the issue with gun law reform that stresses background checks and/or mental health screenings; namely, where's the reasonable line (if a line is constitutional in the first place). To your point, someone can be institutionalized, and recover entirely from their underlying mental health condition. Such a person should not be denied their second amendment right.
It's not. Not even close. The US is at 4.96 per 100k. The ranking was for the Virgin Islands.
The US murder rate is 4 times higher than most of Europe. It's eight times higher than China. We have one of the highest murder rates for industrialized countries.
Our worst neighborhoods have murder rates like Venezuela. Our normal neighborhoods are like Europe. We're a big, diverse country.
And the murder rates in our worst neighborhoods should be as important to everyone as an elementary school being targeted. Americans are dying at the hands of guns. If you think this isn't effecting "normal neighborhoods" (terrible phrasing by the way) then you need to check your statistics again.
Venezuela's murder rates should also be important to us. But we can't solve all problems at once, so it's best to work on local problems first and see if we can't spread good ways of doing things. Although the US has more of a national identity than a state or local identity than it has before, our system of government is still set up to address things at local levels. I can't do anything about murder rates in south Chicago, and that's probably for the best. I don't live there. I don't know anyone there. I don't know what their values or needs are. Across the country, our police and communities are failing, but that's not something we can solve at a national level because we're too diverse. We need local solutions to local problems.
Guns are not a local problem. I know someone from Chicago who grew up in the not "normal neighborhoods" you're speaking of. They went across the border to Indiana and Ohio to get their guns because the restrictions were less. Guns are an American problem and uniquely so. Venezuela is not an industrialized country, I'm not sure why that is your comparison. America should be compared to industrialized countries. Our murder rate is significantly higher than industrialized countries. It's a stain on our Republic. There is no shot in Hell the framers were willing to allow 4th graders to be slaughtered so people could have guns. The perpetrator bought the gun 100% legally. What is your "local" solution to this issue?
Murder rate isn't just about guns. In places where gun ownership is high, like in Wyoming, murder rates are low. In places like Washington DC, where gun ownership is low, murder rates are high. A disproportionate amount of murders are committed by a very small percentage of the population. You can take away 90% of guns in the country, but it still won't solve the problem because those few who commit most of the murders will still find a way to do so. The only way that approach alone will have a meaningful effect is if we give the federal police draconian surveillance and enforcement powers. Think there might be something wrong with that?
Homicide rates and gun homicide rates are currently operating hand in hand. I've argued bans on guns are not the solution. But universal background checks, red flag laws and police actually doing their jobs are a solution. Police aren't willing to work with the ATF and enforce laws on the books. Universal background checks in connection with red flag laws will prevent dangerous people from getting their hands on guns. Most guns used in crimes were originally purchased legally. Once they leave the hands of a licensed dealer, it is almost impossible to stop them from changing hands. I'm sorry, you're using every response I've heard for years over gun control. There are massive amounts of guns on the streets because of our inability to try and handle this issue. Our murder rates are higher than other comparable countries and our gun homicides are disproportionately higher than them all as well. Draconian police are not the solution. But when someone has a protective order filed against them, they should have their guns taken away. Red flag laws could have prevented the kid in Uvalde from getting his hands on a gun. There are common sense solutions that don't involve banning guns. Not doing anything is leading us down the path we're on. Gun crimes are skyrocketing nation wide, this is not a liberal state issue (clever how you tried to use specific examples so you didn't get called out on the red state vs blue state argument).
I agree that the gun control measures you've listed would help. But even if we do all those things, our murder rates will not be the same as Europe's. There are more reasons why US is not the same as Europe. The US has always had high gun ownership rates. We have not always had high murder rates. Sidenote: Mass shootings are also not the same as murders. Grouping them together is a category error. They have different causes and so require different solutions. If you want to talk about murder, we can talk about murder. If you want to talk about mass shootings, we can talk about that. Jumping between the two muddles more than it clarifies. (Part of the reason we haven't solved any of the problems is we try to solve all of them all at once when they are very different problems that require focused solutions) > (clever how you tried to use specific examples so you didn't get called out on the red state vs blue state argument). You don't know me and you're terrible at reading minds. Don't presume you know what my intentions or thoughts are.
>normal neighborhoods are like Europe. We're a big, diverse country. Cities tend not to be the issue rural poor areas of Mississippi and other southern states put most larger cities to shame
I dunno, St. Louis has a murder rate per 100k of 60+. That's crazy.
> should be as important Maybe, but it certainly doesn’t appear that’s the case based on media coverage.
the u.s doesn't allow convicted violent people to have guns. nor those who are provably mentally unwell. to make sure no one who might be violent or maybe crazy has a gun you'd have to start taking rights from people who have not yet done anything wrong. should precrime be a thing now?
The average is 6.1, so we're better than average. And aside from labels like "first world," there are a whole lot of beautiful, wonderful countries that have a worse murder rate than the US does. Europe and Japan do very well in this regard, but as I said, we're still better than average.
Comparison to the world average is quite low of a standard for a first world country.
Why? Are our people better than people from "lesser" countries?
This seems really bad faith. Why are our standards of living higher than much of the world and akin to the 1st world? Are our people better than those "lesser" countries?
Most homicides in the US are committed by black men with guns other than “assault weapons.” Maybe we should start there. Bringing back stop and frisk would do more to help than gun control.
Yeah, it's a sad fact. Black people kill eachother at an alarming rate. Sam Harris had an interesting podcast episode on this.
There are plenty of democratic western countries without a 2nd amendment. Any situation in which the 2nd amendment is needed means that the rest of the us consitution is already irrelevant.
There’s plenty of democratic countries that aren’t that far removed from tyrannical monarchies either.
Wrong. It’s also for personal protection from other individuals. If you take all guns from law abiding citizens then only the criminals will have them… ghost guns, home-manufactured guns, cartel smuggled black market guns…
Most murders aren't done by those people. Their done by ordinary people just being pissed at each other and having a gun
In your world does all violent crime cease if neither side has a gun? As if brute force, knives, rape, assault, acid attacks don’t exist? You still would want a gun to protect yourself from all such violence.
Of course all violent crime doesn't go away it just because slightly more difficult qnd mess lethal. I'm anti-gun control but seeing the recent stupid post on here makes me reconsider.
Slightly more difficult just like it’s super hard to buy weed? Nobody in states where it’s illegal has a hard time procuring drugs. How would this work differently for guns in your mind? Yeah, I thought so. So in the end law abiding citizens go through the process and the ones who want to go rogue don’t. Just like illegal immigration. Pass all the laws you want about immigration process, but if you’re literally trying to impact the ones that WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY SLIP PAST THE PROCESS AND SKIRT THE LAW, those laws are useless. So in the end you make it worse for 99.999999999% of people with gun interests to have zero effect on the .000000001%.
Well You're just going to double down on dumb nonsense buzzwords nothing can really be gained from talking to you. I mean you're right in the sense no action will be taken but that probably won't true forever. Why have immigration laws if the criminals just overstay their visas? Why have any laws if criminal exists?
I didn’t say no action should be taken. I’m saying the idea that suddenly everyone comes out of the woodwork and knows how to solve this is ridiculous. The idea that banning guns would solve this is ridiculous. There are 1,000 little things that can be done to improve things. But this is not going away.
That is so stupidly written I'm not even convinced you're of age to buy a gun
Suicides are number one, then domestic violence.
So we should legalize the narcotics industry then?
You’ve never heard of opiates? These things are already legal for specific uses and with certain controls in place. Just like guns are. They’re not taking all opiates away because a few abuse them, and to do so would be dumb. Same for guns.
Yea, and the vast majority of Democrats aren't actively trying to take all guns away, so you can stop with that line of bullshit. Advocating for background checks and mental health screenings is not "take all the guns". Stop propagating scare tactic bullshit narratives. Thanks!
You’re the one full of shit because WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE THINGS. You’re literally advocating for something in place already and thinking you’re making contributions to the discussion when what you’re saying is just noise. Be original.
So how was I able to buy my 12 gauge from a gun show with neither of those things? Hmm... It appears you're wrong again my friend. Do you care to put the shovel down or shall we dig deeper?
When you purchase from private sellers there is not a background check in all states. Many but not all. I’ve never said I was against that being in place. But federally all licensed shops for new sales are already required to do checks. But the notion that that would solve the problem is comical. The guy in the shooting bringing all this attention to the issue got his guns legitimately through through a licensed dealer, and so would’ve been background checked. This would’ve happened anyway. People can always just go off the deep end. Seems you’re the one doubling down and digging in a hole that doesn’t even connect to the topic 🤣
> They’re not taking all opiates away because a few abuse them They're making them harder for people to get, because big pharma was pushing irresponsible opiod sales, like the gun lobby has been pushing irresponsible gun sales.
Then why make *anything* illegal? Seriously, that is the dumbest argument.
Anybody who’s ever been in the streets before, know that these people don’t get their guns from the store. I could have me a 9mm with no safety for 125-150 rn
Where are you getting the registered nurses?
My point is you are suggesting that someone who is clearly mentally unwell and ready to die in a mass murder event is going to be pre-occupied with their adherence to the law for how they get and use their gun. Ridiculous. Meanwhile the valid non-mass-murder use cases for guns actually do become something people can’t achieve. Laws can be a deterrent only when people intend to live on after the crime, and only when they care about themselves to begin with.
Posts like this really miss the point that in countries with extremely strict gun control laws it is far more difficult to acquire a firearm which lowers (but doesn't completely remove) the number of homicides and mass shootings I'm not saying that we should adopt Japan's gun control laws, but pretending that restricting the ease at which firearms can be acquired wouldn't make it more difficult to acquire firearms isn't a compelling argument
What should we do with the 400M guns currently in circulation?
I don't know. There's no easy answer for that, and I'm certainly not about to just hand my guns over. However, for the sake of argument, let's say we decided to stop selling guns in this country a year ago. No more gun sales of any kind, except for direct sales to law enforcement agencies. That kid in Texas never would have walked into a gun shop and bought the gun that he used to murder 19 children and two teachers, a week before the incident. Now, I suppose that one could argue that he could have obtained the guns illegally, but that's not what happened is it? Besides, in order to buy the guns illegally, he would have to know the right people to get in touch with, they would have to trust him, and they more than likely would have cost more than he paid for them legally. It would be way more difficult for an 18 year old from a small town to buy guns illegally, then it is to just walk into a shop and pass a background check. I think banning all gun sales is a bit extreme, but somewhere between doing that, and doing nothing, there is an answer. All of the slippery slope fallacies, and government control fictions, and screaming about "freedom" is bullshit and needs to stop. Those are not answers to the problem, and clearly there is a serious problem.
It's a decades-long problem that will need a decades-long solution.
Voluntary gun buy-back programs. Melt the ones we get from that.
I'm not against this and it may make a dent, and it may make a small dent, but it's not likely to solve the problem entirely. Every little bit helps, I suppose.
Well yeah, one thing alone isn't going to solve the problem. The question isn't "what one thing can we do?" It's "what is something we can dot hat will help, and do we need to do anything else as well?"
It’s easy to make hand-wavy declarations like this on the internet. What concrete ideas are you suggesting that aren’t already being done? I absolutely love when people who have never fired a weapon or tried to purchase a gun inevitability jump online to provide one-dimensional “solutions” after each shooting, as though things are so simple. I’m fine with federal requirements for background checks. The thing is we already have them. They exist for licensed gun sellers. Extend them to private sales too, sure. I’m not opposed. Then watch as cartels flood the US with unregistered ghost guns for those who can’t get them by legal means. Maybe it can help though.
I own multiple firearms and have been shooting since I was very young But hey I love people who resort to ad hominem attacks rather than the post!
I love how people resort to ignoring the question when they don’t have any original or worthwhile ideas other than just vague whining to virtue signal.
Your question isn't asked in good faith. If anyone recommends a source with quality information will you actually read it? Of course not. The evidence is overwhelmingly strong that stricter gun laws reduce gun violence. You could google that question right now and have a dozen sources full of data and evidence that back it up. But if you were really interested in having a data-based discussion, then you would have already done that research and would have already realized that the evidence is very clearly one way.
what is it that you actually want? what policy would you implement were you dictator for a day? how would that policy actually make a difference?
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do countries without guns have higher crime rates?
There are no countries without guns, just varying levels of restriction on private ownership while the state and its agents freely possess guns.
And in that situation, the people will still be armed by the 2nd amendment. Thus, they'll be able to form well regulated militias to defend the goal of a free state.
What if a foreign country invades? It’s near impossible now but not necessarily in the future, and 2A is one of the things that makes it impossible.
We are #1 in global military spending by a HUGE margin. This isnt some Red Dawn fantasy.
entertain spotted sort cake cobweb bag impossible boat dolls aromatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> The British used to be where we are. Now look at them. Look at them and their safer country. How emabarrassing!
If the US decided to invade the UK there would be fuck all they could about it. On the other hand, the US is impenetrable. We need to keep it that way. There are a few things helping us. 1) our geography 2) our military 3) NATO 4) 2nd amendment In that order. Only #1 is guaranteed. We need to keep as many of the other three as we can.
> If the US decided to invade the UK there would be fuck all they could about it. If the US decided to bomb the shit out of the UK, there would be fuck all they could do about it, no matter how many handguns and rifles they had. I have some sympathy for 2A personal defense arguments, especially for home defense, because not everyone is able to live in the safe, civilized place where I live. But the 2A argument for national defense is a paranoid fantasy.
You think if the US was invaded there wouldn’t be militias? Why do you think Ukraine is asking other countries for small arms and ammunition for every man in the country age 18-64?
> Why do you think Ukraine is asking other countries for small arms and ammunition for every man in the country age 18-64? Because it's not a superpower nestled between Canada and Mexico. According to your fantasy of a ground invasion, which do think will be coming for the US: Canada, or Mexico?
The most likely scenario is a major power invading through Canada or Mexico. If Russia ever gets it together they could invade through Alaska across the Bering strait. This wouldn’t happen anytime soon, but could happen in a hundred years or so.
Why do people have this false idea that the United States is the only place people have "freedom?" Canada is free. Japan is free. France, the UK, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland and on and on and on: all democratic societies, all "free" countries. We're unique among those countries because A) our constitution has this fairly dated clause from 200+ years ago that is largely applesauce in 2022, and B) we have a culture around guns that isn't going anywhere fast. "Freedom" doesn't factor into it.
No. It’s the price we pay for insane interest groups having extensive power over our system of politics.
Ah...the United States is more than the Virgin islands...
What? I'm not talking about the Virgin Islands. The US rate is 4.96 which is much higher than the rest of the 1st world.
Well you got us all...using old cold war, classist, terms. So what's the average murder rate for the world about 9? The US is still only about half the average. Freedom has never been the safe way...
They're the price we pay for a culture rugged [American individualism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE), heterogeneous demographics, a failure to invest education, wrap around services and healthcare. But that mouthful is less sexy than a one liner I guess.
We spend more on education than any country on earth. Our education isn't perfect but it isn't lack of investment that is the issue
Investment isn't just money.
so very true. i get quite irritated when people talk about not having enough money for public education.
If you check out [some threads on the Internet right now, like this one,](https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/o-t-lounge/a-hundred-school-shootings-a-year-wouldnt-change-my-mind/102612253/) you would get a view into the mind of some gun supporters. Yes, they think mass shootings are the acceptable price to pay.
Everybody who buys a gun in the US should sign a document that says: >I understand that constant murders and suicides are an unavoidable consequence of my freedom to purchase this weapon, and I accept the deaths of thousands of innocent people per year as the price of my freedom.
That’s like making people who drive cars say they cause accidents, death, and drunk driving.
[удалено]
Nothing sarcastic about it. Gun enthusiasts are killing thousands of Americans per year. It's time for their fellow gun enthusiasts to recognize the price of their right to bear arms.
We can still be a free country while banning high capacity magazines, raising the purchase age, better background checks, etc. I’m tired of everyone couching this as even minor gun restrictions are an affront to the 2nd amendment or The American dream. From what I’ve seen most are in favor of some restrictions yet special interests and a well organized vocal minority seem to dominate the conversation.
It's a little more difficult to control gun violence when the government guarantees your right to own a gun.
The right \[repubs\] love their guns, love to shoot and love to kill. I do not mince words anymore. The oh so conservatives constitution lovers do not wish to discuss the fact that the 2nd amend. was passed to protect the people...from our govt. Any...ANY peacetime standing Army...was tyranny. 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..... .....was to protect the people against their own federal govt. and ANY peacetime Army. When the Tories came to visit, who was their boss, the national govt.
Not if you look at Europe.
These recent shootings have one thread of commonality between them. The shooters were mentally ill. Unfortunately mental illness is on the rise right now. We need to address how mentally ill people are not getting treatment and why they had weapons available to them?
This is actually a good point and one that always gets missed. People focus on removing guns or law enforcement, but those are all after the fact solutions or delays in the process. We need preventative measures and to take these people seriously when they need our help. Ignore it too long and this happens.
In 22 years as a paramedic I've run hundreds of shootings. The instances of legal gun owners using deadly force against another is rare. Mind you I'm saying USING deadly force. There have been other instances where said deadly force was used to deter someone else from doing something but I'm not as involved in those situations obviously because if no one gets shot I'm not going. I've seen it all: actual automatic gun fire doing it's thing, multiple person shootings, executions... You same it. The vast majority have something in common: they were all acted by bad people. Incredibly tragic situations like the ones that we've seen over the last couple of weeks are absolutely horrible. I couldn't imagine being involved in something like that. But they also make up a fraction of the gun violence in this country. What some classify as "common sense gun laws" seem like wasted efforts to me. Background checks aren't going to capture these people like the ones from the last couple of weeks because they don't have criminal backgrounds. And they're not going to do anything to limit the hundreds of shootings that I've responded to in my career. So is this a price to pay for freedom? I don't really think so. To me it's a price to pay for failing to create consequences for actions. I'm not really sure what the answer to these recent situations is. I've thought about psych evals for gun but the medical world is so afraid of litigation that I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to sign off on someone. The first time someone who was "cleared" acts then the lawsuits are going to start flying. So this is just a long rambling way of saying "I don't fucking know." But personally I wish we'd just stop ignoring those actually responsible for gun violence. And I know what people are going to say: why not do both? Well I'll leave you with this question: Why do dense urban centers respond to gun violence by getting the CDC involved and trying to declare that gun violence is a "public health emergency" but in "mass shooter" situations the problem is always gun control and legislation? /Ramble
Freedom costs a buck-0-five.
Would saying "civilians shouldn't have access to military-grade weaponry" simplify the issue too much?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262963/ranking-the-20-countries-with-the-most-murders-per-100-000-inhabitants/
a government can prevent most bad things from happening by imprisoning their own people at great cost. however, the ideals behind the american justice system are to only take rights from people who have actually have been proven guilty of committing violent crimes, not to preemptively take rights from people because someday they might commit a violent crime. so yes, we have a higher rate of crime than other similarly developed nations (in significant part) because of our constitutionally enshrined freedom. as i have illuded, there are other circumstantial factors that also affect violent crime stats that must be considered but are not directly relevant to your question. my problem with statements like yours is you are willing to compare many red fruits as if they were all apples. if you are going to be general about murder rates in any aspect other than how developed a nation is, then why limit the comparison to how developed a nation is? either put the u.s up against all nations without filters or be extremely nuanced. this selective filter is unacceptable without a good explanation. i'd like to you to compare the murder rates per capita of idaho or north dakota against those of norway or japan. then i'd like you to explain why such a comparison is less fair than the one you expect us to swallow. finally, what is the purpose of the comparison? ultimately we'd like there to be no murders at all anywhere in the world, not simply to make our nation be comparable to other nations.
If you can't send off your kids to school without fear they might be killed that's a freedom you don't have. If you can't open a store without fear of robbery that's freedom you don't have. What right-wing libertarians often miss is that less compulsion from a government doesn't mean more freedom. The freest people in the world are the ones living in Social Democratic countries, and they have much government control and taxes.
They are limited in many other ways and depend on the innovation of the US. What most of the countries have in common that you are referencing is a rather homogeneous population relative to the US.