Lol I mean I can’t speak for other governments, but I highly doubt citizen weaponry is a factor. The first two reasons are valid though. Australian gun rights have been severely restricted but you don’t see anyone invading them. Conquests and invasions are largely a thing of the past. People who hoard guns are gun enthusiasts so they have to convince themselves they’re doing something righteous whenever a perceived threat to their gun ownership is presented. Mounting violence in their own streets means very little if they think they’ll be the first line of defense against a foreign invasion. In 50 years we’ll be looking back on America as a country that had a gun fetish that lasted far too long.
I don't really disagree with you on what the second amendment says, so I'm not arguing with you. I just think the second amendment was a dumb idea and I'd like to see it repealed. I won't be moving to the UK because I'm an American and I think it's much better to stay and make your own country a better place than run off to some fantasy land that has a different set of problems. Yes.
Word on the street is that there has been a huge surge in betting on the potential winners of this years Darwin Awards.
It’s no coincidence that gun violence has increased as we made it easier to get guns and civilians have access to more powerful firearms. The solution is a better risk management system, right now we have a patch work of gun laws. Like our tax system, gun laws are intentionally complex to be able to get around it. We need a federal only system and we need to actually want it to work. Right now it’s so watered down due to lobbyists that it’s ineffective. The drug war is most directly responsible for gun violence frankly. I have a LTC in Texas, no longer called CHL in Texas.
Well that and the fact that we are essentially an island that has great allies on one side. Oh yeah and fact that we are only around 200 years old.
That's just a lie. The AR15 has been sold in the US since the 1960s, and back then if you paid a 200 dollar tax you could get the full auto M16 version. That effectively changed in 1986 when they banned the sale of new machine guns, and caused a full auto M16 to be worth north of $15,000 now. It was way easier to buy a 50 cal machine gun before 1986 than it is now so the access to more powerful weapons is straight up BS. I have said on here a number of times I don't have a problem with stricter gun control laws. However, most of what is proposed is feel good nonsense because you aren't getting the kind of gun control that would actually have an impact on our gun violence. Which by the way... most of is not mass shootings. It's gang violence and suicides. Mass shootings are horrible and happen way too often but are statistically almost nothing compared to the overall problem.
For whatever reason the proliferation of these guns didn’t occur until the 90s and beyond. I think it’s because gun laws increasingly became a patchwork ( you didn’t mention the patchwork of laws). Drug violence is a big issue ( as I clearly said) exacerbated by patchwork of laws. Chicago is a perfect example of how weak laws when the overall system allows for abuse.
Gun violence is estimated to cost America 229 billion dollars a year. Cutting that cost down to the amount of other first world countries would pay of the entire amount of outstanding student loans in 5-6 years. The number one cause of death for black infants and children in the USA is gun violence. That is to say putting a bullet or multiple bullets into a child's body until they die. Black children are ten times as likely to die from being shot and killed than white children in the United States. The United States gun related homicide rate is over twenty five times higher than the rest of the first world nations. The second leading cause of death for children in the USA is children being shot by guns. Over 70% of all homicides in the United States are from gun shots. Every single day 100 Americans are killed as a result of gun violence. Every month 52 American women are shot and killed in the USA by their husband or boyfriend. Every day 8 children in the USA are shot by accident by a family member. Nearly one million women in the USA have been a victim of personal gun violence..............
They became a "patchwork" because anti-gun states didn't like the federal system that was too lax in their view. The federal gun laws rarely change because Congress can't accomplish anything. It needs a technological overall. The goverment can't keep up with 3d printed guns, etc, etc.... Civilans want whatever they see on tv being used in war. After WWII the garand and M1 carbine became and are still somewhat popular. After Vietnam the AR15 didn't become as popular because the first models had serious problems and a lot of soldiers came home saying they sucked. That changed in the 80s/90s as the newer versions of the AR15/M16 became more reliable and people realized how customizable they are. They are like the corvette or mustang of guns. Tons of aftermarket parts and ways to make it your own and you can have it in a ton of different calibers from 22LR up to 50 cal.
A couple of points. I currently own over 100 firearms. There will not be a complete ban on firearms in the USA for a number of reasons. Many Americans would not support it, it would cause some degree of a civil war and there are so many guns already on the street. The key is to make owning and using a firearm very restricted and to tax firearm owners for the negative externalities associated with gun ownership. There are more guns now that ever, but that is largely due to a small group of gun owners buying a great number of weapons. Hand guns are the most dangerous guns in the USA and those are the ones that should be targeted as far as decreasing gun violence. Someone like myself should not be able to have over 100 firearms. I am a collector but there is no real practical reason for Americans to own as many as I do. I know owners that have 5 times what I currently own. Not directed at you, but yes I believe American civilians owning so many guns is a recipe for disaster and the statistics prove it to be the case. While I really enjoy guns, I do believe that we are at a point as a country where we need restrict the number of guns available. The statistics are staggering and as someone that has economic concerns about the USA, the secondary costs are staggering to this society as well.
Nook, I own a similar number but disagree with you on a number of points. agree to a certain extent this is already the case agree fine as far as it goes. Handguns are already largely regulated, and it is difficult to see what additional regulations would prevent criminals from using handguns in criminal acts disagree. What possible principled justification can one offer to defend the statement "Someone like myself should not be able to have over 100 firearms." I assume you have not harmed anyone, shot anyone, or lent a firearm to anyone else who then went out to shoot someone. So why a prohibition on the mere "collection" of firearms? statistics can be misleading. not one of my firearms has shot and killed any of the black infants you mentioned in the earlier post ("The number one cause of death for black infants and children in the USA is gun violence"). If I am a collector, why am I to be punished for the actions of others? I don't really have a problem with the idea of "restricting the number of guns," I guess I have a problem with the various methods that are generally offered to accomplish that goal. again I think statistics are fine, but the civil liberties issues need to be acknowledged at the same time
I see very little in here I disagree with depending on how the taxes would be enforced..... on the saleof guns and ammo I am fine with but some annual gun tax.... nope. I also don't care about a limit on how many guns someone owns. If they are responible and store them correctly I could care less how many they own. There is no practical reason for a tesla to do 0-60 in 2.3 seconds. This has nothing to do with practicality. You are correct on handguns being the real problem. However, they aren't going anywhere. My problem is anti-gun people targeting AR15 because these mass shooter nut jobs have been using them. All rifles represent somewhere around 3-7 percent of gun deaths. Handguns are closer to 90%. That's like saying my solution to stopping drunk driving fatalities is banning mikes hard lemonade because 4% of drunk drivers drank that stuff. It's a statisical failure from the start as a solution. However, they take whatever they can get and have been successful in several states banning them so those are their targets for now. I had a collection similar in size to you. I've reduced it down to about 10-12 guns. One of my best friends was shot point blank with 2 rounds of buckshot to the neck and face by the police in his parent's back yard. One of my current friends has facial twitches when we start talking about Iraq. Watching a grenade drop from a rooftop and mess up your friends when you are walking down a narrow alley will do that to you.... I suffer from Meniere's disease from hearing damage so I shoot a lot less because I get dizzy spells. I am well aware of violence.
The most restrictive gun law states are (in no order) NY, CAL, HI, NJ, CN and IL Despite having very large population centers, NY has one the lowest firearm death rates in the country. They have a rate that is only 1/5 as high as the least restrictive states like AL and OK. That is amazing. They are also bordered by NJ and CN and that have rates are almost identical to NY. In the North East is one state that actually have very loose gun laws, that is VT and their death by firearms rate is 2.5 times higher than their neighbors. HI also has a gun related homicide rate similar to NY, which is well below the national average. In fairness, Hawaii is not bordered by anyone, and it is likely harder to bring guns in. Illinois has a firearm death rate of the national average but it is lower than it's neighbors. 4 of the 5 states with the least restrictive guns laws have death rates on average of twice the national average. There is one exception though......... Arizona. They have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country and they still have a low death by firearm rate. So the question is why? Well, when you do an age related adjustment for Arizona, their rate climbs to 1.5 times the national average. Older citizens are simply more careful with guns. There are a lot of seniors and children in Arizona so the rates are skewed. My point being that there is certainly a really strong correlation between restrictive gun laws at the state level and a decrease in death rates. Is causation equal to correlation? Not necessarily, but it is certainly something to consider.
