In a society where beauty and culture are missing, the only life objective for people is petty competition and artificial displays of power. The bitter emptiness of America was subdued up until the 50s with values of "good ol USA" and religious brainwashing, clearly defined gender roles and industrial innovation in the 60s, anti-war movements of peace and artistry in the 70s, and prosperity in the 80s, 90s, and early 21st century that could fill the void. Now, it's all falling to pieces. My suggestion is if you have the slightest bit of sophistication, get out while you can.
It's obvious that gun control works. Less people die in states with it. It's obvious and the data shows it - it's the CDC for crying out loud. Hunting and home defense are the only reasons for gun possession. And I think there needs to be proper training on use and storage as well. And there should be mental checks to owning a gun. No assault weapons, and I think concealed weapons need heavy restriction as well.
Over the years, I've been inclined to believe the same thing and still do to a point, but as I read about gun violence in one article. I once went to find out if there' s a strong correlation between gun control and gun violence and wrote a small paper about it. It's a fairly weak correlation between the two. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate The top ten countries in gun ownership are not in the top 10 countries with high death rates by firearm.
I don't think that is a very scientific analysis with all due respect - countries have vastly different factors not being accounted for. But within the U.S. which is fairly homogenous - it really stands out how gun control is correlated with fire arm deaths.
Maybe so, but in regards to actual gun control and gun ownership, what other countries seem to have a problem with gun violence, while having liberal laws on gun ownership. It's almost uniquely American. Moreover, those stats are only to serve a minor point that gun ownership is necessarily responsible for high rates gun violence or firearm deaths.
But the U.S. is the only country 88 guns per 100 people, no one is nearly that high. Furthermore, many Euro countries allow very different types of guns. Norway is heavily controlled. If anything your stats actually make the case for gun control because by restricting automatic and the caliber of guns allowed, it may actually lower deaths. You can't just take gun ownership level. You have to look at the gun control laws and the purpose of how guns are used. People in Norway and Europe buy guns for hunting, not the same way here. The issue isn't gun ownership - its gun control and the types of guns available, and how guns are made available and to which people.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your point. America does have some unusually high ownership in gun, but it still does not correlate with the criminality of our citizens. I'm going to suspect that most gun owners acquire guns legally and are probably not felonies or guilty of any crimes associated with gun violence, necessarily.
you have to look at income disparity and poverty rates as well. We have a very high illiteracy rate and poverty rate for a 1st world nation. And that is a big factor. It's that plus the combination of guns that leads to a lot of gun deaths. THere is a reason why the richest states and areas have the fewest gun deaths, and the poorest states which are usually Republican have the highest rate.
So then you are saying that availability of guns causes these kinds of tragedies? And based on that guns should be banned?
What say you about the correlation between war abroad and violence back home? For example: Considering how often and how much you are at war, this would seem to be a very important piece of information. Having said that, if there is a violent culture in America, that's all the more reason not to put guns in those hands.
Nope, I'm saying Norway's relatively restrictive gun control laws did nothing to prevent the worst mass shooting incident of all time, so it is odd to bring up Norway as an example. So single large incidents don't support gun control. Then there is the fact that gun control, while statistically possibly reduces gun deaths, doesn't necessarily reduce violent deaths, and dead is dead regardless of the methodology. Look at Russia as compared to the US. Russia has relatively strict gun control laws, the US relatively lax. Russia's murder rate is about triple ours. Washington DC had some of the most restrictive gun laws (prior to DC v. Heller, you could not even have a handgun in the home) and yet one of the worst murder and violent crime rates in the US. Third there are the compulsory armament places which do not have inordinately high rates of gun violence. See for example Switzerland and Kennesaw, Georgia. Clearly it is not the presence of guns that kills people.
I like how gun control opponents like to use places without effective or meaningful rule of law to use as counterexamples to prove the efficacy of a law. Make sure you mention Ciudad Juarez while you're at it.
Did nothing? Really? You don't think Norway's massacre track record is rather small compared to the USA? Brevik was the first of his kind and a shocking exception to the rule for (gun) violence in Scandinavia. Murder rate is triple. Gun violence rate? Not so much. I agree, violence is mainly a product of socioeconomic factors, but gun laws are not pointless. Citing a place like D.C. as an example of gun laws being ineffective is like saying police cause/don't prevent crime. It's a classic logical fallacy. You have more police in crime ridden areas, and you attribute the police presence to either be 1) ineffective or 2) causing crime itself, when in reality, the presence of law is the only thing keeping such places from falling into even more turmoil.
It would be tough to find an example where a gun control law in Norway prevented a mass shooting. Are you less dead if you are stabbed, beaten, or strangled to death than if you are shot? If murders are not reduced, just changing the weapon, is that really an argument for gun control? What is the point? If they don't reduce violence, and they don't particularly work in areas with high violence. DC had one of the most restrictive gun control laws in America. If gun control doesn't work there, but you say it works somewhere else, how can you be sure it is the gun control laws that are preventing violence? In addition to Washington DC, Russia, Switzerland, and Kennesaw, Georgia, what other examples should be excluded when measuring the efficacy of gun control? Should we only look at places where gun control is positively correlated with a reduction in violent crime?
Which is why it is stupid to point to Brevik as an example of "failed" gun laws. Am I less dead if someone stabs me to death? No. Am I more than likely to die if someone attacks me with a gun instead of a knife? Yes. I'd argue that they do (it's hard to argue that waiting periods and background checks haven't saved numerous lives). Just because there's an intersection that has a high rate of collisions, doesn't mean you remove all street signs and motor vehicle laws in that particular area. A law is only as effective as the body which enforces it, much like a tool in the hands of a person. We started with crappy gun regulations in this country, and we've been trying to play catchup ever since (with our hands tied neatly behind our backs politically, hooray). As Sam pointed out, Mexico can come up with every law they want, but they have no way of enforcing them. We, on the other hand, have nearly every way and means to which enforce them, yet cannot come up with decent laws to save our lives. And when we do, we're already way behind the curve. D.C. was a violent, crime-ridden s**thole before gun laws arrived on the scene. Laws don't magically make guns disappear, gangs disband, and lift people out of poverty. But that's also no excuse to not have laws which stand in the face of such problems, either.
I can easily rattle off the names of dozens of large cities where gun control laws are as restrictive or more so than DC and that also have much lower crime rates. What does this prove other than the laziness of arguing by anecdote and the logical fallacies it leads you into?
Im all for better gun control. I am completely ok with waiting periods and background checks. But implementing crappy legislation in a knee jerk response is like dropping a big ass bolder in a swift stream to slow the water down. I disagree with the US having a good means to enforce them. Its hard to determine how well gun control works. Considering there are an est of 8500 gun related murders a year(out of 12,000ish), mass shootings are relatively a low number. Outside of an outright ban, gun deaths will always be common. Gun control laws will certainly curtail those crimes of emotion/passion, but people will always find ways to kill each other.
This is cookie cutter bull****. Disarming the US is not just about preventing homicide, it's about changing the mentality from one of primitive power trips and fear to a more trustworthy, understanding society. You grow by opening yourself to the world, not closing yourself off.
