Gun control a comparison US vs Russia
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
Totally expected these kind of reactions xD
I will only refer to my "thought experiment".
Plus the obnoxious try to list noxious substances which are rarely used as weapons in that discussion is close to rep worthy
Made my day!
I'll try to help out but I think you're going to have a hard time sparking board old timers into a gun debate without some heinous tragedy. We've pounded this gun stuff over and over and over for several years.
Your main point seems to be that accessibility of guns in America leads to higher rates of mortality by guns. Nobody in their right mind is going to argue that. In fact, the gun control in Chicago or D.C. examples inherently reinforces your point. It's also an extreme that shows exactly why protecting ourselves and families from rapists and murderers is the highest priority in America, where the Europeans and Canadians don't value this one bit. It's mysterious and unexplainable why a society that gives serial abusers free reign over their women and children find it so necessary to preach gun morality to us.
Do you understand why we think our self righteous, nosey neighbors are beyond insane?
I find your point is mostly valid. While I don't think that a handgun would be accessible enough when you get get attacked from close range for whatever reason, I totally do agree with Germany being lax on abuse and rape. I'd go publicly as far to state that those kind of people belong death sentenced. I'm no unbiased person in this, but I haven't come to a better solution to handle these kind of degenerates.
Yes and no...
If I am in a situation where I am attacked, and it comes down to my life or his, it will be his, and will be necessary from my perspective at that moment.
You could argue that the attack was probably unnecessary, and therefore the resulting death, but I wouldn't have control over that particular part of the equation.
This would never work, and here's why: I don't know what the ratio of registered to unregistered firearms is, but most states don't have registration requirements for handguns, shotguns, or regular rifles. I'm guessing, but I would assume the number of guns in circulation that have a clear paper trail is low. In most places, private sales are legal, and require no documentation, so it is difficult to verify ownership. The assumption that all gun owners would comply with an outright gun ban is naive, at best. It is more likely, IMO, that you would see the formation of the militias that the second amendment cites, and extensive civil conflict. But let's say all registered guns are turned in. What then? This has been explained, ad nauseam, but by eliminating only the firearms that are least likely to be used in an illegal manner, the only thing you accomplish is taking away a measure of protection from those who obey the laws. The only way this works is if all guns are recovered, and that would be a nearly impossible task.
That's not what I meant.
I think we get way too caught up in emotional fights over incidents to convey the deep down intent behind gun freedom. The bottom line is we place higher value on giving protection to our weak and vulnerable than we do potentially-in-a-vacuum higher overall death tolls. Europe, on the other hand, trusts society to minimize overall death tolls while accepting potentially-in-a-vacuum higher rapes and murders. We accept potentially higher murder rates by guns, they accept vulnerable women who are home alone having no defenses against rapists.
Wait...just get rid of guns and ask everyone nicely to turn them all in? How come no one has thought of that. Great idea.
Regarding the first I should have said: Murder, homicide or whatever, not limiting it to guns
My wish is that it should NEVER come down to a situation where it's either him or you...I didn't know that there was no requirement to register weapons and that free trading was allowed. I find that shockingly unresponsible.
Maybe that should be the first step. Buying new weapons should be only possible with registration and proper instruction/training. Add to that psychological clearance.
All weapons are not allowed to be privately sold. It simply is required to state it so it becomes illegal if caught trading an illegal weapon.
Illegal weapons are to be registered retrospectively. If not done and you get caught you get fined.
When carrying weapons outside your home you have to carry legal documents at all times with yourself.
Maybe that would be a good first step for diligent weapon usage/possession, so there's the possibility in 20 or 30 years from now to control the vast majority of functioning weapons while slowly lowering criminal acts involving guns.
Make fun of me all you want.
But the problem is home made...You have 2 parties and none has the balls and unity to address this topic consistently.
I just want to remind it's not me who created this topic, I simply take part at the discussion. And if I make a statement that's self evident I connect it with another statement that shows another angle and maybe my opinion.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Here is a more realistic scenario.
First, develop time travel. We will need a physicist to help us get past the annoying physics hurdles, like speed of light and wormholes and alternate universes and all that crap. Colton get on that.
Check.
Next, we travel back in time to the 1st century AD China and start systematically killing anyone working with saltpeter. Since it is through experimentation, largely for medicinal purposes, that Chinese alchemists figured out the properties of saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and eventually, around the 8th century AD, discovered the mixture for gunpowder. Make it a crime punishable by death to experiment with saltpeter.
Next travel to every major era of breakthrough for gunpowder-related inventions and kill the inventors. This will have to start in China, then Japan, the middle-east, then europe, finally coming to America and taking out guys like Colt and Browning.
There, now guns no longer exist and they can thoroughly be "controlled", and, since everyone knows that before guns there were never any conflicts in which people were killed, we will have about 18 billion people on the planet in modern times since we have lived in peace and prosperity without the unmitigated evil of guns.
Or we could just go back in time and kill all republicans, since they are the root of all evil anyway. Either way the effect is the same: no guns and a perfect society.
First, develop time travel. We will need a physicist to help us get past the annoying physics hurdles, like speed of light and wormholes and alternate universes and all that crap. Colton get on that.
Check.
Next, we travel back in time to the 1st century AD China and start systematically killing anyone working with saltpeter. Since it is through experimentation, largely for medicinal purposes, that Chinese alchemists figured out the properties of saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and eventually, around the 8th century AD, discovered the mixture for gunpowder. Make it a crime punishable by death to experiment with saltpeter.
Next travel to every major era of breakthrough for gunpowder-related inventions and kill the inventors. This will have to start in China, then Japan, the middle-east, then europe, finally coming to America and taking out guys like Colt and Browning.
There, now guns no longer exist and they can thoroughly be "controlled", and, since everyone knows that before guns there were never any conflicts in which people were killed, we will have about 18 billion people on the planet in modern times since we have lived in peace and prosperity without the unmitigated evil of guns.
Or we could just go back in time and kill all republicans, since they are the root of all evil anyway. Either way the effect is the same: no guns and a perfect society.
Laws vary from state to state (and even city to city) but most do not require registration. As far as it being irresponsible... if the guns themselves were the problem, with 300M guns floating around, we'd see MUCH MUCH MORE gun death than we do.
This is partly already in force - buying from a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (retail sale) requires a background check (this also creates a paper trail). Criminals generally do not buy their weapons through a FFL.
Selling and buying crack is illegal, yet that happens thousands of times daily. Laws do not stop the unlawful.
Again, proving ownership on the vast majority of the 300M guns in the US would be an insurmountable task. Plus, in addition to the amendment that would be violated by taking away gun rights, others would be violated by any search or seizure that resulted from an attempt to enforce it.
This also is in place, after a fashion. Again, laws vary from place to place, but most areas that allow weapons to be carried require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
The fact of the matter is, most of these measures would have zero effect on guns used for illicit activity. They would make the gun control crowd feel all warm and fuzzy, but they would have no substantive effect on gun violence. Mainly, they would just be further inconvenience to the millions of law abiding gun owners, making it more difficult to protect themselves.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I don't think you fully appreciate the scale of the USA. A national statistic for the US is almost meaningless. The murder rate for the state of utah in 2010(utah highest year) was 1.7 while for the city of chicago it was 15.2 per 100k. There are pockets of extreme violence that really skew those numbers. Comparing Germany and the us makes just as little sense as comparing the us and russia. (That was the whole point of this thread fwiw). One of the reasons that Germany is less violent than the us is because the average age of the population is older.
If we look at violent crime rates through the lens of demographics the correlation is obvious and inarguable. I suspect(because you are obviously quite intelligent) that you aware of this and choose to ignore it. I would say that you are the one that is being polemical.
Honestly I didn't consider the demographics. It's an interesting point. I don't think I was polemical in any way since I tried to stick to facts and arguments, not the way the message is brought over.
And I think really making a comparison with Luxembourg is not really a way to make a valid comparison because that's just a similar extreme like Chicago or Detroit.
Gun control is impossible. Frankly, gun control suffers from the same problem that the drug war and most sorts of prohibition suffer from. That you cannot fight a law against supply and demand, unless the widget (for lack of a better term) demanded is extremely hard to produce (there is probably a huge demand for enriched uranium among terrorists, but thankfully not any jackass can produce it, and the one drug that the drug war almost totally eliminated was LSD, because the vast majority of it was supplied by a couple guys who were busted in 2000 or so and because it's somewhat difficult to make...though there the demand for psychedelics just got shifted to mushrooms).
With guns the market is saturated with them in the US. There are millions of guns around, even if all of a sudden they were made illegal. And if they were and if a gun war were declared, in addition to the guns already out in the marketplace little clandestine gun shops would open and they would be produced, as long as there was a profit to be made.
Gun control works well in Europe and Japan because there isn't much of a demand for them. If there were basic economic theory dictates that they would find their way over there, which has been proven out for damn near anything government has made illegal.
With guns the market is saturated with them in the US. There are millions of guns around, even if all of a sudden they were made illegal. And if they were and if a gun war were declared, in addition to the guns already out in the marketplace little clandestine gun shops would open and they would be produced, as long as there was a profit to be made.
Gun control works well in Europe and Japan because there isn't much of a demand for them. If there were basic economic theory dictates that they would find their way over there, which has been proven out for damn near anything government has made illegal.
I think making it easier rather than harder to murder another person has an effect you might expect. Societal issues are far more the culprit in homicide rates, but that doesn't mean that the practically universal ability to own machinery that kills by trigger isn't an accelerant.
At that point you are only arguing the degree of the accelerant. What amount is to much and what amount is allowed? Also framing guns as an accelerant shows that they are not the root cause of the murders, only facilitate it. Would that not lead to trying to correct the cause instead of addressing the symptoms?