I don’t see a list, please give us your list. I already posted a list, which you reviled, even though it is from the UN. Now, it is time for your list.
Most of the guns for criminals are bought from dealers by straw man dealers, who then resell at a huge profit to criminals. That is what I want to stop. You do not seem to care about this.
So, you are saying here you want the victims of home invasions robberies, burglaries and the like to be punished when the thief or someone he sells the gun to uses it in a crime? In other words- punish the victim, not the killer. That is pure, 100%, unadulterated victim blaming, which is unethical, and it would require the complete rewrite of 200 years of Tort and common law. Likely the repeal of a Constitutional Amendment too.
Oh please, give me a list of nations that make it so that once you purchase a gun you are legally responsible for it after it is stolen. I will bet you can not find even one. Cite?
Those proposals are nonsensical, unconstitutional, and would only hurt the honest law abiding gun owner. They would not impede the criminal at all.
I, unlike you, want common sense, real world gun control laws, ones that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I am not a NRA member, I instead support the ACLU.
Fair enough. But it also applies to alcohol or drug use, or premarital sex. It has been foolhardy to try to restrict such behaviors with prohibition. In America, I believe that also applies to gun use.
Sure. America will always have a lot of guns. But we could pass some common sense, real world gun control laws, ones that keep guns out of the hands of criminals. These would reduce violent crime.
I told you, the list of countries with an HDI over 0.8. That also comes from the UN BTW.
Wtf are you blabbing about? Of course I care about this. The proposal to make people WHO WERE NEGLIGENT ABOUT STORING THEIR WEAPONS liable has nothing to do with other changes we need (including registering all guns, registering all changes in ownership, mandatory background checks for all gun transfers, etc etc etc).
Nope, not if they weren’t negligent about the way they stored their gun. If your home is broken into and a gun is taken from your safe, and you file a police report when you get home that evening (or three days later because you were away on business) you wouldn’t be liable. If your gun was taken from your dresser, you’d be liable. If your gun was taken from your cabin and you only reported the theft 6 months later, you’d be liable.
Is the exotic foreign nation of Cah-Li-Fornia sufficient?
Really? So why call me names and ignore my real world gun control suggestions?
So, exactly what do you think “registering all guns” will do? Since that only applies to non-criminals. And none of which you suggested up until now.
So, if your gun is there, ready for use, you are negligent? Guns must be locked up, inaccessible , at all times? The Supreme Court already said this is Unconstitutional.
That did not go into law. So, no. Proposed laws don’t count.
You stated that every comparable nation make it so that once you purchase a gun you are legally responsible for it after it is stolen. You can’t even come up with one.
If this is such a great gun control idea, then why don’t the nations with the most stringent gun control laws use it? Why has no one tried it?
I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘restrict guns’ here. Basically, we DO regulate firearms in the US. Some states heavily restrict access, in fact, making it practically impossible to purchase a gun in several cities (legally of course). So, I don’t think we necessarily need to give up on that. Basically, the goal should be to intact common-sense restrictions that aren’t obvious slippery slopes designed to essentially eliminate whole classes of weapons with the eventual goal of a total ban. The difficult part is, again, going to be from the extremes, as, at this point, the pro-gun crowd has zero trust in any of this legislation, while the anti-gun side DOES want to work toward an eventual ban. Trust needs to be rebuilt on both sides.
Agreed. That’s an interesting way to look at it as well.
Yeah, it’s a good idea. Not sure if it would work in the real world, but as I said, I’d be for something like this and if you were able to make this as part of a licensing system, and actually get both sides and the middle to accept it, I think it would be beneficial.
I continue to be impressed by how hard Americans work at not making their country better.
Anyway homicide rates from firearms. The US is unsurprisingly good at killing each other with guns
From that data, a view to some countries vs. the US. I would think trying to at least get it down to something comparable to a country continually in a low level of conflict like Israel could be a reasonable target.
Whenever I go to Israel some moron asks me if I’m not worried about terrorism, and I point out that I’m far more likely to be killed in the US due to our staggering rate of gun violence than I am to be killed by terrorism in Israel.
Yes, but let’s not forget that all those people who died were actually American patriots. They died so that the King of England cannot come over and kick them around. I’m sure the 16-year-old who was shot and killed trying to disarm the 15-year-old shooter at Oxford died with freedom on his lips, knowing that his life was being spent to keep America free! Because as we all know, if you don’t have the 2nd amendment, then you don’t have any freedom at all.
It is curious how other homicide rates are roughly similar. It is purely a guns & gun culture issue. Some people simply say people will kill each other with other weapons. In that case lets just look at Canada and the US using the following two links
Method
Canada (Raw/per 100k)
US (Raw/per 100k)
Shooting
743
1.96
13663
4.14
Stabbing
234
0.62
1739
0.53
Beating
129
0.34
1055
0.32
Strangulation
33
0.09
58
0.02
Fire
9
0.02
106
0.03
Other
28
0.07
209
0.06
Unknown
33
0.09
0.00
Total
1209
3.18
16830
5.10
Looks like like the US/Canada numbers are fairly close except, of course, homicide by gun. Which I want to point out the Canadians list as “Shooting” while the US numbers have multiple categories (Handguns, Firearms - not stated, Rifles, Shotguns, and Other guns)
Not sure I understand your point. My earlier post was linked to intentional death via firearms and the restriction to countries of similar wealth and views on the value of human life. If you want to compare the US to war torn regions of where regimes/gangs impose rule through death squads and violence I suppose you feel differently.
My second one does address the point around use of differing methods to intentionally kill someone. Again, thinking the comparison would be more useful and valid if the countries were similar instead of separated economically, politically and morally.
In fact the 2nd table indicates that the US has rates of death comparable to Canada in all categories except shootings. Since the primary difference there is regulation of firearms the conclusion is that the US does not care that it’s citizens die due to a lack of regulation or enforcement of that regulation.
Pull up the figures for non-gun-related deaths and I think you’ll find those are also outside of the norms for the countries you are trying to compare the US too.
Why? Honest question…why would we care about such comparisons? All countries make compromises wrt public safety. Some countries allow smoking indoors, for instance, even though that will cause additional deaths. Some countries allow for more slack wrt drinking, again even though that will cause additional deaths. Some countries allow more pollution from different sources, even though that causes more deaths. The US has a history of private gun ownership, protected by the Constitution, even though we know, for a fact, this will cause more deaths. It’s not like it’s news to us that it does after all. So…why would we care about what other countries do or don’t do wrt how they choose to set limits and levels on things that will cause additional deaths? I don’t care what Germany or France do, for instance, wrt allowing people to smoke in a building or drink and drive or anything else…including what they do wrt allowing or not allowing private firearms. That’s their business…it’s their country after all.
Basically, what it comes down to is that there is still a majority of US citizens who want to continue to allow private firearms ownership and continue to support the 2nd Amendment. When and if that changes, it will change. But it won’t change because of charts like the one you show here…which we’ve seen for decades now.
What’s funny is how often people rush to the “you just don’t understand guns/are afraid of them!” angle.
I grew up in Israel, where everyone is very familiar with guns thanks to mandatory army service (actually not too dissimilar from what is suggested in this thread). Every Israeli adult knows (or knew at one time) how to disassemble and reassemble an assault rifle (an actual assault rifle, not an AR15), how to fire a rifle, etc. Yet vanishingly few Israelis feel the need to trot around with a shiny metal penis surrogate once they leave the service.
A distaste for civilians running around playing Rambo has nothing to do with whether you’re familiar with guns or not. It doesn’t even have anything to do with whether you LIKE guns (I think guns, as finely tuned machines - a pinnacle of engineering for their purpose, to kill - are pretty cool). It has to do with whether you want a society built on the rule of law, or a society based around Might Is Right (where your boomstick ensures you have the Might and therefore the Right).
Because the “history of private gun ownership” is not worth protecting at the cost of hundreds of innocent lives. Frankly it’s staggering to me that when lives are on one side of the scale and guns are on the other, anyone would choose the guns.
Well to be fair I was obliquely addressing DrDeth’s odd demand that we compare US gun deaths to countries like Ethiopia or Guatemala as if those are somehow valid comparisons.
The fact that Canadian homicide rates (for methods other than shooting) are comparable to the US suggest that simple regulation of gun could easily lead to a drop in gun deaths.
As usual for threads like these many gun advocates spend a lot of time framing the question as gun deaths in the US simply being a fact of nature and there really no point in taking action. It’s distressing and fascinating at the same time for those of us outside.
You’ll get it when you understand that those who chose the guns see the value of those lives (at least a large enough portion of them) as miniscule — essentially worth nothing.
@DrDeth since you did bring up the Seychelles gun homicide rate you’re right. It is basically 0.9 per 100,000
Of course the Seychelle have a population of ~70,000 so less than a person a year is murdered by guns. I wonder if it’s possible that since the death rate is sufficiently low it’s a rolling average that gets publicized as yearly metric.
