That’s interesting. If you were to hazard a guess, why do you think we have such a high rate of violent crime, and crimes using guns, in the US?
It drives me nuts that there is this prevalent belief that anyone should be able to get anything because freedom.
Hunting rifles? Okay, fine. Handguns? No. You don’t need them for self defense if nobody else gets to have them either. Get a damned baseball bat if you are that worried.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the UK only allows hunting rifles with a license, correct? You don’t hear about rampant gun crimes, or pining for access to semi-automatics. At least I don’t.
Perhaps it’s time to (mostly) disarm the extremists?
We have a high rate of gun crimes because we are awash with the things. We have a high rate of violent crime largely because we’ve always been a violent culture; once such a thing becomes established it’s largely self perpetuating.
It drives me nuts when someone sets up a straw man so they can argue against it.
Define extremist.
People who want to shoot their political opponents?
So we have gun crimes because we have access to guns.
And we’re a violent culture because we’ve always been a violent culture.
If we take away the guns suddenly we take away violent behavior? Or by taking away the guns will the people who have always belonged to a violent culture find new ways of causing harm?
I’m curious to know more about the laws in the UK. Don’t they also have much mass surveillance systems watching the public?
Certainly. Easy access to guns means that anyone inclined to violence for any reason can easily grab hold of one, and makes them more inclined to do so because it’s so likely that they’ll run into people with guns. If guns are heavily restricted people are less likely to be able to get hold of guns, especially in the heat of passion. And people (including criminals) are less likely to want them because having them just puts them in more danger by escalating the situation.
We haven’t “always” been here, so no. But American culture was largely founded by people who spread much faster than the law-and-order of the government did, and tended to solve disputes among themselves or with the native population by violence.
Mostly what you would do is tone down the lethality of violence. And make it easier to run away.
I’m going by your comment which was “we’ve always been a violent culture.”
I would be curious to see how that would turn out, if the violent culture we’ve always had would it seriously decrease? I live in a state with a high level of gang violence fueled not just by poverty, access to guns, and violent media, but by perverse ideologies.
Would the Mexican Mafia and Nuestra Familia continue their gang war for control of the streets? Would they simply alter their lifestyles, or like in prison, would their street soldiers become more resourceful in ways of murder? What about the Aryan Brotherhood and the BGF?
Since we’re a culture that is used to violence, just like we’re a culture used to partaking in recreational drug use, would making guns illegal be similar to making alcohol and drugs illegal?
Probably somewhat; guns being less available and more expensive makes them less attractive. And while they can turn to other methods of violence, they tend to be less efficient and less danger to third parties.
Demonstrably not so, given that various nations have successfully restricted access to guns, while even prisons and dictatorships find that exceedingly difficult to do with drugs.
The two things aren’t really very analogous; drugs are normally bought by willing users, who cooperate with the seller in keeping it all secret and use it in secret. Guns are used on unwilling victims, and using guns on people means taking them out of hiding and exposing yourself. You can use drugs while staying alone out of sight somewhere, but there’s not much point to a gun without a target; and the people you shoot aren’t going to cooperate in your attempt to hide your ownership of a gun, and dead bodies are evidence.
Is “somewhat” less dangerous worth banning guns completely? I would disagree about being less efficient because of the power in numbers. I don’t need to be a gang member to be target by gangs or be a victim of gang violence.
Mexico has strong restrictions on gun and yet look at the gun violence. There not “awash” with legal access to guns either. They get their guns from trafficking them. I suppose if the US banned them as well then they would have to go another route. But considering the amount of corruption there and how former members of law enforcement end up working for the cartels I think it would still be an issue.
Except that people don’t buy guns solely to shoot people for absolutely no reason whatsoever. However twisted or criminal, many have their reasons. Gangs will not only use them to kill their rivals but also as protection and a sense of security. And gangs will not allow themselves to lose control of their territory and their business just because guns are now hard to come by. The violent criminal mentality is still there, just as the demand for guns and weapons will be there.
If gang members currently can’t walk around with guns legally. They’re already carrying illegally obtained firearms.
Certainly.
But gangs without guns are rather less likely to kill you 200 feet away by accident through a wall if they don’t have guns. And it’s difficult to kill a dozen people with a baseball bat or knife.
They and the rest of the criminal groups of North & South America have the USA to serve as an armory. As long as it’s so trivially easy to pick up weapons here they’ll have easy access to guns in nearly limitless numbers. Especially with all the drug money that also comes from the US.
More likely they’ll avoid getting them for a sense of security, if guns aren’t common. That’s what tends to happen in nations with low access to guns; criminals avoid getting guns themselves, it just means they are more likely to be shot when the cops find out they have one.
The problem is that these gang members don’t exhibit any real restraint or care for non-targets. When they don’t have access to guns, but still want to terrorize rival neighborhoods, what are guns replaced by? In the town I used to live in they used molotov cocktails to attack a rivals house, even though they knew he had a family living there as well. Which is why I mentioned how we as a society have promoted and glorified violence.
Currently yes. When access to gun shops in the US is cut off, where will the cartels go to for weaponry? And again, while I have issues with the drug war, I don’t see the cartels closing up shop if legalization occurs. They want to get rich through illegal means.
I would like to see if there are any new illegal markets that would be created by this and what possible areas or countries could fulfill this new demand.
Mexico banned guns and yet our country is their armory as you put it. So the success of this ban on guns would be dependent upon other nations as well that can serve as potential arms traffickers.
Switzerland is awash in guns and has a low rate of gun violence. The problem isn’t just availability.
I wouldn’t be as concerned about this issue if the people who want to keep us safe haven’t proven that it’s a slippery slope. We’re also starting to get knife control, and don’t get me started on the abolition of chemistry sets. What’s next; making karate illegal, like in Larry Niven’s stories? Newspaper control?
Switzerland is not awash in bullets, though.
That there are developed nations that manage with all the increased violence in media and the casual portrayal of gun use seen on tv screens everyday, without its citizens clamouring for a weapon of their own to protect them from their worst fears, tells us it IS a mentality problem, compounded by the availability of guns.
Guns just happen to be the most convenient weapon for making some people feel less fearful. If there was a glove invented that fired lightning bolts from the fingers, all those people who felt the need for a lethal method of protection would want one of them.
Switzerland’s criminals wear suits and use pens and their brains, not guns and knives. Iow, they have a better criminal underclass and lack the problems of other developed nations.
How’s about you try to just curb violence first? The gun violence will then automatically go down. Less violence, less violent episodes where a gun could be used, less gun violence.
The problem isn’t the guns. It’s the tendency to get into viloent disputes that is the problem.
What causes that tendency to violence? A lot of things, and it’d probably be more constructive to debate that than to try for the zillionth time to take away the guns.
No doubt you are referencing that the Swiss goverment no longer supplies all of its reservists with ammo. Perhaps you should have checked whether ammunition can be privately purchased.
In that case, the problem isn’t gangsta rap and bad guy heroes, it’s the people who have the urge to emulate them.
That some people are drawn towards these portrayals enough to want to be like them, says something about their own individual weaknesses.