Yes, but Mexico, with similar gun restrictions, has a lot more.
Way to project your bias there dude. I note the conspicuous absence of any commentary regarding my other observation that feral pests require huge amounts of culling. It’s impossible to overstate how necessary semi automatic rifles are for that purpose. Cheesesteak made an absolute statement - there is no need for guns - and it’s a statement that deserves ridicule. People on the land need them, lots of them. And criminals have decided for at least a century they they too need them. Hence, they will smuggle them.
I forgot the feral pests, and that is a tell about my bias? Do tell?
I think it’s ridiculous to make laws based on smugglers behavior.
You know if I wanted to I could go off on a reductio riff like the gun fans just loooove to do, and basically say we do not need a criminal code because criminals don’t obey laws anyway.
It makes as much sense to say that as to say that “cars can be weapons too” or the other reductions that the ammo fans love.
One could speculate that the difference is that Mexico is near a place where people can get guns with relative ease and attempts to limit guns are therefore easier to evade.
It’s reported that seventy percent of the illegal guns confiscated in Mexico originated in the United States. cite
And My American Cousin was a passable comedy too.
I think you’re kind of burying the lede with Mexico. There’s some factors in play to say the least.
Yes.
The idea that all people are safer without a means of self-defense is so fundamentally ridiculous it’s laughable. Humans have created and carried weapons for thousands of years - It’s what allowed us to dominate as a species. This is why police carry guns. Why soldiers carry guns. Why near every wagon of the Oregon trail had a gun. Guns are a simple and effective means of self-defense.
If my door is broken in at 3:00 AM tonight should I throw my pistol out the window? Should I hope that the intruder has a gun, because if he does he’ll be more likely to shoot himself than me?
Or, like my friend used to say: “Look, I’m 65 years old. If carrying and owning a gun is really less safe than not, I’m going to need to shoot myself more than three times before I die.”
As DrDeth pointed out, the deterrent effect of guns rarely involves actually firing them. Or even showing them. Increased likelihood of potentially-armed victims is in itself a deterrent - which is almost certainly why most mass shooters choose gun-free zones for their crimes.
Yes. In fact, the United States has a lower homicide rate than more than half of the nations in the world. All of them with a higher homicide rate have stricter gun control laws.
Someone will be along shortly to explain why we should exclude some of these data, though, and only count the data that fits their agenda.
ETA: I’m too slow. Somebody already came along.
No, I think you’ve got that covered.
Not precisely. The article says:
(my bold)
The figure only represents the intersection of those submitted and traced to the US. This does not include in the denominator those weapons not submitted. I don’t think there is a good way no know conclusively because of the unreliability of data, however there was this:
It’s a bit out of date but I think the reasoning still holds. I’m sure lots of guns in Mexico are from the US. My first guess would have been that lots get diverted from the guns we sell to their military. Just a guess though.
Sure, and the same with France.
Neither, oddly enough, is the United States of America.
You need semi-automatic rifles to kill pests? Really? And I’m the guy making absolute statements that deserve ridicule?
Other countries in the world have highly restricted access to firearms, and their societies haven’t crumbled under the weight of the regulations. They simply haven’t.
Treat guns like we treat cars. You need to pass a test and get a license in order to operate one, and every gun is registered to its owner.
This.
A large portion of shootings in major cities like Chicago are gang-related. It’s reasonably certain that both sides in a gang conflict have access to guns. That doesn’t seem to deter them. You won’t find many people arguing “make sure the rival gang has just as many guns” as a way of reducing gang violence.
Every car is not registered. If it just sits in a garage or is never operated on public roads, mostly cars dont need to be registered.
And of course the reason for such registration is so that automobile owners can be taxed for said use of public roads.
I’m a Reagon Republican, so for sensible gun laws I’d start there.
No that wouldn’t have stopped the Las Vegas killings, but, as a non-resident, that doesn’t bother me so much: it seems to me that the constitution protects the right for individuals to carry out military assaults: fiddling around at the edges.won’t change that.
Also, 60 deaths is a lot in one hit, but only because it’s in one hit: If I was looking to reduce gun deaths, I’d be looking at the other 5-10 thousand deaths to see if there was something easier.
You mentioned these countries, not me. So, what 's your point?
It’s not all about you, surprising tho it may be.
My post was in response to this:* Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorslap View Post
France and the UK both have far less shootings than the US.*
You were giving a direct response to what he said…or I thought you were, given that you quoted him directly in that same post.
The monumental valence pull that the US has on Mexico makes it impossible to use it as some metric. We can just put our murders offshore, or over border and you get any number you need.
Are you saying that France is in that sort of international relationship? With whom?