You decide. Just so it’s, you know, specific.
Pot, meet kettle. Turning it into a “Them vs. Us” tagging of any sort means you don’t have to listen to the other side(aka “The Antis”).
My decision is that my position is reasonably clear. If you have specific questions about it, you can feel free to ask.
A vague demand for “specifics” is (ironically) not sufficiently coherent for me to respond to.
In my first response to you, I brought up the idea of specific gun control laws in the, I would think, obvious hope that you would name some and show that they weren’t effective. If you had done so, I would have had the opportunity to examine such laws, perhaps finding reasons why they didn’t work. As a frivolous, but I hope illustrative example, suppose a law had been passed banning the sale of muskets. Since as far as I know, muskets aren’t used to any great degree in murders here in America, this would have been a useless law, but it would not be evidence that other possible laws would be equally ineffective. One can make a sweeping claim that gun control laws don’t work, but there’s nothing to debate without knowing exactly what types of laws we’re dealing with.
There seems to be a lot of cherry picking on statistics. The United States actually has a lower homocide rate than most countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, and you drew a distinction between “strict” gun control laws and “toothless” gun control laws.
I (reasonably) asked you to define “strict gun control laws,” which you declined to do.
I realize that rhetorically it’s helpful to you if you are free to move the goalposts around but I am not interested in playing such a game.
Actually, the list on that page isn’t sorted in ascending or decending order-if you hit the rate tab you will find that we are roughly in the middle.
Well, yes and no. Depends which countries you want to compare yourself to.
Taking the by-country breakdown table from your side, copying to excel and filtering for sub-region in (Australasia, North America, Northern Europe, Western Europe) leaves us with 26 countries which give a more-or-less apples-to-apples comparison (I think).
Within this subset, US ranks 21/26, with only Estonia,Lithuania,Bermuda,Mexico andGreenland having higher homicide rates than the US.
ETA: Out of the full list, USA ranks 98/206, so yeah, “lower than most countries,” but… barely. All it would take is for the US to go down 5 more places in this rating for the statement to no longer be true. (ETAA: Or, what Czarcasm said while I was editing the first time :))
“But yes, when I compare the USA (320 million people, lots of different ethnic, cultural and social groups, fairly violent society overall) with (small fairly homogenous country of 4-6 million people), the USA looks completely out of control and I blame GUNS!”
Fact is, if you eliminated all firearms related homicides, we’d still have a higher murder rate than a fair number of European countries.
Which poster said(or even implied) this?
Because you know, there was absolutely no sarcasm in my post and it absolutely has to address precisely what another poster said rather than addressing the larger overall picture of anti-gun arguments within the context of this discussion.
Just like universal health care, gun control is something that only works in other countries. But reverse American exceptionalism is still American exceptionalism.
Well it’s pretty clear that gun control hasn’t worked in the United States. Whether it worked in Australia is an interesting question. I eagerly await the data backing up the OP’s claims.
I thought the homicide rate was going down?
Imagine a world with UHC and with strict gun control. Except most of us in the developed - industrialised, capitalist - world don’t need to. It’s pretty neat.
I hope one day average working Americans also enjoy these basic human rights.
What’s up with Greenland?
And I do agree, there seems to be cherry picking. Before I saw this list, I assumed we were a worst-case example here in the U.S. compared to the rest of the developed world, based on all the rhetoric. I see what actually occurred was that when people seemed to be saying, “Oh, let me just randomly pick a couple of countries, just for comparison,” in reality they were picking only those that created a particular impression. Not saying we’re a shining example of gun safety. But I definitely had a different impression based on all the hand wringing.
I would never have guessed that our homicide rates were declining significantly or that we were not, comparatively speaking, the Wild West. Pesky things, facts are.
I was, and still am, simply asking you to name a specific gun control law that hasn’t been effective. You won’t do it. Until you do so, there is nothing to discuss here.
Nonsense. In fact, I specifically asked if you were looking for the following:
Here was your response:
You could have easily said “yes, please identify one or more gun control laws which you say did not work.” But instead you gave a vague response.
I am happy to identify a specific gun control law which I say did not work if you ask for it in response to this post. But not if you pretend that you made the request earlier and I ignored it. That’s weaseling and I don’t engage with people who weasel.
Also, please first define what you mean by “strict gun control laws.” I do not want to waste my time identifying a gun control law which you dismiss as “not strict.”
Until you stop weaseling and define your terms, there is nothing to discuss here.
So being prohibited from owning weaponry is a “basic human right”? :dubious:
Are these, technically, questions? No. But is it not obvious I’d like to have some actual, concrete laws to discuss? As far as specifics, what else would I be interested in but gun control laws, since they are the only thing I mentioned in response to you, and are the precise topic of the whole thread? Also, in your post #53 in response to me, you repeatedly mention gun control. Again, what else would I be interested in?