Those are “emerging markets” (and to be honest many are basket cases as well) and not considered “developed markets” by standard definitions.
Your linkhas the US at 109th place with 4.7 firearm deaths per 100,000out of 218 countries or right in the middle.
I think if you objectively look at the list, you don’t get to any country that is even roughly comparable until Canada ranked 47 with 1.7 firearm deaths per 100,000.
Me, I don’t think it helps the argument that guns are not a problem in the US because we have the same firearm death rate as Niger and it’s nearly 3x what the Canadians have. And if you showcase the poster child Switzerland, their firearm death rate is 0.6. YMMV
Well, at least it shows that Obama is not a rabid gun grabber. The bill also includes language that prevents the EPA from regulating ammo (something that pops up from time to time (turns out bullets are made of lead and its probably not a good idea to swallow primers)).
Its about as effective as book burning because the publisher can’t possibly publish more books). But I’m sure its achieving some objective (mostly making some people feel better).
I’m only sort of joking. I don’t hunt very much I find it boring and unrewarding, mostly because you spend a lot of time waiting and not drinking or talking or eating. just sitting up in a tree stand looking for a brown animal in a largely brown landscape. And by the time they let us rifle hunters out there, the archers and black powder dudes have gotten all the stupid deer and the only ones left are smarter than me. So I don’t personally give a shit about hunting restrictions and frankly if you told hunters that they had to use special ammo for hunting I think the biggest gripe would be that they would have to figure out the ballistics of that new bullet all over again (AFAICT hunters are real picky about their ammo and many of them personally load their own ammo for precise quality control), the hunters I know probably don’t fire 20 rounds during a season.
Sure, lets try for a total gun ban for 20 years and compare it to now. You can’t have a valid experiment without being willing to try and test your hypothesis. We’re much closer to the side of having no gun restrictions than having a gun ban, so that’s why we should do the ban first. After 20 years, we’ll give you back your guns, promise
We’ve never destroyed enough guns to matter in the big picture because such methods are always under attack. How about this? Obama’s executive actions recently are generally known factually as clarifications of existing law and some very legal changes to how existing departments do things. Even he is the first to admit they do little to change the status quo. As a gesture of honest discourse, how about you and everyone who is pro-gun on this board come out in favor of those actions, and say they are a good way of creating gun safety but not tampering, as some of you feel, with the rights of Americans? Or these people can continue howling about how evil Obama is and anti-gun those orders were and how our rights are just now right at the precipice of being totally taken away.
The gun lobby is fond of saying we have too many laws on guns and they’re not being enforced so why make new ones. I would like pro-gun people here to name 3 laws already existing that regulate guns that are not being enforced that they would happily support the enforcement of. Enforce the laws already on the books! Isn’t that the rebuttal to every new proposed law? So which ones should we enforce?
What if I don’t believe they are a good way to create gun safety? What if I don’t believe they’ll have any net positive effect on our homicide rate? Should I say otherwise “as a gesture of honest discourse”?
I thought we said, developed nation, not developed market. Is implementation of full fledged capitalism the gauge?
I tend to agree that America has a problem as well. But I realized LOOOONG ago that the apparent problem was not guns, its was handguns. And not even all handguns, handguns in the hands of criminals. And there isn’t a law in the world that will make a bit of difference with respect to handguns in the hands of criminals in the short or medium term.
If you acknowledge you can’t do anything in the short or medium term then you can focus on more long term solutions and then things like assault weapons bans look retarded and licensing and registration looks much much better.
One of the reasons that there is so much resistance by some elements of the gun rights crowd to licensing and registration is because it is possible (unlike large scale gun bans and confiscation) and the fear is that once we have that in place, other things will become possible that were virtually impossible before. And the gun rights folks do not trust the gun control folks to stop at licensing and registration. Its not that they cannot imagine a way to draft the bill to fully address their concerns; its that they CAN imagine a way for gun rights advocates to keep coming back for more and more until there is nothing left.
I don’t think it’s hunters that the EPA is worried about. It’s primarily outdoor ranges where lead accretes in substantial quantities if the range doesn’t clean it up.
Hey, don’t look at me. I voted for Obama… twice … just in the last election
I don’t think he is doing anything he isn’t allowed to do. I don’t think he is doing anything bad. In fact I don’t think he is hardly doing anything at all and the things he is doing are probably mild improvements.
Are you hearing a lot of that sort of consternation? I mean Bone is pretty sanguine about these executive actions and he is about as militantly gun rights as we have on this board. So who is throwing these conniptions about the executive actions? Fox News and Ted Cruz?
The penalty for lying on the form 4473 seems to be the most popular one.
I don’t really want to derail the thread with a discussion about criminal justice and deterrence or causes of suicide. Let’s just say that I think focusing on reducing the supply of weapons is the wrong focus in a country where a substantial portion of the population wants to be able to own guns. 99.99% of American guns didn’t kill anyone last year.
I don’t think that turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons is likely to “create gun safety” either.
I think it’s a good start, and we should see how far that gets us in terms of safety. I don’t think " turning a few million social security recipients with representative payees into prohibited persons" is a very good idea…but since that was never proposed in the first place, I don’t know why it was brought up.
What did I get wrong? Is the highlighted portion not talking about rep payees? Did I get the number wrong? Or are people that are prohibited from purchasing firearms are not “prohibited persons”? Something else?
In the context of the SSA, which this part of the Executive Actions is referring to, legal incompetence is a decision by a court of law that a claimant is unable to manage his/her affairs. This varies state by state but often refers to financial management in connection with receipt of SSA benefits. See here:
(my bold)
Inability to manage financial affairs is incongruent with the prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code § 922 (g)(4).
And this isn’t the first time the Obama Administration has floated the idea of adding those on Rep Payee to the list of prohibited persons. Back in July there was this:
It’s false to say it was never proposed in the first place.
Assignment of a rep payee can be voluntary as well. It is not an adjudication that carries with it due process protections. There was H.R.3516 that would prohibit this type of action directly, though I don’t know how to interpret the status.
