Gun Control

[Parihaka]

No I actually agree with you.

The US is a very large country and different US cities have different sets of problems. Comparing the US specifically to country X is not useful.

There are large US cities that are very safe, and then there are specific areas that are very much different, and that's a product of what's happening in those areas, and the history of how it got that way.

But but but Melbourne's EXACTLY like Chicago. And every time I wake up in Venice beach I could swear I was in Bristol. Really.

[Parihaka]

I still cannot tell what you are trying to argue. I don't actually know the number of survivors of gun deaths, but for the total US health care system, I am pretty sure the majority of expenses are on issues like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

What in the world makes you think the United States isn't livable? Have you actually lived in the United States? My Wife is absent-minded: she's left the door unlocked or her keys in the door 3 or 4 times in the 6 months we've lived her, and we haven't had a problem. Once she left the window open. The only problem is that it was 45 degrees outside and cooled the entire house.

Clearly the United States is livable. It's the richest nation on Earth, and it's the most populated of the advanced nations, not to mention the 3rd most populous nation on Earth. We have immigration, including the brightest and best in the world.

Not sure where you are getting this idea that the United States isn't livable. The 400% higher rate of homicides doesn't meaningfully affect most Americans, because it's such a low number to begin with.

By the way, what does Vox say about Australia's sane gun control of seizing law-abiding citizen's guns?


Yeah, it's a 35 percent decline, of something that's terribly small to begin with, so small we can't even come up with a way to measure it. That small.

So, yes, you have a number, but it doesn't mean anything.

Here's what it actually means:
For gains so small you can't even statistically measure it, you sent police officers into the homes of tax-paying, law-abiding, fellow citizens, in order to seize their property.

You then insist you have a monopoly on sanity and everyone who disagrees with you is obviously irrational.

Here's the thing: no one in my family, besides service members, has ever been shot at. No one in my family has ever shoot at anther person. I know of one person in my entire life who has ever been shot, and that was indeed in a mass shooting with international press coverage.
I do not think that justifies disarming my family. I certainly do not think that should allow a federal bureaucrat to manage a database of all the mental health information for every person in my family. My family does not have good experiences with government databases.

That some people kill themselves with their guns is not a good enough reason. That the 'hood cannot police itself is not a good enough reason, though the local officials there can pass whatever laws they deem necessary for their safety. That there are sometimes mass shootings in a nation of 300+ million people is not a good enough reason.

Nope, not a good enough reason, I am going to continue my blessed life in the world's richest nation that somehow operates despite all these guns. I am even going to a public place today because I don't fear mass shootings from my fellow Americans anymore than I fear mass shootings from ISIS.


EDIT: I should add that I don't think your preference for policy choices is irrational or crazy. It is a measured policy response I would expect of someone who is very interested in reducing gun violence and does not care much about gunowner rights.

The United States does not share that policy preference. It's not odd that different nations have different policy choices. That does not make us uncivilized.

I do not want the federal government making unilateral policy decisions for the United States. Americans are way too eager to get the federal government involved in every little problem.

I also worry about Americans overresponding to little problems. The last time an American city became unlivable was when the police shut down Watertown after the Boston bombing, because there was a half-dead teenager bleeding out somewhere. That is completely irrational and dangerous.

Like ^^^

[Mihais]

Well,you know the excuse.All lives matter,so if only one life is saved by grabbing guns,it is worth it.
Innocents getting stabbed as a result of increased crime,or even of ''normal'' crime don't matter.

The weird thing is that we're living for the first time in an era when the voice of those unarmed actually can force decisions on those who are armed.That is probably only an accident of history,even if it lasts for decades.

I would have never believed possible a war in Donbass.A theoretical exercise is one thing,actually believing it will happen,nope.

[citanon]

Mihais,

we in the US did not just enshrined the right to bear arms in our constitution for citizens to poses weapons. we did it so the idea of individuals defending life, freedom, property and country become a central part of the ethos of our citizenry.

the second amendment is both a key reason why we can have the largest and most effective all volunteer military on Earth and a great insurance that our citizen soldiers can be trusted to defend individual rights and freedoms instead of serving merely the state.

the 2nd amendment and gun ownership is the symbolic and concrete embodiment of the idea that political power rests in the hands of the people. Its that idea's first line of defense via shaping of the character of the citizens and its final insurance via the actual control of arms. Its value is paramount.

[Parihaka]

The weird thing is that we're living for the first time in an era when the voice of those unarmed actually can force decisions on those who are armed.

If you think they're unarmed, try refusing to do what they tell you.

[Doktor]

If you think they're unarmed, try refusing to do what they tell you.

Touche

[Mihais]

Mihais,

we in the US did not just enshrined the right to bear arms in our constitution for citizens to poses weapons. we did it so the idea of individuals defending life, freedom, property and country become a central part of the ethos of our citizenry.

the second amendment is both a key reason why we can have the largest and most effective all volunteer military on Earth and a great insurance that our citizen soldiers can be trusted to defend individual rights and freedoms instead of serving merely the state.

the 2nd amendment and gun ownership is the symbolic and concrete embodiment of the idea that political power rests in the hands of the people. Its that idea's first line of defense via shaping of the character of the citizens and its final insurance via the actual control of arms. Its value is paramount.

Dude,you preach to the choir.I know what the 2nd stands for.I'm just envious.

[Mihais]

If you think they're unarmed, try refusing to do what they tell you.

''Mr Officer, thiefs got in the night and they stole my weapons.''

[citanon]

Dude,you preach to the choir.I know what the 2nd stands for.I'm just envious.

Ah, misread what you meant by grabbing a gun. =)

[InExile]

Clearly the United States is livable. It's the richest nation on Earth, and it's the most populated of the advanced nations, not to mention the 3rd most populous nation on Earth. We have immigration, including the brightest and best in the world.

This is a good post. I lived in the US for 8 years and never felt at great personal risk from gun violence inspite of living in a couple of places that might be considered dangerous like downtown St Louis or Philadelphia. I did know of a couple of acquaintances who experienced a mugging involving guns (though did not get shot). However the level of gun violence in the States is nowhere so high such that the average resident is at any significant risk of being a victim of a gun homicide in their lifetime. Or at a significantly higher risk of being a victim of crimes such as mugging, theft or assault than any other Western Country. I do have thoughts when visiting the US that any person around me might be carrying a gun, and might be the next nut to start opening fire. But I know intellectually that the risk of that is like almost zero.

A society without the gun culture of the United States might consider even this level of gun violence to be unacceptable and take steps to restrict the ownership of guns. Also, in contrast to the death from guns the number of deaths from Islamist terrorism, including this week's episode is like a order of magnitude lesser yet Americans are willing to consider far more drastic action in regards to that.

[citanon]

Islamic terrorism is something that will escalate exponentially if not checked early. that's the difference.

meanwhile we have been making great progress in reducing all forms of violent crime, including gun violence, while rolling back gun control.

[zraver]

If you think a homicide rate 400% higher is a 'marginal' difference then you need to re-do math.

I live in an overcrowded inner city area with pockets of entrenched poverty that pre-date my nation's existence, a rampant drug trade, a largely non-white population with a history of gang violence and massive towers block I can see from my back yard ('the projects' if you will). In America this would be 'the hood'. People go about their business in safety day and night. I can recall two shootings in public in 25+ years, only one fatal. It is an area people want to live in, despite the problems, and real estate prices reflect that.

Then it ain't hood... But your comparison brings up an important distinction. Gun violence in the US is overwhelmingly a problem for young economically dis-empowered minority males. Gun violence in the US is mostly drug violence. The solution isn't to punish everyone else. White American males, much maligned in the media are statistically under represented in mass shootings, serial killings and murder in general despite being the most heavily armed ethnic group anywhere on Earth. If guns caused Violence, white Americans should be shooting it out with anything and everyone like some Hollywood movie.

Sane firearms policy isn't about 'marginal' gains, it is about a liveable society. I wouldn't make any more than marginal changes to your gun laws for no other reason than it is no longer practical. We started the process in the 1920s & continue to reap the benefits in terms of human life and society in general.

Benefits?

Is your risk of violent crime as a white guy much different than mine as a white guy? Not really. Is your suicide rate lower? Not really. Funny thing is your society is actually more fearful than mine, not much but for all your disarmament it is measurable. It seems your gunless urban utopias haven't delivered happiness and a sense of security and well being.

That is why I live in Australia & I am thankful for it.

Glad to be an American

[InExile]

Islamic terrorism is something that will escalate exponentially if not checked early. that's the difference..

Agreed, yet it does seem somewhat hypocritical when the hard right (Trump etc) are willing to greatly infringe on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans while being dead against any steps that might even slightly inconvenience gun owners.

meanwhile we have been making great progress in reducing all forms of violent crime, including gun violence, while rolling back gun control

Perhaps so, but there is a consensus building on the left and the democrats for gun control with each mass shooting. While its unlikely the Democrats win control of Congress and the Presidency in the near future it cant be ruled out that a tipping point that might lead to action on gun control might not be reached at some point in the future.

Mass shootings are somewhat like Airplane crashes or terrorist attacks, extremely low in odds to happen to an individual but spectacular and gruesome when they do which cause people to greatly overestimate the risk it might happen to them. And lead to far greater resources being spent to prevent them.

[citanon]

Then it ain't hood... But your comparison brings up an important distinction. Gun violence in the US is overwhelmingly a problem for young economically dis-empowered minority males. Gun violence in the US is mostly drug violence...

The problems in our inner cities go deeper than economiC's or drugs. often serious corruption, neglect or mismanagement is also involved.

who were the most dangerous thugs on the loose after hurricane Katrina? turns out it was members of the new Orleans PD.

what are the chances that a murder of a young black man is solved in south central LA? The chances are abysmal.

how safe was time square under Giuliani? which way is it going now under deblasio?


meanwhile in Phoenix az, the murder rate dropped from roughly 200 per 100k to roughly 120 from 2001 to 2013. in that time gun laws were loosened so that every person over age 21 can carry concealed with no permit.

[zraver]

The problems in our inner cities go deeper than economiC's or drugs. often serious corruption, neglect or mismanagement is also involved.

The biggest problem is failed welfare policies that forced dad out of the home and penalized marriage. Large numbers of idle young men with no productive father figures or mentors is a real Lord of the Flies situation.

who were the most dangerous thugs on the loose after hurricane Katrina? turns out it was members of the new Orleans PD.

what are the chances that a murder of a young black man is solved in south central LA? The chances are abysmal.

how safe was time square under Giuliani? which way is it going now under deblasio?


meanwhile in Phoenix az, the murder rate dropped from roughly 200 per 100k to roughly 120 from 2001 to 2013. in that time gun laws were loosened so that every person over age 21 can carry concealed with no permit.[/QUOTE]