4 ms·

Those gun-free zones would also be the highest populated. However, without a source, it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion.

by TheBiv 11y ago

meric 11y ago
Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time, otherwise you'll end up with the law-abiding people having no guns, and the non-law-abiding people with all the guns, and that will increase violent crime, rather than decrease it. And since confiscating every gun is not a practical solution, the practical solution should be to enable the freedom for every woman, man and child to carry a gun at all times.
- zardo 11y ago
  >Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time. You're setting up a false dichotomy. Outlawing guns, and complete unlimited rights to fire arms aren't the only choices available. To say their is a spectrum of possible choices is simplifying it, there is a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and they lead to many outcomes.
  - meric 11y ago
    Besides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.

Those gun-free zones would also be the highest populated. However, without a source, it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion.

by TheBiv 11y ago

Those gun-free zones would also be the highest populated. However, without a source, it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion.

meric 11y ago

Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time, otherwise you'll end up with the law-abiding people having no guns, and the non-law-abiding people with all the guns, and that will increase violent crime, rather than decrease it. And since confiscating every gun is not a practical solution, the practical solution should be to enable the freedom for every woman, man and child to carry a gun at all times.

zardo 11y ago
>Nevertheless, I don't think gun laws work unless you also confiscate and ban every single gun in the country at the same time. You're setting up a false dichotomy. Outlawing guns, and complete unlimited rights to fire arms aren't the only choices available. To say their is a spectrum of possible choices is simplifying it, there is a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and they lead to many outcomes.
- meric 11y ago
  Besides the two choices that can work, my point was, one of the many outcomes of the remaining choices will lead to non-law-abiding people possessing guns, and law-abiding people following the gun laws, possessing no guns, and this situation will be a lot less desirable than either no one have guns, or every body have guns. It is precisely because doing something that's complicated is going to lead to a high dimensional landscape of possible policies and many unknown outcomes, I think it's wise to stick to more simple, predictable solutions, because otherwise you're doing something you don't know what the consequences are. And it is because politicians and the electorate have the tendency to be doing that in the U.S., why U.S. has mass shootings every other day, and why that isn't true for a country like Australia, which undertook option 1, because it was feasible for a relatively centralised, unified island country, as compared to the U.S.