4 ms·
Getting rid of the guns is not a realistic option. The U.S. is too big, and too diverse for blanket intrusive policies to work well. A firearms policy that ma
by douche 10y ago
Getting rid of the guns is not a realistic option. The U.S. is too big, and too diverse for blanket intrusive policies to work well. A firearms policy that makes sense in Baltimore is complete overkill in Montana.
- cel1ne 10y agoIn 1996 Australia bought back more than a million firearms from people and destroyed them subsequently. Brazil did the same.
- douche 10y agoPeanuts, in comparison. There are more than 300 million firearms in circulation in the U.S.
- vacri 10y agoAustralia was never a gun culture in the first place. Apart from security forces, civilian guns were things farmers used for stock control, or occasionally hunting. It used to be the same in the US as well, until the weekend warrior/home security people went berserk. The real problem in the US is the cultural trope that 'problems are solved by a man with a gun'. From domestic police to foreign policy, the US psyche approves of an armed response early. Until that's sorted (which is a generational problem, with no 'quick fix before the next election'), the US is going to keep having this issue, again and again.
- soundwave106 10y agoYes, unfortunately (and a bit ironically given current events, oddly enough) I feel that much of the whole current "2nd Amendment culture" is directly tied to the same sort of dynamics that have lead to the rise of Donald Trump here (and things like Brexit etc).
- antisthenes 10y agoYou'd also be destroying most of the $6 billion dollar gun industry and approximately 200,000 jobs in addition to all of the costs associated with trying to extract millions of guns from the populace.