8 ms·

You've obviously never spent time in Brazil, where all criminals have guns, but guns are illegal.

cbmuser 6y ago
Brazil is bad example, they have much more serious social problems. Compare with any European country and you will see that gun control works. Of course, there will always be criminals who will acquire illegal guns, but overall it’s much harder to get a gun. If your standard is 100% efficiency, you could make everything legal including murder, because making murder illegal doesn’t avoid it by 100%.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
  - pintxo 6y ago
    This might be because we are still waiting for a conclusive argument how wide-spread gun ownership would have prevented WW2. Hint: Hitler was legally voted into power. It's not that the Nazis had guns and the rest of the country was in fear to oppose them.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      That's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented. During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact. Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
      - blackshaw 6y ago
        > Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. This is correct. Richard Evans's The Coming of the Third Reich is excellent too.
      - pintxo 6y ago
        I might have miss understood your argument, but to me it reads like you wanted to imply that the implementation of gun controls ~lead to~ supported fascism and ultimately lead to WW2. > I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. > World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
- theodric 6y ago
  Switzerland is shall-issue for semi-auto and may-issue for full automatic. Gun crime is microscopic. Culture plays a major part.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    That, but also Swiss are rich and are an exception in the entire World. But looking at the numbers to add more context: Switzerland is very different from USA. First of all gun ownership in Switzerland is around 25%, it's over 40% in USA. Secondly, 25% of Swiss own a firearm, not a gun, in USA gun ownership (meaning a gun) is at 22℅ In Italy gun ownership is at 12% and gun deaths are almost zero, as in Switzerland most of the legally owned firearms are rifles for hunting purpose, kept locked in a cabinet. Nobody in Switzerland sleeps with their gun under the pillow and nobody thinks it's a solution to crime, that's the biggest difference.
    - anfilt 6y ago
      I am sorry what? You predicate your statement by saying Switzerland is rich... I am sorry but those who are not “rich” should also be allowed to own firearms. Predicating ownership by wealth is just classist.
      - africanboy 6y ago
        I don't predicate ownership, first of all. Secondly: Americans own too many guns and that's stupid. third: USA is the richest country in the Worlsd and the largest owner of guns on the planet, so please don't make it a class issue, because it's really not. Finally: Swiss are rich, they have an higher education on average so they don't end up shooting each other on the street like in the USA, were they think that owning firearms is a solution to poor education. The only 2 places in Europe where there have been domestic mass shootings that were not terroristic attacks are Switzerland and Norway, not surprisingly the two countries that own more firearms. Guns are bad. It's a fact.
    - giardini 6y ago
      africanboy says "Nobody in Switzerland sleeps with their gun under the pillow ..." And you know this how?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
syops 6y ago
There are no such examples among the rich nations of the world. As such the example of Brazil is not apt. Even if you persist in it being apt you must all compare the number of such examples to the number of examples where gun ownership is illegal and where criminals rarely have guns.
- zepto 6y ago
  The comparison is apt because there are hundreds of millions of guns that wouldn’t disappear if you made them illegal.
  - syops 6y ago
    There are valid reasons to believe that gun prohibition will not significantly decrease the use of guns in crimes in the U.S. Believing that gun prohibition won’t work because drug prohibition hasn’t worked is as invalid as the argument that gun prohibition will work because slavery prohibition worked. There are examples of countries that suddenly implemented strict gun control laws successfully whilst unsuccessfully prohibiting illicit drugs. Therefore it is not valid to reason that gun laws won’t work because they haven’t worked with drugs.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    Through buyback programs and legal penalties for possession, the amount of weapons in meaningful circulation would likely decrease substantially over a period of years. As that process occurred, the value of the weapons would spike as scarcity took hold, and tactically-useful firearms (e.g. semi-auto) would become expensive on the black market. This would mean that criminals would need to be far more judicious with how they carried and used them. It is very plausible that this scarcity effect would lead to a meaningful reduction in the possession and use of firearms by low-level street criminals, which would also by extension lead to a reduction in levels of firearms-related homicide, assault, and intimidation. A low-level narcotics broker is less likely to carry around a Glock that costs $10,000 (which they have to dump off of a bridge or in a storm drain every time it's used in a homicide), than they are to carry around a black-market stolen Glock that cost $600.
GoodJokes 6y ago
Obviously.

Brazil is bad example, they have much more serious social problems. Compare with any European country and you will see that gun control works. Of course, there will always be criminals who will acquire illegal guns, but overall it’s much harder to get a gun. If your standard is 100% efficiency, you could make everything legal including murder, because making murder illegal doesn’t avoid it by 100%.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
- pintxo 6y ago
  This might be because we are still waiting for a conclusive argument how wide-spread gun ownership would have prevented WW2. Hint: Hitler was legally voted into power. It's not that the Nazis had guns and the rest of the country was in fear to oppose them.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    That's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented. During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact. Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
    - blackshaw 6y ago
      > Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. This is correct. Richard Evans's The Coming of the Third Reich is excellent too.
    - pintxo 6y ago
      I might have miss understood your argument, but to me it reads like you wanted to imply that the implementation of gun controls ~lead to~ supported fascism and ultimately lead to WW2. > I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. > World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
theodric 6y ago
Switzerland is shall-issue for semi-auto and may-issue for full automatic. Gun crime is microscopic. Culture plays a major part.
- africanboy 6y ago
  That, but also Swiss are rich and are an exception in the entire World. But looking at the numbers to add more context: Switzerland is very different from USA. First of all gun ownership in Switzerland is around 25%, it's over 40% in USA. Secondly, 25% of Swiss own a firearm, not a gun, in USA gun ownership (meaning a gun) is at 22℅ In Italy gun ownership is at 12% and gun deaths are almost zero, as in Switzerland most of the legally owned firearms are rifles for hunting purpose, kept locked in a cabinet. Nobody in Switzerland sleeps with their gun under the pillow and nobody thinks it's a solution to crime, that's the biggest difference.
  - anfilt 6y ago
    I am sorry what? You predicate your statement by saying Switzerland is rich... I am sorry but those who are not “rich” should also be allowed to own firearms. Predicating ownership by wealth is just classist.
    - africanboy 6y ago
      I don't predicate ownership, first of all. Secondly: Americans own too many guns and that's stupid. third: USA is the richest country in the Worlsd and the largest owner of guns on the planet, so please don't make it a class issue, because it's really not. Finally: Swiss are rich, they have an higher education on average so they don't end up shooting each other on the street like in the USA, were they think that owning firearms is a solution to poor education. The only 2 places in Europe where there have been domestic mass shootings that were not terroristic attacks are Switzerland and Norway, not surprisingly the two countries that own more firearms. Guns are bad. It's a fact.
  - giardini 6y ago
    africanboy says "Nobody in Switzerland sleeps with their gun under the pillow ..." And you know this how?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

syops 6y ago

There are no such examples among the rich nations of the world. As such the example of Brazil is not apt. Even if you persist in it being apt you must all compare the number of such examples to the number of examples where gun ownership is illegal and where criminals rarely have guns.

zepto 6y ago
The comparison is apt because there are hundreds of millions of guns that wouldn’t disappear if you made them illegal.
- syops 6y ago
  There are valid reasons to believe that gun prohibition will not significantly decrease the use of guns in crimes in the U.S. Believing that gun prohibition won’t work because drug prohibition hasn’t worked is as invalid as the argument that gun prohibition will work because slavery prohibition worked. There are examples of countries that suddenly implemented strict gun control laws successfully whilst unsuccessfully prohibiting illicit drugs. Therefore it is not valid to reason that gun laws won’t work because they haven’t worked with drugs.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Through buyback programs and legal penalties for possession, the amount of weapons in meaningful circulation would likely decrease substantially over a period of years. As that process occurred, the value of the weapons would spike as scarcity took hold, and tactically-useful firearms (e.g. semi-auto) would become expensive on the black market. This would mean that criminals would need to be far more judicious with how they carried and used them. It is very plausible that this scarcity effect would lead to a meaningful reduction in the possession and use of firearms by low-level street criminals, which would also by extension lead to a reduction in levels of firearms-related homicide, assault, and intimidation. A low-level narcotics broker is less likely to carry around a Glock that costs $10,000 (which they have to dump off of a bridge or in a storm drain every time it's used in a homicide), than they are to carry around a black-market stolen Glock that cost $600.

GoodJokes 6y ago

Obviously.