3 ms·

Go back to which era ? Just asking out of curiosity. AFAIK, gun violence has always been endemic to the USA - and most especially in places where guns are banne

Go back to which era ? Just asking out of curiosity. AFAIK, gun violence has always been endemic to the USA - and most especially in places where guns are banned. I suspect this will only change with a national ban on Guns. Yet gun traffickers across the border would love that. The American continents have more guns than anywhere else in the world.

ALittleLight 5y ago
Not "go back to" some era, but roll back the militarization of the police for the present/future era. A ban on guns wouldn't change anything. There are many countries that are much more violent with much more violent police and bans on guns. Other countries have high gun ownership and low crime and low police violence.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  > Other countries have high gun ownership and low crime and low police violence. I.e. "la comparaison suisse" It doesn't really hold up. Switzerland has a very low crime rate, but also has one of the highest gun violence rates in Europe (most are suicides).
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Around here lots of guns were removed from the equation 10 - 20 years ago and I haven't heard about a corresponding decrease in suicides. As far as I can see guns doesn't trigger suicides.
    - atq2119 5y ago
      The comment you reply to does not claim that there's a causation between fun ownership and suicide. It merely notes that the gun violence in Switzerland is largely suicide, which is probably simply because the share of gun suicide among suicide overall is higher in Switzerland than elsewhere.
hadlock 5y ago
Militarization of the Police happened, strangely enough, primarily during the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s. Clinton shut down a lot of military bases, and shrunk the military overall as part of wrapping up the cold war with Russia/ex-Soviet Union. Shrinking the military meant shrinking buying military equipment, which meant fewer dollars going into defense manufacturing, and furthermore, possibly fewer jobs. As part of a compromise of shrinking the military, congress unlocked both military surplus, and new defense equipment sales to local police departments. Prior to this, police were very limited in what they could buy. The photos of rural vermont police owning armored personnel carriers, etc didn't occur before this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure
pjc50 5y ago
> gun traffickers across the border would love that. The gun trafficking tends to be from the US into Latin America - see the FBI "fast and furious" fiasco.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Gun traffickers would not love it: It is easy to get guns in, say, Indiana, and then traffic them other places. This is, in general, what has been happening. Chicago has more gun issues due to Indiana's lax laws (and it is right next to Indiana). In a bigger picture, Canada has more trouble with gun smuggling due to the ease of getting weapons in the US. And as others have said, the US tends to supply other places in the Americas, either directly or indirectly. When guns are more tightly regulated, though, guns are more difficult to get and they get much, much more expensive on the black market. After all, supply has went down and the risk goes up. Australia is the usual example used here (who had a similar gun culture in the past, by the way). I can't find where gun violence is higher where guns are banned - at least not after the ban, so long as they aren't just one town in the US, which might due to issues above, but that is hardly due to a weapons ban.
- qwerty456127 5y ago
  > get much, much more expensive on the black market Gun traffickers (the gang bosses scpecifically) would love this. Smugglers love prohibition.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The overwhelming majority of illegally owned guns you'll find somewhere like Chicago, NYC or Boston are stolen. The reason they come from places like Indiana, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire is basic economics. There is no market there since guns are so readily available legally. Even if you're a prohibited person a straw purchase is much more accessible and less of a liability to all involved than a stolen gun so the market for stolen guns moves to wherever straw purchases are much less practical. Because guns are more available legally you get a much broader cross section of society owning them which means more get stolen. Supply and demand works is magic and they all wind up over the border where they can be sold.

ALittleLight 5y ago

Not "go back to" some era, but roll back the militarization of the police for the present/future era. A ban on guns wouldn't change anything. There are many countries that are much more violent with much more violent police and bans on guns. Other countries have high gun ownership and low crime and low police violence.

formerly_proven 5y ago
> Other countries have high gun ownership and low crime and low police violence. I.e. "la comparaison suisse" It doesn't really hold up. Switzerland has a very low crime rate, but also has one of the highest gun violence rates in Europe (most are suicides).
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Around here lots of guns were removed from the equation 10 - 20 years ago and I haven't heard about a corresponding decrease in suicides. As far as I can see guns doesn't trigger suicides.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    The comment you reply to does not claim that there's a causation between fun ownership and suicide. It merely notes that the gun violence in Switzerland is largely suicide, which is probably simply because the share of gun suicide among suicide overall is higher in Switzerland than elsewhere.

hadlock 5y ago

Militarization of the Police happened, strangely enough, primarily during the Clinton Administration in the mid-1990s. Clinton shut down a lot of military bases, and shrunk the military overall as part of wrapping up the cold war with Russia/ex-Soviet Union. Shrinking the military meant shrinking buying military equipment, which meant fewer dollars going into defense manufacturing, and furthermore, possibly fewer jobs. As part of a compromise of shrinking the military, congress unlocked both military surplus, and new defense equipment sales to local police departments. Prior to this, police were very limited in what they could buy. The photos of rural vermont police owning armored personnel carriers, etc didn't occur before this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

pjc50 5y ago

> gun traffickers across the border would love that. The gun trafficking tends to be from the US into Latin America - see the FBI "fast and furious" fiasco.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

Gun traffickers would not love it: It is easy to get guns in, say, Indiana, and then traffic them other places. This is, in general, what has been happening. Chicago has more gun issues due to Indiana's lax laws (and it is right next to Indiana). In a bigger picture, Canada has more trouble with gun smuggling due to the ease of getting weapons in the US. And as others have said, the US tends to supply other places in the Americas, either directly or indirectly. When guns are more tightly regulated, though, guns are more difficult to get and they get much, much more expensive on the black market. After all, supply has went down and the risk goes up. Australia is the usual example used here (who had a similar gun culture in the past, by the way). I can't find where gun violence is higher where guns are banned - at least not after the ban, so long as they aren't just one town in the US, which might due to issues above, but that is hardly due to a weapons ban.

qwerty456127 5y ago
> get much, much more expensive on the black market Gun traffickers (the gang bosses scpecifically) would love this. Smugglers love prohibition.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The overwhelming majority of illegally owned guns you'll find somewhere like Chicago, NYC or Boston are stolen. The reason they come from places like Indiana, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire is basic economics. There is no market there since guns are so readily available legally. Even if you're a prohibited person a straw purchase is much more accessible and less of a liability to all involved than a stolen gun so the market for stolen guns moves to wherever straw purchases are much less practical. Because guns are more available legally you get a much broader cross section of society owning them which means more get stolen. Supply and demand works is magic and they all wind up over the border where they can be sold.