3 ms·

So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? Those that have the money to hire police / special security p

by cudgy 4y ago

So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? Those that have the money to hire police / special security personnel to protect them? What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? There is a constitutional right to have guns in the US and a very conservative supreme court, so I doubt a draconian ban will have legs in the US anyway.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 4y ago
> Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? Cars and trucks need licensing, large purchases of fertilizers are tracked (esp. post Oklahoma City), as are large purchases of fuel and chemicals (thanks meth epidemic and Breaking Bad). The licensing and tracking of firearms in the US is… spotty. Perhaps if some of the same measures were implemented it would help the situation. Massachusetts may be a good place to start: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...
rstuart4133 4y ago
> So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? I'm an Australian. The answer is anyone who wants to if you aren't on one of the usual lists (the same sort of lists US has). I know one person with 40 guns at home. But ... there are rules. You have to have training, the sort of training you can typically only achieve by joining a gun club. You have to be registered. You have to have an approved gun safe. I think there is a regulation about storing the ammo separately. Nothing over the top, certainly nothing more burdensome than a car owner faces. Because it's not difficult we have our share of Olympic firearms champions, we have political parties called "The hunters and fishers party". It a wild guess, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Australia has the same proportion of people who enjoy hunting with guns as the US does. All this is allowed, and our Olympic shooters are celebrated, just like all other sports people. > What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? I don't know what stops them from finding other ways to kill themselves (suicide) and or others. But the statistics are pretty clear. They don't do it. Which does make you wonder about the difference between the homicide rates in the US and the rest of the world. If there is one clear difference in attitude, it's this: owning a gun for personal protection is not considered good form any Western country other than the USA. And that unsurprisingly means people don't shoot each other as often, which translates to fewer gun homicides. For example USA gun ownership: 120/100 people [0]. Australia gun ownership: 30/100. So maybe 4 times any many guns in the USA. But gun homicides: 4.12/100 in the USA, 0.18 in Australia. 22 times higher. To state the obvious: if the goal of "owning a gun for personal protection" is to keep you safer, it ain't working. In fact it's a disaster - the cure is far worse than the disease. The civil society in west is usually very good at digesting that sort of information, and acting on it. (They don't always act on it by banning or restricting gun ownership - Australia certainly didn't.) The fact the the USA's civil society hasn't managed that makes us think you yankees are a little odd. [0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-compar...
- cudgy 4y ago
  > For example USA gun ownership: 120/100 people [0]. Australia gun ownership: 30/100. So maybe 4 times any many guns in the USA. But gun homicides: 4.12/100 in the USA, 0.18 in Australia. 22 times higher > The fact the the USA's civil society hasn't managed that makes us think you yankees are a little odd. First, your stat on US homicide is off by a factor of 1,000. It should read 4.12/100,000. This is going to be controversial, but the facts are the facts. Gun homicides in the US are vastly skewed toward a single group of people in urban areas. 34.9 gun homicide victims per 100,000 people are blacks. 1.5 gun homicide victims per 100,000 people are whites. Blacks are 23.3 times higher than whites to be victims of a gun homicide. Furthermore, the black victims lived in large urban areas and were shot by other blacks around 90% of the time. Now, some articles suggest that most guns are owned by white men, but I do not share the same trust in the estimate of guns that you may. How are these estimates arrived at? Anyway, assuming that one accepts the premise that most guns are owned by white men in rural America and that proliferation of guns is the main cause of gun homicides, why aren’t most gun homicides committed in rural areas by white men? Do you see the problem? Or are Australians a little odd? The issue appears to not be due to high numbers of guns. It appears to be highly concentrated in urban black communities. So why is this not discussed by the media and mostly Democratic politicians, especially when it ravages blacks in urban communities that are governed by politicians that are Democrats? Probably for the same reason that my response which is based on cold hard statistics will be flagged or voted down. The oddity of the US is not the people, but the pathetic politicians that are more concerned about a political talking point than finding the root cause of the issue. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7042a6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7042a6.htm
  - rstuart4133 4y ago
    > So why is this not discussed by the media and mostly Democratic politicians, especially when it ravages blacks in urban communities that are governed by politicians that are Democrats? One of the "facts are the facts" things you seem to have missed is gun related deaths are highest (by far) in the Republican states. I don't whether that means it's a Republican or Democrat issue. I'm not from the USA I don't know the politics that well, but from a distance, it does look like it's mainly Republicans who say things like "the answer to the gun problem is more people wearing guns". As for black vs white. There is a kernel of truth there - there is more violence in black communities, about double the death rates from what I can tell. But blacks only constitute 13% of the USA population. If you remove them the USA gun rates are still far higher than rest of the world - and that statistical difference is caused by the 80% white population, not the blacks. And that's just homicides. Most gun related deaths are suicides, which are also obscenely high in the USA. When it comes to suicides, the figures are reversed - whites have over double the rates of blacks. That means when you include all gun related deaths, the whites actually worse rates than the blacks. > more concerned about a political talking point than finding the root cause of the issue. That is a downright weird observation. It was _you_ who introduced the Republican / Democrat divide here as a talking point, not some politician. It was you who brought in the largely irrelevant race issue, rather looking for a root cause. If you looking change the discussion into an honest one that might address the issue (assuming you want it addressed), then I'd start with the person in the mirror. If you can change him, you can probably convince anyone.
theshrike79 4y ago
Finland is 3rd or 4th in gun ownership per capita after the US and Yemen - depending on whether you count the assault rifles the Swiss people store in their homes for military purposes. We have had 3 school shootings ever. Total number of dead: 6. Last one was in 2008. All guns in Finland are semi-automatic at most and clip/magazine size is limited for rifles and shotguns. Nobody _needs_ a full-auto weapon. Over here can't get a gun unless you are a member of a gun club that'll vouch for you. You need to get a license from the police and a doctor's note. Until then you can use a clubs weapons on their premises under their supervision. And when you finally get your gun, it MUST be stored in a regulated, locked, cabinet. Ammo in a separate, locked, fireproof cabinet. If someone finds out you're storing them on your mantle with the ammo right next to it you can wave your licenses and guns good bye. "The Elite and Powerful" don't own guns, it's mostly just regular people who hunt or have a gun-related hobby like IPSC. It's really easy to kill a dozen people with a full-auto assault rifle, much harder with a bolt-lock hunting rifle with a 4 round magazine. It's even harder to do it with a knife. And even harder to have the pre-planning to start building reliable bombs out of raw materials. Oh and for the "crazy people", we have healthcare, people are actually taken care of. Prisons are for rehabilitation, not for punishment.
- cudgy 4y ago
  See response below on how high gun ownership is not the reason behind gun violence in the US. Rehabilitation and not punishment is a noble goal for those imprisoned and I agree that the US has a poor track record for taking care of its citizens. In fact, the focus on gun ownership as the core reason for gun violence is yet another example of how US citizens are being mislead by politicians. Finland is a good example of a country that has high gun ownership with a low incidence of gun homicides; if you exclude several urban areas in the US, it would be the same here.

by cudgy 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 4y ago

> Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? Cars and trucks need licensing, large purchases of fertilizers are tracked (esp. post Oklahoma City), as are large purchases of fuel and chemicals (thanks meth epidemic and Breaking Bad). The licensing and tracking of firearms in the US is… spotty. Perhaps if some of the same measures were implemented it would help the situation. Massachusetts may be a good place to start: * https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-control-laws-licenses https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028/massachusetts-gun-co...

rstuart4133 4y ago

> So, who gets to have guns then if they are confiscated from citizens? Only the elite and powerful? I'm an Australian. The answer is anyone who wants to if you aren't on one of the usual lists (the same sort of lists US has). I know one person with 40 guns at home. But ... there are rules. You have to have training, the sort of training you can typically only achieve by joining a gun club. You have to be registered. You have to have an approved gun safe. I think there is a regulation about storing the ammo separately. Nothing over the top, certainly nothing more burdensome than a car owner faces. Because it's not difficult we have our share of Olympic firearms champions, we have political parties called "The hunters and fishers party". It a wild guess, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Australia has the same proportion of people who enjoy hunting with guns as the US does. All this is allowed, and our Olympic shooters are celebrated, just like all other sports people. > What’s stopping these crazy people from using other means possibly even more destructive if guns are somehow eliminated? Do we ban cars, trucks, fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, and poisonous household products as well? I don't know what stops them from finding other ways to kill themselves (suicide) and or others. But the statistics are pretty clear. They don't do it. Which does make you wonder about the difference between the homicide rates in the US and the rest of the world. If there is one clear difference in attitude, it's this: owning a gun for personal protection is not considered good form any Western country other than the USA. And that unsurprisingly means people don't shoot each other as often, which translates to fewer gun homicides. For example USA gun ownership: 120/100 people [0]. Australia gun ownership: 30/100. So maybe 4 times any many guns in the USA. But gun homicides: 4.12/100 in the USA, 0.18 in Australia. 22 times higher. To state the obvious: if the goal of "owning a gun for personal protection" is to keep you safer, it ain't working. In fact it's a disaster - the cure is far worse than the disease. The civil society in west is usually very good at digesting that sort of information, and acting on it. (They don't always act on it by banning or restricting gun ownership - Australia certainly didn't.) The fact the the USA's civil society hasn't managed that makes us think you yankees are a little odd. [0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-compar...

cudgy 4y ago
> For example USA gun ownership: 120/100 people [0]. Australia gun ownership: 30/100. So maybe 4 times any many guns in the USA. But gun homicides: 4.12/100 in the USA, 0.18 in Australia. 22 times higher > The fact the the USA's civil society hasn't managed that makes us think you yankees are a little odd. First, your stat on US homicide is off by a factor of 1,000. It should read 4.12/100,000. This is going to be controversial, but the facts are the facts. Gun homicides in the US are vastly skewed toward a single group of people in urban areas. 34.9 gun homicide victims per 100,000 people are blacks. 1.5 gun homicide victims per 100,000 people are whites. Blacks are 23.3 times higher than whites to be victims of a gun homicide. Furthermore, the black victims lived in large urban areas and were shot by other blacks around 90% of the time. Now, some articles suggest that most guns are owned by white men, but I do not share the same trust in the estimate of guns that you may. How are these estimates arrived at? Anyway, assuming that one accepts the premise that most guns are owned by white men in rural America and that proliferation of guns is the main cause of gun homicides, why aren’t most gun homicides committed in rural areas by white men? Do you see the problem? Or are Australians a little odd? The issue appears to not be due to high numbers of guns. It appears to be highly concentrated in urban black communities. So why is this not discussed by the media and mostly Democratic politicians, especially when it ravages blacks in urban communities that are governed by politicians that are Democrats? Probably for the same reason that my response which is based on cold hard statistics will be flagged or voted down. The oddity of the US is not the people, but the pathetic politicians that are more concerned about a political talking point than finding the root cause of the issue. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7042a6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7042a6.htm
- rstuart4133 4y ago
  > So why is this not discussed by the media and mostly Democratic politicians, especially when it ravages blacks in urban communities that are governed by politicians that are Democrats? One of the "facts are the facts" things you seem to have missed is gun related deaths are highest (by far) in the Republican states. I don't whether that means it's a Republican or Democrat issue. I'm not from the USA I don't know the politics that well, but from a distance, it does look like it's mainly Republicans who say things like "the answer to the gun problem is more people wearing guns". As for black vs white. There is a kernel of truth there - there is more violence in black communities, about double the death rates from what I can tell. But blacks only constitute 13% of the USA population. If you remove them the USA gun rates are still far higher than rest of the world - and that statistical difference is caused by the 80% white population, not the blacks. And that's just homicides. Most gun related deaths are suicides, which are also obscenely high in the USA. When it comes to suicides, the figures are reversed - whites have over double the rates of blacks. That means when you include all gun related deaths, the whites actually worse rates than the blacks. > more concerned about a political talking point than finding the root cause of the issue. That is a downright weird observation. It was _you_ who introduced the Republican / Democrat divide here as a talking point, not some politician. It was you who brought in the largely irrelevant race issue, rather looking for a root cause. If you looking change the discussion into an honest one that might address the issue (assuming you want it addressed), then I'd start with the person in the mirror. If you can change him, you can probably convince anyone.

theshrike79 4y ago

Finland is 3rd or 4th in gun ownership per capita after the US and Yemen - depending on whether you count the assault rifles the Swiss people store in their homes for military purposes. We have had 3 school shootings ever. Total number of dead: 6. Last one was in 2008. All guns in Finland are semi-automatic at most and clip/magazine size is limited for rifles and shotguns. Nobody _needs_ a full-auto weapon. Over here can't get a gun unless you are a member of a gun club that'll vouch for you. You need to get a license from the police and a doctor's note. Until then you can use a clubs weapons on their premises under their supervision. And when you finally get your gun, it MUST be stored in a regulated, locked, cabinet. Ammo in a separate, locked, fireproof cabinet. If someone finds out you're storing them on your mantle with the ammo right next to it you can wave your licenses and guns good bye. "The Elite and Powerful" don't own guns, it's mostly just regular people who hunt or have a gun-related hobby like IPSC. It's really easy to kill a dozen people with a full-auto assault rifle, much harder with a bolt-lock hunting rifle with a 4 round magazine. It's even harder to do it with a knife. And even harder to have the pre-planning to start building reliable bombs out of raw materials. Oh and for the "crazy people", we have healthcare, people are actually taken care of. Prisons are for rehabilitation, not for punishment.

cudgy 4y ago
See response below on how high gun ownership is not the reason behind gun violence in the US. Rehabilitation and not punishment is a noble goal for those imprisoned and I agree that the US has a poor track record for taking care of its citizens. In fact, the focus on gun ownership as the core reason for gun violence is yet another example of how US citizens are being mislead by politicians. Finland is a good example of a country that has high gun ownership with a low incidence of gun homicides; if you exclude several urban areas in the US, it would be the same here.