3 ms·

Well, lets look at it another way then. Why are people trying to restrict people's right to carry arms. As US citizens, it's their constitutional right to bear

by froo 14y ago

Well, lets look at it another way then. Why are people trying to restrict people's right to carry arms. As US citizens, it's their constitutional right to bear arms? Why doesn't everyone have access to a small nuclear arsenal? Why aren't all the gun lobbyists screaming about those rights not being given to them. The reality is that that thought scares the living shit out of everyone and its become culturally accepted that there is a line in the sand on what types of weapons should be available to people. Perhaps the line for the US needs to be redrawn. As has been shown in other countries (specifically, Australia where I live) when you reduce the availability of weapons that are designed purely for mass killing (our buyback scheme went pretty smoothly in 1996), the ability of people to do mass killing goes down. We have approximately 1/3 the number of firearm related deaths[1] (both accidental and not) than the US has of just homicides alone per 100k people[2]. Thats not to say guns aren't still available. They are. That's not to say people still don't get killed with guns, because they do. But the numbers just dont lie. [1] http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia [2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Crake 14y ago
I don't know--most Americans who have guns are pretty attached to them. I don't think they'd willingly turn them in for cash, and then you'd still have the problem of 300 million guns or so floating around the market even if you nuked the second amendment. It's great that it worked for Australia, and other places, but America is unique in some very bad ways at times. For example, the only way we ever had unions in the workplace in the first place is thanks to civilian weaponry. Leave guns to the national guard? Ha. In many cases, they were the ones shooting and killing the strikers. Given the current state of affairs, I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing became necessary again at some point. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way people (like the ones in charge of companies) will listen to you is if you have a way to keep them from killing you. It's not as common these days, but who's to say what the future will bring? I can understand why negating the constitutional right to bear arms makes people nervous. In the past, it was a way for many people to make sure their families were fed. For many people in the present, it's a way to make sure their families are safe in case the government fails us (again). In America, corporate interests run politics, not the people, and companies don't usually have your best interest in mind (just the bottom line).
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Australia has a murder rate of 1/100,000. According to your source, the homicide rate of the US is 5.5 according to your source, and the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is 1.8 [2]. By contrast, the total homicide rate in Australia is only 1.3. I.e., with or without guns, the US is a more violent place than Australia. Drawing conclusions about gun control without correcting for this fact is a fallacy. Incidentally, how do you define a weapon that is "designed purely for mass killing"? [3] http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
- rdavl 14y ago
  Mass killing is perhaps a bad choice of words, but you really shouldn't be allowed to own any kind of automatic firearms, silencers, military sniper rifles. Nor should anyone be allowed to keep home any amount of explosive substances or explosive devices, unless for professional use, or any kind of chemical or biological weaponry. Also, you could not own any kind of firearm if you have criminal record, poor eyesight, mental retardations and such. No ownership is possible without having a licence issued by the government. Those are basically regulations in Croatia for example.

by froo 14y ago

Crake 14y ago

I don't know--most Americans who have guns are pretty attached to them. I don't think they'd willingly turn them in for cash, and then you'd still have the problem of 300 million guns or so floating around the market even if you nuked the second amendment. It's great that it worked for Australia, and other places, but America is unique in some very bad ways at times. For example, the only way we ever had unions in the workplace in the first place is thanks to civilian weaponry. Leave guns to the national guard? Ha. In many cases, they were the ones shooting and killing the strikers. Given the current state of affairs, I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing became necessary again at some point. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way people (like the ones in charge of companies) will listen to you is if you have a way to keep them from killing you. It's not as common these days, but who's to say what the future will bring? I can understand why negating the constitutional right to bear arms makes people nervous. In the past, it was a way for many people to make sure their families were fed. For many people in the present, it's a way to make sure their families are safe in case the government fails us (again). In America, corporate interests run politics, not the people, and companies don't usually have your best interest in mind (just the bottom line).

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Australia has a murder rate of 1/100,000. According to your source, the homicide rate of the US is 5.5 according to your source, and the non-firearm homicide rate in the US is 1.8 [2]. By contrast, the total homicide rate in Australia is only 1.3. I.e., with or without guns, the US is a more violent place than Australia. Drawing conclusions about gun control without correcting for this fact is a fallacy. Incidentally, how do you define a weapon that is "designed purely for mass killing"? [3] http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

rdavl 14y ago
Mass killing is perhaps a bad choice of words, but you really shouldn't be allowed to own any kind of automatic firearms, silencers, military sniper rifles. Nor should anyone be allowed to keep home any amount of explosive substances or explosive devices, unless for professional use, or any kind of chemical or biological weaponry. Also, you could not own any kind of firearm if you have criminal record, poor eyesight, mental retardations and such. No ownership is possible without having a licence issued by the government. Those are basically regulations in Croatia for example.