Outsider view on US gun problems

Joat42 wrote:It's strange that he doesn't talk about gun control in the context of who can buy a gun. He touches upon it when talks about mental health issues but doesn't give an opinion at all about it, which I feel is a cop out considering he owned a gun store.

That is one of the first gun-control fallacies he debunks.

You can’t stop anybody from buying a gun. They go downtown, hand Pedro the Pusher a few hundred bucks, they’ve got a gun. We can’t stop Pedro from selling drugs, WHY do you believe we can stop him from selling guns?

The ‘war on guns’ would be every bit as effective as the ‘war on (some) drugs’ and the criminals would win.

Joat42 wrote:The pro-gun people always seem to equate "gun control" with "ban all guns" which he amply demonstrates in his post.

Because that is what the anti-gun politicians tell us they want. Their 'reasonable gun control measures' are just steps towards their end goal of banning all those scary guns.

Fireflair wrote:The notion that an armed populace in the modern western world could effectively stand up to the military if it was turned on the populace is ludicrous

It is illegal for the United States government to turn its military against the populace. It is illegal to give such orders to United States military officers, illegal for the officers to follow them, and most unlikely that they would want to. Our military is made up of the same American citizens the government would be trying to oppress.

Daryl wrote:Our system in Australia generally works well. We have had a couple of mass shootings in the past few years, but nothing remotely like the US experience.

You have less than one-twelfth the population. Would you say you have about one-twelfth as many shootings? A couple of shootings in Australia equates to 25 or 26 in the US.
———————————
Firepower is not a thousand bullets that miss. Firepower is one bullet that hits.

It is illegal for the United States government to turn its military against the populace. It is illegal to give such orders to United States military officers, illegal for the officers to follow them, and most unlikely that they would want to. Our military is made up of the same American citizens the government would be trying to oppress.

It is that unwillingness which matters. Not a bunch of yahoos with semi-auto rifles and pistols.

Imaginos1892 wrote:
The ‘war on guns’ would be every bit as effective as the ‘war on (some) drugs’ and the criminals would win.

And it hardly would affect the situation much, to be frank. In most stable nations, criminals are dealt with by the police, not armed militia.

Because that is what the anti-gun politicians tell us they want. Their 'reasonable gun control measures' are just steps towards their end goal of banning all those scary guns.

This again demonstrated my point: neither side are interested in compromise, so nothing would be ever done.

It is illegal for the United States government to turn its military against the populace. It is illegal to give such orders to United States military officers, illegal for the officers to follow them, and most unlikely that they would want to. Our military is made up of the same American citizens the government would be trying to oppress.

Yeah? Seems that the West Virginia National Guard that was used against protesting miners at Blair Mountain (1921) never heard about that.

You have less than one-twelfth the population. Would you say you have about one-twelfth as many shootings? A couple of shootings in Australia equates to 25 or 26 in the US.

Per 100.000 citizens, USA have 12,21 gun-related deaths (of which 4,46 are homicides). Australia have 1,04 (of which 1,08 are homicides).

I.e. nearly 12 times less total rate, and 4 times less homicides.

And this is per equal number of citizens, so the population size did not affect it.

Dilandu wrote:Yeah? Seems that the West Virginia National Guard that was used against protesting miners at Blair Mountain (1921) never heard about that.

National Guard is a state militia, not the United States military.

Still, it was government oppression. Were the miners not disarmed by 'gun control' laws, except for the few who had obtained guns illegally?

That is the history of 'gun control' laws in the US up until the 1960's — keeping guns away from all those troublesome people like the Irish, Italians, Jews, freed southern slaves…

Gun control has an intensely racist history.

Dilandu wrote:In most stable nations, criminals are dealt with by the police, not armed militia.

Not militia, individual armed citizens. The same people the criminals are trying to kill while the police are busy somewhere else.

Police can't be everywhere. Armed citizens can be anywhere. A fact that tends to intimidate criminals.
———————————
There is no shortage of people convinced they can create the perfect world. Trouble is, they always start out by fucking up this one.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

Joat42 wrote:It's strange that he doesn't talk about gun control in the context of who can buy a gun. He touches upon it when talks about mental health issues but doesn't give an opinion at all about it, which I feel is a cop out considering he owned a gun store.

That is one of the first gun-control fallacies he debunks.

You can’t stop anybody from buying a gun. They go downtown, hand Pedro the Pusher a few hundred bucks, they’ve got a gun. We can’t stop Pedro from selling drugs, WHY do you believe we can stop him from selling guns?

The ‘war on guns’ would be every bit as effective as the ‘war on (some) drugs’ and the criminals would win.
<snip>

All I hear "can't" with not one iota of will to do something about the current situation. Here's a hint: if you do nothing it will not get better.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

Joat42 wrote:The pro-gun people always seem to equate "gun control" with "ban all guns" which he amply demonstrates in his post.

Because that is what the anti-gun politicians tell us they want. Their 'reasonable gun control measures' are just steps towards their end goal of banning all those scary guns.

Instead you prefer an unreasonable situation where people are killed daily.

And I'll ask again: Should anyone be able to purchase guns?

If you can't answer that question with a simple Yes you are for gun control, it's as simple as that.

Dilandu wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:
The ‘war on guns’ would be every bit as effective as the ‘war on (some) drugs’ and the criminals would win.

And it hardly would affect the situation much, to be frank. In most stable nations, criminals are dealt with by the police, not armed militia.

Because that is what the anti-gun politicians tell us they want. Their 'reasonable gun control measures' are just steps towards their end goal of banning all those scary guns.

This again demonstrated my point: neither side are interested in compromise, so nothing would be ever done.

It is illegal for the United States government to turn its military against the populace. It is illegal to give such orders to United States military officers, illegal for the officers to follow them, and most unlikely that they would want to. Our military is made up of the same American citizens the government would be trying to oppress.

Yeah? Seems that the West Virginia National Guard that was used against protesting miners at Blair Mountain (1921) never heard about that.

You have less than one-twelfth the population. Would you say you have about one-twelfth as many shootings? A couple of shootings in Australia equates to 25 or 26 in the US.

Per 100.000 citizens, USA have 12,21 gun-related deaths (of which 4,46 are homicides). Australia have 1,04 (of which 1,08 are homicides).

I.e. nearly 12 times less total rate, and 4 times less homicides.

And this is per equal number of citizens, so the population size did not affect it.

You are correct that it is the death rates that should be compared not the total numbers.

This applies to suicides as well as homicides. In spite of the proliferation of guns in the US and prevalence of guns in suicides, the suicide rate in America is far from extraordinary:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... y-country/

This is inspite of the US suicide rate increasing somewhat in recent years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i ... ted_States

The fact that people find alternative methods to commit suicide where guns are not available should compel the logical deduction that guns do not cause suicide.

Actually, the US did have a fairly cohesive concensus on gun policy.

Fully automatic weapons were strictly regulated back in the 1930s with vetting and registration. Incidents of legally registered machineguns used in crime excepting police and military weapons is almost non existant. A moratorium on adding new fully automatic weapons to the roster of legally registered weapons was imposed back in the 1980s.

President Clinton and the gun control lobby decided to disturb this consensus as a political ploy to demonize conservative gun owners.

The first phony issue was "cop killer bullets." The fact that this specialty ammunition was developed by cops, for cops and marketed almost exclusively to cops was irrelevant. The fact that no cop has been killed with such ammunition was also irrellevant.

The next phony issue was "plastic pistols" in response to the introduction of the Glock 17. Allegedly the weapon of terrorists. Barrell, slide, springs and other internal parts as well as an insert molded into the frame are steel. Ammunition is also metal. These facts were irrellevant to the gun control lobby. Equally irrellevant was the fact that the only "terrorists" arming themselves with Glocks were the police.

The next phony issue was "assault rifles." Clinton told us that the police were being outguned by criminals armed with assault weapons. (Clinton also told us that he really didn't do drugs because he didn't inhale and it really wasn't adultery because Monica didn't swallow.) The fact that FBI data showed that the number of homicides committed with rifles of any type was small and had been declining for decades was irrellevant. The fact that the number of cops getting murdered had been declining for decades was irrellevant. The fact that precise FBI data on weapon type, weapon caliber and weapon model demonstrated that few cops were being killed with military style semiautomatic rifles was irrellevant. Clinton banned military style semiautomatic rifles, but exempted the Ruger Mini-14 which had been used to kill almost as many cops as all of the banned rifles combined. Result, cop killers traded in the Mini-14s and M1 carbines for semiautomatic, AK-47 style rifles. After the ban was rescinded, cop killers suddenly switched to the AR-15.

All of this demonizing of guns ensures that the public will remain oblivioys to the question of police competence or incompetence. Police in the US solve only 2/3s of homicides and actually makean arrest in barely half. Police in the most murderous cities such as Chicago, solve less than 10% of homicides. They should be arrested for loitering.

Just curious. If the police in the US are incompetent and indolent, why does the US have a massively higher incarceration rate than any developed country, and most shithole countries?
My theory would be that the lack of a national welfare and health net leads to people being desperate?

Daryl wrote:Just curious. If the police in the US are incompetent and indolent, why does the US have a massively higher incarceration rate than any developed country, and most shithole countries?

Most incarcerations are for non-violent crimes, such as drugs or 'white collar' crimes. Conflating "all crimes" into a discussion of "violent crimes" is disingenuous.

I have no idea what the relevant statistics show, but I would expect similar numbers to the unsolved violent crime rates.

It is worth noting that an officer was recently convicted of dereliction because he did not enter the nightclub in Florida...

Daryl wrote:My theory would be that the lack of a national welfare and health net leads to people being desperate?

That would be a step in the right direction.

Addressing the root causes if violence of all typed would be even better. Figure out why people resort to violence and address THOSE issues instead of butting heads with the Second Amendment and Gun Control Fanatics on both sides of the issue.

Weird Harold wrote:<snip>

Daryl wrote:My theory would be that the lack of a national welfare and health net leads to people being desperate?

That would be a step in the right direction.

Addressing the root causes if violence of all typed would be even better. Figure out why people resort to violence and address THOSE issues instead of butting heads with the Second Amendment and Gun Control Fanatics on both sides of the issue.

One root cause is social inequality, there are others but that is the really big one.