Hiku said:
1. My original point here was that this particular chart you provided was intentionally misleading, as Norway would not even have been on that list if it didn't just focus on a few select years, let alone be above the USA. And when you compare Norway to a US state, it's still a USA problem, as the government has authority over all their states. But earlier you said mass-shootings, not gun violence. Those are different. For the former, the law can reduce the likelyhood of incidents, but can't fully prevent them, or control where the next unstable person will emerge. One single individual can alter the statistics drastically in this regard, unlike general gun violence.
The latter requires a lot more comparisons between the states and their laws than simply "one has stricter gun laws". If one state for example has significantly more immigration, segregation, poverty, etc than the other, that state having more gun violence in spite of having stricter gun laws than another state with less gun restrictions is not evidence of it not having a positive effect. Easy legal access from surrounding states is another factor. But you already know all that. Let's not ask questions we already know the answer to, and try to stick to the main points that gets the discussion moving forward. After this post I will start start focusing on the more relevant parts and condense my thoughts.
2. The manufacturing purpose and sales of those guns change along with the law. If guns were completely banned for civilians, the only guns legally manufactured would be for military and law ennforcement, etc. And the price of guns on the black market would also rise, discouraging more people from obtaining them illegally.
3. It's not high noon in the wild west any more. And perhaps an outside perspective may be needed for some people to realize that. But I'm sure most locals understand that it's not aplicable in any realistic scenario today, without it beainf treason. And either way, everyone knows that it would lead to a certain death.
4. That a much more strict nationwide gun control might save no lives but increase killings instead is an absurd notion without strong evidence to support it. Cherry picking situations without having anywhere near the full effect of the gun reform in place is not an indication of how things will be with the full effect in place. Would 1 day in jail for any crime discourage most crimes? No, obviously not. There is a line to cross, and US is far from evenn apprioaching it. Just accidental gun deaths alone caused by lack of gun safety in the US is nearly a 1000 a year. But if hell freezes over, then at least the nation tried.
5. If the laws were to copy Australia's exactly, you can keep a gun into your home for some reasons, such as being a member of a target shooting club, as long as you attend a certain amount per year. I didn't suggest to copy paste Australia's laws exactly though. As you know, in the US you have a right to protect yourself in your own home with a gun. You don't have to take that law away, but you can certainly implement more restrictions and concept of gun safety around it to reduce the high amount of accidental deaths.
6. In the USA of course. "Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun or long gun ammunition to a person of any age."
Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.
http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-firearms-policy-summary/
So you can sell a rifle to a 5 year old as long as they have cash. Lovely.
7. Suggesting that rational means that have proven positive effects would have the adverse effect is always a silly notion unless backed by very strong evidence. That's not the genuine argument any more than me suggesting that the argument against banning alcohol is that it would cause even more liver failure. It may cause other problems, but I wouldn't bet on that being one of them. No, it's because people want to get f**d up. And people just don't want to have their guns taken away.
I don't know the ins and outs of the US's budget and economy, but there are plenty of people who do, who want a much more strict gun reform. If there's anything worth spending money on, it's things like this.
8. Regardless of how you and I may feel about him, many people apparently listen to him.
|
1. Isn't the argument that mass shootings in the U.S are increasing over time? I would think a recent sample size that is limited to recent years would make the list even more biased toward that argument. Additionally, Norway wasn't the only European country above the U.S. There were 10 other countries above the U.S. "Because the government has authority over all their states" first; this is a non-sequitur. It is unclear why this means we shouldn't consider different crime-rates in different states in our analysis, especially when many of the gun laws are on the state level. Secondly, the U.S Federal government is co-sovereign with the states, meaning - no it doesn't have authority over the states, but rather shares authority.
So you agree that there is more to it than increasing or decreasing gun laws. Obviously there are extra factors to determine crime. So if it is unfair to compare states, why compare even more distinct entities like countries? I noted a solution to homicide rates that is much better than gun control, which you mostly ignored/side-stepped. I will describe it again.
As for a solution to homicides and crime, the statistics show that a majority of crime is drug related. And if we look closer it is evident that it is mostly the effects of drug prohibition. Why do people join drug cartels and drug selling gangs? They need to make money. Why do they stay involved in these cartels and gangs? It is insanely hard to leave, and even if they do they might have a felony record preventing them from getting jobs. Why do their kids also fall into such activity? Their parents are sent to prison for decades, not being able to contribute to their well-being. Why do these cartels and gangs exist? Drug prohibition makes the market uncompetitive. What should be done? Decriminalize drugs, and treat addiction as a health issue not a crime. Will this solve all homicides? No. But will it end many? Yes, and it will also end a vicious cycle of poverty.
2. Except this is not how it works. If the supply is still large enough the price is not going to increase. The whole point of making guns illegal is to reduce the supply. How are you going to reduce such a large supply?
3. This argument is always silly considering the “wild west” had stricter gun laws than the industrialized east in the 1800’s. Why? Because the sheriff had more power over people’s lives, and the rule of law was sparser, hence the name “the wild west.” Also the second amendment wasn’t just designed for government tyranny, but also any uprisings within the country and foreign attacks. For example, let’s say there was a coup, the citizens would have to be armed so that they could participate in the militias. And then there is the issue of state vs. federal sovereignty. The discussion is much more complex than you are making it. It only happens that people think the intent is obsolete because the country has been mostly at peace for centuries. That will not always be the case.
4. I don’t think it is absurd at all. Drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition both increased criminal activity in this country, and lead to more homicides than there were before them. They also led to more brutal police activity. I could only imagine what gun prohibition would do. We have a long precedent of outlawing things biting us in the ass.
5. Okay, so you recognize that the laws need to be more nuanced and not simply a direct copy of Australia to work. So why then is it not reasonable to think that what we have now (via voting) and the process by which we are doing it represents the ideal balance for Americans?
6. I watched the video and edited my post. The reason he was able to buy that hunting rifle was because he had adults with him. At that age (13) hunting is a big sport for most people in rural or suburban areas, and I see no reason why the kid couldn’t have used his own money to buy a gun privately under adult supervision. No right-minded private seller would sell to the kid without an adult, and the kid probably wouldn’t have even been allowed into the gun show. And believe it or not, most people at gun shows ask for background checks to protect themselves. They don’t want to go to jail.
7. It isn’t silly really. These are basic concepts in statistics, data collection, and the scientific method. Different sample groups have different lurking variables which make it hard to apply conclusions found in one group to another.
Your alcohol example is actually a good one for my argument. When the federal government amended the constitution and banned the sale of alcohol organized crime increased, and more deaths by alcohol also occurred because the alcohol wasn’t created safely. That is why alcohol prohibition was lifted.
We have a long history of prohibition backfiring in this country. The wars on alcohol and drugs have made things worse not better. I don’t see how this would be any different for guns. In fact, in the current militarized and tense police-civilian environment, it is quite obvious how such laws would make things worse – leading to more police brutality on minority populations, and more police-on-minority deaths, possibly exceeding any lives saved.
As for the people who might want strict gun policies as the ones you are proposing, they are certainly in the minority. Otherwise, they would have enough clout to get their stuff done. And if you believe it or not, support for gun control has dwindled with time (on average) spiking only immediately after mass-shootings.
8. 8. Yes, a small minority of gun rights advocates like him.
