And what will representatives do now which they apparently failed to do in their careers up to this point? Murder and gun crime are both on the decline, so what is it you want to happen?
They will do nothing, we know this. I'd like them to either pass legislation attempting to address the issue or state they are content with the present situation. Stop empty statements about gun control or mental health issues and then forget the next day.
I would like our rates to be in line with Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom within the next ten years. We should learn from countries that do better than us to help us in facets of society to be better.
Gun crime is down, consistently declining for over the past quarter century. Surely this is progress?
A lot of people bring up Australia's gun ban as an example of this implementation working, yet ignore the fact that crime rates actually spiked immediately after the ban, and only dropped significantly almost a decade later. That's still a good thing, and I get that Jeffries is a comedian, but I also think it's an oversight.
Sorry, I've seen this bit before, and it's a bit difficult to deconstruct because I know Jeffries is a comedian, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's intentionally being simplistic in his arguments. The notion that the only argument for owning a gun is, "Fuck off, I like guns." sounds funny and may even ring true. But as I've brought up before, more people in the U.S. protect themselves with guns than commit murder with guns. So clearly this is not the case. Ironically, Jeffries says this right after claiming he is "not for(...)bullshit arguments.", which I would say his claim is.
He goes after the term 'assault rifles', but the name doesn't change the function. He correctly points out that people are more likely to use guns on themselves than on others, but of course less than one percent of the guns in the U.S. will be used for any illicit purpose, unlike what Jeffries makes it sound like. He mocks gun enthusiasts for their hobby, but this isn't a point for or against gun ownership, it's just a jab. He mocks gun owners for locking their guns up and claiming to be responsible for this, but then claims a locked-away gun would do no good. Again ignoring the dozens of thousands who do just this. Yet again, Jeffries mocks the idea of armed teachers and school security guards stopping a potential mass shooting, ignoring that this has already happened. He then spends a minute going after a caricature he just made up of people who disagree with him. Also pulling out the nonsense idea that people native to a land are not actually native unless their earliest ancestors were also from the same land. I actually don't disagree with what he says about the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. I'm not a constitutionalist. A gross oversimplification of the Civil War. I disagree with his comparison of drug use and speeding. People should have the right to take all the drugs they want, because they're only directly affecting themselves. But speeding is something that clearly endangers others.
"This is a comedy show and it's not to be taken seriously."
Who protects with an assault-rifle < if you practice safe gun-owning you have it in a safe = not for protection, but you don't get as many accidental shootings (a good thing)
would you give your guns away if you knew you'd never have to shoot anyone with them?
Yeah... it's not as if you could change the laws of a country to forbid people from owning "weapons of warfare". It's not like any other country has done exactly that before. Oh, wait...
There is no need to fall onto the greatest extreme of removing all guns. It is logistically impractical and politically impossible. Focus on more realistic goals which could actually have a strong positive impact. All the hyperbolic reactions do is gridlock debate...
I would say that in the US the only way to deal with the issue is to go to the extreme. Either you ban all guns and try to do what Australia did or you allow everyone including teachers, to have guns and go the wild west. Half measures are not going to work in America because Americans love their guns more than they love anything else.
They will do nothing, we know this. I'd like them to either pass legislation attempting to address the issue or state they are content with the present situation. Stop empty statements about gun control or mental health issues and then forget the next day.
I would like our rates to be in line with Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom within the next ten years. We should learn from countries that do better than us to help us in facets of society to be better.
Gun crime is down, consistently declining for over the past quarter century. Surely this is progress?
If that is the position I want them to state "This is progress, crime is down, no need to act" every time it is brought up.
Then come election people have the choice of being content or asking for change from their representative.
A lot of people bring up Australia's gun ban as an example of this implementation working, yet ignore the fact that crime rates actually spiked immediately after the ban, and only dropped significantly almost a decade later. That's still a good thing, and I get that Jeffries is a comedian, but I also think it's an oversight.
Sorry, I've seen this bit before, and it's a bit difficult to deconstruct because I know Jeffries is a comedian, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's intentionally being simplistic in his arguments. The notion that the only argument for owning a gun is, "Fuck off, I like guns." sounds funny and may even ring true. But as I've brought up before, more people in the U.S. protect themselves with guns than commit murder with guns. So clearly this is not the case. Ironically, Jeffries says this right after claiming he is "not for(...)bullshit arguments.", which I would say his claim is.
He goes after the term 'assault rifles', but the name doesn't change the function. He correctly points out that people are more likely to use guns on themselves than on others, but of course less than one percent of the guns in the U.S. will be used for any illicit purpose, unlike what Jeffries makes it sound like. He mocks gun enthusiasts for their hobby, but this isn't a point for or against gun ownership, it's just a jab. He mocks gun owners for locking their guns up and claiming to be responsible for this, but then claims a locked-away gun would do no good. Again ignoring the dozens of thousands who do just this. Yet again, Jeffries mocks the idea of armed teachers and school security guards stopping a potential mass shooting, ignoring that this has already happened. He then spends a minute going after a caricature he just made up of people who disagree with him. Also pulling out the nonsense idea that people native to a land are not actually native unless their earliest ancestors were also from the same land. I actually don't disagree with what he says about the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. I'm not a constitutionalist. A gross oversimplification of the Civil War. I disagree with his comparison of drug use and speeding. People should have the right to take all the drugs they want, because they're only directly affecting themselves. But speeding is something that clearly endangers others.
"This is a comedy show and it's not to be taken seriously."
Who protects with an assault-rifle < if you practice safe gun-owning you have it in a safe = not for protection, but you don't get as many accidental shootings (a good thing)
would you give your guns away if you knew you'd never have to shoot anyone with them?
How does keeping one's gun in a safe equal not owning it for the sake of protection?
To give up on my right to own a firearm, I'd need to be convinced that people are either inherently good and have simply been corrupted by society, or that people can evolve beyond violence. I do not subscribe to either of these beliefs now, but I'm open to any arguments.
There is no need to fall onto the greatest extreme of removing all guns. It is logistically impractical and politically impossible. Focus on more realistic goals which could actually have a strong positive impact. All the hyperbolic reactions do is gridlock debate...
I would say that in the US the only way to deal with the issue is to go to the extreme. Either you ban all guns and try to do what Australia did or you allow everyone including teachers, to have guns and go the wild west. Half measures are not going to work in America because Americans love their guns more than they love anything else.
Why would extremes be more favorable than moderation? Arming or disarming the entire populace seems like a recipe for disaster.
People often change their views when something happen which challenges their preconceived notions. Just as many people toughen their stance on gun regulations after suffering a tragedy, others become more supportive of gun rights once they've found themselves unarmed in a dangerous situation. I wouldn't say one is inherently better than the other.
Okay, you brought up banning guns, so I'm going to take that to its logical conclusion. Right now, the U.S. is a hub for the illegal sale of firearms. If you crack down on legal firearms before you've decimated the black market for them, do you think the violence rate will rise or drop? Would you say that a spike in violence would be worth tightening regulations or outright banning firearms?
Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, so it's not just guns. And unless your solution is to transform the United States into Japan, I don't think their impressive lack of crime really helps at all. I also think Australia and the United Kingdom, like Japan, aren't very good comparisons, because they are island nations, not directly connected to any countries with high homicide rates. Unlike the U.S., which is part of the same land as Mexico and Central and South America. These areas contain the highest murder rates in the world.
And yes, it is sensible to view countries differently for the very simple reason that they are different. Leaving your door open in the U.S. is much more likely to lead to some sort of violation than doing the same in Japan.
I get that people can change their perception when something hits them personally. It's the "until" part that's hard to understand some times when it comes to matters that are constantly brought to our attention. If you hear about someone else going through the same thing, why not change your mind until it happens to you? I'm speaking in general here, not just guns. Many times I guess you could chalk it up to people being uninformed. But many other times that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm not necessarily talking about just banning guns, but as I mentioned earlier, making half-hearted efforts will do little to nothing, or can even have the adverse effect. If you're going to do that then you need to fully commit from the start. The gun that was used in the Sandy Hook shooting costs $32 000 on the black Market in Australia.
But in my opinion they should start off with heavier regulations for all types of weapons. You need a drivers license to drive a car, and a 13 year old boy who can't buy a scratch ticket can legally buy a rifle without any license requirements (it's federal law applying to every state):
In Australia, people often call it a gun ban, but it's not an actual ban. They just heavily regulated firearms. One thing that resulted from this was higher gun safety education, because people who are serious about wanting to protect their families have to go through training, and need to renew that training every few years. Similar to a drivers license.
Japan has a very low crime rate. And it's not unrelated to the fact that people's access to commit crime more easily is heavily restricted. If you want to take out your anger at your classmates, it's much easier to do it with a firearm than with a blade. As for which countries USA shares borders with, that's a factor. Not an excuse to do nothing (meaningful). UK is by no means a country that doesn't have big problems with violent crime, or troublesome people coming in illegally. But in spite of this, police in the UK don't even carry guns with them these days. They may some times request backup from someone with a tazer. And in even rarer cases, someone with a gun. When not everyone around you is potentially armed, fewer and fewer feel the need to arm themselves.
I've never in my life though "I wish I had a gun". Because while there are some illegal guns in circulation, there's no reasonable scenario where you'd need to arm the general population for any situation except for when facing off against another gun. And the best way to make everyone uneasy is to supply everyone with guns.
You can blame some things on other countries, but USA at it's core has a very gun focused culture that has gone on for centuries. It's not Mexico's fault that ~600 people were killed by accidental firearm discharges in USA in a single year. That's almost two such deaths per day. That number alone is disturbing.
And yes, I agree you probably shouldn't leave your door open like that in the US. (Probably shouldn't anywhere) And one of the reasons for that is, the outcome is more likely to be lethal when the intruder expects a gun in the house.
I think it's only natural to have a different response when you actually experience something versus seeing or reading/hear about it over and over again. And each person is likely to have their own response, based on their previous individual experiences.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I think the only solutions are outright banning firearms or leaving things as they are. I'm not even against stricter regulations, I just want to know exactly what regulations would have affected past homicides as well as incidents of self-defense. If I can be convinced that a new law is only likely to reduce violence overall, I don't see why I would be against it.
I don't know about kids being able to buy guns. I seriously doubt it's legal where I live. I'd need to see how many underage people are legal firearm owners in the U.S. and compare it to the number of minors who commit crimes with legally obtained firearms before I made a judgment.
If I'm mistaken in calling Australia's stance on guns a 'ban', then I apologize. I was merely using the colloquial way gun control proponents refer to it.
I don't disagree with lessening the feeling of needing to be armed. But right now there is just a flood of guns coming into the U.S. illegally, and until that is controlled, I don't know that stricter regulations on legal gun-owners is going to result in a reduction of violence.
I certainly wouldn't blame any other country for U.S. problems, but I of course think neighbouring countries will have an effect. And I also think it important to highlight the statistics. You brought up accidental deaths. Yes, it is incredibly unfortunate that so many people die from accidental shootings in the U.S. But I also think it important to point out that the rate is over twice as high in Mexico. I don't hear people complaining about a gun culture in Mexico, yet they're worse in every regard.
Provocative images, but gun crime has consistently been on the decline for over two decades now. Would you say we're moving in the wrong direction?
Declining gun violence is good, as long as it's not replaced by non firearm related violence. But this path that USA is on has a limit that's very far from ideal.
Anyway, among the many questionable things NRA does, they actively spend money to defend research on gun related violence, and makes the process of checking certain gun registries very difficult by keeping them on an antiquated paper based system. What they're doing always seems to be going in the wrong direction.
With few exceptions, each year since '92 (or '93, though I think it's '92) has seen a decline in gun violence and homicides overall. I'm not saying we should be proud of where the U.S. is at now in terms of violence, but I do think we're on the right track. The current murder and gun crime rate is less than half of what it was in the early 90s.
I honestly don't know much about the NRA, so I can't comment on the latter part.
