3.2 million We are comparing societies and it's essential element is human. Less is always better than more. The problem is firearms. Actually those cold dead hands will probably be because of a self-inflicted gunshot wound because the rate of suicide by middle aged white guys who own a gun has been steadily rising.
The foundational disconnect between your logic and that of most US gun owners is that freedom/independence are more valued than safety. For context: the saying 'those who would trade liberty for security lose both...' which i agree with, '...and deserve neither' which is a moral judgement i try to avoid. Another saying: 'when seconds count, the police are minutes away' which is a true pretty much everywhere, and illustrates the truth that for the most part, our safety/security is primarily in our own hands. The bottom line is that we don't place the responsibility of our well being onto 'The State' because we don't trust the inherent bureaucracy to look out for us as effectively as we can look out for ourselves, nor do we trust that 'The State' will respect the power that responsibility necessitates. Furthermore, this is increasingly an urban vs rural issue. Taking 8 of our most populated metros out of our per-capita violence statistics drops the rest of the nation to rates more resembling the dozen or so least violent nations on the planet. Most US gun owners reside in these essentially violence-free areas (99%+ of the nation, geographically) and see urban issues as 'not our problem, thats where crazy people want to live.' Even if we were to presume (which we don't) that increased restrictions on law abiding citizens will meaningfully impact criminals, we still wouldn't feel an obligation to alter our lifestyle or governance to accommodate people who live in a drastically different culture. The US still very much views itself as a Union of local governments (state then county), and the concept of community does not extend nearly as far (again- geographically) as much of the rest of the world seems to have adopted. This is not a concept limited to conservatives, btw- Sanctuary Cities, a term invented by the left to represent electoral regions that refuse to follow locally unpopular Federal immigration laws, has been adopted by the right by electoral regions similarly refusing to enforce unpopular State (and Federal, should they pass) firearms laws. The US, compared to most other nations in the world, is still very uncentralized, and that is by design. We don't live according to the same laws as people on the other side of the country, and we don't want to. One more fact to consider about the US is that we have, for decades, not been enforcing the gun laws that we already have. It is currently illegal for a 'prohibited person' (one who may not legally purchase firearms due to past felony conviction or adjudication of mental deficiency/illness) to attempt to purchase a firearm. Every year, tens of thousands are denied the purchase of firearms from licensed dealers (who, contrary to media propaganda, do perform BGCs) and the person denied purchase is reported to authorities (FBI/ATF). Yet no convictions, arrests, investigations or even just simple contact is made by the authorities on these criminals. They are free to keep trying until they slip through a bureaucratic crack or decide to try their luck on the black market. This does not engender faith that more laws are going to reduce gun violence, and to some minds, is evidence that more laws may not be intended to reduce gun violence. Its not unheard of for governing bodies to create or exacerbate a crisis in order to gain power and influence by then offering the solution to said crisis. If folks want more gun laws, the best place to start would be by genuinely enforcing the ones we already have. But that is never on the gun-controllers' agenda.
A noble cause. I too would like to see no children killed in school... or on the streets or in their homes. You do realize children are safer in school then they are in many other locations. Look up how many school children there are in America, then look up how many are shot in school. While even one is death is a sad thing, odds are extremely low that a kid will be shot in school. You do realize more kids die from child abuse and neglect by their own parents then die in school shootings. While your concerns, I am sure are genuine, they are misplaced if you want to save the lives of children.
So here is a guy that has read all of the posts here. His fine contribution is one post on page one that reads..."So how do you plan to confiscate all of the guns?" in response to Edna. Then 2 pages later this response above. What lack of constructive debate you bring to the table. I might mention that to have a debate here is risky business if you are sensitive and I can understand some holding back because it is easy for some members to pick holes in posters posts. So the hard bit is to be descriptive and involve yourself, not throw in one sentence with the intent of shaming. It doesn't work with me man. Throwing little stones is ineffective. Talk!
What do you and your troll compadres care about dead American's? What business is it of yours? Are we constantly telling you Aussies how to run your country? How about if you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone.
Far fewer citizens of the united states die each year from privately owned firearms. Such an amount is well over one hundred times higher than the annual firearm-related death rate, even when suicides are factored in. If lives are nothing more than commodities, it would be far more cost effective to simply leave the problem unaddressed. Not all humans are created in an equal fashion, however. And the number of firearm-related deaths is never static. Some years are higher, some years are lower, even without the passage of any new firearm-related restrictions. The problem will eventually sort itself out on its own. Explain how so. A claim devoid of anything in the way of presented evidence in order to back it up, or otherwise confirm it as being factual.
Then how about accepting the fact if the firearm laws we already have on the books where vigorously enforced, firearm related crimes and deaths would plummet, this has been clearly demonstrated to be a fact, as such we don't need any more restrictions and laws which will never be enforced, what we do need is enforcement of the existing laws .
How you guys would (who live in America) improve safety? What's really needed to do and how it's improving safety? What are root causes why gun related problems occur?
Your inability to grasp humor, satire, sarcasm, irony or pop reference is legend. Are some humans more equal than others? Statistically speaking the fewer guns the fewer gun related deaths How can there be gun deaths without guns? That seems to be the causation.
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Muster the militia until we have no security problems.
The primary root cause is the degradation of society in the united states. There is simply no sort of regulation, or any number of regulations that can fix that particular problem. Whereas some societies hold themselves to high moral standards, the united states simply does not.
Use the emotion of the moment to drive in quick, thoughtless laws is not a good idea. But I guess New Zealand is emotion-driven.
Off topic and irrelevant. In terms of the law, such is indeed the case. In terms of basic construction, some are produced with inferior standards and lead to an inferior product. But not fewer deaths overall. Nor fewer mass murders. All that will occur is a shift from one category to another, while all other factors remain the same. The citizenry of the united states is simply too violent to cease the majority of its annual homicides simply because firearms are not as prevalent as some may wish for them to be. Is it physically possible to remove all firearms from existence, and thus from the equation, while preventing more from taking their place at some point down the line?
I'm sorry I upset you. I'm just wondering why none of the people that claim to have fixes never offer any details.
No matter where you go, you have violence, whining about guns doesn't fix that or anything else. American exceptionalism exist because of American freedoms derived from our rights. Lesser countries don't have rights, they have government sanctioned privileges that can be taken at a whim. And the idiots of those nations thank them when it happens. Don't come crying to us when your government takes more from you because you cheered when they took your guns...
Fair enough, and your contribution to that? What proactive work have you done? Or is it up to others?
No problem, thanks. Finer details are often for others to implement. I dont have all the answers. If commonsrnse prevails (one day) and a buy back scheme is introduced in the US that is for authorities to work out. For some to suggest it is impossible a/ its never been tried so how would they know? 2/ why be negative in attitude ? Throughout this thread I've expressed what I think is a reasonable attitude. -I havent displayed a "ban all guns" stance - I acknowledge the US has a different gun culture and a unique personal defense is required - I've listened to the argument put forward about present laws not being enforced and agree with that suggestion I'm flexible. I'm asking pro gunners to consider the life saving benefits of ridding societies of all semi auto guns and any weapon that can kill/maim humans in less than half of one second. I'm not gun expert (except military experience with SLRs and owned a couple 35 years ago ) so to be reasonable to me readers should show some flexibility in my terminology and try to focus on my big picture. The easy thing is to shoot holes in the finer points.
That's up to the law enforcement and the courts, but has already been proven beyond a doubt to reduce firearm violence and deaths. Program Profile: Project Exile A crime reduction strategy in Richmond, Virginia implemented to deter former and would-be offenders from carrying and using firearms, with an overall goal of reducing firearm-related homicides. The project is rated Promising. Firearm-related homicides decreased significantly in the target area, compared with other U.S. cities where the program was not implemented. Project Exile was a crime reduction strategy launched in 1997 in Virginia, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as a result of the spike in violent crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During these years, Richmond, Virginia consistently ranked among the top 10 U.S. cities in homicides per capita. Specifically, in 1994, Richmond was ranked 2nd for homicides per capita, with a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000 residents. Overall, the goal of the project was to deter felons from carrying firearms and decrease firearm-related homicides through both sentence enhancements for firearm-related offenses and incapacitating violent felons (Rosenfeld, Fornango, and Baumer 2005). Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant. https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=413