Sorry, I wasn’t around to quickly post a response.
[/quote]
Didn’t mean to rush you. Glad you’re here now with some reasonable arguments.
[quote=livinincali] My point was that just because you have a particular set of gun laws on the books does not mean that gun related death statistics correspond directly with those laws. Swiss people have a high ratio of guns to population, higher than here and yet they have lower gun related deaths. Mexico has much stricter gun related laws and yet the number of gun related deaths in Mexico is much higher than here
Your point seems to be that guns to gun related deaths is proportional and the major contributing factor. If that was true then explain Mexico and explain Switzerland. Do a study and actually prove that guns to gun related deaths is actually proportional and then maybe you have a point.
[/quote]
I think that both Mexico and Switzerland can be explained by cultural differences. My point was not that you’d have the same number of gun-related deaths in any different country that has the same gun-control laws. My point is that the kind of gun laws that the U.K. has would result in fewer gun deaths in countries with cultures similar to the U.K.’s. Such as the U.S.
In Switzerland, you have a generally less violent culture than ours. And I believe (I could be wrong – this is an assumption on my part) that gun violence is not glorified there the way it is here. People don’t see guns as making them badass. They see them as hunting and self-defense tools. I doubt they play violent video games as much as Americans do. Etcetera.
In Mexico, you have a corrupt government and police force, and an out-of-control drug trade. It’s probably not that hard to get a gun if you’re a drug dealer there.
[quote=livinincali]
Of course let’s say we do get to a point where you do make that point, how do you propose to deal with all the guns and ammo we already have in america. Are you planning of confiscating it? Because if you aren’t, than even having those laws on the books does nothing to dramatically change the guns to people ratio in this country.
[/quote]
This is an excellent point, and a very troublesome problem. But I don’t think we should just say, “the guns are out there. We’re screwed. Nothing we can do now. Let’s just keep things the way they are and put up with the thousands of gun murders every year because it’ll be too hard to change it.” (Not that you’re saying that). I think bold action is required, and that confiscating guns is part of that required action.
Before the public would get behind such an effort, it would take a sea change in our society. It is that sea change that we should be working on. Because, as you said, without confiscating guns, nothing will really change. And without that sea change, confiscation won’t happen.
After that, you won’t have handguns or assault rifles, and what guns you do have will, as much as possible, be in the hands of responsible people. And perhaps then a few thousand fewer innocent people will die every year in this country.
I understand this doesn’t sound realistic at this point in our country’s history. But attitudes change. For instance, if an operation as effective and omnipresent as the right-wing noise machine were to spring up and try to sway people in favor of meaningful gun-control laws, it could happen. Or if time passes and more people die, eventually this sea change could occur naturally.
[quote=livinincali]
As for the bad ass and all that nonsense, that’s the kind of argument people make when they let emotions get in the way of logical discussion. In my eyes you owning a gun does no harm to me. It’s only when you decide to commit another crime against me like murder or robbery that it might matter. Of course in that case there’s plenty of other instruments of force that you can use against me besides a gun. All in all it might not matter.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with the “other instruments of force” argument. Sure, a person could walk into a McDonalds and start stabbing people. But to think that it would happen nearly as often as it does with guns just doesn’t seem realistic to me. It takes real guts (I imagine) to walk up to somebody and stab them. They might grab your knife and stab you. And you can’t just stab them once, generally, if you want to kill them. It’s a lot easier and more effective to stand a few feet away and pull a trigger.
[quote=livinincali]
At this point all I’m seeing in the argument is that gun control might make a difference but I’m not really sure. Even though I’m not sure it’s worth it to infringe on a constitutional right. I’m willing to accept gun control laws if you can get enough support to create a constitutional amendment, but everybody knows that isn’t happening.[/quote]
It’s not in the constitution that you can own a handgun or an assault rifle.
In any case, the second amendment was, as I understand it, to allow the citizenry to rise up against an oppressive government, if necessary. That might have worked in the 18th century. To think that the citizenry would have to and be able to conduct such an uprising today is a paranoid fantasy.
