I believe in Switzerland (Always confused if this is Sweden or Switzerland) every adult male is required to keep an automatic weapon in their house, because they have compelled service. Which is why it's so high there. (There are other differences too. Like I believe there, inspectors can come in and check your weapon ect.)
The Swiss and Finns both have a variation of the law on the books requiring citizens to keep a gun in their household to be able to form militias at a moment's notice in case of a foreign invasion.
nah brah, a knee jerk reaction is "how can you even send your children school with all the violence GOING ON THERE!!!!1111"
We could spend billions of dollars installing lightning rods everywhere.
Well, we can pass a federal law that will require a lightning rod be placed every 100 feet wherever people live.
I'm just curious. How does a government buyback something that it never owned in the first place? The arrogance of this term seems to imply that you've simply been afforded the privilege to posses that which the government owns. Another excellent reason to exterminate these fuckers.
Your attempt to equate the cost/feasibility of putting lightning rods every 100 feet to gun regulation is laughable. In the case of the U.K. and Oz, gun control has done very well in limiting gun death rates.
I guess we will just disagree on this. I definitely care about murder rates, and I am not sure we interpret the "freedom of the republic" in the same way.
Unfortunately, (and for whatever reasons) the swiss, swedes and israelis dont pay the same cost in lives as the U.S. and don't have to ask the hard questions about guns. I am all in favor of defense of home and family, but to me the costs need to be weighed.
A continued proliferation of AR-15s, other semi automatic weapons and a citizenry's love of freedom has also lowered gun death rates in US.
Yeah, and that goes back to the concept of raising a generation of youth"that is completely detached from civic duty, moral obligation to their community and a completely fucked up moral compass? "that i mentioned before. Why are Israelis, Swiss and Finns who have high gun ownership rates and are around guns all the time (and in case of Israelis who live in quasi war zone all the time) have a significantly lower gun death rate than in US? Why does the entire country of Israel have 140 homicides by guns in 2009 while my city alone (Chicago) has 3x as many in 2009 than the entire nation of Israel? Mind you, Israel also has 3x the population of Chicago.
That is merely flippant conjecture. There is no consensus or proof on the exact cause of the lower gun death rates in many countries including the U.S. Most evidence points a variety of factors, among them, social, economic and in some cases gun restriction; I doubt very much people pause to consider their "love of freedom" before deciding to shoot someone.
This is a straw man. Just because a few pieces of gun legislation failed to prevent gun crimes doesn't invalidate gun legislation. That is akin to dismissing speed limit legislation because they fail to stop all over-speeding related deaths, when in reality this legislation massively reduces these types of death.
So is your assertion that gun bans in Australia and UK reduce gun deaths.
Exactly. But a gun ban in Australia and UK is immediately the consensus that a gun ban is working?
You think speed limit legislation actually increases safety? Just look at the German autobahn, it is statistically significantly safer than the US highways even though it has no speed limit and all US highways do. The reason speed limit legislation exists is to prop up revenue for local and municipal PD's. Ever heard of a monthly ticket quota? Do you know WHY every US state has some sort of speed limit (it has nothing to do with safety and has everything to do with receiving federal funds for maintaining the 40,000 miles of interstates that US built during Eisenhower era). Do you know that it's the same reason why every state also has a minimum age of 21 to buy liquor? Once again, federal interstate funds.
I am arguing for gun legislation because I can't say why the U.S. is so violent. The underlying cause behind american violence is another discussion entirely and beyond the scope of guns, strictly speaking. I hope very much that society can determine the root cause and address it, but in the meantime, I would advocate more restrictions on guns because I see the cost as too high.
I mispoke. I should have said "murder rates" instead of gun deaths. Gun deaths in the U.S. are reducing at a rate that matches overall decline in murder, while in the Uk and Oz the reduction in gun deaths is much greater when compared to the overall murder rate, thereby suggesting the effectiveness of gun bans.
Yes, I think speed limits increase safety, particularly in the severity of the accidents. I am no expert, but I remember reading studies that showed that accidents at higher speed limits were more likely to be fatal.
I know why you argue for gun legislation and it has nothing to do with guns. You know how I know? I fell into the same fallacy a decade ago when I was at the university and used to trot out the same talking points.
I already covered how statistically speed limits do not increase safety or decrease accidents, same thing as red light cameras.
