199

[icowden]

As iCowden says, the US does not even make the top 10 in the homicide by gun list by country.
So, that means that the US is a safer country despite the huge gun ownership.

Safer than what? Living in a drug torn, poverty stricken country? It's supposed to be a first world country. A world leading country.

 

[icowden]

No, that does not work out. Fewer guns does not mean fewer victims at all, not every gun is used to kill someone.

Yes it does because fewer people who WANT to kill someone ACTUALLY kill someone because they have restricted access to FEWER GUNS.
#
It doesn't make it impossible - just hard. We have gun crime just not very much. We have gun ownership just not very much.

 

[icowden]

That is not a ban though is it. Just a change to the national view on guns.

I know it's a leap, but when people talk of "banning" guns what they tend to mean is "banning easy purchase of guns and heavily restricting ownership in a sensible way". There are 17 countries which have a total ban on civilians owning guns. Take out Myanmar, Cambodia, North Korea and Somalia and the remaining countries combined have a population lower than London. North Korea is a bit of a red herring. The other three are war torn so I suspect that gun ownership is not a high priority.

The US is the only country that has more guns than people. Perhaps there is some sort of correlation there...

 

[Rusty Nails]

As iCowden says, the US does not even make the top 10 in the homicide by gun list by country.

So, that means that the US is a safer country despite the huge gun ownership.

Saying that the US is safer than troubled, violent and much less prosperous countries like Venezuela, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia etc. does not exactly fill me with confidence about its attitude to gun ownership, or your use of statistics.
Most of the countries on the top of the list are devilled by problems with organised drug crime and gangs and a more valid comparison would be with relatively stable, wealthy countries.
You seem happy to cherry-pick not particularly relevant statistics that you think strengthen your arguments at the same time ignoring the clear statistics that show the US in a bad light compared to comparable countries

 

[BoldonLad]

You look at the Australian model and modify it. You ensure that all guns are registered in a national database.
You ban fully and semi automatic weapons. You introduce gun buy backs. You get police forces to confiscate illegal weapons.
You remove every weapon that you can, and regulate and control those that you can't. You make it harder to buy weapons. You prevent supermarkets from stocking weapons and ammunition and limit sales to licensed, registered and controlled gun stores. You stop banks running "open a new bank account and get a gun" offers.

etc
etc

That sounds like a plausible way to proceed, not exactly as simple as a knee jerk "let's ban guns" approach though, is it?

 

[Rusty Nails]

That sounds like a plausible way to proceed, not exactly as simple as a knee jerk "let's ban guns" approach though, is it?

I am not sure that anyone has adopted a knee-jerk "let's ban guns" approach but are adopting the shorthand use of the word ban, like @icowden says....

when people talk of "banning" guns what they tend to mean is "banning easy purchase of guns and heavily restricting ownership in a sensible way

 

[BoldonLad]

I am not sure that anyone has adopted a knee-jerk "let's ban guns" approach but are adopting the shorthand use of the word ban, like @icowden says....

Thank you. I had left my "mind reader" hat in the car.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Thank you. I had left my "mind reader" hat in the car.

No need for thanks, I'm here any time you need clarification.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I know it's a leap, but when people talk of "banning" guns what they tend to mean is "banning easy purchase of guns and heavily restricting ownership in a sensible way".

So when you say something, you mean something completely different and it is down to everyone else to figure that bit out? Because contributors here seem pretty clear that a ban is what they are after, not a partial ban or some extra controls on purchase.

How about banning guns you lunatics?

They could make a start with banning the stupid assault rifles and semi automatic weapons.

The only way is a ban.

But guns cannot be allowed to be used by the public,

there needs to be a ban on certain guns.

You ban fully and semi automatic weapons.

 

[winjim]

At state level you might be able to enact some sort of partial ban or other gun control measures, but at federal level what's needed is to find a rewriting or reinterpretation of 2A which will gain bipartisan support. Otherwise a ban will just get overturned by the supreme court.

 

[Rusty Nails]

So when you say something, you mean something completely different and it is down to everyone else to figure that bit out? Because contributors here seem pretty clear that a ban is what they are after, not a partial ban or some extra controls on purchase.

Two out of the three you quoted proposed partial bans....of certain types of guns.

CM was the only one who talked about a total ban.

 

[cookiemonster]

No. There are many many countries with far fewer controls, and at the same time far fewer mass shootings.

I reckon you could equally say 'have you noticed the correlation between countries with fewer mass shootings and also a far speedier judiciary system that often ends in a very rapid capital punishment outcome.'

Such as?

I'll wait.

 

[Unkraut]

Just to be clear though, it is perfectly ok for you, Fab Foobie, Adam4868, Beebo and iCowden to all call me names, but I can't call any of you names in return? Is that the deal?

When I was called a wanker no-one had a problem or thought it was out of order with the language.

A bit late to comment perhaps but I was looking at the exchanges on language used on this thread earlier on. I'm not convinced such language is really ever needed, but on a Johnson bashing thread perhaps it's not so serious - though it can still betray contempt for others which is where such horrors as this start.

On a thread where 19 primary school children have been murdered in cold blood plus two adults I couldn't think of anything much less fitting. Certainly not a dignified response.

In one sense the USA is remote from all of us, we are not directly affected, but this doesn't seem to show much empathy for the grief that must be being experienced over there at the moment.

 

[AndyRM]

'Nuff said really:


View: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-61576574

 

[Bromptonaut]

No, that does not work out. Fewer guns does not mean fewer victims at all, not every gun is used to kill someone.

Better education and a changed relationship with guns will lead to fewer victims.

They're not alternatives; both can run in parallel.