Well 1% is still a lot of dead people. I really don't like completely abstracting individuals as numbers, there are plenty of instances in the U.S. where poor handling of concealed carry leads to gun deaths. I would agree, though, that there are more factors at work. Poverty would be the biggest factor, and included in that would be the economic factors that often keep police presence to a minimum in high-crime, high poverty areas. Another problem would be the easy access that some individuals who should not be carying weapons at all sometimes have, such as the shooters at NIU and Columbine.
MrPraline
Abstracting individuals is the only reasonable approach to gun control. The idea is minimize human suffering (namely death) from it and likewise numbers are extremely consequential. And the numbers say that conceal carry permit holders are not hte driving cause of gun crime. Moreover, it's not really even substantiated that the permit process itself increases gun crime - though that may have more to do with the sort of people who will apply for permits as opposed to simply not bother and pack anyway. As you put it, socioeconomics really is the only way, in my opinion, to explain the various gun crime disparities - both within the U.S. itself and relative to other high gun ownership countries. Access is another issue, too. A waiting period mightn't be terrible idea. LOL @ username +1000 Why hello there! I like your avy. :)
Yes, but it's mandatory because every male is conscripted into a reserve corps. Let's see if that flies over here.
I don't advocate banning guns. Though the OP might, I think he was more talking hypothetically such as if we could snap our fingers and all guns would simply disappear.
theone86
Yes, I am aware that they are conscripted, and am not supporting the idea. My posts directed at the opening poster have been focused primarily on criticizing the notion of outright eliminating all firearms, which he has been pushing. If he doesn't actually support the idea, then I'll be rather surprised.
I actually wouldn't be completely opposed to the idea except that I don't think it would have a good outcome with the way our military is set up. There have actually been proposals by some individuals to reinstate the draft as a way to increase citizen involvement on issues of war (increased chance someone you care about might go to war=increased chance of you being informed and active when it comes to the political issue of war). The problem I see is that all the politifcal pressure in the world probably isn't going to deter our government from engaging in most conflicts if it sets its mind to it, and that I think the military industrial complex combined with such conscription would pressgang many citizens into conflicts with no chance of conscientous objection.
It is an interesting idea. Conversely, I think the idea of sending people to war that have no choice in the matter whatsoever is a little too much for me. But the way wars are now, they require much more training than 'nam and mobilizing a militia to fight in a war would be difficult process which has its advantages and disadvantages. It would make it more difficult to mobilize for a legitimate war, but would also serve as a deterrent to neoconservative nonsense. Might have to think on it.
Stop trying to downplay it. Hitler said it, he said banning guns would be good because it would make Germany safer. People who want to ban guns today use the same argument. The TC even used the same argument.
There was a reason Hitler never touched Switzerland, they had GUNS. The people would fight back. You know what's funny? What do you do when a criminal is after you? You call the cops, why? Because they have GUNS. You call people WITH GUNS to stop people who are trying to hurt you.
Seriosly your logic makes no sense. And I thought you got banned?
ShadowMoses900
Are you drinking, or is English your fifth language?
I made a few errors, but it was still very readible. It's not like it's another language.
I guess you can't argue back now can you? You did not address ONE single point in my post, not ONE. Guess your going to run away, which you better get used to doing because that's the only thing you can do if someone tries to kill you. You can't shoot them and defend yourself like me or the other 2nd amendment defenders can.
The issue is what you are posting has little, if anything, to do with what I am saying. Your reading comprehension could use a little work. I am not going to address a post which has nothing to do with mine no matter how little I care for Hitler
They actually have more restrictions on concealed carrying and more rigorous requirements for background checks than the U.S. Something like the stand your ground law would never fly in Switzerland, either, as they place an increased burden on gun owners to use them in a responsible manner.
theone86
Conceal carry permit holders really aren't the driving cause of gun crime. They account for less than 1% of it. That said, there are some practical ideas which can be taken from Switzerland.
Well 1% is still a lot of dead people. I really don't like completely abstracting individuals as numbers, there are plenty of instances in the U.S. where poor handling of concealed carry leads to gun deaths. I would agree, though, that there are more factors at work. Poverty would be the biggest factor, and included in that would be the economic factors that often keep police presence to a minimum in high-crime, high poverty areas. Another problem would be the easy access that some individuals who should not be carying weapons at all sometimes have, such as the shooters at NIU and Columbine.
Abstracting individuals is the only reasonable approach to gun control. The idea is minimize human suffering (namely death) from it and likewise numbers are extremely consequential. And the numbers say that conceal carry permit holders are not hte driving cause of gun crime. Moreover, it's not really even substantiated that the permit process itself increases gun crime - though that may have more to do with the sort of people who will apply for permits as opposed to simply not bother and pack anyway. As you put it, socioeconomics really is the only way, in my opinion, to explain the various gun crime disparities - both within the U.S. itself and relative to other high gun ownership countries. Access is another issue, too. A waiting period mightn't be terrible idea.
Log in to comment