It becomes a lot less crazy when you consider that parts of the US still take advantage of guns as protection against wild animals. It becomes a little less crazy when you consider that a lot of people use them as a hobby - target practice (it's part of a few different Olympic sports).
Guns are, practically speaking, no more or less crazy than Bowie knives, hunting bows, cross bows, or any number of other devices purpose built for hunting.
> the elephant in the room is the massive cultural problem the US has with firearms
Yeah, definitely an issue. It's, oddly enough, largely a city vs. country issue. People in the city have no practical use for guns. People who don't have the miles of concrete protecting them from the wilds tend to take a much more practical view on the usefulness of, the need for, tools that can protect them from predators with teeth and claws.
I've been within 100 yards of a black bear with her cubs. I'm glad I had a pistol at the time. I'm even more glad I had no cause to use it.
US schools haven't seen a mass murder using knives, hunting bows, or cross bows. US school mass murders involve handguns and rifles.
Sharks kill, on average, about as many people as school spree shooters per year. Those deaths to sharks are preventable by offing all the sharks, are we doing that?
Making policies based on outrage is a losing proposition.
I somewhat agree with the similarity, at least for rifles; however, many firearms in the US are legal and definitely not suitable nor intended for hunting. For the record, in the UK there are also rifle clubs and farmers are allowed to have rifles to protect their livestock from wild animals, but both groups get yearly inspections from the police and in general the police will know that you keep guns and therefore keep an eye on you. You have to keep the ammo separate from the guns, and both in locked containers with different keys. Hand guns are completely outlawed because they couldn't be justified in the context of hunting or protecting livestock.
> I've been within 100 yards of a black bear with her cubs. I'm glad I had a pistol at the time. I'm even more glad I had no cause to use it.
True. The wild animals in rural US are much more dangerous than in the UK, and so, like in the UK, there are some good but narrow reasons to own certain kinds of firearm. We seem to agree the issue is mainly guns (especially handguns) in cities. I hope the US can find a solution that keeps both inner city and rural dwellers relatively happy.
I'll grant you, encountering a mother bear near her cubs is not a good scenario. I certainly wouldn't volunteer to be in that situation, but statistically speaking, you were unlikely to be harmed.
There's no such problem. That's what the article is about.
So there is some consideration needed for ranchers and others that do have a livelihood out there and can't wait for the police to show up.
That's also true of the UK, so it seems odd to mention it in a reply to someone from the UK.
Suicide kills more people than murder, and restricting access to means and methods is the first thing you should do to reduce the death rate.
One of the reasons the rural youth suicide rate is so high (double that of urban 10 to 24 year olds) is because of the easy access to guns.
"guns keep people safe" is, frankly, fucking stupid.
I’m just now reading this, take it with a grain of salt, but it’s safe to say that firearms are used to keep people safe https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten...
I usually try not to enter in to arguments where I know I won’t change my mind. I’m wasting the time of someone who disagrees with me but is willing to exchange ideas. “frankly, fucking stupid” reads like you’re not interested in hearing contrary evidence. It saddens me.
In an effort to protect ourselves from police, we've made the police much more violent towards us.
but the government has drones
Boots on the ground. Try to control a subcontinent of 325M people with drones and planes, when every corner could have an armed citizen. Ask the vietcong, or the afghani, how much they could do with small firearms.
"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."
edit: grammar
By the way, the article does its own share of data-wrangling by happily omitting the kinds of guns people own and how. In US one can simply buy an assault rifle. Down in Europe you need training, screening and physical exams of your home to get a gun. Both count as “a gun owned”
So because something it's unlikely to happen you shouldn't take steps to protect you against it? Why having insurance, for instance?
I think the example isn't instructive as to the importance of widespread ownership. If there is a large group that wants to raise hell for a government, they will be able to obtain weapons.