Obligatory "not with that attitude".
Mexico doesn’t mass produce enough guns to feed the American market in any significant way, and their gun laws are much more strict than ours. It’s the other way around: the bad guys in Mexico get most of our guns from us, the gun shops in the USA with the highest sales are near the border.
I'm serious, but the reason I have used from your comment is taking your assumptions as true. I'm all for the wall for a different reason; countries must control their borders or the people living there are not sovereign.
I have been to Mexico a few times (it's an awesome place!), right near the border, and much further south, but I did not feel it was a safe place. I know enough people with stories that I would rather not try to tell here. In Mexico, only the criminals and police are armed. Cross the border to the US, and volla, we all are equals. You can watch nearly endless TY* of cartel shootouts in Mexico (on residential streets), that stuff is practically impossible here, the elderly person down the street has weapons capable of hitting a body 200+ meters away. Mexico will be much safer when it's not just the criminals in the general population who can defend themselves.
It's going to be an interesting conversation when it's only US citizens that have DRM-free DMLS systems.
*I didn't check today, but I bet the memory hole is working on that...
This is the go to reason that people give, but it just means they haven't tried. No one said it would be cheap or easy but it could be done.
As for gun smuggling, the USA used to be the source of 80% of guns used in crimes in Canada and in Mexico it is 70%.
https://www.quora.com/How-are-guns-smuggled-into-the-United-...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469...
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10771628/gun-violence-america-...
So actually a gun ban in the USA would help both Canada and Mexico with their gun problems. In Mexico many of these guns end up in the hands of the cartels who are much more willing to use them than your usual criminals, and whilst they would still probably be able to obtain weapons they would not be able to do so in the same sort of volume and they would also have trouble locating ammunition.
Does owning a gun cause a nice buzz? Is it a social lubricant that makes everybody at a party happier when you bring it out? Does it have an ancient history that spans across the globe? Does it result in a chemical addiction?
Haven't found a good replacement for alcohol that wasn't more illegal or harmful.
To head off the inevitable "but a bunch of rednecks with guns would never be able to stand up to the military!" That's first-world myopia. Look at what happened when, e.g., Bangladesh became independent from Pakistan. A bunch of farmers did not take on the undivided Pakistani army. Instead, after initial skirmishes, part of the Pakistani army broke off and fought for independence alongside the revolutionaries.
I will never understand Americans' desire to prepare for a tyrannical government, that may with some low probability happen in some unspecified future, but in such a way that it can still be defeated.
When they are simultaneously giving up lots and lots of lifes in violent murder sprees every single year. With absolute certainty and in the present.
Looks like an optimization gone wrong to me.
"How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment: The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened." https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-secon...
- For some of us, they aren't "toys"...your disrespectful tone does nothing to help us debate where the line should be drawn for firearm ownership.
> "Does owning a gun cause a nice buzz? Is it a social lubricant that makes everybody at a party happier when you bring it out? Does it have an ancient history that spans across the globe? Does it result in a chemical addiction?"
- I think your characterization of gun owners and their motivations is shallow and insulting...sure there are your "gun porn" fans that seem to only care about purchasing the latest "tactical" rifle to share pictures of on social media, but many of us who don't live in populated cities, use our rifles and handguns routinely, or at least wouldn't traverse our properties without them on our sides for protection. Turns out predators exist, and the best way to warn off a cougar, coyote, or bear is having protection. I've killed coyotes that would have killed the livestock that feed my family.
Yes. There are many thousands of gun owners who would prefer to kill or be killed than to be disarmed.
Note that this is not a statement of my own stance; it's a statement of my impression of that community after a lifetime of immersion in it.
I have absolutely zero doubt that banning firearms in America would result in far more deaths than it would prevent even with the most optimistic expectation of its efficacy.
The "ban guns" stuff is propaganda for people who are disconnected from the reality of what the United States is. It's weird to see OS advocates miss the connection. They don't realize what side they are on in the war on general purpose printing.
Not everyone feels this way, but more than enough people do to make a universal ban completely infeasible. The question right now is if there can even be any federal legislation passed to address issues like gun access to the mentally unstable and people on watchlists, let alone high-capacity magazines or gun modifications or a ban on certain classes of firearms.
They are an important tool in America's system of checks and balances: Guns are not for shooting deer; guns are for shooting politicians.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear; in fact, it's probably the clearest portion of the entire Constitution:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In order to protect the freedom of each state from the imposition of some tyranny, it must be possible to gather groups of patriots who are armed with the highest quality equipment; therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
America was born out of armed revolution against a tyrannical government, and Americans are taught that they must be wary of enemies both foreign and domestic. To Americans, the government is at best a dangerous servant, and at worst a tyrannical master.
The gun is known as "The Great Equalizer" for a reason. To restrict gun ownership is to transfer even more power from the weak (the individual) to the strong (the State); that is anathema to those who understand what it actually means to be an American.
Plus you are choosing one example were prohibition failed, what about when it works, particularly with regard to guns and reducing the incidence of mass shootigs? You choose to ignore the real world evidence that shows it works because it doesn't fit with your political stance.
I don't mind, but be honest with yourself that that is what you are doing.
It's important not to overstate what our actual laws are. We have provisions for agriculture, sport, hunting, security guards, etc. and these provisions are not very hard to navigate.
In 1997, it had a rate of 1.733:100,000, and by 2007, 1.2.
In 1997, the US had a rate of 6.678:100,000, and by 2007, 5.7.
We had a lot more room for improvement. And you're still nearly five times more likely to be murdered in the US than Australia.
But hey, it says a whole lot about the narrative you'd like to push when you want to focus on that delta. "America got safer faster! (Just ignore the fact it was very far worse and still far less safe!)".
I think you're likely to find the homicide rate asymptotically approaches zero, and as such it would be hard for Australia to improve at the same rate as the US. I'm not sure what correlation you can show to "firearm control doesn't work" from that.
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?end=2015...
But hey, let's talk firearm homicides.
In the US, 1997, firearm homicides were 6.24:100,000, and in 20145, 3.5:100,000, a 44 per cent reduction.
In Australia, 1997, firearm homicides were 0.56:100,000, and in 2016, 0.18:100,000, a 67 per cent reduction.
So where were we again?
Sources: https://www.allcountries.org/gun_deaths_by_country.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Literally the only thing that the US did better in is "more, absolute" reduction in homicide (firearm and other).
Your initial precedent, that gun control made things relatively -worse- in Australia is only borne out by the most contorted perspective on numbers, and not anything relative or comparable between the two.
Right. So when a gun ban causes gang members to kill each other with knives instead, you've taken away everyone's civil rights without actually preventing any deaths. Which is why the only intellectually honest thing to do is to look at all homicides.
> Either way, as a percentage, homicides in Australia went down after the gun buyback, more than in the US, either by firearm or not.
The comparison is highly sensitive to the choice of begin/end date. For example, if you look at the 5-year impact of Australia's gun buyback (1997-2002), the U.S. rate went down about 18% while the Australia rate actually went up 10%.
It seems weird to say U.S. dropped "more" with these numbers.
So what you're supposed to believe is that a gun confiscation that was over by 1997 was responsible for a long-term decline in homicides that did not start until 2002, which coincided with a sustained period of guns per capita returning toward pre-confiscation levels.
It went up, from 315, to 342.
A ten percent increase in homicides in the US is notable. The same in a population The size of the above falls within the realm of statistically significant.
You're really drawing conclusions the data doesn't support.
The gun buyback isn’t something you’d expect to have a delayed impact on homicides. Certain weapons were banned, they were confiscated, and the program was over by 1997. Those guns could not be used to kill people. The number of guns started to go back up right after, as well.
If they are super rare, you'd never know if it was the ban or just chance.
Oh and guns weren't banned in Australia, just restricted. Plenty of guns still there.
Mental health, social services, youth and gang intervention have been underfunded.
Basically when things like this happen and people think that the government are going to take their guns, a certain type of person will buy more guns, just in case. If there is a gun amnesty or ban then these people will not turn in their guns, it will be these guns that are then sold illegally or stolen and will perpetuate the problem for longer.