So, you're suggesting that the murder rate in the U.S. is lower thanks to lax fire arms laws? Lives were saved in Uvalde due to so many good guys with guns.
The math shows that gun control didn't help those countries as much as not having gun control helped the US...
No, I'm suggesting that gun control that limits law abiding citizens isn't as effective as many would like to believe, and it's a waste of time and political capital to beat our heads against the all over it. What Uvalde showed us is that we can't count on the police to help us if we're being attacked. We have to be prepared to defend ourselves. So unless we're going to make guns incredibly rare in the this country, the only way to defend ourselves from criminals is to have our own guns and proper security measures.
Do not give a flying fuck about Russia which has not been a democracy for a long time. I want to compare like to like. Western, first world democracies with more or less rule of law. Per the UN's global study on homicide (2019 edition, latest that was released) - the United states recorded 4.96 murders per 100K people vs. 1.2 per 100K in the UK and 0.89 per in Australia. Also, the UK and Australia never had the abundance of firearms per capita that the US has even before their gun ban. They just never let the problem get so far out of hand as the US has, their gun ban mostly solved the issue of mass shooting. For the record, Australia still has more guns today than it did before the ban, the difference is that it is harder to get one and the percentage of households that have them is much lower (almost a half). There is no clean cut solution for anything, but limiting access to qualified people (which is what their gun ban really did) - sure did help and it would be absurd to think it would not here. As I said, it is also does not need to be done via gun restriction, but by putting ammunition restriction, so the amount of guns that are already out there is not the huge problem in restriction, once you restrict the consumable resource - you can quickly reduce the problem even with millions of guns out there.
That's right bob and weave but it still doesn't help your argument when you look at the bottom line staring you right in the face.
Agreed. The NRA has become a repository for toxic culture that hurts responsible gun owners far more than it helps.
That the impact of gun control wasn't as effective as no gun control? We are discussing gun control here, correct? Or did you want to discuss reducing the number of firearms in in this country to similar levels as those countries? I can do the math on that as well... 1 gun per minute taken off the streets would take over 700 years to achieve...
Now do the before and after numbers and look at the change vs gun control... 1990 to 2019 Now, let's look at Australia the 10 years after the gun control was instituted (1996 for both UK and the US) So where is the clear evidence that increased gun control would be effective?
Unfortunately that's not at all correct. Police are failing to respond all over the country, including right here in Portland. Just a quick search...
Apples to oranges. Australia went from 20 guns per 100 people to 14.5, the US currently has more than 120 guns per 100 people. All we need to see is the Dog's firearm homicide rates to know that even if we cut ours by half we would make a huge gain. When we get to 20 guns per 100 people as Australia had before their gun ban - we can talk.
So you just want to talk about how many guns we have? I definitely agree that the other countries are doing a lot right that we are not... But I don't see where gun control is the smoking gun here. Especialy considering UK's intentional homicide rate increased and Australia's stayed pretty close to the same for a decade...
