To me, studying and comparing are two different things. Are you saying in a post WW we could then easily disarm citizens? To me, your point is apples to oranges. Germany and Japan had just lost a war and the world was suppressing any ability for them to rise again. To me that is quite a bit different than the current situation/topic at hand. If we lose a war to Russia I would think they would be able to disarm our citizenry, but we haven't. Im failing to see how your examples equate to the current state of our country. Im sorry.
I make these comparisons to counter the idea that disarming the civilian population is either impossible or will take decades...if it's seen as necessary it can absolutely be done...situation, problem, process, solution.......can't stop at the second step...the "problem" and say...oh well! The process starts now or it doesn't....I vote now. The more people who balk at change, the more mass killings we're going to read about or worse, children we'll grieve for... Stop the trend...be part of the solution...vote for gun reform, ammo reform, health care and all that is needed to regain a healthy society
All the comparisons I discussed are about rates,as in - number of incidents per 100,000 people. As discussed earlier - by controlling ammunition you can rather quickly solve the problem since it is a consumable resource - if you have 100 bullets it does not matter if there are 20 guns out there or 5000, you can only shoot 100 bullets - so restrictions on ammunition will restrict gun use once the existing cache of ammunition is exhausted
I agree. But, like Phatguy said, the The Republicans won't go for it. To them ammunition are arms too and thus cannot be restricted.
Understood. I just feel the whole guns debate is sweeping the real problem under the rug? Why do people kill? Until we understand that, I do not think we can solve it. Those hellbent on killing will figure out how to do it. We banned guns from airplanes. Has that deterred plane hijackings? One of the larger body counts of mass killings a pyscho can go for? So much money and resources that could be used on other means that can have a real impact. Unfortunately, some of the arguments against banning all guns are valid/strong enough that the debate will just continue for ages with lobbyists spending millions to thwart the NRA when that energy and funds could be used in other ways to have the same or an even greater effect.
Have you compared the before and after gun control numbers for other country's violent crime and murder rates, though? UK's rates have gone up. Brazil's rates went up. Australia's have gone down after time, but they've followed the same general trendline down as ours have here in the US... That's the best data I've been able to find and it's not overly compelling. Neither is the data here in the US between states.
Investing in Healthcare and education could literally save millions of lives per year, not to mention how many it owild improve. Gun control can only save at best 50k lives per year. And only 10k of those are crimes against others. That's a lot of people. But not when compared to the millions who could be saved sooner if we'd focus on the real root of the problem...
I am not sure it is as much about balking about change as it is a debate of which type of change will society benefit from the most?
I've lived in a country for 2 decades where you can't have a gun.....in a county with the same population as Lane county in Oregon....there's no comparison in the murder rates at all...I can draw from that experience and it's enough proof for me. I've now lived in Lane county for 22 years....about the same amount of time and murder is way more prevalent. Covid in Brazil...can't imagine what the 5 million homeless orphans in Rio had to deal with over covid or the millions in the Favelas where gang presence is huge. Covid lockdowns skew many of the numbers but I've a couple decades in two systems and trust me...one is way safer
Most people here are not saying ban all guns. Maybe 2 posters have said that. Its not going to happen. It will never be on the table. Most people here want restrictions. Restriction doesn't mean we want it banned, just harder to get. Though, I don't see a reason for civilians to have access to versions of military guns other than they are cool. That cool factor is part of what has led to a culture around guns like the AR-15. It's the gun of choice for mass shooters for a reason. You were talking about video games earlier. Well, the problem is gun makers, have taken the video game and made it real by offering versions of the guns in games. It's not the game itself, but the realization of that game via guns like Ar-15s. Why do people kill is an age old question. Are they driven to it? Are they born with wicked capabilities and compulsions? Mental illness? Isolation? Bad parenting? The answer needs to be sought out yes, but there are things we can do in the meantime. I believe that eventually better more accessible healthcare could help curb some of this. But, it's going to take time. Getting rid of poverty would be great and would help too, but it will never happen. The rich won't allow it. The fastest things we can do now in the moment are: raising the age to buy guns Making guns harder to get via background checks, etc Offer gun buybacks to get some guns off the street Push for more responsible parenting Hold parents responsible if their kids gets ahold of their weapons and use them nefariously. Better school security upgrades (Doors that are locked from the outside, but can open from the inside and buzz in systems, etc) We could also look to ban military style rifles among other things but that's probably not going to happen, so I'm not including that. Though most of my ideas won't happen anyway. Yes, banning guns from planes has deterred some hijackings. Not all, but some. Implementing other strategies has helped to deter them even more. It's nearly impossible to hijack a plane post 9-11 because we did what we needed to do. If we sat around saying oh it's not going to work and the such we would have likely had more hijackings. Can you name a hijacking post 9-11 here in the US? We need to attack gun violence, especially school shootings like we did hijacking, with several solutions at once. That's how it stops.
you didn't list what I consider one of the most important things to do....limit the amount of ammo one can have ..hard cap that. Limit magazine capacity and rapid fire systems or bump stocks....
I get that you're relying on your life experience, but there is SO MUCH more different between those two places... How do you know that's the difference? How do the Gini Coefficients of those places compare?
Hello, I am not sure I agree with everything in this post, there is alot to digest and mull over. However this may be the best post IN this thread that I have read. I will do my best to respond in detail in hopes of reaching the same level of post, but please allow me a day or two. Incredibly well thought out post sir!
One of the differences is safety..,I know because it's demonstrable. I also know both cultures and speak both languages. I can speak on this topic without highlighting cultural differences...they are predominantly Buddhist and we are predominantly Christian ....sure....Brazil and the UK have very, very little in common....Brazil is the most racially integrated country on the earth...the UK, not so much. These things don't weigh in with such importance concerning murder by guns but people's differences do not necessarily make them safer with guns than without them...quite the opposite. You give a Taiwanese irate Taxi driver an AR15 and he's as likely to flip out as a kid in Nebraska....difference is the taxi driver can't buy a gun...he might scream at someone in rage for an hour but that's where it stops. The kid in Nebraska can get a lot of guns quickly
Looks like Taiwan is has a 33 Gini coefficient, the US is at 41, and Lane County is even worse at 47. Places with a higher gini coefficient (economy inequality) tend to have far more violence and crime. This is true across virtually all societies. https://www.livestories.com/statistics/oregon/lane-county-gini-index-income-inequality https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country
To make an accurate comparison you'd have to compare Hualien county to Lane county, not Lane county to Taiwan....that's a few hundred thousand compared to 23 million people....Hualien county has roughly the same population as Lane County...Hualien City is about the size of Eugene/Springfield . In comparison Taiwan, Canada and Australia all have about 23 million population. Difference is in Taiwan they live in basically 3 huge cities in the West on an island that's mostly uninhabited mountains.
That's a great idea limiting ammo, I am for it. Unfortunately, it won't happen. But, it would be good and it would help. Limiting magazine capacity, banning bumpstocks and such is a great idea too. More feasible than your first idea.
No need. The gini coefficient accounts for population. However, if you want an granular view that would be interesting to see. I haven't been able to find that data.
