You guys and your guns...

[mistermack]

What a dumb argument.
It's obvious that areas with high gun-crime rates will be more likely to enact stricter gun laws, and areas with low will leave them more lax.
What the fuck is the mystery about that?

How dumb can you get, to look at it backwards, and claim the complete opposiite of what's bleedin obvious?

And as we've seen, those strict gun laws are super duper effective.

It's impossible to say either way. We have no way of knowing what the gun-crime rate would be like in those areas without them.
In any case, the lax laws elsewhwere are the problem. That is also the bleedin obvious.

[Coito ergo sum]

What a dumb argument.
It's obvious that areas with high gun-crime rates will be more likely to enact stricter gun laws, and areas with low will leave them more lax.
What the fuck is the mystery about that?

No mystery. It just doesn't support the argument that stricter gun laws reduce the homicide rate.

How dumb can you get, to look at it backwards, and claim the complete opposiite of what's bleedin obvious?

You're religiously anti-gun. You start with your conclusion.

[mistermack]

What a dumb argument.
It's obvious that areas with high gun-crime rates will be more likely to enact stricter gun laws, and areas with low will leave them more lax.
What the fuck is the mystery about that?

No mystery. It just doesn't support the argument that stricter gun laws reduce the homicide rate.

I don't believe anybody has claimed that having local restrictions would have any effect.
Stricter gun laws could only work if they were nationwide, and properly enforced.

You're just arguing against a whacking great strawman, to expect tough gun laws in Chicago to have an effect in Chicago, when it's almost a free-for-all elsewhere in comparison.

Kick that strawman all you like. He can't kick back.

[Coito ergo sum]

What a dumb argument.
It's obvious that areas with high gun-crime rates will be more likely to enact stricter gun laws, and areas with low will leave them more lax.
What the fuck is the mystery about that?

No mystery. It just doesn't support the argument that stricter gun laws reduce the homicide rate.

I don't believe anybody has claimed that having local restrictions would have any effect.
Stricter gun laws could only work if they were nationwide, and properly enforced.

You're just arguing against a whacking great strawman, to expect tough gun laws in Chicago to have an effect in Chicago, when it's almost a free-for-all elsewhere in comparison.

Kick that strawman all you like. He can't kick back.

Look, for some reason, people in Maine, Wisconsin, Missouri and Minnesota can have all the guns they want, and they have western European levels of homicides. Why ought they have to change?

[mistermack]

Look, for some reason, people in Maine, Wisconsin, Missouri and Minnesota can have all the guns they want, and they have western European levels of homicides. Why ought they have to change?

BECAUSE they are part of a bigger nation. There are costs as well as benefits, in being part of society.
It's not realistic to demand what suits you, and not be prepared to give a bit to make things better for others.

It's simple stuff.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course there are costs and benefits to being part of society. But, the people in Maine, Wisconsin, Missouri and Minnesota are not demanding what suits them without being prepared to give a bit to make things better for others.

And, there is no evidence -- your preconceived notion that guns 'r bad M'kay -- that tighter gun control nationwide is going to change things in the inner cities, just like there are countries in Yerup with high homicide rates, like in Ukraine, Russia, Moldova and many other Yerpeein' countries. Apparently, the gun control doesn't work there. And, overall, the intentional homicide rates are not that far off between Europe as a whole and the US as a whole. This last year Europe did go down considerably, but the year before that, the US rate was actually lower than the rate for Europe as a whole. Historically, Europe and the US's intentional homicide rates have been about the same, or within striking distance of each other.

[mistermack]

your preconceived notion that guns 'r bad M'kay

That's what I call typical american gun-blindness.
Of course guns r bad. They are for killing and wounding people.
Even if you could establish that they are a necessary evil, (which they are not), that's still an evil.

Maybe you are arguing that effective gun control is IMPOSSIBLE? Well, overnight it is, but over time, I would disagree.
If you said that all the gun deaths are worth it, for americans to keep their pathetic toys, then that would at least be honest.

As far as Europe goes, so what? I would have far stricter gun control in Europe too, If I was in power.
Parts of Europe are just as backward and gun-happy as the US.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's like saying "of course bows and arrows are bad..." -- once again -- you have an irrational preconceived notion.

There you go with the "evil" allegation -- nothing is either bad or good, but that thinking makes it so. Guns are guns. They aren't good. They aren't evil. They are. A religiously held opposition to them generates the use of the term "evil."

Well, if you think there is work to do in Yerup, then focus your attention there, please. We're fine. Tend to your own garden.

[mistermack]

That's not very sincere, is it? Pretending that you don't understand the phrase "necessary evil".

You love your straw men.

As for my posts being about the US, check out the OP why don't you?

[Coito ergo sum]

Your entire argument is a straw man, starting with your ubiquitous use of the slur "gun nuts" and all that. Your arguments are fear based, not reason based. And, you start with your conclusion and work backwards.

Regarding the OP -- Yes, and it is odd that the issue is phrased as if it's peculiar to the US, when Europe has plenty of gun problems. As you acknowledged, Europe has plenty of gun problems. I am a bit tired of hearing Europe described as consisting of about 7 or 8 countries and everyone should be like them. Well, if we limit the US to 7-10 of our states, we can make a bunch of arbitrary comparisons too.

[laklak]

Well, if we limit the US to 7-10 of our states, we can make a bunch of arbitrary comparisons too.

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina. Well, that's 11, actually. That list reminds me of something....oh yeah:

[mistermack]

Well, if we limit the US to 7-10 of our states, we can make a bunch of arbitrary comparisons too.

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina. Well, that's 11, actually. That list reminds me of something....oh yeah:

The biggest gun-nut I ever met was in Washington State.
If there are worse than him in those states, you're in the shit.

[Wumbologist]

The biggest gun-nut I ever met was in Washington State.
If there are worse than him in those states, you're in the shit.

So what qualifies one as a "gun nut"? Does the mere ownership of a firearm make one a gun nut? Is there a number of guns one must own to achieve "gun nut" status? Is there an attitude about gun ownership that is needed to qualify?

[Seth]

Because there are still massive urban populations living in areas where it is illegal for law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-protection, like New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles. This is where the criminal gangs exist and where they kill one another and predate on unarmed victims.

Sorry, Seth.

That makes little sense. Throughout the advanced western world, in London, Toronto, Munich, Sydney etc., there are massive urban populations living in areas where it is illegal for law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for self-protection. Yet those areas have homicide rates way, way below that of the USA.

The only advanced western nation with homicide rates above 4 per 100,000 per year happens to be the only advanced western nation with lax gun laws. It is also true that what homicides do happen in other nations like Britain, Australia etc are not done with firearms in the main. It is only the USA where half of all homicides are committed with hand guns. It is only in the USA where hand guns are freely available. These facts are not unconnected.

Now look at the violent crime rate, not just the homicide rate. You'll find that the UK has a higher violent crime rate than most of the US.

But the statistical argument is bullshit anyway. It's what hoplophobes use to try to justify deliberately making innocent people into helpless victims.

This is not about statistics, it's about real, actual individual lives and government policies that infringe on the right of EACH individual to choose or not choose to be armed for self defense. Any government that prohibits law abiding citizens from carrying handguns for self defense is ipso facto an immoral tyranny because it disrespects the individual's right to protect themselves against the crime that may victimize THEM in favor of a statistical argument about the "safety" of the public.

Since the government cannot, and indeed will not provide individual protection for each person (and is not legally obligated to do so) it is utterly immoral for the government to interfere with any individual's right to be armed in self defense.

Fuck statistics. I'm not a statistic, I'm a sovereign individual who has an absolute moral and legal right to arm myself against criminal predation, and I will not allow ANY government functionary to infringe on that right, period.

[Coito ergo sum]

How Yerpeeins see the US....