Well, yes. Since you mention it I’d be freaking elated to trade our homicide rate with that of Australia or Canada.
TL;DR:
Australia: 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people
Canada: 1.6 homicides per 100,000 people
United States: 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people
[quote=“HMSGoose, post:57, topic:34180”]
a handful of examples where said law may not have (or may have, let’s be honest) been the solution for that particular problem?[/quote]
Australia is a GREAT example…
I ran the numbers myself. Since their great gun grab, the USA has beat Australia in every category of violent crime as far as trends over the last couple of decades. Overall murder rate over there is still lower than the USA, but they started lower. However, the USA has improved more in murder rate that Australia has, so we are closing the gap…
Please let me know if you see a flaw in my argument, but I looked at it as another, similar country that passed laws similar to what some want to pass over here. It is fair to ask how well their little experiment has worked.
Dynamite wasn’t that hard to get not that long ago. I believe until the mid-70s you could get it from hardware and feed stores with some basic paperwork. I believe you had to use it though, not store it, as it got dicey if stored for long periods of time. I remember my grandpa used it to take out an old stump. Still, it’s not like the US was under a grip of terror from it. Hell it could be damn funny at times - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzabmVIU6EQ
Anyway. Black powder, smokeless powder, and a plethora of materials to make improvised explosives isn’t exactly rare, illegal, or hard to get. Muzzle loading cannons are legal. Yet, we don’t live in fear of explosions like in Iraq. I don’t understand why some people spend so much energy with paranoia over what can happen, vs what is actually going on. We laugh about a school worrying some kid getting sick from drinking sun screen, but it’s a similar unwarranted fear.
Again:
Australia: 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people
United States: 4.8 homicides per 100,000 people
Mass shootings in Australia since the “great gun grab”: 0*
*(Unless you count the Monash University Shooting in 2002, which left two dead)
I have handled guns my entire life. My kids have been taught to as well. We were taught to respect a gun, loaded or not. I have a huge level respect for what a weapon can do. I don’t covet its power. A gun has a simple purpose in my life. Either for protection of my home and family, or for hunting. I don’t look at it and stroke it lovingly and think “Wow, I feel fantastic when I hold you. Lets go scare the crap out of people in public.”
My point was, and I realize I didn’t make that clear enough, that people seem to be afraid of even seeing a gun, much less holding it or firing it. To me, there is a difference between fear and respect. I don’t fear a gun on its own. I fear a gun in the hand of an idiot who has no training, I fear a gun in the hand of someone with ill intent. A gun on its own should be treated with respect, but if I were afraid of it, I don’t think I have any business trying to shoot it.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
"Fear is the mind-killer.”
Except for private sales at a gun show. (A major source for the illegal arms trade.) Or over the internet. (Which is even worse.) Or by, you know, buying a gun through a non-dealer. There are so many loop-holes in the background check requirement that you can easily avoid it if you want to buy a gun. (And that’s leaving aside the enormous issues with the background check process. The data is incredibly spotty, with many states failing to provide the necessary information. To a large degree it relies on self-reporting criminal records and mental health issues, but also fails to prosecute anyone who lies about it, despite it being a federal offense.)
“How did California’s extra-tight laws help anybody?”
Well, that’s begging the question. Describing California’s gun laws as “extra-tight”… compared to what? A complete absence of any gun laws? Even then it seems a stretch.
As I said, if you would bother to read, trends in BOTH countries are down, but down MORE in the USA. We started in different places. Maybe the murder rate started lower because they had less guns. Maybe the economy was better. Maybe paying homage to a queen lowers the murder rate. But, USA and Australis STARTED FROM DIFFERENT PLACES and the differences between the countries are to numerous to point to one cause.
As to gun deaths in general, somebody stabbed to death or beaten to death is JUST AS DEAD as somebody shot to death. Dead is dead, no matter what tool was used to get you there. And events here, in Canada, and in China have proven that you can quite effectively carry out a mass murder with knives.
The difference is that Americans are getting killed in mass shootings on a regular basis, and small-scale shootings kill Americans every day. How many hundreds of school children died from drinking sunscreen over the last couple of decades?
And yet I know of no mass-murders using guns obtained from that route.
I am not necessarily against universal background checks, as a concept, but NOT using the current system of paperwork. That system is seriously broken. If you want universal checks, we need a system that is free, instant, and available on-line without a trip to a dealer. We have NONE of those things right now.
Well, I have your opinion, and I have Wikipedia:
The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the most restrictive in the United States.
Hmm, who to trust?
You are entitle to your opinion, but you might want to make sure that you have a fact or two to back you up.
Bans on “assault weapons” which means banning guns on cosmetic features (how useful that is). They even managed to ban 50-caliber rifles, despite the fact that none have ever been used in a crime. Talk about solving a problem that does not even exist…
Yes, if you have a coordinated attack with a bunch of killers working together. But if you’re a lone psycho who wants to take down as many people as possible it’s really hard to beat guns.
Remember that other psycho in China who went on a knife rampage around the same time as the Sandy Hook massacre? His attack was eerily similar, his intent was identical and the result was traumatic, but at the end of the day he left a body count of ZERO. If anything that just proves that a psycho with a gun is much, much more lethal than a psycho with a knife.
And you are living in the only first-world country where mass shootings happen on a regular basis.
Largely a function of population. I’ve heard that for some (sensible) definitions of mass shooting the rate per capita is actually higher in Finland and Norway- but as their populations are less than 1/50 that of the US, there are fewer mass shootings there overall.
There was recently a mass murder with FIVE victims in Canada with a knife. Compare that to the one in California a couple of weeks ago where three were shot and three were stabbed.
Yes, guns certainly make it easier, but lack of a gun will NOT stop a determined psychopath.
If I were to make a fair comparison, I’d compare that lone recent mass murder in Canada to the multitude of recent mass murders in the United States. We’re at the point where “shooting leaves five dead” is barely even a national news story in the U.S. anymore.
It will limit his body count. I’d take five dead over a couple dozen.
How about this… only one of them is shooting at you and the other is
shooting at the one shooting at you. Or would you prefer just the one
shooting at you and a cell phone with 911 speed dial?
To what extent should should society be designed around the needs of psychopaths?
First, as I have said recently, Canada has a VASTLY different population, somewhat different economy, somewhat different social structure, vastly different health care system, and even a different language in some parts. I am glad that you are certain that those have absolutely no impact on murder rated.
So, if you are willing to take away the rights of US citizens in order to save a few lives, you would be MUCH better served by abolishing the 4th amendment. Let the police stop people on a hunch. Let “driving while black” be a valid reason to stop somebody. That would save a LOT more lives. If you are willing to restrict constitutional rights in order to save lives, this would be much more effective. Does this sound like a good idea?
I’m sure a sufficiently capable and determined psychopath could kill dozens of people with a broken bottle. I’ve never seen evidence that most mass murderers are actually so capable and determined, though, instead of people taking advantage of how much easier a gun makes it.
And no, the fact that there are very rare instances where someone kills as many as 5 victims with a knife doesn’t really serve to establish that as the normal case.
Would it now. Exactly why do you think police stopping people without any reason except their dark skin would save lives?
You were the one who brought up Canada. Why is it OK to compare U.S. crime rates to Canada’s when it suits you, but inappropriate when the vast majority of statistics don’t?
Knife bans also have a very different cost/benefit analysis, particularly on the cost side. Knives are an essential tool. I’d like to see a carrot julienned with an AR15…
