- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
- Messages
- 12,099
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I'd argue against the NRA being a completely grass-roots organization (I think there are some corporate influences on it from the gun manufacturers), but I'd agree that the number of guns and people who want to keep them would make gun control like in Europe or Japan almost impossible.Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.
Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.
Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.
Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.
Why Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA
"Gun Control" is a vague term which has been applied to everything from outright bans on firearms to an improved background check coverage, or closing loopholes, etc.
- What constitutes "working" in your mind?
- In my mind "working," in the context of the thread's title is this: the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries decreases and doesn't subsequently increase.
- What, in the context of the thread title, constitutes "working" in your mind?
- In my mind "working," in the context of the thread's title is this: the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries decreases in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree and doesn't subsequently increase in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree.
I don't much care what public policies we enact to realize "working" -- it could as well be gun control, birth control, rubbing Buddha's belly, or anything else -- so long as "working" be what we realize.
"Gun Control" is a vague term which has been applied to everything from outright bans on firearms to an improved background check coverage, or closing loopholes, etc.
In this case the OP is talking a near-complete ban on firearms ownership.
I don't think a ban on firearms is feasibly possible in the USA.
I'm basing my opinion that a near-complete ban on gun ownership in the USA is nearly impossible on the number of guns and how many people want to keep them.So you're saying, on the OP-er's behalf, that the OP-er's meaning of "work" is "achieving a near complete ban on gun ownership?"
If your depiction of the OP-er's meaning for "work"/"working" is correct, that outcome hasn't been realized because nobody in the US has even attempted to do so. After all, very few outcomes that nobody attempts to effect become manifest.
Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.
Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.
I've seen some blame this in part on the NRA, claiming that organization is paid by the gun manufacturers to sell guns - people buy more guns because they fear they'll be taken away or something."Hardly any guns"? This is a relative term. Hardly any guns compared with America? That would seem to be true, but then America owns HALF THE CIVILIAN-HELD GUNS ON THE PLANET! Somewhat of an anomaly there.
I'm basing my opinion that a near-complete ban on gun ownership in the USA is nearly impossible on the number of guns and how many people want to keep them.
It might be possible, but it would cost billions and probably kill at minimum hundreds of people who wouldn't give them up without a fight.
I suggest you read my entire post not just my title.
- What, in the context of the thread title, constitutes "working" in your mind?
- In my mind "working," in the context of the thread's title is this: the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries decreases in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree and doesn't subsequently increase in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree.
I don't much care what public policies we enact to realize "working" -- it could as well be gun control, birth control, rubbing Buddha's belly, or anything else -- so long as "working" be what we realize.
Obviously a near-complete ban on firearms like what they've got in Cyprus would never work in the USA but Im also talking about more restrictive gun control like what they've got in the U.K. or much of Europe or even Canada would never work in the USA.In this case the OP is talking a near-complete ban on firearms ownership.
I don't think a ban on firearms is feasibly possible in the USA.
I'm basing my opinion that a near-complete ban on gun ownership in the USA is nearly impossible on the number of guns and how many people want to keep them.
It might be possible, but it would cost billions and probably kill at minimum hundreds of people who wouldn't give them up without a fight.
- What, in the context of the thread title, constitutes "working" in your mind?
- In my mind "working," in the context of the thread's title is this: the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries decreases in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree and doesn't subsequently increase in a statistically and pragmatically significant manner/degree.
I don't much care what public policies we enact to realize "working" -- it could as well be gun control, birth control, rubbing Buddha's belly, or anything else -- so long as "working" be what we realize.
I suggest you read my entire post not just my title.
"Hardly any guns"? This is a relative term. Hardly any guns compared with America?
You are right that the USA is an anomaly when it comes to gun ownership and I wouldn't be surprised if half or more of all privately owned guns in the world are owned by US citizens but that just makes my point about why the kind of gun control that they've got in Japan or much of Europe would not work in the USA, the USA is an isolated case when it comes to gun control, gun rights, and gun culture.That would seem to be true, but then America owns HALF THE CIVILIAN-HELD GUNS ON THE PLANET! Somewhat of an anomaly there.
I did read your OP. You repeatedly write "...it works..." (or a variant thereof) and not once do you specify the criteria corresponding to and identifying what precisely "works" means as you used it, which is why I asked you what "works" means. As you can see, for me works is something unequivocal, identifiable and precisely measurable. Do you have an unequivocal, identifiable and precisely measurable definition of what you mean by "works?" If so, what is it?
Perhaps I misunderstood the OP.Red:
Really? That's your basis for your inference of what the OP-er means by "work." Surely you're not serious.
Is it gun control that doesn't work? Or people control?
Obviously a near-complete ban on firearms like what they've got in Cyprus would never work in the USA but Im also talking about more restrictive gun control like what they've got in the U.K. or much of Europe or even Canada would never work in the USA.
What I meant is this, the kind of gun control that works in other developed countries such as Japan or many of the European countries would not work in the USA and I explain why, that's what my thread is all about.
Perhaps I misunderstood the OP.
My reaction/opinion was based on that, however.
So if it's wrong, then the opinion is inapplicable and needs modified to fit their actual meaning.
I would like clarification from the OP.
Got nothing to do with NRA or those other organizations. They exist to support the constitutional rights of gun owners.Here is why the kind of gun control that you find in much of the rest of the developed world doesn't work in the USA. The USA is isolated in its gun culture. Just how some people like to say how Japan is isolated in its suicide culture and that's why its got such a higher rate of suicide than the USA despite having such strict gun control, and as a matter of fact there are other countries that have much higher suicide rates than the USA, developed ones too, but that is a different discussion, the USA is isolated in its number of guns and in its gun culture.
Really strict gun control works in Japan because there are hardly any guns in Japan. It works in most of Europe for much the same reason, there are hardly any guns in Europe. Any other developed country that has strict gun control you can say the same thing, no country, developed or not with perhaps the exception of western Pakistan has a gun culture and the number of privately owned guns that the USA has. In the USA there are roughly 300 million privately owned guns or roughly one gun per person if they were all equally distributed and the number is only going up. In the USA you've got the NRA which aside from the ARP is the strongest grassroots organization there is. I can think of no country that has such a strong gun rights organization and aside from the NRA there is also the GOA, NAGR, and JPFO, other very strong gun rights organizations. So people who want the kind of gun control in the USA that they've got in Japan, Australia, or Cyprus are living in a pipe dream.
If we really want to deal with gun violence, we have to look analytically, rather than emotionally at the roots of gun violence. Is it the possession of a gun? millions of Americans own one or more guns yet less than 0.003% of them participate in a murder. Is it because there are no back ground checks? No, far from it a huge percentage of all gun sales are background checked. The FBI's NCIC processes hundreds of thousands of checks every year. Is it because of some mysterious "loophole" so far the answer, at least for the high profile mass shootings the answer is no; every weapons was legally purchased from a licensed firearms dealer."Gun Control" is a vague term which has been applied to everything from outright bans on firearms to an improved background check coverage, or closing loopholes, etc.
In this case the OP is talking a near-complete ban on firearms ownership.
I don't think a ban on firearms is feasibly possible in the USA.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?