MohawkWeekend wrote:

Well actually the US doesn't have a monopoly in gun violence -

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

El Salvador — 36.78
Venezuela — 33.27
Guatemala — 29.06
Colombia — 26.36
Brazil — 21.93
Bahamas — 21.52
Honduras — 20.15
U.S. Virgin Islands — 19.40
Puerto Rico — 18.14
Mexico — 16.41

The US is actually 22nd on that list in deaths from firearms at 10.95 per 100k population What is strange is all the top 22 countries are in the Western Hemisphere. Whats up with that?

What's clear from this list is that the US needs to seriously up its game. Not being top of that list is just plain embarrassing.

scbriml wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Well actually the US doesn't have a monopoly in gun violence -

Countries with the Highest Rates of Violent Gun Death (Homicides) per 100k residents in 2019
https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

El Salvador — 36.78
Venezuela — 33.27
Guatemala — 29.06
Colombia — 26.36
Brazil — 21.93
Bahamas — 21.52
Honduras — 20.15
U.S. Virgin Islands — 19.40
Puerto Rico — 18.14
Mexico — 16.41

The US is actually 22nd on that list in deaths from firearms at 10.95 per 100k population What is strange is all the top 22 countries are in the Western Hemisphere. Whats up with that?

What's clear from this list is that the US needs to seriously up its game. Not being top of that list is just plain embarrassing.

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.



This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.
This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.
This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Surprised at Delaware's numbers, though. Are the corporations shooting each other?

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.
This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Just like increased numbers of swimming pools will result in more drownings and more motor vehicles will result in more vehicle accidents.

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.
This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Just like increased numbers of swimming pools will result in more drownings and more motor vehicles will result in more vehicle accidents.

Similar to, not 'just like'.

I am still not seeing the downside to registering and insuring all firearms and making sure all owners are responsible by carrying proof if insurance and ownership. This would boost profits for the insurance companies and all these weapons could be traced to responsible people to figure out where everything went wrong. People can still clutch all their guns and more free market capitalism. Seems like a win-win.

seb146 wrote:

I am still not seeing the downside to registering and insuring all firearms and making sure all owners are responsible by carrying proof if insurance and ownership. This would boost profits for the insurance companies and all these weapons could be traced to responsible people to figure out where everything went wrong. People can still clutch all their guns and more free market capitalism. Seems like a win-win.

Criminals with guns that they obtained illegally, who are responsible for the vast majority of shootings, will not have insurance. Yet, you have liberal DAs, like the ones in LA, Ann Arbor and Lansing, who have gotten rid of cash bail for gun offenses.
https://www.washtenaw.org/3288/Cash-Bail-Policy
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 295769002/

seb146 wrote:

I am still not seeing the downside to registering and insuring all firearms and making sure all owners are responsible by carrying proof if insurance and ownership. This would boost profits for the insurance companies and all these weapons could be traced to responsible people to figure out where everything went wrong. People can still clutch all their guns and more free market capitalism. Seems like a win-win.

Can’t really tie a financial burden to a constitutional right. That would be like charging people to vote.

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.
This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Just like increased numbers of swimming pools will result in more drownings and more motor vehicles will result in more vehicle accidents.

That is why the chart was normalised to per 100000.

It then doesn't matter what the total is as you can compare like for like.

California has many more people than Alaska but per 100000 people it has fewer gun deaths.

ReverseFlow wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Just like increased numbers of swimming pools will result in more drownings and more motor vehicles will result in more vehicle accidents.

That is why the chart was normalised to per 100000.

It then doesn't matter what the total is as you can compare like for like.

California has many more people than Alaska but per 100000 people it has fewer gun deaths.

Right, but if California has more pools per capita than Alaska then California will also have more drownings per 100k residents than Alaska.

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What's also clear is that easier access to firearms does not guarantee public safety on a per capita basis.
This chart obviously needs to be updated since TX became dramatically less stringent.

The chart isn't needed. It is obvious and intuitive that increased firearm possesion among citizens will cause increased danger, not increased safety.

Just like increased numbers of swimming pools will result in more drownings and more motor vehicles will result in more vehicle accidents.

“Accidents” being the operative word.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I am still not seeing the downside to registering and insuring all firearms and making sure all owners are responsible by carrying proof if insurance and ownership. This would boost profits for the insurance companies and all these weapons could be traced to responsible people to figure out where everything went wrong. People can still clutch all their guns and more free market capitalism. Seems like a win-win.

Can’t really tie a financial burden to a constitutional right. That would be like charging people to vote.

So train people to be in a well regulated militia like the law says.

Oh, but criminals so let's just not do anything at all...

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I am still not seeing the downside to registering and insuring all firearms and making sure all owners are responsible by carrying proof if insurance and ownership. This would boost profits for the insurance companies and all these weapons could be traced to responsible people to figure out where everything went wrong. People can still clutch all their guns and more free market capitalism. Seems like a win-win.

Can’t really tie a financial burden to a constitutional right. That would be like charging people to vote.

So train people to be in a well regulated militia like the law says.

Oh, but criminals so let's just not do anything at all...

The law doesn’t require people to be members of a militia in order to own firearms.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Can’t really tie a financial burden to a constitutional right. That would be like charging people to vote.

So train people to be in a well regulated militia like the law says.

Oh, but criminals so let's just not do anything at all...

The law doesn’t require people to be members of a militia in order to own firearms.

Actually, the Second Amendment says just that:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." are the first four words. First, being more important than last (because who remembers the last place of any Tour de France or NFL season?) it should stand to reason that the first four words are more important than the last four. But, the first four are always ignored but the last four are only important.

TriJets wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Just like increased numbers of swimming pools will result in more drownings and more motor vehicles will result in more vehicle accidents.

That is why the chart was normalised to per 100000.

It then doesn't matter what the total is as you can compare like for like.

California has many more people than Alaska but per 100000 people it has fewer gun deaths.

Right, but if California has more pools per capita than Alaska then California will also have more drownings per 100k residents than Alaska.

Either way the chart clearly says Alaska has ridiculously high gun death per capita. What does that mean - Alaskans need better gun training? Alaskans use guns more dangerously? Alaskans are more careless than gun owner residents of other states?

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So train people to be in a well regulated militia like the law says.

Oh, but criminals so let's just not do anything at all...

The law doesn’t require people to be members of a militia in order to own firearms.

Actually, the Second Amendment says just that:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." are the first four words. First, being more important than last (because who remembers the last place of any Tour de France or NFL season?) it should stand to reason that the first four words are more important than the last four. But, the first four are always ignored but the last four are only important.

Yeah, thankfully there are generations of established case law that have determined that militia membership is not a prerequisite for gun ownership in this country. You know this, so I’m not sure why you are just ignoring it.

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

That is why the chart was normalised to per 100000.

It then doesn't matter what the total is as you can compare like for like.

California has many more people than Alaska but per 100000 people it has fewer gun deaths.

Right, but if California has more pools per capita than Alaska then California will also have more drownings per 100k residents than Alaska.

Either way the chart clearly says Alaska has ridiculously high gun death per capita. What does that mean - Alaskans need better gun training? Alaskans use guns more dangerously? Alaskans are more careless than gun owner residents of other states?

Alaska has an incredibly high suicide rate due to long periods without sunlight and rampant alcoholism?

TriJets wrote:

Alaska has an incredibly high suicide rate due to long periods without sunlight and rampant alcoholism?

Then it sounds like more guns are the last thing they need.

Newark727 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Alaska has an incredibly high suicide rate due to long periods without sunlight and rampant alcoholism?

Then it sounds like more guns are the last thing they need.

That’s up to each individual who lives up there.

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Right, but if California has more pools per capita than Alaska then California will also have more drownings per 100k residents than Alaska.

Either way the chart clearly says Alaska has ridiculously high gun death per capita. What does that mean - Alaskans need better gun training? Alaskans use guns more dangerously? Alaskans are more careless than gun owner residents of other states?

Alaska has an incredibly high suicide rate due to long periods without sunlight and rampant alcoholism?

What about OK and WY then?

Scorpio wrote:

We all know the drill by now.

GOP: 'Thoughts and prayers', 'now's not the time to talk about gun control', 'don't politicize this, people have died', then sit on their asses and wait for the next one.

Rinse, repeat.

Guns should have never been invented. Now, gun violence should never be tolerated or committed for that matter unless you were defending yourself or someone else.

But the argument for gun control was lost the day the first gun was made.

AntonioMartin wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

We all know the drill by now.

GOP: 'Thoughts and prayers', 'now's not the time to talk about gun control', 'don't politicize this, people have died', then sit on their asses and wait for the next one.

Rinse, repeat.

Guns should have never been invented. Now, gun violence should never be tolerated or committed for that matter unless you were defending yourself or someone else.

But the argument for gun control was lost the day the first gun was made.

The argument for gun control was lost the day the SCOTUD ruled its interpretation of the second amendment, seemingly ignoring the link to a well regulated militia.

Gun control does work if it can be implement, my country Australia being a good example.

We need to ban guns. That is the only solution at this point in the U.S.

Is everyone in the US allowed to have a gun?.

bennett123 wrote:

Is everyone in the US allowed to have a gun?.

It depends on the state as to 'everyone' (age, mental health, criminal record etc), but basically, yes.

Aaron747 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Is everyone in the US allowed to have a gun?.

It depends on the state as to 'everyone' (age, mental health, criminal record etc), but basically, yes.

Don't these people also have rights under the 2nd Amendment?.

bennett123 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It depends on the state as to 'everyone' (age, mental health, criminal record etc), but basically, yes.

Don't these people also have rights under the 2nd Amendment?.

Convicted criminals, children and mentally ill people are deprived of plenty of other rights, so I guess not?

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Either way the chart clearly says Alaska has ridiculously high gun death per capita. What does that mean - Alaskans need better gun training? Alaskans use guns more dangerously? Alaskans are more careless than gun owner residents of other states?

Alaska has an incredibly high suicide rate due to long periods without sunlight and rampant alcoholism?

What about OK and WY then?

Wyoming’s homicide rate (4.9 per 100k) is less than California’s so most of the gun deaths there are probably suicides.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosm ... irearm.htm

Oklahoma has some rougher urban areas (Tulsa and OKC) which probably skew their data.

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So train people to be in a well regulated militia like the law says.

Oh, but criminals so let's just not do anything at all...

The law doesn’t require people to be members of a militia in order to own firearms.

Actually, the Second Amendment says just that:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." are the first four words. First, being more important than last (because who remembers the last place of any Tour de France or NFL season?) it should stand to reason that the first four words are more important than the last four. But, the first four are always ignored but the last four are only important.

It's been explained to you before but you still don't know what "well regulated" meant in the context of the 1790s. Hint--it's not what you think.

What did it mean?.

bennett123 wrote:

What did it mean?.

It meant that all militia members had to have firearm of the same caliber and have a certain number of lead balls, black powder and spare flints, along with a few days supply of nonperishable food and a blanket, etc. Everyone had to be equipped the same so that logistics would be easier.

I've come up with a theory why the Western Hemisphere leads the way - the indigenous people put a curse on all the immigrants who came over and stole their land. Canada is the outlier which hurts my theory a bit.

The Colorado Springs shooter and the Walmart manager were seriously mentally ill.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I've come up with a theory why the Western Hemisphere leads the way - the indigenous people put a curse on all the immigrants who came over and stole their land. Canada is the outlier which hurts my theory a bit.

The Colorado Springs shooter and the Walmart manager were seriously mentally ill.

"put a curse on"? Do you believe in witches too?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I've come up with a theory why the Western Hemisphere leads the way - the indigenous people put a curse on all the immigrants who came over and stole their land. Canada is the outlier which hurts my theory a bit.

The Colorado Springs shooter and the Walmart manager were seriously mentally ill.

What explains Australia and NZ’s low rates of violence then? Also multicultural societies that began by displacing indigenous people. No curses there?

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I've come up with a theory why the Western Hemisphere leads the way - the indigenous people put a curse on all the immigrants who came over and stole their land. Canada is the outlier which hurts my theory a bit.

The Colorado Springs shooter and the Walmart manager were seriously mentally ill.

What explains Australia and NZ’s low rates of violence then? Also multicultural societies that began by displacing indigenous people. No curses there?

He's right about the curse but wrong about who laid it. (It was the framers of the Constitution. The text of the curse reads, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.")

Newark727 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I've come up with a theory why the Western Hemisphere leads the way - the indigenous people put a curse on all the immigrants who came over and stole their land. Canada is the outlier which hurts my theory a bit.

The Colorado Springs shooter and the Walmart manager were seriously mentally ill.

What explains Australia and NZ’s low rates of violence then? Also multicultural societies that began by displacing indigenous people. No curses there?

He's right about the curse but wrong about who laid it. (It was the framers of the Constitution. The text of the curse reads, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.")

True. Hard to imagine that phrase remaining if Publius et al could see what was to come.

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So train people to be in a well regulated militia like the law says.

Oh, but criminals so let's just not do anything at all...

The law doesn’t require people to be members of a militia in order to own firearms.

Actually, the Second Amendment says just that:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." are the first four words. First, being more important than last (because who remembers the last place of any Tour de France or NFL season?) it should stand to reason that the first four words are more important than the last four. But, the first four are always ignored but the last four are only important.

I think that they already assumed people would be keeping arms to bear to go hunting, and to defend the family against scoundrels. But the 2nd Amendment is saying that it's a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even if it's for the only reason to be a part of well regulated militia, to combat tyranny, if it should arise. IOW, the populace are not at the mercy of the US Army to defend them against tyranny. If any King or (UN "King") should try to oppress their right to life, liberty, and the property, they can Constitutionally form a well regulated militia to resist.

Looking at Climate Change/Carbon Tax/Vax Passport/Credit Score Fascists here, as the ones to resist.

Pi7472000 wrote:

We need to ban guns. That is the only solution at this point in the U.S.

Im no gun defender by any means (I think they are one of the worst evils in the world) but the problem with that is the bad people would still get them, underground. The same took place during alcohol prohibition in the US when people would literally go behind doors and get their drink!

It's like abortions, I hate them, but if we outlawed them, women would go underground and get them anyways, Im afraid.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Looking at Climate Change/Carbon Tax/Vax Passport/Credit Score Fascists here, as the ones to resist.

None of these movements or systems constitute actual fascism or tyranny. I recommend looking up the words before using them.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

The law doesn’t require people to be members of a militia in order to own firearms.

Actually, the Second Amendment says just that:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." are the first four words. First, being more important than last (because who remembers the last place of any Tour de France or NFL season?) it should stand to reason that the first four words are more important than the last four. But, the first four are always ignored but the last four are only important.

I think that they already assumed people would be keeping arms to bear to go hunting, and to defend the family against scoundrels. But the 2nd Amendment is saying that it's a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even if it's for the only reason to be a part of well regulated militia, to combat tyranny, if it should arise. IOW, the populace are not at the mercy of the US Army to defend them against tyranny. If any King or (UN "King") should try to oppress their right to life, liberty, and the property, they can Constitutionally form a well regulated militia to resist.

Looking at Climate Change/Carbon Tax/Vax Passport/Credit Score Fascists here, as the ones to resist.

It was drafted in relation to the British. There has been no valid tyranny since for the militia/

Kent350787 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Actually, the Second Amendment says just that:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." are the first four words. First, being more important than last (because who remembers the last place of any Tour de France or NFL season?) it should stand to reason that the first four words are more important than the last four. But, the first four are always ignored but the last four are only important.

I think that they already assumed people would be keeping arms to bear to go hunting, and to defend the family against scoundrels. But the 2nd Amendment is saying that it's a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, even if it's for the only reason to be a part of well regulated militia, to combat tyranny, if it should arise. IOW, the populace are not at the mercy of the US Army to defend them against tyranny. If any King or (UN "King") should try to oppress their right to life, liberty, and the property, they can Constitutionally form a well regulated militia to resist.

Looking at Climate Change/Carbon Tax/Vax Passport/Credit Score Fascists here, as the ones to resist.

It was drafted in relation to the British. There has been no valid tyranny since for the militia/

Which means the amendment has been working as intended.

TriJets wrote:

Which means the amendment has been working as intended.

Really? When was the last time the US required the use of an armed and well regulated militia? Or do you honestly believe that because its written down on some 200 year old piece of paper, thats the only reason why you've never had to call on them?

Its 2022, not 1872 - guns are the problem now, not the British.

AntonioMartin wrote:

Im no gun defender by any means (I think they are one of the worst evils in the world) but the problem with that is the bad people would still get them, underground. The same took place during alcohol prohibition in the US when people would literally go behind doors and get their drink!

It's like abortions, I hate them, but if we outlawed them, women would go underground and get them anyways, Im afraid.

Every country has problems with illegally obtained guns, and they deal with it. But no other country has mass shootings on the daily. The excuse of "criminals will always get guns" is as old and irrelevant as the Second Amendment itself.

ACDC8 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Which means the amendment has been working as intended.

Really? When was the last time the US required the use of an armed and well regulated militia? Or do you honestly believe that because its written down on some 200 year old piece of paper, thats the only reason why you've never had to call on them?

Its 2022, not 1872 - guns are the problem now, not the British.

AntonioMartin wrote:

Im no gun defender by any means (I think they are one of the worst evils in the world) but the problem with that is the bad people would still get them, underground. The same took place during alcohol prohibition in the US when people would literally go behind doors and get their drink!

It's like abortions, I hate them, but if we outlawed them, women would go underground and get them anyways, Im afraid.

Every country has problems with illegally obtained guns, and they deal with it. But no other country has mass shootings on the daily. The excuse of "criminals will always get guns" is as old and irrelevant as the Second Amendment itself.

“I’ve had security guards for 250 years and no one has ever broken in” doesn’t mean that you should fire your security guards.

With regard to your second point, there are more guns in the US than there are people, and criminals are already well-armed. Banning guns, even if it were possible (it isn’t), won’t change that. On a personal level, I’m happy to give up mine once every single criminal gives up theirs first.

TriJets wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Which means the amendment has been working as intended.

Really? When was the last time the US required the use of an armed and well regulated militia? Or do you honestly believe that because its written down on some 200 year old piece of paper, thats the only reason why you've never had to call on them?

Its 2022, not 1872 - guns are the problem now, not the British.

AntonioMartin wrote:

Im no gun defender by any means (I think they are one of the worst evils in the world) but the problem with that is the bad people would still get them, underground. The same took place during alcohol prohibition in the US when people would literally go behind doors and get their drink!

It's like abortions, I hate them, but if we outlawed them, women would go underground and get them anyways, Im afraid.

Every country has problems with illegally obtained guns, and they deal with it. But no other country has mass shootings on the daily. The excuse of "criminals will always get guns" is as old and irrelevant as the Second Amendment itself.

“I’ve had security guards for 250 years and no one has ever broken in” doesn’t mean that you should fire your security guards.

Apparently the 2nd country with more guns in civilian hands per capita after the US is Yemen. Hasn't worked very well for them but perhaps they just need more.

JJJ wrote:

TriJets wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Really? When was the last time the US required the use of an armed and well regulated militia? Or do you honestly believe that because its written down on some 200 year old piece of paper, thats the only reason why you've never had to call on them?

Its 2022, not 1872 - guns are the problem now, not the British.

Every country has problems with illegally obtained guns, and they deal with it. But no other country has mass shootings on the daily. The excuse of "criminals will always get guns" is as old and irrelevant as the Second Amendment itself.

“I’ve had security guards for 250 years and no one has ever broken in” doesn’t mean that you should fire your security guards.

Apparently the 2nd country with more guns in civilian hands per capita after the US is Yemen. Hasn't worked very well for them but perhaps they just need more.

Yup, because Yemen and the US are exactly alike. The country with the lowest civilian level of gun ownership is a North Korea, so there’s that.

TriJets wrote:

“I’ve had security guards for 250 years and no one has ever broken in” doesn’t mean that you should fire your security guards.

Yet you need security guards because of your belief that the 2nd Amendment is more important than the life of a fellow citizen - ironic.

TriJets wrote:

With regard to your second point, there are more guns in the US than there are people, and criminals are already well-armed.

Again, an argument as old and irrelevant as the 2nd Amendment itself.

TriJets wrote:

Banning guns, even if it were possible (it isn’t), won’t change that.

No one ever said anything about banning weapons which has been explained countless times in countless threads, no need to beat a dead horse and explain the difference between banning and restrictions again.

ACDC8 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

“I’ve had security guards for 250 years and no one has ever broken in” doesn’t mean that you should fire your security guards.

Yet you need security guards because of your belief that the 2nd Amendment is more important than the life of a fellow citizen - ironic.

TriJets wrote:

With regard to your second point, there are more guns in the US than there are people, and criminals are already well-armed.

Again, an argument as old and irrelevant as the 2nd Amendment itself.

TriJets wrote:

Banning guns, even if it were possible (it isn’t), won’t change that.

No one ever said anything about banning weapons which has been explained countless times in countless threads, no need to beat a dead horse and explain the difference between banning and restrictions again.

Guns save far more lives than they take in the US...we've hashed out the statistics in plenty of threads before this one. Each person should weigh the odds and consider what makes the most sense for their own situation. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one....doesn't hurt my feelings in the least.

TriJets wrote:

JJJ wrote:

TriJets wrote:

“I’ve had security guards for 250 years and no one has ever broken in” doesn’t mean that you should fire your security guards.

Apparently the 2nd country with more guns in civilian hands per capita after the US is Yemen. Hasn't worked very well for them but perhaps they just need more.

Yup, because Yemen and the US are exactly alike. The country with the lowest civilian level of gun ownership is a North Korea, so there’s that.

I see we're getting somewhere. If the US wants to be compared to it's peers (developed, Western nations) perhaps there's something out there that makes it stand out wrt to mass shootings?

JJJ wrote:

TriJets wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Apparently the 2nd country with more guns in civilian hands per capita after the US is Yemen. Hasn't worked very well for them but perhaps they just need more.

Yup, because Yemen and the US are exactly alike. The country with the lowest civilian level of gun ownership is a North Korea, so there’s that.

I see we're getting somewhere. If the US wants to be compared to it's peers (developed, Western nations) perhaps there's something out there that makes it stand out wrt to mass shootings?

There are a lot of things that make the US stand out, for better or for worse. The United States is very unique in its size, history, and demographics which make it difficult to compare to other wealthy nations.