Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
very well constructed attempt to reframe the discussion on gun restrictions in a way to support more widespread access to guns.
it is specious to frame the discussion in the context that gun restrictions do not reduce crime. that is not the argument, for crime is not dependent on the criminal possessing guns. crime will happen with or without gun control, and the argument is not that gun control will reduce crime.
the discussion should be focused on the use of firarms in crimes that result in deaths.
in that context the usa is in the top echelon of countries such as south africa, columbia, bealrus, thailand, uruguay and zimbabwe, all at the top in number of murders per population committed by firearms.
looking at accidental deaths by firearms and again the usa is near the top along with albania and estonia.
gee, aren't we a better society than that?
i don't know about you, but I get no pride in being in the company with zimbabwe or albania on these lists.
plain and simple, guns, and handguns in particular, are too easily obtained by criminals in our country. there are too many loopholes in the laws which allow for people who should not be allowed to possess guns to openly get them.
every peson who desires to purchase a gun should be vetted. every single time, every single weapon. period.
every single person who possesses a gun should be held liable for what happens with that gun, no matter who uses that gun.
|
very well said. I'm glad that the discussion is moving towards a rational discussion.
You made two good points that should be highlighted and repeated:
1)crime itself will occur with or without guns
2)crime committed with guns results in more death
Naturally, accidental deaths with a gun only occur where a gun is present. That particular statistic is without meaning beyond the obvious.
But, there are other points to also consider.
Countries like Britain, France, and Greece have removed almost all firearms from their people. Those countries are left to the protection of their military and police forces. France and Greece have both shown that their police and military cannot protect their citizens when "all hell breaks loose" (earlier Islamic riots in France and current anarchy in Greece). Mexico is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot protect its people. See the murders and plain day executions occuring each week right now. The USA is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot:
1)secure the border
2)stop the drug trade
3)control gangs
4)deal with drug cartels
and generally cannot protect you or I.
The discussion is larger than crime.
The 2nd amendment is specifically in place to allow citizens to protect themselves. period.
It, nonetheless, remains interesting that the areas of the USA with the strongest gun controls have the worst crime problems. And, the areas with the most lax gun laws have the lower crime rates.
You also stated that all gun sales/transfers should require a background check. I would be shocked to see that ideal reached. That would require that guns not be sold person to person such as at garage sales. Somehow, you would have to force private citizens to take their guns for sale to a gun store and have the Federal Firearms License holder (the gun dealer) manage the transfer including performing the background check. Is that possible? Sure it is. Will it actually happen even if the law were written that way? Heck no.
I'm not saying that your ideal is a bad ideal. I'm just saying it would be like prohibition. A good intention that can't be enforced and which leads to backdoor "crime".