It's true that the US has more gun violence than other first world countries, but we also has more violence and crime in general.
Within the US, there is no statistically significant correlation (r = -0.02) on the state level between firearm ownership and firearm homicide. (There is a statistically significant correlation between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, but this is due to suicides.)
Make of this what you will, but it's not substantiated by the facts the claim that restricting gun ownership would have a strong impact on homicides.
> It's true that the US has more gun violence than other first world countries, but we also has more violence and crime in general.
These statements are misleading as they stand because the variation in the US is so high. Basically, for all types of violent crimes, the US is divided into two very different regions: (1) particular large urban and dense suburban areas, which have rates of violent crime higher than any other developed country; and (2) the rest of the country, which has rates of violent crime lower than almost any other developed country. Even looking at the stats by state doesn't fully capture this dichotomy.
So what you’re saying is, the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot.
Maybe the rest of the world should stop telling Americans to control gun ownership (ie ”ban guns”, despite nobody ever suggesting a total ban) and instead we should be promoting control of Americans (ie. “ban Americans”, although nobody would suggest a total ban. I’m sure zoos would want some).
> the real problem is that Americans are just a violent bloodthirsty lot.
More like "Americans are more subject (relative to, say, Europeans) to the economic and mental health hardships that typically beget violent crime".
That is, I'm far less motivated to rob a store at gunpoint if I can actually feed myself and my family through legitimate means. I'm far less motivated to kill someone in anger if I have access to mental health resources that can help me address that anger less destructively. I'm far less motivated to join a gang if my life - and that of my family - doesn't depend on me doing so (or more precisely, if that gang is no longer able to convince me of that).
Guns are tools. Taking away the tool does not take away the desire to commit crime. I'd expect Hacker News, of all places, to understand the importance of root cause analysis.
A car is a tool. A truck is a tool. A 747 is a tool. All have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated incorrectly.
Guess how society generally tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "incorrectly" operating those tools?
Education, combined with testing (i.e. government-enforced licensing for operation of the tool).
A gun is a tool. A goodly number of the models favoured by Americans have the capacity to very quickly cause a death and injury to a unit of people colloquially known as "a fucking lot" when operated correctly.
Guess how society (outside of America) tries to overcome the problem of death and injury caused by "correctly" operating those tools?
Education, combined with testing, and in many case, restrictions on which kind of "tools" are deemed an acceptable "tool" for one of the tasks it can achieve, outside of death and injury to other humans.
No one needs an AR-15/etc for hunting deer or bears or whatever other lesser animal needs to die, or sport shooting, or anything really, other than laying down covering fire against the "Charlies in the trees". It'd be like if you decided to buy a 400ton mining truck, and drive it on the road.
At 9m+ wide, with a turning circle of 42m, it's safe to assume the level of damage to the roads and infrastructure wherever you go, could be measured with a unit colloquially known as "a fucking lot".
Gun control laws does not equal a ban on guns. Most US states require no licensing to own and no permit to purchase a firearm, and a number require no special license to carry it on your person in public, either concealed or otherwise. Those that do impose an age limit, generally set it at 18 - so you can buy a tool to murder your neighbours but you can't buy a bud light.
This is an interesting philosophical argument, but it doesn't actually stack up to the facts. While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence.
The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed?
This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban, for example. Yet from a purely mechanical point of view, bullets come out of the operational end when you pull the trigger. It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle, even if the designer did not intend for it to ever be used against humans.
> While it may feel righteous to regulate them more, it is all but guaranteed to have next to no effect on gun violence.
.... You realise that there are dozens of examples of other countries that have enacted gun control, and then seen gun violence go down, right?
> The AR-15 undoubtedly has a military background, although it isn't the exact same weapon as the M16. Does this mean firearms with a less militaristic style, like the Ruger Mini-14[0], should be allowed?
Ok, so a few things here.
(a) I just referenced AR-15's because most people have heard of them. A mini-14 is no more appropriate for sport shooting than the aforementioned AR15.
(b) The rifle you mentioned is named so because it resembles a previous military rifle (M14), and is itself used by a number of military and law enforcement agencies around the world, so it's still "military style" anyway
(c) My point was that semi-automatic rifles aren't needed for hunting, or target shooting, regardless of how "militaristic" they look. 12 people being shot in a school aren't going to feel any less shot because the gun doesn't look like the military use it.
> This weapon wasn't banned during the assault weapons ban,
Given that the law in question required a weapon to have 2 feature from a list that includes grenade launcher to be considered a "assault weapon", that's not really surprising. It's a semi-automatic rifle. It also wouldn't be affected by a ban on trans fats either.
> It is no less unpleasant to get shot by a sport or hunting rifle
If someone is shooting into a crowd with a bolt action rifle, you are a lot less likely to be shot in the first place. That's literally the whole fucking point: it's a much slower rate of fire.
> and in many case, restrictions on which kind of "tools" are deemed an acceptable "tool" for one of the tasks it can achieve, outside of death and injury to other humans.
I'm not okay with this. Who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable for a given task?
> No one needs an AR-15/etc for hunting deer or bears or whatever other lesser animal needs to die
No one needs an AR-15 to kill people, either. Indeed, the vast majority of gun violence (among civilians at least) is with guns that are very much not "an AR-15/etc". If you actually care about reducing death by guns, you'd be going after the Glocks, not the ArmaLites.
Bringing up the AR-15 betrays an opinion driven mostly by emotion and irrationality. It's a gun that "looks scary" despite being no more lethal than any other semiautomatic .223 rifle (among which there are a lot, and despite your implied belief to the contrary, the .223 is a very common caliber for hunting/varmint rifles, and semiautomatics - while not as common as bolt-actions - are still pretty mainstream for hunting).
Again: who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable for a given task?
> It'd be like if you decided to buy a 400ton mining truck, and drive it on the road.
No, it'd be like if you decided to buy a Tundra instead of a Tacoma (the Tacoma here being, say, a Ruger Mini-14). A "400ton mining truck" in this context would be something more like the GAU8/A.
> Gun control laws does not equal a ban on guns.
Not yet, but anyone with a basic understanding of what the Overton Window is can see the writing on the wall.
> Those that do impose an age limit
I can't think of a single place where there's not an age limit to buy either the firearm itself or the ammunition thereof. I don't require a permit to purchase here in Nevada, for example, but I still had to present ID and go through a background check. And Nevada's among the most gun-friendly states in the US, even after the Las Vegas shooting.
> so you can buy a tool to murder your neighbours but you can't buy a bud light.
You can do a lot of things before you can buy a Bud Light that you can't do before you're an adult. Quite a few over-the-counter drugs, for example, fall into that category. I fail to see how that's relevant (unless you're arguing to lower the drinking age, in which case I'd have no real objection).
Edit: I realised after writing a heap of this that my clarification about why I mentioned the AR15 at all was a reply to another user, not to you, so I'll edit accordingly.
> I'm okay with this, to an extent.
Why would you not be fully on board with educating people when they want to use a deadly "tool"?
Edit: removed snippiness.
> Who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable for a given task?
Well, it isn't me though is it? I mean I'm writing the text but what I'm writing is what other governments have implemented successfully, based on simple logic.
Perhaps you could try less attacking me, and more explaining why a semi-automatic is required to hunt deer or shoot targets?
> If you actually care about reducing death by guns, you'd be going after the Glocks, not the ArmaLites.
... Still a semi-automatic dude.
> Bringing up the AR-15 betrays an opinion driven mostly by emotion and irrationality.
As I mentioned in a reply to another user: I mentioned it because most people know it. That's all. In reality the point is about all semi-autos, either long barrel or pistols.
> the .223 is a very common caliber for hunting/varmint rifles
I don't know whether you're unaware that .223 is used in bolt-action rifles too, you just want to ignore that aspect because it makes your argument stronger, or you actually just meant .223 semi-automatics are common for that "task" - it's irrelevant. My point is that it's unnecessary - you don't need a semi-automatic to hunt, unless you're fucking shit at it.
> who are you to declare from on high which tools are acceptable
Again: you need to explain why a semi-automatic is required for hunting or some other non-people-killing activity. Unless Americans uniquely have decided that "hunting" now means mowing into a crowd of deer/what have you in some kind of perverse attempt to justify the use of a semi-auto for "hunting".
> No, it'd be like if you decided to buy a Tundra instead of a Tacoma (the Tacoma here being, say, a Ruger Mini-14).
Well given that both are semi-autos, and you just compared two 'pickup trucks' I guess at least the analogy is somewhat correct but you've missed the point, and keep somehow obsessing about a different semi-auto rifle just because it's less popular with Americans. That doesn't make it not a semi-auto.
> Not yet
Seriously, slippery slope argument?
> I can't think of a single place where there's not an age limit to buy either the firearm itself or the ammunition thereof.
Well federal law stipulates 18, but I have zero clue how you enforce that on private sales without any kind of licensing or permits required.
> I don't require a permit to purchase here in Nevada, for example, but I still had to present ID and go through a background check. And Nevada's among the most gun-friendly states in the US, even after the Las Vegas shooting.
Well you (Nevada) need a permit for concealed carry and background checks are required (by the state, it seems some counties are ignoring that law), so no you aren't among the most 'gun-friendly'. Plenty of states require no background check, no permits for concealed carry, etc.
Within the US, there is no statistically significant correlation (r = -0.02) on the state level between firearm ownership and firearm homicide. (There is a statistically significant correlation between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, but this is due to suicides.)
Make of this what you will, but it's not substantiated by the facts the claim that restricting gun ownership would have a strong impact on homicides.
You can look at this list and sort by gun murder rate and see what kind of states come out on top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
Here is a strongly political Medium article about the matter: https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-a...