By making it hard to obtain weapons.
The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced...
If the legal rule is "you can't shoot anybody", which is what the post I responded to said, wouldn't that make it impossible to legally obtain weapons? Why just "hard"?
If, OTOH, you mean make it hard to illegally obtain weapons, where has this actually been done successfully? My reading of human history is that criminals who want weapons have always been able to get them somehow.
> The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced...
I don't know where you are getting that from. The US thinking is very simple: since it is impossible for governments to prevent all violent crimes or to ensure that police show up in time to protect citizens from being harmed by violent crime, citizens must be allowed to have the means of self defense. The best way to minimize the number of citizens that feel the need to have weapons for self-defense is to extirpate crime--but unfortunately the US in recent decades has been moving in the opposite direction.
And the overwhelming majority of people, including thieves, don't do this, because the raised barrier to entry makes gun crimes vastly less attractive. Combine that with a broad social safety net that reduces poverty, and you miraculously get homicide rates dropping through the floor: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_countries_by_...
> because the raised barrier to entry makes gun crimes vastly less attractive.
Is that assertion based on study or "common sense?" It may well be that they don't feel the need to bring a gun because they know their victims are definitely not going to be armed anyways.
The real question would, do the criminals not use a weapon at all, or do they use weapons that just don't happen to be guns?
> broad social safety net that reduces poverty
People aren't being shot in the US because of poverty. The _majority_ of "gun violence" in the US is actually suicides. It's nearly 2/3 of that terrible statistical category. The remainder of murders typically involve alcohol and arguments.
The majority of murder victims in the US know their murderer by name and have been acquainted with them for years. Means. Motive. Opportunity. These things don't change.
This is a lame response. A man with a knife or a bat has the tools he needs to easily kill your whole family. So what is the plan to protect a family since knives and bats will always exist?
He was right leaning so you are probably correct.
But I would think his murder might have happened earlier if weapons were legal for most citizens as in the US.
I'm not so sure. The assassin took advantage of the fact that nobody was expecting a gunman. In an armed society, there would have been more defense measures present to prepare for such an attack
The number one, by far most effective thing you do comes well ahead of those armed, home entry thieves, and that is you make your home scream "GO AWAY!"
Get a dog
Employ great lighting
Put the home alarm stickers on, actual alarm optional, [3]
Clean up.
Etc...
The criminals work on risk reward. You can bias that equation away from favorable meaning the baddies pick another home, not yours.
From there, should you really feel this scenario could happen, maybe consider a gun. But if you do, please get gun education. One bad scenario is to have a gun, and face experienced users. Your chance of getting you, and or family, hurt go way up!
I do mostly identify with the left, but am gun friendly having grown up rural and well educated about guns.
[3] - no joke! Neighbors had done the sticker thing for roughly a decade. That, plus the other suggestions work well.
.svg){kind=link}