[holgerschurig]

The thing is that a society does not always do only ONE thing. You mentioned that there are better ways to protect kids. But maybe they cost more (e.g. banning firearms is dead cheap, while setting up a structure with lots of psychologists specialized in teenager problems is really expensive).

Also you can do one and the other ... at the same time. E.g. suicides of kids/teenagers (<= 19) in Germany in 2025: 216. That is, compared to the population in this age group, 1.38 per 100'000. In the USA that ratio is 9.4 in the age-group 15-19 and 2.3 in the age group 10-14.

And keep in mind, the total deaths by firearms in Germany in 2024 was "just" 168 (we have 1/4th of the US population, in the US police forces alone killed more people ... the total number of 44'000 firearms deaths in USA/2024 is even more staggering). Even if I multiply the 168 by 4 for the population difference ... then 672 vs. 44'000 is still a point of shame for the USA.

So in Germany, we do BOTH better regarding firearms AND regarding health services on kids. And if the USA truly would try MAGA they'd actually copy good results from other countries. So a real-MAGA-person must be against liberal firearms distribution AND for better social health work with teenagers.

BTW, the USA ideology of "the population needs arms to fight a corrupt state" is laughable. When you had your armed religious sects clash with the state, then the state always won. They still have more and better weapons and armor. On the other side, if you look how east-europe shed off their socialist regimes 40 years ago, than nowhere was an armed general population involved. So one can conclude that private firearms may as well be highly regulated and diminshed.

[giantg2]

Banning firearms isn't "dead cheap" if you have 400 million in existence. The enforcement would cost a lot, even if you didn't perform a mandatory buyback program. Germany doesn't have an outright ban on guns, but strict regulation. Running the regulation costs money.

A note about copying - you have to look at the culture to see if how things will work. Germany has vastly different socioeconomics than the US, and socioeconomics are major factors in crime and homicide. Not to mention the percentage of people who own guns and are pro-gun are vastly different. Applying the same regulations in the US will take decades for criminals to no longer have many guns and then they will switch to knives and screwdrivers as we see in the UK, which has about dowluble the violent crime rate as the US after accounting for differences in the stats (somewhat culturally/socioeconomically similar). So it might make the gun numbers better, but it won't solve the real drivers.

The best approach would be to address the underlying factors and causes of all violence while still allowing freedoms for the 44% who do not support stricter regulation.

[KaiserPro]

> will switch to knives and screwdrivers as we see in the UK

London, with a population of ~8 million has the same murder rate as new Orleans, which is 300k people. Not as in x murders per 100k, but as in total murders in a city.

In terms of knife crime the USA has a slightly _higher_ rate of knife crime than the UK. Bear in mind the UK counts attacks with knifes as knife crimes, where as the states only appear to include death by knives.

Which means that even if you took away gun deaths (~70% of all us homicides) you're still more likley to be stabbed in the USA compared to the USA.

[giantg2]

If we want to compare cities to New Orleans, then you might as well compare them them to Birmingham. Even with firearms being banned you have a murder rate of 28/100k vs 40/100k. Violent crime between the cities is actually equal at 55/1k.

Yeah, stabbing deaths UK vs US is about half (175/70M UK vs 1600/350M US). But if comparing at the national level, 360/100k US vs 1200/100k UK.

So it really comes down to each person's systems thinking approach and which stats they care about.

[KaiserPro]

> 360/100k US vs 1200/100k UK.

Sorry but 1200 knife deaths per 100k means the annual rate would be 840,000 murders a year.

last year the total number of murders in the UK was ~600 which is .86 per 100k

(far less than the _gun_ related homicides in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-...)

The reason why I was talking about knife homicides specifically is that comparing knife crime between the us and the uk is hard. the UK systematically records crimes where knives are involved at a national level, the USA doesn't really.

But brum has a murder rate twice that of the national average. Even so its not 28/100k its around 1.25/100k which is still just over a quarter of the _national_ gun homicide rate of the entire USA.(~4.3/100k)

The point is, the UK is demonstrably less murderous than the USA. Even the UKs most murderous city is safer than Sanjose, which accordign to the stats I can find has a 3.2/100k murder rate.

[giantg2]

"360/100k US vs 1200/100k UK"

That's the violent crime rate.

I do see the 28 was an error.

Yes, lower murder rate, but higher violent crime rate.

[marysol5]

Lets not forget the UK defines violent crime as any sort of threat, shouting at someone in the street is violent crime.

The US defines violent crime as literal murder.

Those are no way near comparable.

[master-lincoln]

> Applying the same regulations in the US will take decades for criminals to no longer have many guns and then they will switch to knives and screwdrivers as we see in the UK

That seems like a thing to pursue rather earlier than later if it takes so long to bear fruits. Knives and screwdrivers are at least only used for close-up combat.

>The best approach would be to address the underlying factors and causes of all violence while still allowing freedoms for the 44% who do not support stricter regulation.

To have the money for that you would need abolish capitalism I guess...

[giantg2]

"Knives and screwdrivers are at least only used for close-up combat."

Most firearms murders are similarly close-up.