Not quite, Wikipedia: "Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms."
Yes, but note that the offense is for unlawful possession of firearms, not lawful possession (though I imagine the conditions for lawful possession in Singapore are extremely restrictive).
Where I live (Finland) the ratio is 2:5 (2 million legal guns, 5 million people). That's the highest in EU. We also have among the highest homicide rate in EU, but these two rates are not really connected (i.e. very few of the homicides done with a gun.).
No, very few countries come close to that ratio. The poster-child for widespread gun ownership, Switzerland, still only has half as many guns per capita[0] as the US. They also have laws that prohibit most people from carrying loaded guns. The result is a gun homicide rate less than 1/5th that of the US per capita.[1]
Yes, intrinsically bad. It's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't live in a gun "bubble". Number one cause of death by gun? Suicide. Watch that YouTube clip[2] in full; it summarises my opinion quite well. The second amendment makes sense in the era of muskets, but in the present day only serves to make everyday life less safe, and police officers more Ferguson-ey.
If the attempt is to understand the roots of homicide, rather than just bash one nation or another, it's more instructive to look at homicides [0], rather than homicides of a particular flavor. A careful look at that list will make it clear that elevated homicide rates are a legacy of colonization, at least as much as legal policy. Those in the Americas or Africa can't really be blamed that they were colonized by Europeans. Therefore, nations in the bottom, say, third of the table for those continents really aren't doing such a bad job.
They also have laws that prohibit most people from carrying loaded guns.
Not sure I understand. Switzerland has 1/2 the guns, but nowhere near 50% of the US' homicide rate. Are you saying the ability to legally carry a gun is the reason for the difference?
The states that legally allow carrying a concealed weapon without a permit (VT, AK) have some of the lowest murder rates of all states.
Mandatory execution sees offenders only as their offence, rather than human beings, and denies offenders the opportunity to change for the better. It is cynical and pessimistic.
Your response and the thinking it indicates gave me a chill. You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law. Either you think firearm possession is inherently immoral (problematic but defensible position), or you think moral law and state law are equivalent (terrifying position) or you think something else that I haven't thought of. My experience in Singapore showed that the moral/state equivalence position was very common. It was the most unsafe "safe" place I've ever been in.
When we arrived at the airport, my wife was detained because the silver earrings she was wearing were cast from a mold to look like empty bullet cartridges (with feathers and various doodads attached, nothing that had attracted any attention in any of a dozen high security settings). The bureaucrat who interrogated her claimed that whether she was in very serious trouble or not was entirely in his hands.
I'm no second amendment fanatic, but as an American, it was shocking to find myself in a position where some minor official could plausibly even claim to have so much power. The fact that Singaporean society is willing to make that kind of tradeoff for the sake of safety made me realize that it was not somewhere I could ever live.
The craziest part was that the Singaporeans and expats I met there did not even see it as a tradeoff. It was more like "these are the rules, if you follow them you will be so safe, whether the rules are right or just or good isn't a well-posed question". We were just having two different conversations.
> You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law.
What are these moral laws you speak of? Your opinions on what is right and what is wrong?
The cases you present for firearm possession is simply a case of false dichotomy. Firearm possession is not inherently immoral. The armies of the country would definitely need them to protect the country against others, especially for Singapore who is surrounded by hostile neighbours.
Citizen ownership of firearms, on the other hand, is a highly impractical thing. It is illegal to own firearms in the country and that is just how the laws of the countries were set up in the first place. I would not go as far as to say that owning them is immoral, but by intentionally breaking the laws of the country, what are you trying to imply?
First, we weren't intentionally breaking any law. Second, arguing for or against firearms is beside the point. I'm arguing against people blindly obeying any law, if it comes at the expense of exercising sound personal judgment.
While I don't disagree, it's worth noting that any minor official at any airport -- and this very much includes the US -- has very, very wide-ranging powers over non-citizens traipsing through. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
Singaporean officials are also very keen on following the letter of the law, and in Singapore that letter happens to state that unauthorized possession of ammunition is a Very Big Deal.