Can a country with open borders EVER ban guns?

[cherokeeprogressive]

Secondary question: Is it possible to get Cocaine in the United States with anything more than a phone call? Two phone calls, and I can be tootin' it up within the hour, DELIVERED. Twenty four fucking seven. If it's that easy to get something that isn't manufactured in the United States, and is illegal to the point of mandatory jail sentences, how are you going to keep people from buying guns without SEALING the borders?

You can come to my house after passing laws that say I can't own a gun and take the guns I inherited from me. I won't even say boo if you do it legally.

Know this though... If I WANT a gun, I'll get a gun. With two phone calls. Twenty four fucking seven. Same as anyone else.

Too expensive you say? Do you understand how the market works, and how much it costs to manufacture a gun?

[underahedgerow]

1. Ask France.

Open borders, no guns.

Just sensible, law abiding citizens.

You know, like Canada, Australia, the UK, and pretty much any country in Europe, etc. See any fences?

Nope.

How's them gun and drugs possession rates comparing for ya there?

Heckuvalot lower than the USA.

I fully support a complete and total ban on all guns in the USA, with the exception of highly regulated use for agricultural purposes. #GunsBanUSA

Just sayin'.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. So the Charlie Hebdo massacre didn't happen then? NO GUNS?

MMMkay.

Just. Sayin'.

[underahedgerow]

7. Yes, indeed it did, and it was horrifying. Do you constantly see spree killings in the headlines

in France?

No.

Is it a weekly occurrence in France?

No.

Are citizens murdered by cops every week in France?

No.

I'd choose the country with the logical gun laws over the wild wild west paranoid mentality of the USA. It's just common sense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. You see a spree killing every time spree killers want to see a spree killing

[villager]

51. +1. A good level-headed response to the usual straw-grasping. nt

[LanternWaste]

71. You then warrant a law successful only when 100% effective?

You then warrant a law successful only when 100% effective?

Just sayin', part deux.

[SpookyDem]

3. Just pointing out France and Canada both have guns, but think there is registration there

[underahedgerow]

4. You THINK they have registration? In France you have to make an application just to buy

the BULLETS for your hunting/agricultural use, and account for every. single. bullet.

Canada will place you under arrest if you try to bring a gun across the border without declaring it.

In Australia a person who wants to possess or use a firearm must have a firearm licence. Licence holders must be at least 18 years of age, have a "genuine reason" for holding a firearm licence and must not be a "prohibited person". All firearms in Australia must be registered by serial number to the owner, who holds a firearms licence, except that firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 may not need to be registered in some states. The firearm owner must have secure storage for the firearm. Firearms dealers must be over 21 years of age and hold a dealer's licence, and dealers' employees must be vetted by the police. "Prohibited persons" cannot be employed by dealers. Besides other requirements, dealers must ensure that the purchaser of a firearm holds a firearm licence, must maintain a register and must notify police of each transaction.

They've got a rather large 'open border', if I may point that out. They're doing just fine.

[SpookyDem]

6. It seemed you were saying that they didnt have guns in those countries,

[TeddyR]

26. Australia strikes me as a unique situation

If someone wants to buy a gun in Australia it isn't like they can just hop across the border to Mexico/Canada.

[underahedgerow]

31. that's true, but for example, anyone from Canada could go to Alaska or the USA and sneak

a gun across their many thousands of miles of unmanned borders, through the woods, over the river, etc.

But they don't, do they? Why not?

Because it's against the law.

[Red Mountain]

60. Australia has an immense unguarded coastline

Same deal.

[former9thward]

73. No one breaks the law in Canada?

Any illegal drugs in Canada?

[underahedgerow]

74. Not 'no one'. But most citizens respect the law for exactly what it is. That's why society

in large part, functions. Most people don't break the law. They have driver's licenses, pay taxes, pay their bills, work for a living, don't harm each other, drive on the correct side of the road, stop at stop signs, etc.

Not everyone is a character in Breaking Bad

[former9thward]

75. So no illegal drugs in Canada.

Cool story bro.

[underahedgerow]

81. What's your point?

Go ahead, explain yourself.

[SheilaT]

78. Didn't know that. Thanks for the information.

Every time I suggest complete and total confiscation of guns, people are oddly opposed. The hunters in particular. WE ARE PEACEFUL HUNTERS, the assure me, and bemoan what gun confiscation will do to their hunting.

And here's what I propose (and have for several years now): if you're a hunter, the gun(s) you use for hunting will be stored in a central facility, and you check them, and the bullets out when hunting season starts and you have the appropriate licenses. Why in the world would you need the guns when it's not hunting season?

What so much enrages me on this topic is the complete denial that it's the fucking guns that are at issue. And the pious claims that we can't possibly change anything, second amendment and all. I'm so totally pissed off that the gun apologists apparently consider guns vastly more important than any one person's right to remain alive, that I'm somewhat incoherent on this topic.

If we had some sort of army go door to door and take away every single gun, the lives saved would be totally worth it. And I've had it with the claims that guns somehow save lives, or that gun owners discourage intruders at rates that make up for the thirty or so who are killed each and every day by a gun in this country.

I sincerely wish that every single one of the apologists would suffer the consequences of their defense of guns. Let your two year old kill your five year old. Is that okay? Let your cousin be murdered by her estranged spouse. No problem, right? Let your fourteen year old brother commit suicide with a gun. No problem there, yes?

Me? I'm totally outraged at the gun violence in this country. Worse yet, there's usually a concentration on those killed. What about the vastly larger numbers who are simply wounded? Maimed? Crippled? Don't they matter at all?

And I personally have never been affected by gun violence. I sincerely hope I never will be.

[underahedgerow]

82. I agree completely.

The closest I came to gun violence was when my brother would torment me for hours by holding a loaded 12 gauge shotgun (you know, dad's hunting rifle...) to my head for hours and threaten to kill me.

That happened often between the ages of 8 and 12. He was one year older, and psychotic.

I think my position is pretty clear. It's time more people just say it out loud, and encourage others of the like minds to say so too.

[Petrushka]

5. "...guns...for agricultural purposes." ???

Of course, that makes sense: Gotta shoot all of them danged
bean beetles and cabbage worms, don't y' know!?

[underahedgerow]

8. Not clear on the concept? Wild boars are a dangerous menace in the rural areas of France,

and they are the primary target of farmers, i.e., agricultural purposes. There has been a rise in wolf problems as well, and their killing is sanctioned also.

That's the definition of 'agricultural purpose' for guns use in France.

[Petrushka]

13. On our farm "back home" in West Virginia . . .

. . . it was mainly deer herds and raccoons that caused the most damage to crops; but
it was rabid foxes that enabled my husband to finally convince me there should be a rifle in the
house and that both I and my teenage daughter learn how to use it.

As for the deer and raccoons? Irish Spring soap shavings worked well enough to keep those pests
away. . . almost as well as our German Shepherd guard dog.

[underahedgerow]

14. I agree completely! That certainly falls under the 'agricultural purposes' realm,

and should be the extent to which guns are permitted in the USA.

Cheers!

[Petrushka]

17. I forgot to mention . . . .

. . . although we posted No Hunting signs around our property, we gave written permission
to a few hunters during open season on deer, aware that those hunters filled their freezers
with venison to feed their families---and knowing that some of those deer had developed a
a gourmet's taste for some of the goodies in my kitchen garden!

[Jim Beard]

25. Yes and the agricultural purposes can be performed by an expanded game warden department.

[Red Mountain]

61. No, actually they can't

Our local animal control is useless to farmers.

They can't always be there.

[Jim Beard]

66. If you start having problems with hogs,

nothing is better than a helicopter and high quality night vision goggles.

[Odin2005]

39. Right, ban hunting, good way to lose the vote of every rural person.

[AntiBank]

76. lololol if you think the EU and AUS and NZ have open borders

ridiculous

If you are an American with no ties try and move here. You better have hella skills plus a job offer or several million to qualify as an investor.

[Major Nikon]

9. Apples and oranges

Drugs are an addictive consumable vice and the public will to eradicate them is low because most people inherently recognize the harm is pretty much exclusive to those who use them. None of this is true with guns.

Not to mention banning and eradication are two very different things. Banning something drives the commerce underground. So while some might be able to engage in a successful illicit transaction, most will not because it's not as if the sellers can openly advertise. Even if you can, every aspect of the transaction carries the dual risk of either knowingly dealing with criminals or unknowingly dealing with law enforcement. Most will be unwilling to take those risks.

[madville]

10. Guns are easy to manufacture

Many people just buy them because it is more convenient and cost-effective. Remember that semi-automatic technology and many designs still used today are over 100 years old.

With automated machining, and now, 3D printing, manufacturing such things is not difficult.

People also cast their own bullets and make their own gunpowder as hobbies here now, also fairly simple processes, it's just easier for most to buy at the store now.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Not necessarily for an individual, at least from scrap...

Organizations could build guns, yes, and assembling a gun is as easy as putting together Ikea furniture, but making the parts themselves, particularly in a reliable manner? At the moment, we aren't sure how reliable 3D printed metal parts for guns would be, nor the boring for the barrel, or whether such manufacturing methods would hold up to the stress of repeatedly firing a gun.

It would be relatively easy to build a single use gun from scrap, but reliable weapons that don't need replacing or major servicing for a while? Doubtful.

[ret5hd]

30. Go to aprox 3:30 in this video:

and this:

I guess what i'm saying is that:
Is gun making simple? Can be, yes.
Is gun making easy? Uhhhmmm, nah, not really.

There's a big diff between simple and easy.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. True, I just think that if we were to remove millions of guns from circulation in this country...

that they won't be replaced by homemade replicas. Too much effort, for not enough bang for the buck, plus the pricing on these homemade weapons would be through the roof.

Will there be some? Yes, of course, but generally speaking, it would be relatively rare.

[ret5hd]

45. Agree completely.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. If we were to remove most guns from circulation, we might have a slight uptick...

in misfire accidents from homemade guns, so many would be made with combustion chambers made of weak metal, or cobbled together barrels, lots of missing fingers, hands, and even some fatalities wouldn't be surprising.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. I live in Switzerland.

We have open borders with all other "Schengen" countries. We do NOT have mass spree gun-related killings here, except on VERY rare occasions. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre

Insofar as gun-related killings in "advanced" countries are concerned, the US is not only in a different world, it might as well be in a different universe. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Here are some statistics generally: http://www.gunpolicy.org/

Upthread, France was mentioned. Here are gun policy facts and figures relating to France. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france

It is not a question of BANNING guns altogether. It is a question of not allowing certain types of weapons readily accessible to untrained civilians who do not use them responsibly. It involves registration, licensing, education, and common sense practices. And yes, it can involve outright bans on certain types of firearms and ammunition.

Simply put, those policies all work one heckuva lot better than what we have in the US.

[underahedgerow]

15. Agreed. When an 11 year old can buy a gun in the USA, but can't buy cigarettes or

booze, something is seriously, seriously wrong with the entire system.

When it takes a woman a longer and more arduous process to get birth control than it takes to get a gun, it's definitely time for major change across the board.

Men and the NRA have been having their way for much too long in the USA. It's not doing everyone any good.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. + a million or so! eom

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Where can an 11 year old buy a gun?

[underahedgerow]

21. This kid is 13.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/06/16/hidden-cam-13-year-old-tried-buy-porn-beer-gun-guess-one-got-video/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. That transaction is illegal, far more illegal than buying a pack of cigarettes.

[HassleCat]

53. Most Swiss appreciate their duty to their fellow citizens.

I'm sure you have noticed a difference in attitude. The Swiss do not see freedom as merely the ability to do whatever they want at any given moment. They recognize a responsibility to society as a whole. Ordnung muss sein, and all that.

[safeinOhio]

18. How many calls and how long would it take you

to get your hands on the highly regulated, licensed and taxed full auto? How often are they used in crimes here? You don't think gangs and bank robbers wouldn't love to have them? How come laws regulating full auto works so well?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Ask Australia.

Banned most guns. Stopped having mass shootings.

[TeddyR]

28. Australia is an island in the middle of the ocean

Not a country with thousand mile long open borders with Canada and Mexico

[roamer65]

57. Canada and Mexico have much more stringent gun control than the US.

With Mexico, it's a two way problem...drugs come in and guns go back. In fact, the majority of gun related deaths in Mexico now come from .38 special ammunition. The United States just happens to be the largest market for .38 special. That's not a coincidence.

With Canada, most of the illegal guns come in from the US across the St Lawrence River. I remember reading they go for about $2000 on the streets of Toronto.

[Kang Colby]

23. Western Europe has had much lower homicide rates than the U.S. for well over 100 years.

Long before contemporary gun control can take credit for. Why would gun control or bans have the effect of reducing our homicide rates to U.K. levels rather than raising them to Brazil levels? Brazil has strict gun control, yet look at the homicide rate.

I'm simply suggesting that by heavily controlling gun ownership in the U.S. you can't conclude that we will reduce our homicide rates to European levels. Culturally, we are very different as the historic record shows.

[edhopper]

24. you are right

BANNING ALL GUNS will never work. So lets do nothing, right.
Nice strawman.

[underahedgerow]

32. I'm all or nothing. Continuing this dance with the NRA and gun humpers WON'T work.

Look at the state of health care in the USA, thanks to compromise with the Big Insurance PACs and Republicans that they own. It's better, but not by much and very flawed.

The same thing would happen with any compromise or half measures, or by letting the NRA have any hand at all in this matter. Nothing would change, the murder rates would stay the same. Not to mention it would take decades, during which hundreds of thousands more would die.

[Marengo]

38. As long as you openly admit a complete ban is your goal, it won't be realized.

[underahedgerow]

41. I think it's the only way to get the message across. If the majority of people express this

wish out loud and from the rooftops, it has more of a chance.

Holding hands and singing kum by yah, having silent threads and candle-light vigils solves nothing.

Getting pissed off and speaking the collective consciousness as loud as possible is the only effective measure. If one person has the balls to say 'ban all guns now', then another might pluck up the courage to say the same thing.

Sure beats arguing with stupids (not you, I'm referring to gun humpers and republicans!)

[Hoyt]

27. So you ban guns and 50% of the shootings continue. I'd call that a big friggin success.

Nothing is 100% effective. A 10% improvement is worth pursuing.

At what point would you consider restricting some of your guns to save lives, especially long-term?

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. None of my guns will ever take a life, Hoyt.

That's the detail people like you seem to dismiss when you call for a ban on all guns. If you had read my post in its entirety you'd have seen the part where I said if you came to get my guns after changing the law, I'd give them up. What have you done by way of changing the law so I can't own a firearm? Have you contributed a single dollar, or authored a single sentence in a place other than here?

If you ban sane, reasonable, law-abiding citizens from owning guns, the people who want guns for the wrong reasons will still get them, and without batting an eye. That's the other detail people like you dismiss. You seem to think banning guns will put an end to bad people being bad. It won't. I can get an illegal gun by the end of this day. And I'm not a bad person... I just know people who know bad people. In fact, I can buy a pound of good weed today, put it in the bathroom with a humidifier for a couple hours so it gets heavier from the moisture, and make enough profit from it to guy two guns tomorrow. You think banning guns will make it so I couldn't do that? Wherever do you get the notion that you're going to be safer after banning guns than you are before banning them? Ban crime. That's the ticket Hoyt; ban crime. Make it illegal to commit a crime, and double-plus illegal to commit a crime with a gun. Oh wait...

[Humanist_Activist]

43. How do you know that? Are they impossible for people to steal? Is it impossible to point them at...

someone and pull the trigger?

Statistically speaking, the evidence points to the fact that you are more of a risk to both yourself, other members of your household and society at large by just possessing those guns.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. Impossible to steal?

Know what? I'm going to say yes, they are impossible to steal. The gun safe came from Home Depot and two big young delivery guys struggled to get it up the stairs on a hand truck to the front door. It weighs 250 lbs empty and that's why I bought it. It replaced the gun case my Dad made when I was a kid.

The rest of your statistic stuff is silly. Society at large being at risk because I have guns locked in a safe is laughable at best, and I ain't shootin' anyone with my guns nor is anyone shootin' me with 'em.

[Humanist_Activist]

67. So you never remove them from the safe? Never go sport shooting or hunting?

Or leave them in the car? Etc.

I do find it interesting that so many people discard the best available evidence we have because they are special snowflakes. I mean, if you have contrary evidence that isn't anecdotal and/or unique to you, show it, but don't claim that something can't happen when its possible it can. No different than a motorcyclist/car driver claiming they are a good driver and so don't wear a helmet/seat belt.

[SheilaT]

79. Well, good for you.

I'm impressed. But how about all those others who leave guns where a two year old can find them?

Maybe, instead of confiscating all guns (my preferred solution) we simply require -- and go door to door to verify this -- that all of those with guns have a similar 250 lb gun safe. But wait, how can we insure that no one can possibly get into it? I see a small problem here.

If there were no guns in the first place, no need for the gun safe.

And if you never shoot your guns, why do you have them?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. lol. your posts are getting funnier by the moment. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. It's a rare talent... thinking of things that bring constant ridicule.

Few people can claim to have it.

I have a blast with it though.

[LWolf]

34. I want open borders.

I'm not sure I want to ban guns.

I don't like guns. I don't now, and never have, owned a gun. I wish people didn't worship them, and I wish people didn't, deliberately or in ignorance, misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

That said, I think that banning them...a "war on guns"...would work just as effectively as the "war on drugs." It would make the problem worse, not better.

I'd like stricter, and more strictly enforced, regulations. Hand in hand with that, I'd like a campaign to change this country's sick, dysfunctional addiction to fear, hate, rage, needy insecurity, and phallic inadequacy that feeds the gun culture. Somewhere in there, knocking the NRA off its damned pedestal would be good, too.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. "phallic inadequacy". I love that. I KNOW my guns don't make my tiny dick bigger.

They never have, and they never will. Especially the inherited ones. Being the last male in my bloodline, they just kind of gravitated to me. They're heirlooms. Damn, come to think of it, I guess I inherited the tiny dick too.

[LWolf]

37. Not all symptoms

fit every gun owner, lol.

I live rurally. I'm surrounded by guns. My neighbors, my community, my coworkers, even my teenage students...they all have guns. Yet, somehow, I'm not afraid of them.

It doesn't bother me that they hunt; at least, that they hunt for food. I don't like trophy hunts. Killing should not be a sport, imo.

It doesn't bother me that they use guns to keep critters out of their fields, or for competition shooting.

Love of the NRA bothers me. Hatred of the Democratic potus, and constantly feeding the myth about him being out to "get our guns" bothers me.

Some of their gun-related solutions to some of my own rural issues are amusing, to say the least, and dismaying as well. Like the suggestion that I deal with mice by shooting them. Granted, that was a teenage boy, but still. Then there was the adult nearing retirement age, who heard me talking to someone else about not letting my cats out because of the great horned owl that roosts and nests right outside the back door. He suggested shooting it. No thanks.

I just want them regulated. Even more, I want some comprehensive work on creating a healthier culture that would greatly reduce the likelihood of people reaching for guns to solve their problems with other people, or people taking their guns for granted to the point that "accidents" are not rare.

[Eleanors38]

47. No wonder she made that weird smile and gave me a Daisy BB Gun for my B-Day!

[MirrorAshes]

40. Right-o! No bother even trying. Nothing to see here!

[Humanist_Activist]

44. As far as I'm aware of, Mexican cartels get's most of its guns from the United States.

Now, if you were to reduce and eventually eliminate the circulation and distribution of most gun types in the United States, along with having buyback programs, then the ease in which to obtain a gun would be reduced. It would require more time and money to be invested to get one. The knock on effect may help reduce gun crime in 3 countries rather than just one.

[Eleanors38]

48. Heh. Maybe via the Mexican military, via the U.S.? Or the millions in circulation...

in Central America since the Caribbean Basin initiatives and para-military wars? Yeah, I could see that. Funny thing, this prohibition addiction Americans have.

[Humanist_Activist]

49. I have a question, does gun control work in Canada?

As far as I'm aware of, guns are quite heavily regulated, particularly handguns, yet they share the largest unprotected border with the United States.

Should we simply do nothing and just become resigned to the fact that tens of thousands will die annually from the barrel of a gun?

[Eleanors38]

50. You have conflicting questions. I have no idea if gun control works in Canada.

I have been told that they junked a huge and expensive part of their control laws, but who knows.

As far as Mexico goes, there is a war going on in that country to see which cartel gains the upperhand in running much if not all of that country. This war is based on another war: the WOD. Those who support and continue to support the WOD can better answer your questions about the "tens of thousands" who have been killed in Mexico. In this country, we have barely one (1) ten thousand killed annually, a figure which represents a massive drop since the high point of the late 1960s. I do not include the twenty-some-odd thousand who commit suicide since methodology is fluid (Japan has a higher rate, yet finding a gun there is like finding a cold Pepsi on the Plain of Jars).

I note Mexico's gun laws are highly restrictive. On paper.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. I would agree that the war on drugs has been very damaging to many places in the world...

increasing violent crime rates, etc.

I just don't understand the resistance to mitigating risk through reducing circulation of firearms as well. Ideally worldwide, even among "authority figures" such as the police and military.

The ease in which it takes to take someone else's life should be a cause for concern. Yet we are supposed to just accept it, and for what? To protect what amounts to a hobby?

ON EDIT: Also, I don't understand why you discard suicides, the fact is that having a gun in the home actually increases the likelihood of a suicide attempt, even when the gun isn't used, that seems to indicate perhaps other issues are present. But more importantly, when guns are used in suicide attempts, they are much more likely to succeed versus other methods.

[Eleanors38]

56. Actually, I see no evidence that the # of guns in circulation causes crime increases...

Violent crime has decreased here, even as number of guns in circ. has gone from ±190,000,000 in the latter 90s to over 300,000,000 now. And I am not yet convinced that the gun increase caused the murder descrease, either.

There are countries which have higher suicide rates than ours; some have guns commonly in circulation, others do not.

I am most impressed by the expense, corruption, breakdown in law, and unproductive -- nay, counter-productive -- results of prohibition. And as Stevie Wonder said "We are amazed, but not amused" by the almost addictive reliance on that form of social control in spite of all the evidence that it doesn't work and that reliance on it does us great harm.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. I don't believe the prohibition comparison is that valid, if it were, then nations that do have...

gun control that causes de facto bans on certain classes of firearms would have firearm involved violence rates similar to ours. I mean, if you want to compare us to nations that already aren't the most politically stable, nor have semi-reliable or effective law enforcement and things of that nature, then yes, it appears that "prohibition" of firearms is a failure.

But, compared to other nations that have much stronger gun control laws, it appears that this form of "social control" actually works as long as rule of law is also effective.

[Eleanors38]

68. Nations with a history of low crime rates continue with that low rate, gun controls or no.

Most notable is Great Britain, whose laws virtually banning firearms is mainly a 20th Century phenomenon. That nation's history of low crime rates dates back much further. My take on the spate of bans and controls which started in the early 1900s was in response to rising concerns over militant trade union movements, the rise of radical socialism, and returning vets having access to a surfeit of arms. The motivation for these measures appears not to be a response to crime, but a response to threats to established capitalistic order.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. Actually, per capita, criminality in the United Kingdom is higher...

Violent crime is higher in the United States, but looking at this data:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

It seems heavily skewed due to the firearm murder rate in the United States. The reason I say its skewed is because, from a physics standpoints, its physically harder to kill someone with most available weapons in the UK, and certainly not with the ease of a firearm.

For example, the United States has a lower percentage of people who are victims of assault per year, indicating that violence, in general, is relatively on par with the UK. The question is, what could be the aggravating factor or factors for the outlier that is the murder rate?

[Eleanors38]

70. Interesting speculative question in your last paragraph.

I don't know the answer, but several thousands of Americans are killed each year using knives, clubs and bare hands. This suggests the desire to criminally take life is strong in this country, and would persist even in the fanciful world of a gun ban. (Anecdotal, I know but Austin, TX during one year of recorded homicide (2012?) listed "knife or sharp-edge instrument" as the No. 1 weapon of choice. No one would ever accuse Texas, including "Moscow-on-the-Colorado," as being short on guns.)

Then there is Rwanda...

[Humanist_Activist]

72. According to the data I linked, the rate of violence is about the same...

actually a little worse in the UK, the difference seems to be in the lethality of assaults. What is the big difference between US and UK citizens that make US citizen more likely to kill each other? Do they have easier access to knives, clubs and fists?

[Eleanors38]

93. I imagine the history goes well back to before our revolution, even further for the British.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. What are you talking about? The point seems to have gone over your head...

what tool do Americans have widespread access to that the British do not? Remember the rates of assault are damn near identical, or, at the very least comparable. We are not more violent than the British. Are you claiming guns are no more lethal than knives?

[Eleanors38]

95. I am saying that England, for whatever reason, has a lower homicide rate because...

Homicide is not a common objective in crime. In this society, take away guns, and our homicide rate is STILL high, higher than the usual suspect "western" countries. What is so difficult about understanding that?

[Humanist_Activist]

96. Homicide isn't an objective to most crime in the United States either, is your argument...

seriously that we are more murderous than the British?

In addition, are you seriously arguing that reducing access to firearms to everyone won't lower the murder rate?

[Eleanors38]

97. No, homicide is NOT the objective of most crime in the U.S....

but this country has a significant criminal population where murder and mayhem IS the objective. "No witnesses," "Initiation," "Juice," "Jailhouse Celebrity," etc. may be the motivations, among others. This might explain why, when homicides-by-gun are subtracted from All homicides, the U.S. STILL leads the so-called Western nation pack.in homicides.

[roamer65]

58. Yes, it does work in Canada.

However, the the biggest problem for Canada is the smuggling of guns across the border.

You can own more than u would think in Canada, but you have to go through MUCH more rigourous gun training and background checks to be able to own guns in the "restricted" classes.

A Canadian who wishes to own firearms takes a course administered by the RCMP. If they pass the test and background check they are given what is known as a "PAL". It is their possession and aquisition license. No PAL, no buy. Passage of a second course and its associated checks, allows them an "RPAL". That license allows possession and aquisition of the restricted class of firearms, which includes many handguns...even some AR-15 type weapons. Magazine capacity DOES matter in Canada, btw. Quite often it will determine "non-restricted" vs "restricted".

People think because they see the "No handguns in Canada" sign at the border, that they are banned. Wrong. It is because you do not have a license to possess one in Canada.

[Warpy]

54. Light switch question

If something isn't 100% perfect, why should we bother trying?

Let's close all the hospitals because some people die in them instead of getting better and going home.

That's what that question means. It doesn't say that people will be alive and well who wouldn't be if we hadn't at least tried. It says that since some folks are going to die of illness--or be shot by the relatively few guns getting in--we shouldn't bother to try to save the rest.

It's a pretty shameful type of question.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. Unsurprisingly, yes, it is a shameful question.

[Red Mountain]

62. You CAN ban them

but you also have to make the possession of banned weapons so legally painful that reasonable people will opt out. Destroy the market. Change the culture.

What would work? A month in prison for a first offense? 10 years for a second?

Forget the war on drugs. Empty the prisons of non violent drug offenders.

Fill them with people who violate the new draconian gun laws.

BTW, I own guns.

[mwrguy]

65. Sounds like a plan

[Eko]

77. Sure, since you asked an extreme question

I will give you an extreme answer. Make it punishable with the death penalty. Pretty sure you wont have two phone calls you could make to get a gun, let alone one. Is that the answer?, of course not but you asked an absolute and I gave it to you. We could even go with 20 years in prison, pretty sure your phone calls would dry up then also. See how easy that is?.

[TipTok]

80. Saw how well that worked with the drug trade...

[Eko]

83. It worked very well

to limit the amount of drugs here. Look at the states where it is legal to have weed now, its everywhere, states where it is illegal, not everywhere. Not saying what is morally right or wrong, just saying that it works.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Name a city in the United States where there is no marijuana, meth, or heroin.

(key Jeopardy music)

[Eko]

88. Uh,

Name a state where no one speeds, where no one kills anyone, or breaks any laws at all. Should we get rid of those laws because they dont stop it entirely?

[cherokeeprogressive]

89. Don't put words in my mouth. You said in states were drugs were illegal, they weren't "everywhere".

I just asked where they weren't. In states where they're illegal, that is.

[Eko]

90. Its a simple fact

that states where weed is not illegal have way more than states where it is illegal.

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. That's not what you said.

You said in states where it's illegal, it's not "everywhere". I simply asked you where it's not.

[Eko]

92. Its not

in stores. Good enough?

[malaise]

84. Can an island with a wide open coastline

ban guns?

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. Hint: They haven't.