Forum menu
They'll all be factors. But if you already have those conditions one of the tools to combat the problem is gun control, which would (in theory) affect both the availability and cultural elements. To what extent is debatable!
Noltae do you seriously argue that Mexico's problems are down to too few guns ?
Lots of guns and gun violence in mexico because it's a poor country awash with guns with a massive drug problem lax attitude to gun ownership and poor enforcement of the law.
Less gun crime in Switzerland as it is a very homogeneous rich country with strict rules on guns a cultural mindset of responsibility and respect for firearms and very rigid law enforcement.
The very obvious answer to your question is no, it is the socio economic / geopolitical / cultural context and the prevalence of guns that determines the levels of gun violence.
Have you got a point you wish to make as opposed to all these questions?
The "Good guy with a gun" argument
Zurich vs Mexico city - which one are you going to choose to wander about late at night?
I bet you'd find a better party in Mexico City
If they introduced a law that simply stated all weaponns could only legally carry 6 rounds of amunition before being reloaded. And then banned all automatic weapons, so one pull of the trigger is 1 round, not a full magazine of 30 rounds .
Most revolvers are fine , hunting rifles used for legitimet purposes pretty much all covered . All of the Uzi, Ingram, H@K room clearers all need to be modded by a gunsmith or crushed
Yes, you can all bear arms , but you will be outgunned by the Police and Army instsantly. I know it only takes 2 second to swap a mag in an automatic pistol but coupled with 1pull = 1 round the rate of fire is an awful lot lower.
It wont stop school shootings but surely something along these lines would at least be a start.
Full autos are essentially banned already
Yes, you can all bear arms , but you will be outgunned by the Police and Army instsantly.
This is the country where they've even banned research into gun violence, in case it comes up with the wrong answers.
Harper-Mercer had 6 firearms on him when he walked into the school, presumably he left the other 7 at home because he couldn't carry them all.
^That is the part I find interesting. One weapon with sufficient magazines and training would be just as effective.
Bonkers.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/donald-trump-oregon-mass-shooting-gunmen-geniuses ]“The gun laws have nothing to do with this. This is mental illness.”[/url]
it's just nutters with guns, what can you do ? 🙄
“The gun laws have nothing to do with this. This is mental illness.”
As Obama pointed out other countries also have people with mental illness, they don't however have mass killings to the extent that the US has, which suggests that gun laws perhaps play a greater role than mental illness.
It's also worth noting that gun-luving Republican politicians have a tendency to quickly offer mental illness as the excuse for a mass killing only when it doesn't involve a Muslim, if a Muslim is involved then it's simply because they are "evil".
There aren't any mentally ill Muslims. Apparently.
Sums a lot of it up really.
[img] 
[/img]
The difference between the failed shoe bomber and the school shootings is that shoe manufacturers didn't use their financial muscle to demand that US politicians allow everyone to wear their shoes in airports.
The problem isn't winning the argument in favour of tighter gun controls, that argument it would appear has been won, the problem is that tighter controls on organisations such as the NRA to stop them perverting democracy is needed
Perhaps kevlar vests and coffins should be made exempt from sales tax?
But...no matter what you do with gun laws, if some crank fancies killing a few people...theyr'e gonna kill some people. Samurai sword, axe, crossbow, bomb, catapult etc etc.
The only difference is in the amount of people you can kill in a given time scale. Guns kill more people quicker I suppose.
The problem isn't winning the argument in favour of tighter gun controls, that argument it would appear has been won,
Really?
[img] 
[/img]
plenty of polling here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Guns kill more people quicker I suppose.
Well they do seem to be the weapon of choice in school shootings.
Really?
Well I was going by what Obama claimed ninfan, and as US President I assume that he has looked into the problem more closely than you and I have.
[i]Mr Obama cited polls that find "the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws".
A mid-July survey by the Pew Research Center seems to support his claim. Almost 80% of respondents backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, and 70% were in favour of a national gun-sale database. [/i]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34429918
Well they do seem to be the weapon of choice in school shootings.
Because theyr'e easy to get hold of, yes/no?
A mid-July survey by the Pew Research Center seems to support his claim. Almost 80% of respondents backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, and 70% were in favour of a national gun-sale database.
Cherry picking
since when has anyone proposed that mad people should be allowed guns? Almost all states already prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing firearms:
Full Pew report here:
quite specifically says that results have hardly changed over past two years, and most of the changes are well within margin of error.
[quote=ernie_lynch ]Almost 80% of respondents backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms
Hmm, so other people, who aren't good guys. I'm not sure that actually supports him in the way he claims.
Cherry picking
Which is of course exactly what you're doing. Still, no worries, I'm not going to argue with you.
Obama stood before the America people and said [i]""the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws"[/i] citing polls.
If that's not true then it suggests that Obama stood before the American people and lied to them. Since the American people would presumably be aware of this it would be a ridiculous thing to do.
So on that basis I accept Obama's claims over the claims made by you ninfan.
Without wishing to send the debate (even further) down market, what kind of Americans are sufficiently into guns to want to keep the status quo?
Statistics are all well and good but do 'normal' Americans have this thing about guns too or is it just the trashy useless ones? By normal I mean, the ones which might possibly be able to pass themselves off a civilised Europeans (save bad taste in 'slacks' and an extra bit of lard). In my head the gun totting Americans are the inbred southern hicks incapable of stringing a sentence together(and the teenage boys fantasising about blowing away their classmates obvs), but its clearly more of them than that.
The whole thing is so alien to me I struggle to get me head around it. If they could give a Darwin award to an entire nation the US would surely be a contender - the irony being most of them don't seem to believe in Darwin too!
exactly what you're doing
How? I linked you to the study the BBC were quoting?
Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
So, shock horror, 80% of people support something that [u]is already the law[/u]
You're not listening ninfan, I said [i]"it would appear"[/i], you even copied and pasted my quote. I am basing my comment on what Obama said, I couldn't give a monkeys what you claim. End of.
I said "it would appear"
[img] 
[/img]
And I pointed you to [b]data[/b] which indicates the argument doesn't "appear to have been won" 😆
Send your "data" to the US President, he might be interested in the opinions of half-wit Tory troll, I'm certainly not.
what kind of Americans are sufficiently into guns to want to keep the status quo?
You've got to understand the history of America to answer this. Their country was founded because they were being oppressed by a government, and the idea of standing up to government was part of the propaganda campaign that the pro-independence side had to wage. The constitution was set up to avoid government having too much power. So people are generally anti government, or you could say libertarian.
The right to bear arms has become symbolic of the libertarian cause, which itself has a lot of support. Although increased gun control specifically is favoured by most Americans. But, a lot of rich conservatives are of course libertarian along with that, and they are the ones who can afford to get their way when it comes to gun control.
Ah, Sorry Ernie - I guess you're actually ignoring me and not arguing about it then, like you always claim you are just after not ignoring me and arguing about something?
look, you put forward a proposition that the issue of tighter gun controls was settled, I pointed you to open source data that says otherwise - theres no reason to have a big strop about it.
Mol grips - I've suggested for some time that one of the issues here is that a great many Americans are from a relatively young family history (first or second generation) of fleeing from persecution - they carry living history of government tyranny, that fear is therefore somewhat magnified.
Almost 80% of respondents backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms
it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
No mention that they have to do any checks just that they cannot suspect it
Is there any evidence they bother to check to see ?
Any training for staff to spot them?
any test in the shop?
seems a bit like they say they cannot sell them rather than they cannot attempt to buy them
Without reasonable checks that law is worthless
All genuine questions not aimed at ninfan as he gets too excited about guns and trolls even more than usual.
theres no reason to have a big strop about it.
Of course not. There's also no reason to get into a googling frenzy with an internet point-scorer.
what kind of Americans are sufficiently into guns to want to keep the status quo?
Don't think of it as a social class but rather more a political leaning. Basically, people who are commies support gun control.
To a lot of people, it really is that simple. They don't seek to properly understand the issues, and just see 'gun control' as a direct attack on their 'freedom'. This is despite the US being utterly hide-bound with red tape, petty bureaucracy and some of the worst small-minded localism I've ever experienced.
I live in Virginia, where there is no documentation of gun transactions, gun fairs are common and the open carry of guns is not illegal (so I could carry a handcannon in a holster on show and that's OK). Yet I have to buy spirits from a state-owned and run store that decides what alcohol is available in the state for me to buy. In the US, homeowners associations are common (I live in an area with one). If you could imagine a housing estate with rules for house colour, garden standards, what you can / can't park in your drive etc and everyone pays in for common landscaping, facilities etc. So, a voluntary set of additional rules that you pay to have imposed upon you. There are pros and cons, but it's another set of rules. You also need to pass a driving test and carry a license and have insurance etc to drive a car.
Yet having ANY level of control over guns that isn't in place now is a threat to freedom?
Blinkered nonsense, but it's how people live.
Junkyard - lazarusWithout reasonable checks that law is worthless
Yep. If Harper-Mercer was indeed mentally ill, as has been claimed, then the fact he had apparently 14 firearms in his possession suggests the need for tighter controls.