Noncompliance Kneecaps New Zealand's Gun Control Scheme

[Adrift]

Those methods are just two examples (one high tech the other low) of how easy it is to make firearms. Suddenly banning the sale and or possession of firearms would spark an interest in all manner of ways to manufacture them. I mean, how many hillbillies had any real interest in making moonshine (except maybe enough for self consumption) until after Prohibition?

As I previously pointed out, Prohibition worked. Also, are you for legalizing hard drugs like cocaine and heroin? Allowing hard drugs to be accessible at Walmart? Because that's what the "you can't stop it anyways" argument boils down to. You may not be able to stop people from obtaining guns in a world where guns are illegal. That's not really the point. The point is to make guns harder to obtain. And we have proof it works. We know that there are plenty of first world nations with heavy restrictions on guns, and they don't have the gun problems that America does.

[Sparko]

They need a gun for public transit?

Have you ever ridden in a subway in New York?

[lilpixieofterror]

To be clear, my argument isn't that we should stop focusing on causes of violence in order to remove guns. I think it's possible to do both.

I doubt it. See I picked the eye dropper analogy because it perfectly illustrates the problem with unchecked idealism, in the face of reality. Trying to reduce violent crime and it’s causes will likely get you majority support. Trying to tack on a gun ban will likely make enemies of allies and make any efforts you attempt at your goal of violence reduction, fruitless.

I'm not sure I'm parsing this reply. I suppose my answer would be "you’d have better luck draining the ocean with an eye dropper" than preventing the cause of violent crime, but for whatever reason we think it's worth doing.

Not really because you can get good support because most people want to see reductions in violent crimes. Most or at least a sizable minority don’t want to see gun bans. Support is the lifeblood of a movement, can’t get it and the whole thing falls apart.

[lilpixieofterror]

Nah. You don't really have to go that far. Plenty of 1st world nations have banned guns, and while, yeah, you can get them if you have enough money and connections, it's relatively difficult.

Are these countries hot beds of gang related violence?

[Adrift]

I doubt it. See I picked the eye dropper analogy because it perfectly illustrates the problem with unchecked idealism, in the face of reality. Trying to reduce violent crime and it’s causes will likely get you majority support. Trying to tack on a gun ban will likely make enemies of allies and make any efforts you attempt at your goal of violence reduction, fruitless.

Again, to be clear, I know that a gun ban in America is impossible. Americans have a religious (in my opinion, idolatrous) connection to their guns. However, I still believe it's possible for the government to do two things at once. To both reduce violent crime and regulate guns. MANY other 1st world nations do it already.

Not really because you can get good support because most people want to see reductions in violent crimes. Most or at least a sizable minority don’t want to see gun bans. Support is the lifeblood of a movement, can’t get it and the whole thing falls apart.

This reply doesn't seem to actually engage with the point you quoted, and is merely repeating what you say above, but maybe that's my fault since it wasn't clear to me what your original quote was saying.

[Adrift]

Are these countries hot beds of gang related violence?

Yes, but they don't appear nearly as homicidal, likely because guns are heavily restricted and are hard to come by.

[Mountain Man]

Here's where I stand on the issue:

There is no evidence that banning guns has an overall positive effect on violent crime. In many cases, we see the opposite to one degree or another -- usually with a huge spike immediately following the ban that takes many, many years to return to pre-ban levels. And then it leads to nonsense like this:

proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpeg

[lilpixieofterror]

Again, to be clear, I know that a gun ban in America is impossible. Americans have a religious (in my opinion, idolatrous) connection to their guns. However, I still believe it's possible for the government to do two things at once. To both reduce violent crime and regulate guns. MANY other 1st world nations do it already.

Gun regulation already exist, in America.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, but they don't appear nearly as homicidal, likely because guns are heavily restricted and are hard to come by.

Or they don’t have large gangs, smaller/not as many urban centers, don’t have larger criminal networks, have countries with far more violence on their border, etc. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, there’s tons of reasons a country is more violent vs another. Mexico and Brazil have more restrictions on guns than the US, this hasn’t made them safer than the US.

[Adrift]

Gun regulation already exist, in America.

I acknowledge that, of course. They're not nearly as strict as most 1st world nations.

[Adrift]

Or they don’t have large gangs, smaller/not as many urban centers, don’t have larger criminal networks, have countries with far more violence on their border, etc. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, there’s tons of reasons a country is more violent vs another. Mexico and Brazil have more restrictions on guns than the US, this hasn’t made them safer than the US.

Mexico and Brazil aren't first world nations. It's reasonable to expect more violent activity in nations where law enforcement is heavily corrupt, and underpaid.

[lilpixieofterror]

Mexico and Brazil aren't first world nations. It's reasonable to expect more violent activity in nations where law enforcement is heavily corrupt, and underpaid.

Or countries that are poorer than the rest of the first world. Mexico and Brazil have a larger percentage of the population living in large cities and has a lower standard of living. Comfortable people don’t tend to turn to violence vs uncomfortable people.

[lilpixieofterror]

I acknowledge that, of course. They're not nearly as strict as most 1st world nations.

Which had very little to do with criminal activity.

[Roy]

Or countries that are poorer than the rest of the first world. Mexico and Brazil have a larger percentage of the population living in large cities...

Mexico doesn't.

Brazil 86.6% urban
UK 83.4% urban
USA 82.3% urban
Mexico 80.2% urban

Source

[lilpixieofterror]

blah blah blah...

Not getting into yet another pointless feud with you. Don’t go away mad, just go away.