Papua New Guinea has the second highest crime rate in the world, but I don't think they have a gun problem? Venezuela is the first, heck the US didn't even make the top ten so??? https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/countries-with-highest-crime-rate/

@Westy - majority of the guns used in mass shootings in the US were legally bought.

In reality, you could always carry anywhere you wanted and still can. State/local ordinances are impossible to effectively enforce and "Gun Free Zone" signs are basically just decorations.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

That's not the only reason Chicago does, but yes, it's definitely a huge factor. That doesn't change anything I said. Illinois, specifically Chicago, still has some of the most strict gun regulations and yet some of the highest percentages of crimes committed with the use of a gun. Not all of the crimes result in a death (a lot do) but the crimes still occur. Gun laws didn't slow that down in the least. We DO need gun laws and regulations, absolutely. We DO need to be smart about it. We also need people to understand that just saying "strict gun laws" doesn't cut it and won't solve ANY problems, but can actually contribute to creating them when people aren't smart about it. Like I said, I don't know the whole solution either, I just know that "strict gun laws" isn't it, because it hasn't proven to be it yet and some of these regulations have been in place longer than I've been alive. Yes, we have a huge problem, it needs fixed.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

It's quite true, because I said nothing at all about the mortality rate. I said crimes committed with the use of a gun. There is a huge difference between people who die due to gun use and people who use guns to commit crimes. Nothing I said was wrong, you just assumed I said anything about deaths-when I didn't.

I don’t even know where you would find crimes committed with guns that did not include an injury or death. How would that even be measured? 7 of the top 10 states with the worst violent crime rates are controlled by republicans. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/criminal-defense/crime-rate-by-state/

I get sick of pointing this out, but since the world never runs out of stupid comments, here I go again. The point of gun regulation isn't that it deters criminals, it's that it introduces barriers to entry into the market. The supply dwindles so, if demand remains constant (as you say it will), the price goes up. Also it means you have to have good connections to get hold of a gun. Now, this isn't going to stop the Mafia from arming themselves with guns. But it DOES mean that the junkie that breaks into your house to steal your laptop doesn't have a gun, because a) nobody who can actually access illegal guns would trust him and b) if he had the money for an illegal gun, he'd spend it on skag instead. And since the people *organised* criminals shoot are, in the main, other organised criminals, it vastly reduces the likelihood of innocent bystanders getting slotted. It has other benefits too, like reducing the chances of you accidentally or deliberately slotting yourself, but the main one is pricing guns out of the reach of bottom-feeders.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Why are you assuming all of the guns are in the hands of people involved in organized crime? The fact is, most in the US aren't, this is especially true in states with more strict gun laws. Those laws, which ARE necessary, I have never said they aren't, do not actually introduce any barriers into the market-at least not the way people think they do. Yes, on paper, that's exactly how it works, and should work. In real life, however, it's not. Guns, whether initially legally brought into the US/sold, or not, are very easy to get a hold of. It's much easier to get a hold of illegal guns than legal ones for those intent on using them to commit crimes. Those who intend to commit crimes are not going to go through proper channels (and many likely wouldn't be allowed anyway). Supply is not dwindling in ANY of the states or areas with more strict gun regulations. We DO need regulations and laws, but we also need people to understand they won't stop everything people think they will.

I didn't say anything about all of the guns being in the hands of organised crime, you imagined that. What I SAID is that gun regulation doesn't affect organised crime, but that doesn't mean it has no positive effect for the general population. And when you say "guns are easy to get hold of", you're talking about a country with pathetically lax gun laws. As has already been pointed out to you by somebody with more sense, all the "areas and states with more strict gun regulations" have permeable land borders with areas and states were guns are not properly regulated. Regulate guns federally and you will see it makes them harder to get hold of, because of the economic factors I already explained. As I mentioned to you before, restricting supply ALSO makes it harder to get guns through IMproper channels.

We'll never get rid of the guns. You could probably burglarize half the homes in the US and find a gun sitting outside of a safe. We need to start regulating the ammo.

I'm starting to sympathise with the proposition that you should leave the guns as they are and melt down all the people

Well... I mean... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.", amirite? /s

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

So explain why the areas where guns are more difficult to get legally, are far easier to get illegally? See, this isn't a one size fits all solution. Gun laws and regulations are necessary, but they are NOT the solution people think they are. They have little to no effect on supply and demand, except that the areas where demand is high and supply is difficult to obtain legally, illegal supply jumps ten fold. The only effect really strict gun regulations have had in those areas is that they have increased the number of crimes committed with guns and how easy it is for people to get an illegal one. I am not "all for guns, for everybody..yay", but I am a realist. We need regulation, we need laws, we need rules, but we also need people to really understand that saying "stricter gun laws" has yet to actually be effective anywhere in the US it's been implemented. It's only one part of a much bigger solution-which no individual, or group, has yet to figure out (including myself). We don't need more strict regulation, either, we need smarter legislation and regulation (in far more areas than just this, too, but, I digress...)

It does? I think if you look around you'll find that it *doesn't* work almost anywhere outside of Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere, excluding the US. You think strict laws on gun ownership in Mexico are working?: You may only own one and only one handgun for self defence. It must stay in your house. You may only buy a firearm from the government. You must undergo a background check. You must apply for a permit from the government. You may not own any type of automatic weapon. You may own up to 9 fully manual long guns for sport or target shooting. Rifles no larger than .22 caliber. Shotguns no larger than 12 guage. Handguns no larger than 9mm. Guns can't be legally sold privately. These are some of tightest regulations anywhere, but Mexico has a *gun murder rate 6 times that of the US.*. Culture and social conditions are what drive the gun murder rate. The UK has 500K shotgun licensees and 147K handgun licensees, yet there's very little gun violence.

It's certainly true that the USA's cultural paraphilia for guns is a big stumbling block to getting its murder rate down below "active war zone" levels

...one is the reduced likelihood of opportunist criminals, i.e. the ones you and I are likely to encounter, going armed.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Opportunist criminals have absolutely no difficulty, whatsoever, obtaining a firearm, even in areas with strict gun laws. This doesn't work the way you keep claiming it does. It only sounds good on paper. In practice, it hasn't worked yet, and the powers that be know this. More strict gun laws is not the answer, at least not in its entirety and not in the way some people think it should. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can guide where it goes moving forward. Strict gun laws do NOT, in any way diminish the availability of illegal guns-which is rampant. Those intent to do harm or commit crimes are far less likely to even qualify to get a legal gun, so strict laws aren't preventing them from anything at all. The vast majority of crimes committed with guns in the US have been committed with an illegal firearm(at least, illegal to the person who had it, even if legally owned by someone else). Stop bringing the mafia into this, because it's just absurd.

"Opportunist criminals have absolutely no difficulty, whatsoever, obtaining a firearm, even in areas with strict gun laws" - because, as has already been pointed out to you, they have permeable land borders with areas that have laxer gun laws. Claiming that a solution doesn't work because it's only been partially and half-heartedly implemented is not the knockout blow you imagine. I mention the Mafia because it's a famous name in organised crime, but feel free to substitute your own local serious organised criminal gang.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Saying that it will work all on its own isn't the knockout you imagine, I never SAID it was a knockout. You're the one claiming strict laws are the answer, lol. I'm saying it's NOT the answer, at least not on its own. It is not just the land borders that make it so easy, but that definitely contributes heavily. I have stated this already. I am not, in any way, saying we don't need regulation, because we absolutely do. I just wish people like you would think beyond that, but apparently you can't. Availability of guns, both legal and illegal, is a problem, absolutely. Strict gun laws, alone, have little to no positive effect on that very real problem. Those laws have NOT had an effect on opportunistic criminals, even outside the scope of Illinois (which, again, despite strict laws, certainly doesn't prevent attainability for a myriad of reasons). We're in the same book, even if not on the same page, you just can't see that.

Again, you're claiming that the laws haven't had an effect when they have not, in fact, been implemented, LOL. In countries that have actually got strict gun laws, like the UK and Australia, they work - neither nation has had a school shooting in thirty years. In countries like the USA, where they DON'T have strict gun laws, strict gun laws aren't working. Why is that? Because they aren't in place! See above under "partial and half-hearted implementation". It's not hard to understand.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Good lord, now we're comparing other countries. YES some laws have been implemented in some places in the US, you've even admitted they have been. But due to many factors, including surrounding states having less strict ones, those that have been implemented have not been as effective as people think they have been (or they should be). You literally stated the same thing I did, but with different words, how are you not seeing this? I never said we shouldn't have laws, is that what you're assuming? What exactly is so difficult for you to understand here, because I'm not he one missing the boat. I KNOW the laws we have are half hearted and poorly implemented, and that's why they aren't working. I've literally said that several times now. WE AGREE that they aren't working, so why are you still arguing as if you're making a different point than I am, we are making the same point, lmao.

The problem we're having is that you have repeatedly said things like "lax gun laws aren't the problem" when they, in fact, are. Sorry that's confused you so completely.