The US has basically non-existent gun regulation by developed world standards. Go compare the gun violence rates in the US with any country that actually regulates guns.
>America has an 18 to one advantage over Brazil in the number of guns, yet proportionally, Brazil suffers six times more deaths by guns than America.
>In Brazil, all firearms must be registered with the state. Minimum age for owning a gun is 25 and restrictions make it virtually impossible to have a carry permit. Owners must pay a $40 tax every three years. As a result of these and other restrictions, it is very difficult to own a gun in Brazil much less carry one.
The data are high variance, so you can't just pick individual cases and then only look at selected facets of them. That's classic cherry picking.
You've got to look at large scale trends if you want to see a large scale pattern, and, if you want to dig into the particulars, you need to look at all the particulars. For example, that article you cite fails to consider the different levels of organized crime between the two countries. Perhaps because including that detail might necessitate acknowledging that Brazil and the USA have different gun crime problems with different causes that might therefore require different responses.
Given that the first sentence mentioned developed nations I figured it was clear I meant any developed nation. Furthermore, regulates guns generally means actually regulates guns and not "has laws for regulating guns." The two are not the same except in countries that have stable governments, enough money to pay for law enforcement and low amounts of corruption. Unless you actually believe the state of the US government and economy is akin to that of a country like Brazil?
You made an implicit argument that regulation doesn't work, I simply pointed out that it does in many many place.
You now argue that it doesn't work because the item being regulated is in wide spread possession. Drones are not. Thus by your own chain of reasoning it is perfectly reasonable to enforce very strong regulations NOW if we wish to have any chance of managing drones.
I guess, thank you for making such a great argument for strong regulation from the onset.
That's perhaps a true fact, but also, maybe a bit of a rhetorical own goal?
I don't think that the gun lobby having been so successful at achieving a sort of crony capitalist vendor lock-in with the American public implies in any way that this is a good thing, which is what you'd have to demonstrate for this analogy to really help the case you're trying to present.
I mean, if you're trying to say that regulation doesn't work, then pointing out that the the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA, so now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot and there's nothing that can be done about it anymore, is perhaps doing more to illustrate the case that you're trying to argue against.
> now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot
Your analysis of the data may vary, but:
Between 1998 and 2019, there have been more than 391,897,875 background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.[1].
It is unknown which of those were for rifles; it is also unknown what percentage of those background checks were for multiple firearm purchases in a single transactions.
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle by far, so it seems entirely plausible that there are perhaps vastly more than 100 million AR-15's in private ownership in the U.S. (An interesting point is that it is rather unlikely that most people would be so unwise as to advertise ownership.) (Of note, there is no legal definition of assault rifle, and the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Armalite, one of the first manufacturers of the AR-15.)
In total, less than 400 killings (including murders, self-defense, suicide etc) per year committed with all types of rifles[2]. (In fact, more people are killed each year with blunt objects like clubs, hammers, etc.)
Those who wish to increase ownership of handguns would do well to note that many, many people in the U.S. own handguns for personal defense, and a very tiny fraction are used for killing in any given year. By far the largest handgun numbers are from people taking their own lives, and most of the others are from criminal activities, typically in large cities. Those criminal activities are committed by people who, by definition, do not obey the law.
This is obviously a politically fraught topic; just wanted to provide some actual, if somewhat surprising, data. Again, your analysis and politics may vary, but that's the data.
Why do you consider it unwise to advertise ownership of an AR-15? Why would anyone care? Where I live the response would be "cool, can I shoot it next range trip"
"the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA"
The gun lobbies didn't secure laws that severely limit firearm regulation. They didn't have to. It was enumerated as the 2nd amendment in our constitution - and for damn good reasons.
The difference between the American and French Revolutions - the American Revolution started from the place that the people have all rights and our constitution restricts governments ability to infringe upon those inalienable rights. The French Revolution came from the perspective of the states rights and in turn grants rights to the people. I think I prefer the former over the latter.
Given the events of the last year and the historical opposition of groups like the NRA to minorities having gun access I feel the greatest threat to continuing free democracy in the US (for everyone) is not the government but the same group that owns the majority of guns.
