Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9816940:


The ideal woman is fictional 25 5, 9:56pm

@Isdaril Good to fair points all around, at least in theory, though considering what I know about the production of moonshine, I'd argue that firearm manufacture is *safer* if not easier. I'd also argue that violence is more common in poor areas because that kind of crime is much easier to pull off while folks with more resources have more criminal options.

That said, organized crime is very lucrative for some folks and not only involves quite a bit of violence but also tends to prey on those at the lower end of the economic scale. So going primarily by *where* the crimes are committed doesn't necessarily say much about *who* is committing them.

As for the gradual ban thing, the problem is two-fold. First, that's what the government's been doing, and, second, it's not working. The whole process is tainted by the first gun-control laws, which were targeted at blacks. Laws, I will admit, the NRA supported before the organization went through a huge management change in... the '70s, I think, and went full '2nd amendment rights for all.' Personally, I would've changed the name at that point to avoid some of the inevitable backlash, but that's a whole lot of water under the bridge.

Besides that, background checks don't catch first offenders and proposals to ban sales to people with known psychological disorders opens up a *huge* can of worms. For example, I suffer from clinical depression and anxiety. The government could argue that I could use the gun to commit suicide (even though I have no history of attempting or wanting to attempt such), or that my anxiety makes me a risk to others, with the additional argument that my Asperger's means I'm not emotionally mature enough to handle one. But, I also live on a farm in a sparsely populated area. While the main threats to my life are wild animals like cougars, it would be far too easy for a human to come, do terrible things, and leave long before the police could possibly arrive.

Not that I have to personally own a gun for protection, which brings me to another point. Folks who want to use a gun but can't acquire one legally can borrow (or 'borrow') one from a friend or relative who can. Using myself as an example again, the farm I live on is actually owned by my sister and brother-in-law (long story, short version is they gave me a job when no one else would). Besides an antique musket kept as a family heirloom, there's at least one firearm on the property that I could easily access.

That antique musket brings up yet another point. Given how 'zero tolerance' policies have gotten people in trouble for carrying *fake* guns, I don't trust the government to exempt items like that. Good grief, kids have gotten suspended for having *G.I. Joe* accessories in their lockers. You know, bits of plastic up to an inch long shaped roughly like firearms. Our tax dollars at work.

I do agree, though, that there are no real democracies and the real world is much more complex than any one argument. Sure, those who own facilities that mass-produce firearms are part of the elite. Along with all the other people with large stakes in major industries. It's also true that the firearms normal people can *afford,* never mind legally buy, wouldn't be terribly effective against a professional armed military. If it came down to a second (or third, depending on how you see the Civil War) American Revolution, well, let's say I'm glad I live in the armpit of nowhere. On the other hand, as described above, folks who live in the armpit of nowhere have more immediate reasons for wanting guns to stay legal. Which, I think, is where the primary difference between Europe and the USA lies. To quote a foreign student my dad knew in college, "There is not so much... nothing in my country."