Until I get thrown out.
- May 16, 2011
No, I don't have to actually continue this. After spending some time trying to find a way to explain the fact your conclusion is off by real world counter examples of countries with strict gun laws, a rant about the way that your logic doesn't stand up and that you missed the point of my analogy and a somewhat tiring block that Bangladesh is unsafe due to intense corruption and that strict gun laws have nothing to do with it ( since there's no gun shops in Bangladesh, because people can't sometimes afford a proper house, which just means that I could once again say that the root cause is poverty) combined with a real attempt to find a graph comparing the severity of gun laws by country, I stopped, due mainly to the strict part of "strict" guns laws and the fact that it was annoying and boring even to me (or gun laws for short, because we're going to be squabbling on what counts as strict guns laws).farson135 said:/snip
I realized that in essence I am brought down to a level where I can't use basic sociology and I'm can't make any points simply because I have to argue on your terms and I'm bogged down, so I'll just state this.
The number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the severity of the guns, since gun laws only somewhat limit to those who truly can't use them responsibly, and mostly add regulations for the process of getting a gun. Theoretically a sound bodied and minded person can get a gun if they're patient enough.
Poor countries can't afford to have alot of guns and richer countries aren't safe because there are guns. That's the point of the yacht analogy. You could replace it with anything and it wouldn't matter. Poor countries are crime ridden because they're poor, not because they can't get guns. If it makes you happier, I'll change yachts with fancy Christmas cakes so there's no fixation on irrelevant consequences about boats.
Africa has more restrictive laws, because everything is more restrictive, because you're taking the law of warlords who are violent people and who aren't actual government. That's where the talk of laws get twisted. You could say that areas where laws against getting food or clean water are lighter are less violent as well and that would be just as relevant.
It would be better to say where areas where people aren't free and don't have any rights are violent and that would be a much more sensible and true conclusion
Stricter gun laws does not make a worse society, and the opposite is true. Gun laws are at best a possible symptom of a problem. Lax gun laws may increase crime because people who get them may be in desperate circumstances and may turn to crime (or they would turn to it anyway). That is it.
Guns just make killing easier depending on the side. Root causes like tyranny, mental problems, war and income inequality are the real reasons for dangerous areas.
EDIT: I mean you can argue about gun specification or whether or not to have stricter or laxer gun laws. I don't care. Just trying to make a connection that somehow the root problems of the development of nations is strict gun laws is intellectually dishonest.
Gun, gun laws or strict gun laws ,whichever we are talking about are only symptoms that aren't going to be fixed by relaxing or strengthening gun laws.