There are stats that back it up. I cant really speak to a culture of fear in America but there's some truth to that obv. An inner city cop has a lot to be uptight about here. I live in the suburbs very close to Philadelphia. I don't worry about locking my doors. I almost never lock them in fact. I have a very big dog and a few pistols in my bedroom. I sleep like a baby. I've never left my home with any of my guns. I have an elderly neighbor 3 houses down who suffered a home invasion the night before the Eagles won the Superbowl. Three armed masked people (from 2 states away) chose that house.

D2, I have thought about this and I am by far no proponent of guns, but do you realise that America is a huge, wild country with wildlife? There is a huge difference. In Europe we have successfully expelled every animal that could be a threat to humans. What could be threat to you in London, a rouge pit bull and that's it.

Do you really want to tell someone in South Africa, that he can't own a gun to protect himself against lions? Or someone living in Florida who has a alligator in his house all of the sudden, or someone in Alaska who gets attacked by a black bear when emtying his trash can? In Alaska they are dealing with brown bears, but black bears are a bigger problem to humans as they come in contact with humans regularly. To own a gun in these places becomes essentially a life insurance. They have rattlesnakes, bears, cojotes and I probably forget a few other animals. You def need a gun in Alaska I heard from an Alaskan roommate I had in college. I agree with you though that only people who need and are screened properly should own a gun.

There's this running theme that Americans need to be on guard against muggers, burglars, that the populace must be armed last the government turn tyrannical. And then it's rationalized through pawing over stats about violent crime or burglaries.

That's what I mean by a culture of fear.

no there isnt this running theme!! thats left bs. truth!!

This just has to be a level. lol, wtf did I just read.

Yes, that was quite the post.

Luckily, Nature comes to the rescue and can inform us that brown bear attacks are more common in Europe than the US, even when counting Russia (and some other regions) as a separate entity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44341-w. The article was actually pretty interesting.

Some research also revealed that black bears are generally regarded as less dangerous to humans than brown bears, but I’m no expert and can’t verify it, so take that with a grain of salt.

As a European, I can also inform that weapons for hunting are not that problematic to get. Though I’m sure it is easier in many places in the US.

According to an article in The Guardian, the brown bear has been extinct in British wilds since the middle ages, but apparently there is a program now to re-introduce them.

If nothing else, I learned something new.

If you have the unfortunate luck of experiencing a home invasion, it will change your outlook on general security and guns.

There are pockets of the US where enough people are opening themselves up to a legit risk for a serious threat in their home. Sure, the averages tell you that you're more likely to kill yourself with a gun than the intruder, but some folks will be capable to take appropriate steps to improve their safety - regardless of whether the gun offers a level of perceived security. I'm fine with folks taking that choice - even if they they could be wrong.

It isn't honest to bring up the millions of guns in America or the redic gun crime here, but then laugh why someone may need or could benefit from owning a gun in certain situations.

LOL.

I think you'll find Canadians manage fine with just as much wildlife and much more gun control. Not too many people using handguns and assault rifles for protection from wildlife.

Yup, there is a reason that people in areas prone to wildlife attacks carry shotguns rather than handguns, the target area of a shotgun is much wider than a pistol.

I don't think I'd turn pro-gun if something happened to me. It's been suggested that it happens more frequently here and yet where's the pro-gun lobby in the UK?

I'm not saying it trying to mean that it's no big deal if someone breaks into your house and robs you. I'm saying that the low chance of that occurring doesn't create some big incentive to be armed with a gun.

I had an Alaskan roommate who told me you need a gun in Alaska, there is black or brown bears everywhere. And he said threse f bears are messing with them. I think he might have exaggerated or he lived in an area with unusual attack rates. I'm strongly against guns or for more control of who is allowed to have a gun.

Having said that, I bet this guy wished he had a gun. Or anything else to protect himself. It just happened:

'Man who endured weeklong attacks by grizzly bear rescued after SOS spotted'

'The man escaped but then endured repeated attacks over about a week. “He said that the bear kept coming back every night and he hadn’t slept in a few days,” Lt Cmdr Jared Carbajal, one of the pilots of the coast guard helicopter, told the New York Times.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...y-bear-rescued

The whole objective, which Im sure everyone can agree on, is that we want to reduce the number of gun deaths.

If you ban guns, nobody will have any guns to die from. How is this not crystal clear?

Maybe because if "they" ban guns, criminals will continue to use guns.

While they're at it, why don't they just ban all crime as well? They should also ban certain drugs to keep them away from kids.

Rest of the world manages with this system but we stopped this gun obsession before it got too far. 1 particular mass shooting seems to have been the catalyst in most developed nations to wake up and restrict gun ownership while the USA seems happy for a mass shooting to happen every day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Outside terrorist incidents there has been one mass shooting in the UK in 25 years since the above incident. Longer you leave it before gun ownership becomes a privilege instead of a right the more lives will be wasted.

They do have a bit of a point there. I watched this "UK cop explains why bothering drug gangs isn't worth the trouble" video and some of the CCTV footage they used was hilarious.

Dudes with bandanas over their faces girl-throwing rocks at rival gang cars. 100% chance the American version involves dumping at least a few dozen rounds into those cars instead.

Though, apparently Sweden has it real bad. Their drug gangs have escalated to IEDs and hand grenades.

The solution offered, of course, was to abandon any sort of enforcement and just legalize all drugs. I guess that'll cause the drug gangs to say, "Well, ****, now what?" and just go get jobs at Walmart instead.

I know that this is somewhat tongue in cheek, but I watched the same video you're talking about recently, and I have seen a bunch of other interviews and podcasts with the same guy (he used to be an undercover cop whose specialty was infiltrating drug dealing gangs), and I do agree with him that legalisation and regulation is the way forward.

We'd like to offer our warm congratulations to drugs for winning the war on drugs.

I know this thread is about gun control, but I'm actually coming around to the idea of government sponsored all-you-can-sniff heroin buffets in non-descript warehouses.

Death by OD is the obvious endgame and heroin can't possibly be that expensive to make, so maybe just let nature run its course? The same people that are championing assisted-suicide are usually also pro-drugs so I don't really see the difference.

The only thing to truly "fix" people with crippling drug addictions is 24/7 babysitting and support by family members and if they had that option they wouldn't be on the street to begin with. Give them a warm room to die in and call it a day. Maybe invest in some A/V equipment to give it a party atmosphere instead of just sterile windowless rooms. Clean out the bodies every morning.

The punishment for semi-functioning drug users who get busted driving while high or whatever other drug induced shenanigans they partake in isn't to serve prison time, but instead handle cleaning duty for the warehouses.

Like those Scared Straight programs for wannabe thugs, but it's just wading through human waste instead of being yelled at by angry convicts.

I've never done any drugs. What's it like, d2? Do you think my plan here ultimately ends with the entire population getting addicted to free heroin and obliterates national productivity? If so, how is legalizing it any different? If not, all of the current programs aren't working, so I see no other downsides to this alternative.

I do think that employers will have to get a little more lenient on face and neck tattoos once the gangs are out of business, though.

There's a lot to unpack here and I'll probably give a more in-depth response tomorrow, but one quick point I want to make is that drug addiction wouldn't necessarily be as destructive as it is currently if the drugs were legal, firstly due to the fact that drug users wouldn't be as stigmatised & sidelined by society (think current attitudes towards drinking vs drugs), and secondly because the drugs would be a lot cheaper (no more black market ldo), so users wouldn't need to resort to crime & living on the streets to be able to afford to get their fix.

I can't find the clip of a UK cop talking about the "evolution" of drug trafficking, and how their crackdowns have led to this survival of the fittest where worse and worse tactics are used to evade the police to the point that now one of the problems being talked about is the rise of using kids in their teens to transport drugs.

I'm sure it's naive to think all things can be fixed by decriminalising all drugs but we could go a long way with some basics.

mmm When a member of the freedomgang pops in to remind what they know about freedom--of course we have decades of memories to remind us as well Let me guess you're a big fan of sampling people's bodily fluids to get a job etc too And then 5mins later they cry about medical privacy with the vax stuff lol

Legalizing opiates will most likely greatly reduce ODs fwiw. Many addicts can lead normal/productive/long lives with simple access to at least consistent/maintenance doses and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether it's actual heroin or methadone etc And it would also most likely be a way cheaper alternative overall. Lots of people feeding off of the drug war up and down the line--maybe they can try out some of their skills in that free market and see how they do w/o an artificial job created for them

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world...cmd/index.html

You feel like you are taking crazy pills every time you read articles that run through comparative statistics on gun ownership in the U.S. compared to other nations.

In american myth and fiction there is a well established narrative that guns keep you safe and allow you to resolve dangerous situations successfully. This belief, I suspect, is likely also cultural and held by a significant portion of the populace.

In most functional countries I have visited, you rarely find this view. Guns are largely seen as making things less safe. This doesn't necessarily mean an opposition to guns or a view that it is impossible to handle guns safely, which are two different things entirely.

I don't mind guns. I grew up with gun culture handed down from family members, and as an adult I own a few myself. Nor am I a pacifist who thinks guns are never needed. I carried a gun and used guns during my uniformed years. But the idea of keeping a gun close to me or on me in the civilian life, outside specific hobbies (hunting or going to the range) is completely alien to me. Even when my gun training was recent enough to actually sit in the hands instead of rosy-hued memories, it would been wrong for me carry a weapon as a civilian outside those hobbies. The list of situations it could improve is pretty much non-existent, while the list of things that could go wrong is not.

That said, I don't actually have a very strong view on American gun laws and constitutional rights. I can see the principle behind the government being barred from disarming the people (be it through mild legislation or harsher measures). I do however think that it would be healthier to approach the discussion from a perspective that is factual instead of existing in fantasy.

Canadians are enthusiastic gun owners but mostly see guns as utlity items for hunting or sport.

Few own guns to 'keep them safe' and as such are fine recognizing they should be locked away and there should be some effort required (steps) to retrieve and use them. This diminishes the chances of the biggest threat of guns which is use on self (suicide) or family members, neighbours (crimes of passion) as mere moments can provide a break and some clarity from an escalating emotional situation.

That is not to say that Canadians do not know they can defend themselves, if required with their guns, but they recognize the bigger threat and act accordingly.

By global standards, yes. By U.S. standards no.

According to the article, Canada has 34.7 guns per 100 residents. The U.S. has 120 guns per 100 residents.