You should definitely post your links of misinformation though. We as a forum are pretty good at tearing apart those bogus right-wing arguments so it would be good to go ahead and get it out there.

I don't think that the amount of attention that the US media gives to something is a good way to determine if it's important, or even if it's common. Homicides with guns are down from 80s and 90s, so it's not like this is a new massive problem that the US is facing for the first time.

In my opinion there is a rational reason to support US gun control, and that's that other countries that are the most comparable to the US have lower rates of gun crime. It's reasonable to infer that some degree of gun control in the US would be helpful, although my personal opinion is that it wouldn't work very well for a couple of reasons:

1. I think that to a certain extent it's too late to implement gun control effectively in the US. The number of guns out there is the US is just amazingly high, so the impact of new laws to limit access will be muted by the fact that there's just so many damn guns already that a black market is likely to remain very active.

2. I suspect that a lot of the difference between the US and other countries in gun violence could be addressed with stronger social security systems and economic opportunity for the poor. I'm a very strong supporter of libertarian ideas and thinking, but even so I acknowledge that wealth inequality is a contributor to violent crime and a that some sort of system to help people out of poverty can be generally helpful.

If we go down the libertarian "survival of the fittest" route I can guarantee you violent crime will dramatically increase over time. Not to mention that our overall prosperity will be greatly hindered as we won't be taking proper advantage of our most important national resource, our future labor force. Libertarians strive for a world like Bangladesh where there are zero regulations, and the vast majority of the populace is stricken to lifetime poverty. That is clearly a world with a great deal of violent crime, as more and more people realize that this naked capitalism really offers 99% of the population absolutely nothing. More organized crime, more corruption within law enforcement, and malnourished and diseased children who get zero medical care because libertarians decided personal responsibility was more important than trying to protect people's dignity and humanity.

That's just one imbalanced and not terribly useful view. In my opinion, if you truly think this way about libertarians then you're just as bad as libertarians who think that anyone who supports any legislation or regulation are "striving for a world like Soviet Russia". Hyperbole doesn't help anyone understand anything, or solve any problems.

It's also important to remember that western governments are facing severe fiscal issues. Large government debt plus promises to baby boomers that are coming due now are going to place enormous strain on government resources. Whether you like it or not, a critical examination of government programs from a libertarian perspective is going to be a valuable policy tool in the next 30 years because there isn't going to be enough money to support any government programs that is potentially good. As government promises fall short of expectations, non-government solutions will be needed. An example of this is the on-going and growing pressure in Canada to allow some private sector participation in the health care space because the single payer system can't meet expectations.

These are official government numbers for England:





Gun crime 'has doubled since Labour took office in 1997'

Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

LOL I know that's how you badly wish it was, but, uh, why do you believe that to be the case? Why does making one thing illegal stop it from happening(murder) but making gun possession illegal make it happen "probably much more regularly"?

I mean, Jesus even for a gun nut this is bad. You're literally restating exactly the flaw identified. I think you might not even understand that it's a flaw. You've checked your own brain and you still think murder is bad but guns are good.

Air weapons?

It's just an infuriating thing. The only thing that could possible change the gun situation in the US is the democracts fighting against it. They have effectively given up on the issue and it's really disheartening.

This is kind of dishonest. Especially since 'gun crime' can range from possession of gun paraphernalia to using a fake gun to rob a store.

This is what you should be looking at:

In the United Kingdom, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 146
2010: 165
2009: 150
2008: 174
2007: 130
2006: 211
2005: 162
2004: 156
2003: 163
2002: 169
2001: 156
2000: 234
1999: 212
1998: 196
1997: 187
1996: 247

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Now how did I know before he even brought his statistics into this that they were completely bogus and designed to deceive us. Guess that is just the Republican/Libertarian playbook these days.

Not true, Obama has actually been using his political capital in this exact direction. The last time they tried to push for universal background checks which 90% of the public supported, but they were blocked in Congress anyway. They're making judgements right now about how often to keep bringing this issue up, but it's not going away, and the public is only going to shift more in favor of reasonable gun control as the Tea Party dies out and people see more of these heinous shootings every single week.

Thankfully there will never be enough libertarian loonies in office to ever implement anything in the U.S. And no, it's not hyperbole. Rand Paul has mentioned before that he wants to gut the civil rights act to take rights away from employees. This is the essence of what libertarianism is about--stripping away social security, food stamps, minimum wage, OSHA, the right of workers to join a union--anything that crushes workers and makes corporate bosses happy.

And as a big giant cherry on your nonsense pie, you criticize Canada's healthcare system. Lmao @ you.

I thought the corporate bosses loved welfare because it means they can have the gubmint feed their workforce that they pay only pennies per hour?

There's a big reason why that chart stops in 2002 BTW.

But you seem to ignore the stats we have in the US right now. The worst cities are also the cities with the most restrictive gun laws. CA has some of the worst gun laws i the country and look how easily this guy got into the airport.

Not true, try reading my post again.

Well it's running out of money (or more accurately, it's consuming all the money). If you don't understand that, nothing you think about the system matters.

Man you have no idea what you are talking about. The Canadian system is a huge winner compared to a more privatized system like the U.S. The proof is in the pudding.

http://www.pnhp.org/resources/pnhp-r...health-program

And if the healthcare of your own citizens, at a substantial net savings, isn't worth paying for, what is? Nothing. At that point you're just a libertarian ideologue who believes every man is an island and that the violent enforcement of property rights is the only legitimate government function. Give up the ridiculous ruse that you are a pragmatist--at least your completely empty moral arguments for never having to help another human being might be sound, even if they are far, FAR from valid.

"US system is worse" is not the same as "Canada's system is great". This is exactly the kind of backwards thinking that I am warning you against (although obviously without much success).

I am not saying that the US health care system is good, or better, or anything along those lines. I am providing one example of what happens when you take a complex problem (like provision of health care) and dramatically oversimplify it into an "us vs. them" dichotomy where you presume that "the other side" of an argument is just a bunch of stupid evil people (as you have repeatedly in this thread) and assume that "your side" is in the right on all fronts (intellectual and moral). This is a political trap and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Here's an example of what an analysis of a problem (like health care in Canada, for example) looks like when thoughtful people work on it and are willing to make observations about significant issues, even if it is contrary to their underlying political desires/beliefs. You should consider reading this in detail if you truly think Canada's health care system is above criticism.

http://www.cia-ica.ca/docs/default-s...13/213075e.pdf

Unfortunately I think that a lot of our social systems across the western world look the same when viewed through the lens of demographics and the upcoming wave of baby boomer retirees. We've known about these problems in Canada for decades but have postponed doing anything about them. Why has this happened? Mostly because people (like you, based on this thread) think that any attempt to improve a system before it crashes is "just evil stupid conservative/libertarians trying serving corporate masters".

But at least you can sleep comfortably at night with the knowledge that you're not one of those Stupid Evil People who disagree with you. It does feel good to be on the Good Team.