There's no difference in the UK and France. There's no difference in Germany. There's no difference in most western countries. The percetange of people who live in cities vs rural environments is pretty constant across the western world at this point. In fact I think the US has a lower percentage of people living in cities than most of the western world. In 2010 the US had an urban population percentage of 80%. The UK was at 90%.
You know what - you are right, I am wrong about this point. I am missing something and will follow up with you when I can rattle my brain.
I said this in the Newtown thread. You squirrel eating freedom loving militia paranoiacs can have all the arms you want as far as I'm concerned. Its your right under the second amendment. But lets put a VIN number on each gun. Whenever someone is hurt in a crime involving a gun, everyone in the chain of supply from the manufacturer to the sporting goods department at Dicks and the private owners thereafter are strictly liable for the damages wrought thereby. I have a hunch that lots of guns falling into the wrong hands will thereafter be much less of a problem. That preserves to all you patriots your god given 2nd amendment rights to do whatever it is you do with your firearms. And it protects the rest of us by assuring that if you are actually criminally inclined, which evidence suggests a large portion of people in possession of guns are, that we can hold you and your accomplices accountable. Under this scenario, it will not be the government that will abridge your rights to keep and bear arms. It will be the sacred free market. Win, win, win.
I got into that same argument with my wife after the Newtown shooting. guns have two purposes-- to maim or kill. sure, the threat of which can dissuade acts of violence against you, but that is a repercussion of the two purposes, not an entirely separate purpose. so, if your business is to market and sell a device that has only the purpose to maim or kill, and that product is used to maim or kill, there should be some level of responsibility for that.
Thats a bad argument. If I get hit by a car, I dont get to sue Ford Motor Company, unless the accident was caused by vehicle malfunction.
Because cars have a main function that is other than killing things. I don't even necessarily agree with the point but god damn dude talk about missing the point.
It doesnt matter what the function of the tool is. A gun is a tool for killing. Misuse of the tool, does not imply liability on the manufacturer of said tool. FCOL, i could kill more people much quicker by driving a car into a crowded playground. Talk anout missing a grasp of basic logic, the tool in question is designed for hunting and or self defense. So, you are basically trying to place blame on a manufacturerfor a misuse of their product.
Right. Hunting, which is killing things. Self defense, which is defending yourself by maiming or killing things. Sure, you could kill people with any number of things. But they also have a purpose besides maiming or killing people. As to the liability, people aren't saying to hold manufacturers liable if they ensure the product goes into the hands of those who are allowed to. But if they aren't doing all they can to ensure that, then they probably should be held liable for a product who's only purpose is to maim or kill.
I agree with almost 100% of this article. http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-convicted-murder-manslaughter/story?id=19598422
if a gun is a tool for killing, than using it to kill someone is not misuse of the product, it is using the product properly. so, if gun manufactures want to profit off of killing, why should they be absolved of responsibility for it?
No, it is not using the product properly.. Gasoline, is made to be burned. If I pour it on a building and incinerate people (happy land social club) do the survivors get to sue Exxon?
your direct quote was "a gun is a tool for killing." to use it to kill is inherently using it properly by that definition. and I agree with that definition.
Well all modern guns already have a serial number on them that if you legally purchase the weapon is recorded with your name on it. So I don't see what is different about this VIN you speak of. I think your solution is OK with some exceptions. If someone steals a gun and the legal owner reports it as stolen within a reasonable amount of time they should no longer be responsible for it. I also think if you legally sell a weapon to someone else that you shouldn't be responsible for it anymore. I found the information I was missing. It's metropolitan areas with 250k or more people where most of the gun crime occurs and we have much more than other countries in that category. It should also be noted that while the UK has a much lower murder rate they also have a 3.5x higher violent crime rate than the US. [youtube]Ooa98FHuaU0[/youtube]
While I agree with you, the fact is that you can legally sell a weapon far easier than you should be able to and with no responsibility really. I can sell anybody my guns without knowing whether or not they are able to own them or whether they are mentally unstable as long as I can provide proof that the sale went down...but that only absolves me after something like a crime has already been committed. There is nothing that prevents me from selling guns to people that are not allowed to own them as far as I know. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it is right that if you sell a car you have to tell the DMV but you are not required to tell the government that you have sold a tool designed to kill. I think the system in place should be preventative rather than reducing my culpability after the fact. That doesn't really stop anybody from dying.
When you can't murder somebody easily because guns are not readily available what you actually do to them is classified as a violent crime more often than not. The point is the victims of that violent crime are still alive, whereas if a gun had been available the odds are they're not.
My family would be more at risk to violent crime if no gun were available. Every gun crime is a violent crime and the UK has a 3.5x higher violent crime rate. There are many factors involved, but I don't think it's a good idea for everyone to give up their guns when the majority of the gun crime is coming from a concentrated area. I don't live in that area. A lot of people don't. If some schmuck tries to break into my home and hurt my family when I'm not there I take comfort in the fact that they are armed and can likely handle the situation much quicker than the 15-20 minutes it would take for cops to arrive. I would not take any comfort in accepting that my family was brutalized but not killed when they could have easily defended themselves instead. Take a look at the concentrated area where we know the problem is, figure out who is committing the crimes and why and address the actual problem. Have you personally been affected by gun violence?
How many families in the UK have been affected by an accidental death related to a gun in the household? How many have been effected by a homicide of one family member against another related to a gun in the household? How many have been effected by a homicide related to an intruder with a gun in their household? Seriously, the reason no study has been done about the overall health effects of having a gun in the household is that any study would likely conclude that you are dramatically more likely to experience an adverse result related to a homicide or accidental death in the home if you have a gun in the home as opposed to not having a gun in the home.
If the government thought that study would show the results you think they would I assure you the study would have been done 10x over. If you're a dumb redneck and you allow your 6 year old kid to use a .22 unattended then that's really tempting natural selection. You're never going to legislate 100% security in a free society. If you want 100% security go to jail. Dumb people do dumb things. Evil people do evil things. Sometimes they kill people. Sometimes they kill themselves.
