[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

What this tells me, is that there must be more to it, than just the single variable "number of weapons per capita".

That's what many of us have been arguing for.

The culture and society of the USA, as opposed to many other western nations, actively promotes (deadly) violence as a valid method for solving problems.

This I have an issue with. Does pop culture these days glorify violence? yes, is that something unique to the US? not really, though by virtue of being one of the largest producer of said type of entertainment, the US certain produces more of it, it's what sells, and not just in the US.

My biggest issue is with the implication that in the US deadly force is somehow actively encouraged as a method to solve problems. It's not as if we teach our kids that if someone pisses them off, it's ok to stab them in the eye. The use of deadly force by civilians is restricted to situations where imminent thread of death or serious bodily harm is present, it's not a free-for-all that you seem to be implying.

On the 'official' side we have:
- routinely starting wars, participating in armed conflict and using military force on the international level
- huge military expenses
- assassination of enemies of the state ('terrorists') by use of weapon force
- legal torture of enemies
- death penalty
- a variety of 'stand your ground'-like laws (ie quite liberal use, not only ownership of weapons, written into law)

This is veering more into international politics rather than gun control, but:

- Not going to claim everything the US do is just, but that's the reality when you're the superpower, you're going to have your hands in most things. This goes for just about every nation in position of power. Frankly, it's somewhat amusing to hear complains about wars from Europeans, whom pretty much have one of the worst record when it comes to starting wars in recent human history.

- Again, this is what happens when you're the lone superpower, and are in effect subsidizing the defense budget of basically every one of your allies. While I don't subscribe to the isolationist's views, sometimes I do wonder what kind of tunes some would sing if the US withdraws all of its overseas presence and let everyone handle their own problems on their own.

- What's the problem with this? are we supposed to ask the terrorists nicely to come out to fight us on the open with water guns?

- Legal torture? where? Not saying it hasn't been done, but it's certainly not legal (nor all that effective). That said, I'd say it's probably naive for anyone whose country has an active intelligence agency to think that no questionable methods were used by their people.

- I also don't understand the bit about the death penalty. Is the system perfect? no, and more improvements needs to be made. But are there criminals that deserves nothing less, and for whom guilt is beyond doubt? hell yes. I don't understand the fascination with giving them free food, housing etc. for the rest of their life on the dime of the society that they have so egregiously wronged, with money that can be much better used elsewhere.

If the Sandy Hook shooter did not commit suicide, you'd "punish" him by guaranteeing him food and a roof, and better living standard than most homeless living on the street for the next 40, 50+ years?

I wont go on about all the countless movies and games, in which you achieve Happy End, by killing off the bad guys. This is a dead horse by now and I wont beat it any further.

This is a honest view from an outside observant. All these points are grossly different to place I live, so it might help you understand why there may be a different mindset towards weapons in general in another population of a western country.

German gamers don't play CoD or Battlefield, or watch Hollywood movies?

I do believe, that this has a great impact on the actual use of the weapons, no matter the distribution levels.

However I do not think, that this is very much relevant to special cases, like the school shootings. These seem to be a very different problem.
It's more about the overall homicide rate involving firearms.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

You know, I can't believe I haven't thought of bringing this one up earlier.

How would rubber bullets factor into the equation? Now, I'll be the last to say that I have any clue on how they actually work, but on first glance, making them available to the public while heavily restricting the supply of 'real' ammo may seem to be a good compromise between 'non-lethal' and 'defensive power' needs.

Please feel free to point out any potential issues with this idea, because like I said, I don't have the first clue on the track record of rubber bullets.

I would have no issue with them being an option to those would who rather use them, but there are a few caveats:

- The more correct term for rubber bullets (and taser really) would be "less-lethal" instead of non-lethal, as both have shown they can still kill. It's rare, but it does happen from time to time.

- Rubber bullets is mainly intended to achieve compliance through pain - it's called the baton round for a reason. However, it's not something that's really capable of quickly incapacitating the target, which in a home/self defense scenario becomes a big issue, especially when you're dealing with multiple assailants. Think of it as a remote controlled mini-Mike Tyson punch, it's going to hurt if you hit your target, but ultimately it's still just a punch - a very bad idea esp. if the other guy is armed.