Why does this gun debate always seem to become so insanely polarised? All I hear talk of is people who want guns banned and people who blindly deny guns have any affect on violence whatsoever.
Probably because you only hear what you want to hear. I think the number and availability of guns contributes to the level of violence, but I do not want to see them banned. As I have mentioned before, I neither own nor want to own a gun myself.
Is there any western country in the world that has outright banned guns? I can't think of one off the top of my head. The issue is gun control isn't it? Does anyone seriously think the solution is to totally ban firearms?
Such people definitely exist. Japan has essentially banned civilian ownership of firearms and swords, and plenty of people cite the low homicide rate there as a reason to implement the same policy here.
But I'd like to point out, because it's a fact that's often misused, that a number of decidedly peaceful western countries have a lot of guns. New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of gun per capita in the western world - in fact because guns aren't registered here we actually have no idea how many guns we have - and yet we still have an unarmed police force and very low rates of violent crime. Many Scandinavian countries have incredibly high levels of gun ownership, likewise with very low crime. Gun ownership is clearly not the issue.
Agreed.
This is the root of the issue. This is really the fulcrum on which the entire US gun debate rests. Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?
It's largely irrational. While civilians do sometimes successfully use a firearm to defend themselves, such use is comparatively rare.
And I don't mean that as a sort of snide "Americans are paranoid" or "Americans are scared". I ask this question quite seriously.
Nevertheless, I think "paranoid" is the answer. We have had a few home invasion robberies, in which a weapon, if accessible, might arguably have made a difference. I don't know if such things happen in other countries.
Still, people are irrational about such things. I think all the security measures implemented after 9/11 are another irrational response. In many ways, having a gun in the home for defense is "security theater" for the homeowner.
I've made the point before that backyard pools kill more innocent people than spree killers, but such deaths don't make the national news. Someone else (maybe you?) pointed out that laws which required such pools to be properly fenced had cut down on deaths elsewhere. Your proposal to properly store and secure guns would seem to be the legislative equivalent, and I could certainly support something like that. From what I know of this latest tragedy, that's the only additional safeguard that might have made any difference.
