I'm not really sure where you got those numbers from, but here's a map of the world by Human Development Index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2014_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg

The USA actually has a higher HDI than canada, USA is 0.914 and Canada is 0.902. and btw Cuba has 0.815.

Mexico has an HDI of 0.756, Brazil 0.744, venezuela 0.764, colombia 0.711, Jamaica 0.715, And Panama 0.765. It's a difference between "High" and "Very High" for these countries and the US. Not exactly what i'd call "Much Less Developed".

Now Granted, Honduras is only 0.617, Swaziland 0.530, Guatemala 0.628, but these are more exceptions than rules tbh.

Edited 11/21/2015 00:17:57

I'm not really sure where you got those numbers from, but here's a map of the world by Human Development Index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2014_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg

The USA actually has a higher HDI than canada, USA is 0.914 and Canada is 0.902. and btw Cuba has 0.815.

Mexico has an HDI of 0.756, Brazil 0.744, venezuela 0.764, colombia 0.711, Jamaica 0.715, And Panama 0.765. It's a difference between "High" and "Very High" for these countries and the US. Not exactly what i'd call "Much Less Developed".

Now Granted, Honduras is only 0.617, Swaziland 0.530, Guatemala 0.628, but these are more exceptions than rules tbh.

1, HDI =/ Tiers, 2, bit of its data comes from the UN education index, which puts America at 5th best place? I'm not really a fan of the HDI measurements, it's flawed in my opinion, I much prefer tiers, which are not perfect, and harder to develop, but are much better.

I'm still not sure exactly where these "Tiers" come from. It kind of seems like you're just making them up yourself tbh, but whatever your source, I kind of doubt it's more reliable than the UN.

If you are advocating for the eradication of private ownership of guns aren't you effectively saying that citizens don't need to protect themselves from the federal government?

I literally don't know of anyone I can think of who advocates "for the eradication of private ownership of guns" (maybe they exist, but I can't think of any). This is known as a Straw Man fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

The argument is for more sensible gun restrictions, not outright abolishment.

Several people on this thread have made the same fundamental error in thinking.

Why do you guys have such a hard on for guns anyway?

I actually think guns are really awesome in concept. I have done some small amount of target shooting a few years ago. When I was a kid I was jealous of other kids who had BB guns. When I was a teen I got a basic bow and some practice arrows since there was no chance my parents would let me get anything like a gun.

As a sporting thing, I think it's perfectly fine and cool. As a hunting thing, I can see the utility, though I think most hunters are not really doing it out of necessity, which I think sucks, since I like animals. For national defense, policing, and peace keeping missions they are a necessary evil. For movies, I fuckin' love them.

But as a personal protection thing, reality says that it's a stupid idea and causes more harm than it helps with protection. Accidents, guns being stolen and misused, guns for 'protection' being captured and used against the owner, etc. This only makes sense if there are strong restrictions on ownership, storage, and usage. Like Canada and many other nations, and unlike the US.

Very much like health care, this is just one of those issues that the US public is several decades behind the rest of the world, and they stubbornly stay there, thinking it's better that way, when they are simply factually wrong. Chalk it up to dogmatic ignorance, like many other of the US's self-inflicted problems.

Edited 11/21/2015 05:54:45

For those you who claim that guns will just get smuggled in, I point to Japan as an example of a counter. States with the capacity to enforce gun laws will indeed have fewer gun-related deaths, the US could have trouble with such an idea, but rather than going after drugs, we could go after guns.

Within the US, states with more restrictive guns laws have fewer gun related deaths by per capita and overall(California vs Texas for instance)

Generally the US public is just ignorant, uniformed, or non-voting, as those with enough intelligence realize that whatever they try to do, corporate lobbyists are going to stop. Henceforth, if we just create a government that reduces the power of lobbyists, I think the US would be better off. Health care(Insurance Companies) has its lobbyists, same applies to guns(NRA, gun Manufacturers), and pretty much every interest group in the nation. When Fusion energy is advanced to the point it can be used, I expect Oil and Coal groups to try to make it seem terrible if not unconstitutional.

I argue that we should limit guns available to people to hunting guns, as all other forms lack sense(what on earth is a guy going to do with a armor-piercing ammo other than kill someone). Secondly, you can defend your home with a hunting gun, and all those home-defense advocates should note that 75% of shootings in the US are accidental, as such we clearly have too many guns.

The argument is for more sensible gun restrictions, not outright abolishment.

This discussion should be closed then. Pretty much everyone here agrees that there should be improved gun laws, owners should take safety courses, training, etc.

The entire argument has been over whether privately owned guns should be banned completely or not.

,he US could have trouble with such an idea, but rather than going after drugs, we could go after guns.

Anti-Gun advocate: "We should ban guns, they are harmful for society!"

Pro-Gun advocate: "It's a waste of time, banning things doesn't work."

Now look at debates about drugs.....

Anti-Drug advocate: "We should ban drugs, they are harmful for society!"

Pro-Drug advocate: "It's a waste of time, banning things doesn't work."

The hilarious irony is that Right-wing people tend to be Pro-Gun but anti-drug, while left-wingers are the reverse.

Both sides use the other's logic depending on the issue. The double standards are astonishing.

Guns are necessary if we want to get rid of the Arabs! Free Israel!

dunno about the rest, but i never said guns should be entirely banned, eklipse. stop panicking and listening to the fearmongering. think rationally. :P

personally, i would want to keep the guns out of the hands of suspected criminals, and lunatics. is that so much to ask? ofc it would be nice to keep more George Zimmermans from happening too, but it is the mentally unstable, and the criminals, the terrorists, that are the biggest danger and need to be dealt with first.

I'm not really a fan of the HDI measurements

What about now?

It kind of seems like you're just making them up yourself tbh, but whatever your source, I kind of doubt it's more reliable than the UN.

The UN is not too reliable on things, it follows intergovernmental wishes, for goodness sake. If you ask them about anarchy, they'll probably say it's the worst idea ever. It's better than monogovernment source, but there are great differences in the influence governments have. I think even the UN still says that America is the third biggest country by area, and if they don't, they only stopped recently.

Just don't say that the UN is a reliability pillar.

What about now?

Your picture does not load.

I actually think guns are really awesome in concept.

I strongly disagree. I think if forceful propellant based projectiles were never made, we could be living in a much more peaceful and happy world. And the folk who love their guns, well, you can't love something that has never been.

The argument is for more sensible gun restrictions, not outright abolishment.

This discussion should be closed then. Pretty much everyone here agrees that there should be improved gun laws, owners should take safety courses, training, etc.

The entire argument has been over whether privately owned guns should be banned completely or not.

...

Anti-Gun advocate: "We should ban guns, they are harmful for society!"

Pro-Gun advocate: "It's a waste of time, banning things doesn't work."

You really should read that article on the Straw Man fallacy. It would do you some good.

I strongly disagree. I think if forceful propellant based projectiles were never made, we could be living in a much more peaceful and happy world. And the folk who love their guns, well, you can't love something that has never been.

Note that I said 'in concept'. The bow and arrow is also very cool in concept. It has nothing to do with violence, more to do with the physics and engineering of it, as well as just the ability to propel an object accurately over a long distance. Rockets are also cool in concept. Sure they can carry nukes, but they can also carry Voyager probes and the like.

Okay then in reality the discussion should be at what level do gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment and prevent armed citizens from defending themselves against government tyranny. My answer to that would be gun laws are currently useless because the unconstitutional standing military the US has created over the last 50 years can probably destroy any constitutionally valid rebellion against Federal Government Rule. There was a reason America isn't supposed to have a standing military. We lost our country when Ike warned us about the Military-industrial complex and we ignored him.

Ike, the only conservative president I remotely liked.

Note that I said 'in concept'. The bow and arrow is also very cool in concept. It has nothing to do with violence, more to do with the physics and engineering of it, as well as just the ability to propel an object accurately over a long distance. Rockets are also cool in concept. Sure they can carry nukes, but they can also carry Voyager probes and the like.

'in concept' the stretching torture machine is great; if you need to stretch something that can fit in the clasps.

This is what I call a real weapon:





Now, European and American guns:




No wonder why your nations are so weak against terrorism.

Silly Goys.