Re: Wut?
There is very little counter-argument to be had against "more regulation" for guns.
Whilst I entirely agree that it's inappropriate to compare firearms to encryption, this statement is also deeply flawed.
Talking about "American gun laws" or "American gun deaths" is a meaningless and pointless exercise. It's like talking about "European gun laws" and sweeping the UK and Czech Republic into one big generalisation.
The areas of the US with the highest guns per capita (mostly rural areas), have the lowest incidences of gun crime and firearm homicides. The majority of such crime occurs in the top half dozen metro areas including Washington DC (the most dangerous place in the US), NYC, Chicago, Detroit and LA - which curiously have the strictest firearm laws in the US.
Whilst it is undoubtable that the regulatory regime in the US requires change, simply saying "moar regulation" is about as useful as retweeting #KONY2012. It's basically just virtue signalling and offers nothing useful to the debate. Get detailed or don't bother.
Moreover, the horse has bolted. Firearms (both white- and black-market) are so ubiquitous that legislation won't do much unless we're proposing that the National Guard do a house-to-house search of every residence in the US to enforce a hand-in of prohibited firearms (because they don't have a nice list of licensees like we did for the handgun ban in the UK). The US requires wholesale addressing of social inequality, inner-city deprivation, gang culture, access to further education and healthcare, etc. Firearms are just one symptom of the underlying disease, and in the long run, good doctors seek treat the illness not the symptom. But that won't happen because social welfare is a commie plot. Damn those Scandinavians and their fantastic standards of living (and widespread gun ownership).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
