What is it about American gun control in particular that causes Europeans/South Africans/Canadians/Australians to care so much about what goes on in another country?

If it were just about saving lives you should get much more upset about the smoking rate in china, or parts of europe for that matter.

For instance you won't find me insisting that Switzerland pass harsh anti-smoking laws because I think they should, regardless of what their citizens want, just because they have more smoking related deaths than we do.

>No one can argue against there being a correlation between number of guns and number of gun related crimes.

Actually there are plenty of examples of countries where that doesn't hold.

For example our gun ownership is much higher than any country in the top 20 for intentional homicides.

And Canada, Switzerland, France, Sweden and Norway have a very large amount of guns, but very low homicide rates.

Should Canada get rid of their guns as well? They have half the guns, but far less than half the murders. If guns were causing homicides what explains all of these anomalies?

In fact from comparing the wikipedia list of countries by intentional homicide rate to countries by gun ownership, I can see no obvious correlation between the two.

I guess a lot of people (me included) would sleep better in a world that had less guns. America is a large market for guns, which cause them to be developed and manufactured, which makes guns available and cheap. If America stopped buying guns many (most?) arms manufacturers would probably go away. Countries like America, Russia and China sell or give these guns to "problem" countries which are often our neighbors and then the guns are in the system and coming across the border (and no we don't think that us arming ourselves in turn is a good or desireable solution) and before long there are hundreds of millions of guns all over the world. Which many of us consider a problem.

Sortof like if America didn't buy lots of iPads and if China didn't manufacture them cheaply then they might never exist in the first place. So people smoking in China is perhaps not a perfect analogy as it doesn't affect us much. (Please don't stop buying gadgets ;)

America isn't isolated. What you do affects the whole world. What every country does affects the whole world. We're all very aware of what happens in America because it has a disproportionately large affect on us as opposed to what happens in Myanmar. But I agree that we care maybe a little too much :) I suspect you sometimes appear weird and alien and therefore interesting to us. Most civilized country in world in some ways, most uncivilized in others..

---

Edit: I guess in a way whatever you spend your money on affects the whole world just because you're the biggest economy. If you slash NASA's budget it "affects" me. If WebOS is beaten by Android it "affects" me. If you prioritize spending money on guns over something else it "affects" me indirectly just because you're such a big market. In some ways Americans control the budget, priorities and direction of the free world;)

The iPad analogy doesn't work because there isn't much a of a demand in poorer countries for iPads. There is a huge demand in these countries for guns, which again, aren't very hard to make.

Look at the kind of guns found in the third world (that could find there way into your country). When is the last time you saw a warlord running around with an M-16. They all have AK-47s for a reason, they are cheap. The AK-47s you still see running around weren't manufactured for the American market they were manufactured for war and no American gun control measures will help.

If America banned guns, at best you might see a reduction in expensive American market guns, but again those aren't the guns used in poorer countries--they would still be made.

>I guess a lot of people (me included) would sleep better in a world that had less guns.

Guns are what enabled the radical equality of the modern age? The reason that we don't have a dominant warrior class controlling everything.

A gun allows a 110 pound woman to stand up to a 200 pound man, a poorly trained peasant to stand up to a feudal knight, an old man to a young one.

Without guns modern society wouldn't have been possible. If you could magically wish away all the guns, how long do you think it would take for our society to stratify around a martial class again?

I don't think all guns have to go away. I don't think revolutions or changes in government have to be violent. (South Africa being a shining example). I don't think you need a right to bear arms to even violently remove the people in power either. (America gained independence without an existing inalienable right to bear arms, afterall.)

Guns or no guns, gun rights or no gun rights, democracy or not - all systems ultimately rely on there not being too many "bad people" or the government behaving properly, etc. As you hinted yourself - America could have a civil war tomorrow if the government did something the people didn't want. And that's with Democracy. Terrorism proves that you don't even need guns. The arab spring proves you don't need many guns.

Civilisation doesn't require guns - it requires civilized people. Everyone owning guns (like America) also only works when you have civilized people.

Suggestion. It is not 'less guns' that should bother you, but the intent of the people who use them.

Good guys with guns are not the problem - bad men are. And no matter what happens to the civilian fire-arms market in the US, they'll find a way to get what they want.

Most civilized country in world in some ways, most uncivilized in others..

Most of what you are calling uncivilized may just be weird and foreign.

I agree, but what politically viable solutions do you propose there? Clearly this implies regulation and clearly very few Americans want that. More difficult to get and maintain a license to drive a car and all that. Even proposals to stop people from selling guns to verifiably crazy or unstable people or convicted felons are seen as a slippery slope that should be avoided, etc. Your driver's license can be taken away but the right to own a gun is inalienable. Militia vs well regulated and properly trained militia, I guess.

Note I was not speaking not just of American bad people but people everywhere. The intent of a thug in Boston isn't much concern to you, the intent of a Jo'berg (guessing) thug is.

And has been said elsewhere - guns are stupid easy to make. Succeed in shutting down Remington Arms, guys will just buy guns (illegal or not) made elsewhere.

Anyway. You want to change intent of bad people? You can't do it.

The optimal solution is for the good guys to own the means of self-defense, and have the will to use it.

Even proposals to stop people from selling guns to verifiably crazy or unstable people or convicted felons

In the US none of these people can legally purchase firearms. Fines are steep, prison is likely, licenses will be revoked, lives will be ruined if a firearms dealer does this.

Your driver's license can be taken away but the right to own a gun is inalienable.

It is written into the Constitution. Debate is lively about the meaning of 'militia', but that's a sign of a healthy democracy, I think.

But that amendment, in turn, is based not on a right the government gives it's citizens, but acknowledgment of already existing natural laws.

That is, everyone has the right to self-defense. Firearms are the means to accomplish that.