shakendfries wrote:qiantom wrote:My foreigner's perspective: I don't think you can compare US to most other countries. Civilians do not possess guns in most countries. Frankly I do not understand why anyone wants to join the police in the US. The cost/benefit does not make sense compared to other countries and it does not seem to be a job liked or respected by people nowadays.
Allowing civilians to have guns is obviously good in many aspects but the police may forever be in a tough situation because of this. Just my two cents.
Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums
The firearm trafficking problem is far deeper than it appears. The gun market is highly unregulated to the point where individual firearms cannot be discernibly tracked to an owner, obtaining licenses isn't a rigorous process, and the resale of firearms is completely unregulated. As a result, it is extremely easy for a licensed owner to resale firearms without the need to monitor how many they're selling and who they're selling it to. All of these factors contribute to the illicit, but very profitable, trafficking of firearms to inner cities.
On top of that, firearms is one of the country's largest industries.
source$13.5 billion
Annual revenue of gun and ammunition manufacturing industry, with a $1.5 billion profit. (IBIS World)
$3.1 billion
Annual revenue of gun and ammunition stores, with a $478.4 million profit. (IBIS World)
10,847,792
The number of pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and miscellaneous firearms manufactured in the U.S. in 2013, the latest full year available. That's 4,441,726 pistols, 725,282 revolvers, 3,979,570 rifles, 1,203,072 shotguns, and 495,142 miscellaneous firearms. (ATF)
4%
advertisement
Percentage of the above guns which were exported. Of those 10.84 million guns, 10,413,880 stay in America. (ATF)
270-310 million
Estimated number of guns in the U.S. (Pew Research Center)
263,223
Number of full-time jobs related to the firearm industry, up from 209,750 in 2012. (NSSF)
$42.9 billion
Estimated overall economic impact of the firearms and ammo industry in the U.S. (NSSF)
As in many countries, the relationship between corporations and political influence is inextricable. If you ever wondered why an uncouth candidate like a Trump has become influential, a lot of it is because he represents the interests of large industries. The overwhelming motivation and interest of these industries is deregulation.
America is also very much a "fast food" "reality tv" "microwave ready" country, which limits Americans socially. Simply put, most Americans do not have the patience to grasp nuanced political debates. Thus political discussions are often boiled down into the most digestible formats, "they want to take your guns!", rather than dwelling in the teasing of generally reasonable nuances.
Thus, when a story breaks, the headlines are usually boiled down into the most viral & digestible format. "A cop killed someone unarmed. Is the cop racist? Did the person have a criminal history?" "A mass shooting happened! What went wrong with this troubled kid's upbringing?"
As a result, when election time draws near you're usually dealing with politicians who will dwell on trivial debates that fail to address the nuanced heart of the real issues, who will suggest solutions that won't get passed when dealing with political opponents whose campaigns are funded by conflicting corporations, and citizens are forced to choose between less civil liberties or more of the same.
There are countries who allow citizens to own guns and also have low rates of crime , but these countries force every citizen to undergo basic military training. There are also plenty of reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce instances of the violence associated with firearms. However, these measures will never be passed since corporations who greatly profit from an unregulated market are financially tied to the funding of a large group of politicians who won't vote for it, and generating watered down and highly emotional debates generates more views than watching actual legislation on CSPAN.
There was a candidate who wanted to limit corporate influence on politics, but the general public is far more drawn to gestures, and getting their emotions riled up, than a nuanced discussion of real issues. Instead, you have one person who's unabashedly tied to a certain sphere of unregulated corporate influence, and another one, who suggests taxing the wealthy more without presenting a comprehensive strategy for its use or benefit. They're both equally untrustworthy.
From an outside perspective, you'd think America is progressing towards a discernible sense of advancement, but it's not. The news talking points haven't changed in decades, and things like "the first minority president!" are merely gestures and window dressing to the fact that virtually nothing is changing for the average American regardless of who wins. Obama was the first black president, and while regulation has improved the state of the economy, life isn't any different for the average black person in the country. In many ways, the illusion that a figure like Obama creates that gives people reason to presume the absence of racial disparities within the country's institutions makes it worse.
Kap taking a knee isn't going to change anything. Americans are going to elect an official who won't change anything.
Sent from my iPhone using
RealGM mobile app 
