Here in France there seems to be very little public debate around firearm legislation
Likewise in the UK, which is otherwise culturally very similar to the US.
Does it provide any interesting evidence that in countries with policy P (available guns) there is a lot of public debate and in countries with policy ~P (restricted guns) there is little to no debate? It would seem to imply that the supposed harms of ~P are either non-existent or insufficiently obvious to reach public debate. (Same appears to apply with public health care, and I’m sure there are other examples for different pairs of countries).
Here in the Netherlands guns are severely controlled, and the only times gun control is discussed at all (after a shooting makes the news), people just say ‘Those crazy Americans—of course guns should be controlled!’, and go on complaining about the weather. I wonder if gun control is a hot topic Switzerland, where many people have guns.
This kind of argument is what I like to call “motivated majoritarianism”. You’re essentially assuming that public opinion is rational—something that most LWers would be loath to do in the general case.
I don’t assume public opinion is rational, but that it is sufficiently predictable that with an issue where in one case it is discussed very heavily it would be in a contrary case if the benefits were comparable. When what should be a double sided issue is not being discussed you require an explanation for that behaviour.
the supposed harms of ~P are either non-existent or insufficiently obvious to reach public debate. (
Or that they are localised. The pro-gun arguments in the US boil down to 1) The constitution—doesn’t apply elesewhere 2) A multitude of armed criminals (ditto).
Likewise in the UK, which is otherwise culturally very similar to the US.
Does it provide any interesting evidence that in countries with policy P (available guns) there is a lot of public debate and in countries with policy ~P (restricted guns) there is little to no debate? It would seem to imply that the supposed harms of ~P are either non-existent or insufficiently obvious to reach public debate. (Same appears to apply with public health care, and I’m sure there are other examples for different pairs of countries).
Here in the Netherlands guns are severely controlled, and the only times gun control is discussed at all (after a shooting makes the news), people just say ‘Those crazy Americans—of course guns should be controlled!’, and go on complaining about the weather. I wonder if gun control is a hot topic Switzerland, where many people have guns.
This kind of argument is what I like to call “motivated majoritarianism”. You’re essentially assuming that public opinion is rational—something that most LWers would be loath to do in the general case.
I don’t assume public opinion is rational, but that it is sufficiently predictable that with an issue where in one case it is discussed very heavily it would be in a contrary case if the benefits were comparable. When what should be a double sided issue is not being discussed you require an explanation for that behaviour.
Or that they are localised. The pro-gun arguments in the US boil down to 1) The constitution—doesn’t apply elesewhere 2) A multitude of armed criminals (ditto).