We could, maybe. But rather than banning alcohol, we regulate it. We do not allow people to have open containers in their cars. We do not allow them to be over .08% BAL in most states, where, honestly, .08 BAL still means that you will probably make it home just fine. We sue and fire bartenders who served drinks to people who then drove home drunk. We require purveyors of alcohol to take classes on how to tell when someone should be cut off.
We work to improve the situation, and decrease the deaths, and it has worked.
Can you make any similar suggestions on how to approach guns to decrease the violence done with them? It was your idea to analogies it with drunk driving, so I assume that you would be willing to do the same types of things we have done, and hope to get the same sorts of results.
You would flash your gun at a bar if someone insults you?
Safer with a dog.
Safer with a dog.
Even if those tools actually make them less safe. Would you also, since you brought up drunk driving as an example that you feel is analogous to the gun problem, say that adults should be able to responsibly and legally drink and drive under reasonable limiting conditions?
And if a gun is a bit harder to get, when instead of just going down to the corner and picking one up at the gun store there, and instead, she has to go to a few classes on how to actually use her gun before she is allowed to take it home and use it for their “defense” do you think that will make her less safe?
When you go to your doctor you probably trust their professional opinion because he/she is an expert. When you are building your house you probably listen to the architect and builder’s expert opinions. If you do not like their opinions you can hire someone else to render an opinion. At some point if you keep getting the same answer it is best to pay attention to what you are being told.
So too here. You just don’t like the answer the same way an anti-vaccer doesn’t like being told vaccine are a health benefit. You simply choose to ignore the clear evidence because…I dunno…reasons.
If I cited one study done by a deeply liberal think tank you’d be right to question it. But I didn’t. I cited over a hundred researchers in this field whose consensus opinion leans strongly towards guns in the home make the home a less safe, more dangerous place for everyone in it.
To be clear, I have no numbers. It’s just a hypothetical I threw out there to understand your point of view better.
I would add that suicide also has devastating effects on the people left behind. The families of those killed in gun crime also have a terrible burden. Believe me, you don’t have to convince me that we shouldn’t look at crimes and death as merely statistics.
So another hypothetical here. Is there any development that could occur that would cause you to re-think your principled position on gun ownership and self-defense? Like, let’s say that these Las Vegas-type massacres become a weekly occurrence, or Chicago levels of violence permeate locales not only with strict gun control (like Chicago and DC), but also places with very little gun control. Would that change your mind on your position? Otherwise, what would have to happen to the U.S. to make you think, “Hmmm… maybe I’ve been wrong about this?”
For my part, if the U.S. had homicide rates that were in line with the most developed countries (e.g., more in the 1.0-1.9 per 100,000 people, as opposed to the roughly 5 per 100,000); I don’t think gun policy would be something I ever thought about.
Serious question: in the next decade or two, advances in 3D printing technology mean that anyone with ~$5000.00 dollars can buy a machine that will turn out fully functional automatic rifles. Making guns becomes as simple and easy for unskilled people as making bathtub gin. Laws banning guns then become as futile as the Vatican’s list of banned books became after Gutenberg. What then?
Chicago does not have particularly strict gun control laws as compared to other major cities. It used to years ago but supreme court decisions put an end to them. Not that it really matters since local gun laws are near worthless.
Are you happy about that? Does the idea that any “It Can’t Happen Here” dictatorship could crush popular resistance like insects meet with your approval?
The best medicine for an unjust government is reform, not revolt. JFK said something about, governments that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
If voters want to prioritize its people, what’s the need for revolution? Unfortunately, it seems that American society is increasingly cleaved into factions, one rather powerful one seeming to prefer armaments over civil justice. Or, more ominously, some may think that armaments ARE a form of civil justice.
In any case, the idea that people in general are going to vote for the establishment of a dictatorship in this country, then suddenly wake up one day and defeat the U.S. armed forces to re-establish a peaceful democratic nation, is a fairy tale. It has nothing to do with whether I’m happy that the fairy tale is true or not; no more than it matters whether I think prayer can defeat cancer. We need to live in the realm of reality.
Such as? Petitions? Protest marches? Condemnation by Hollywood celebrities? That’s fine as long as the system isn’t broken. Frankly, I think the USA is still a democracy only on inertia; in the cycle of history we’re approximately where the Roman Republic was just before the Gracchus brothers were assassinated. But you doubtless disagree- after all, It Can’t Happen Here.
If that’s the case, then from your perspective, there’s no problem. You can confidently await the future, knowing your gun rights will soon be far more secure and expansive than they are already. And presumably your 3D printer can just as easily make grenades and howitzers and so forth, so you will have armaments to fight the Extremely Hypothetical Left-Wing Military Dictatorship In A Nation Where The Police And Military Rather Heavily Lean Right.
Sure, that may be a problem for us libruls, but we’ll worry about our own side of things, thanks.
Shortly after the Long Island Railroad shooting I saw a letter to the editor of the local fishwrap* to the effect that if everyone in the car had been armed, of course the incident wouldn’t have happened — the idea apparently being that the moment Mr Ferguson started acting suspicious the whole carload would have drawn, aimed precisely, and blown him away.
I thought at the time that the reality would probably have resembled a demonstration of nuclear fission created by Disney (or perhaps AT&T):[ul]
[li]Fill a room with mousetraps (the type with a squared-off wire loop that snaps shut)[/li][li]Place two ping-pong balls on the loop of every mousetrap[/li][li]Throw one ping-pong ball into the room to trigger a single trap[/li][/ul]Result: a room full of ping-pong balls flying in random directions, as each one released has a good chance of triggering another trap. Except that in this case, the objects flying in random directions would be bullets … and a death toll beyond Mr Ferguson’s (and perhaps Mr Pollard’s) wildest dreams.
*There was a time when people actually wrote down their thoughts and sent them via “snail mail” to be printed in the newspaper. That’s right, on paper! Believe it or not!
Lumpy in one post: The consequences of social and technological change have to be faced and evaluated realistically, without clinging to outmoded legislation about gun control for a feeling of emotional security.
Lumpy in his very next post: The consequences of social and technological change are a matter for emotional response instead of rational evaluation. Outmoded legislation about gun rights must be clung to because it symbolizes security and makes us feel happier, even if it doesn’t realistically accomplish jack-shit!
:rolleyes: We often see posters contradict themselves from one post to another, but seldom quite so quickly and dramatically.
OK, clearly this case just demolishes any argument where a mass shooting can generally be stopped by some version of “armed response.” Once the shooter got to a room on a high floor with his satchel (?) of weapons, it was too late.
Agreed.
I meant more that using armed personnel in the interest of security means hiring them for the purpose rather than just loosening gun laws and hoping someone shows up. The “control” is that a weapon commissioned to purpose is in the hands of someone vetted and deputized.
