Yes, a high-capacity large-caliber semi-automatic weapon capable of killing dozens of people in seconds from a distance is exactly the same as a kitchen knife or a piece of string. :rolleyes:
Save the bumper-sticker slogans for your bumper stickers. Civilized societies in the real world recognize that (a) this isn’t possible with any kind of effectiveness, and, more importantly, that (b) anyone is capable of acting like a psychopath under suitable debilitating circumstances, emotions and stresses. Therefore you can’t buy dynamite or nuclear weapons down at the corner store, and in civilized societies you can’t buy guns there, either – at least, not easily and not without extensive screening.
As an overall trend, yes. But not in CA, not in NY, not in Maryland, not in Hawaii, not in Illinois (until recently). In those places, the vast majority of people are still prevented from carrying firearms even if they want to, and are the people that have taken the time and effort to practice and train themselves and wish no one harm.
I see two primary affects from having more guns in the hands of “the right people”:
(1) “Good guys with guns” will be able to prevent some number of deaths (or at least change them from deaths of innocent victims to deaths of bad guys)
(2) Guns owned by “the right people” will be used to kill someone, either because they were stolen, or because of human error. People who are generally stable fly into an unusual rage, or get 20 years older and become different people, or get drunk and leave the gun cabinet unlocked, or what have you. I’m willing to believe that that’s a very small number, but there’s no way it’s zero.
I don’t think you can necessarily say that. They obviously had grievances with someone, and were dissatisfied with something. Nobody murders people for fun, except serial killers, and they’re exceedingly rare. For example, the Planned Parenthood shooter had political grievances, and I’d be willing to bet he didn’t feel he had the voice or power to change anything about that situation without resorting to violence.
Kind of like Ed Snowden didn’t feel he had the power or voice to change the American self-espionage situation without resorting to illegally leaking classified information. The Black Lives Matter movement doesn’t feel that sitting around and waiting until election time to make their voices heard will result in any changes to the law enforcement status quo. I’m not saying these people are all destitute. The very poor usually don’t have the time or energy for political activism or organizing a mass shooting. They’re too busy trying not to starve or freeze to death.
It’s the young, middle class, educated folks who have always been revolutionaries. Some of them take the MLK/Gandhi route, some take the Boston Tea Party route, some take the John Brown/Black Panther route, and some take the suicide by cop route out of the situation. I’m not comparing Robert Dear to John Brown, just saying that violence has always been seen as a legitimate tactic for social change, especially among the voiceless and marginalized.
So, just maybe, we ought to give people a say in how their society and government treats them beyond a token vote for a professional liar a few times a decade. I’m not saying it’s a silver bullet, but California has the strictest gun control in the country, and they’re basically completely banned in France. So gun control isn’t a golden ticket either. It’s a complicated problem that slogans and bumper stickers just can’t answer.
We do. Which is why when there’s a mass murder (which, by and large, there really isn’t), it is typically the act of terrorists enmeshed within networks and logistics. Not Joe Six Pack going on a murderous lark with his store-bought 20mm Bushmaster autocannon. And we’ve had a grand total of three over the past 15 years (I’m counting 1996 as one, even though it was a bombing campaign). Our last bona fide shooting spree (i.e. unhinged guy with a gun opening up on a random crowd) was in 2012. The one before that was in 2002, then 1995.
That’s over all of France btw, not just Paris. We’ve had zero (0) school massacres and one (1) guy going postal at work back in 1992.
That’s it. Gun control : much like Science!, it works, bitches.
Oh, and in case doorhinge is wondering, we do not experience a particularly large number of drive-by knifings or spree ropings instead. Or any at all, really.
While you’re right on the first count, I don’t think the public perception is that it was a lost cause. Most people are unaware that the definition of “assault weapon” is a self-referential one.
Nitpick: an “assault rifle,” which I assume you are referring to, is by definition not large-caliber.
There’s also another effect - good guys with guns do nothing yielding no increase or decrease.
Here’s how I think of it - despite much of the recent light shown on negative police behavior, the majority of the population would not object to more uniformed police properly trained on regular patrols. The police presence among many other things, serves as a deterrent of sorts. The lack of objection is due to the characteristics of the police themselves. They are trained, etc. A large contingent of armed guards would be similar, but I think armed guards are less prevalent than police. A large population of armed civilians properly trained would serve a similar purpose.
Who knows - I’m pointing out the nuance you left out, though I admit it’s somewhat tautological.
No doubt you know that France is a country, but California is just a state.
Here’s an illustration of the difference: Canada is a country, and one of the most demanding and important jobs of Canadian border agents is keeping American guns and gun nuts out of the country.
Well let’s go through it point by point then.
I’m sure you agree that the US has the highest per capita gun ownership, so I shouldn’t have to give a cite for that one.
So let move on to murder rates. According to Wiki we are not 111th like the video stated, we are 121st. Sorry for the error, but it isn’t helping your argument.
So let’s move on to city death rates According to here in 2012 Detroit had a murder rate of 54.6 per 100,000 population. Which would have put Detroit 2nd on Wiki’s list of countries. However Detroit pales against the new murder champ East St. Louis with a murder rate of 101.9 and Camden NJ at 86.2! Excuse me, I mis-typed that, the actual number is 86.3. If East St. Louis were a country it would be the deadliest in the world. :eek:
As far as Plano Texas, 0.4 is the correct number as of 2012. Just so you don’t think I’m cherry picking anything, Arizona which has more guns that people and open carry is and always has been legal has Chandler a suburb of Phoenix which has a rate of 0.4 and even Phoenix with it’s barrios and illegals and a fair amount of crime only has a murder rate of 7.9
I don’t think I need to mention that purchasing a gun in New Jersey, Michigan or N.J., and California is much harder than it is in Arizona, and Texas If you doubt it, here are the laws, knock yourself out.
Now before you trot out the countries above us on the murder list are third world hell holes, you might want to read this:
Just a interesting point, on Black Friday this year the FBI did more background checks on that day than ever before over 185,000. Like the caption under President Obama’s picture in one gun store I visit.
I strive to inform! Yes, the effect of sovereign national policies enforced by national border protections is indeed a major contributor to national culture, safety, and well-being. It’s the kind of thing that results in the American yahoo waving a handgun and spouting about the Second Amendment either being turned around at the border and sent home or being arrested, as circumstances may warrant.
God dammit, I voted for Obama TWICE because he was going to grab all the guns! I’m gonna vote for Hillary next year because SHE’S gonna grab all the guns!
I agree that the number of people who buy into the distorted and alarmist claims coming from the NRA and firearms manufacturers is depressing.
Of course, those are largely the same people who already own guns (and not, generally, first-time buyers, as your “amusing” caption would have us believe), so maybe it makes sense that they are more susceptible to deceptive advertising.
