You can try, but remember he is the one with the guns.
Didn’t France used to get hit by Terrorists every frikking month a few decades back??
They did?
Are you talking about the Action Directe(sp) or the OAS?
He has guns, so he’s a tough guy. Not a man to be trifled with unlike us other mooks. It doesn’t surprise me insecure people would purchase weapons for ‘protection’ even from entities owning them wouldn’t do any good, like the government.
For one thing that’s a rather low bar ;), for another laws are contingent on their enforcement which from what I understand can be sketchy in California, for a last one it’s pretty much a given that any efficient gun control in the US would have to happen at the federal/national level.
Otherwise it is and will remain trivial to hop a state border and get gats.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Didn’t France used to get hit by Terrorists every frikking month a few decades back??
[/QUOTE]
Not… really ?
Not sure what you’re talking about. The OAS killed a whole bunch of guys but that was in the 60s. Most OAS members were either from the army or veterans and had direct support (including weapons and ammo) from high ranking members of the active military (generals, plural) so circumventing gun control laws proved surprisingly easy for them on account of being *issued *their guns :p.
Action Directe managed about 12 over its ~8 years of existence.
I suppose the slow-burning fires of the Corsican and Basque separatists could count, they’re certainly tooled up and love the whole balaclava & AK aesthetic ; but there again it’s **really **not an “every frikking month” proposition and never has been to my knowledge. Besides both groups tend to limit themselves to material damage, i.e. blowing shit up at night or setting fires rather than shooting people. Same goes for the Breton separatists.
Well I guess I wasn’t just talking about guns.
Nope. Not like science at all.
We had very strict gun control in DC during a time when it was the murder capital of the nation (and perhaps the world).
Like most other things, its not that simple, but I understand your need to believe it is.
There is no conceivable form of gun control that will eliminate all 300 million+ guns from our society short of house to house searches. There is virtually no way to get rid of guns in criminals hands.
Are you taking the piss ? Of course a weapon ban covering a single fucking city is going to do jack squat. You might as well conclude that outhouses are worthless because even though one house in the village bought one there’s still shit everywhere in the streets.
Nonsense. Sure, there’s no way to do it overnight, but if what you want from laws are overnight results, you’re going to be forever disappointed and/or everything will become impossible.
Also, no gun control law or measure is going to solve the problem entirely*, but only idiots expect it to. *France has an estimated ~25 to 30,000 illegal guns floating around, including 4,000 so-called “war weapons” (which would be your AKs, your surplus M-16s, the odd lost or stolen FAMAS etc…).
But you know people might possibly conceive of *some *ground to be gained, along with some harm reduction, somewhere between “absolute laissez-faire, fuck it, let’s just give up” and “perfect 0.000 guns detected anywhere”.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o…ents_in_France
[/QUOTE]
Excluding this years’ two, I count 22 occurences of “Shooting” for a grand total of 51 dead. That’s since 1914 - guns weren’t even controlled then, gun restrictions were voted in '49 I believe.
I figure y’alls do more damage than that on an average Friday night in Detroit 
As for bombings, not quite sure how they’re related to gun control ; or how an absence of gun control would prevent them for that matter.
Just gotta express my opinion that more harm might be avoided if someone grabbed all them ukuleles! 
Good post overall. It’s important to note there were only “8,855 total firearm-related homicides” last reporting year- 2012. That same year, about 50000 Americans died from Second hand smoke- that’s innocent victims, not smokers. About 11000 people are killed each year by drunk drivers.
Of the “mass shootings” publicized in the last few years, I saw exactly one that could have been stopped by "moderate’ and “reasonable” gun control. That shooter should have been properly reported as being unfit mentally and barred from owning or purchasing a gun, as is the current law in some States.
So, outsides of gun laws that would violate the 2nd Ad, no, there is really nothing. And even there, the reduction in gun homicides would likely not be significant.
People forget there are really damn few “gun nuts” in this county. Many own guns for hunting or for their jobs (I was a armed security guard for years). The NRA has maybe 3MM members, and there are 300MM Americans. So, maybe 1% of Americans are 'gun nuts", even tho almost 100MM Americans own a gun.
So, it’s not “Gun nuts” or whatever crazy name dudes are calling them today. It’s your neighbor Bob who shoots skeet, you cousin George who hunts deer, your Aunt Mable who inherited her husbands Police .38, your co-worker Alice who was raped and bought a gun to keep under her pillow.
That’s one of the most ludicrously pathetic arguments I’ve ever seen on any subject.
Here are the gun death rates and gun homicide rates for some comparable countries, per 100,000 population:
UK 0.26 (0.05 are gun homicides) Australia 0.86 (0.11 are gun homicides) Canada 2.22 (0.51 are gun homicides)
USA: 10.5 (3.55 are gun homicides)
So in round numbers the US has five times the gun death rate of Canada, and almost seven times the gun homicide rate. Canada however has the problem of so many guns being smuggled in from the US; when this problem of proximity to a place totally overrun with guns is eliminated, as in the UK and Australia, the US has, respectively, 71 times and 32 times the gun homicide rate of those countries. The numbers are just incredible no matter how you look at them. The CDC did a study of how children were affected; they found that in the US more children under 18 are killed or injured by gunfire either intentionally or by accident than in all 12 other countries they looked at combined.
To argue that there isn’t an epidemic of gun violence is just as completely ludicrous as trying to argue that the problem isn’t caused by guns, or the kind of nonsense you keep posting – no, you’re not going to “cherry-pick” your examples, you’re just going to pick some obscure town or suburb with perfect demographics that’s a complete statistical outlier. Why not look at the states those places are in – as bad as US gun violence is overall, both Texas and Arizona where you cherry-picked paradises are located have gun violence rates that are even worse than the national average.
And trying to argue that the US should be compared with third-world war zones in assessing its gun violence instead of other industrialized countries is just laughably pathetic. The lunatic you quote argues that someplace like Canada is a terrible example for gun violence comparisons even though it’s culturally and economically almost identical to the US – much better to compare US gun violence with Mexico, one of the most corrupt and lawless countries on the entire planet, a place that’s practically run by drug cartels. Some of the folks trying to make these kinds of arguments just have no shame. Why not at least be honest and say that you love your guns so much that it’s worth all those tens of thousands of preventable deaths?
Part of the difficulty in addressing the problem is not just the intransigence of the gun lobby in blocking any form of progressive policy changes, but also their active role in suppressing research on gun violence and blocking the tracking of accurate statistics. Former Congressman Jay Dickey was in the news recently when his conscience apparently caught up with him for doing just that as the NRA’s point man in Congress, a role that he now sorely regrets.
A lot of the stats on things like mass shootings have to come from unofficial sources tracking new stories, and those stats are just as horrific and disturbing as the general gun violence stats I quoted above. One such source counted 365 mass shootings in the US in 2013, 336 in 2014, and 354 so far this year. Some of the facts are just incredible:
The list shows that the longest stretch this year without a mass shooting in the U.S. was eight days, from April 8 to 15 inclusive. But on April 18, there were five separate mass shootings — setting a new high for a single day in 2015. That record would be matched four more times in 2015.
That’s almost one mass shooting every day, part of the average of about 86 gun deaths every single day from all sources – homicide, accident, and suicide. Gun violence in the US is a bloody epidemic, plain and simple.
Well no duh. More crime= more need to own a gun.
Well, on the plus side, as someone who has taught college level statistics, I know I could always find work as apparently tons of people fail to understand the most basic concepts!
That’s the way these discussions always go. First, it’s “more guns=less crime”. Then you show them the empirical evidence, and its "but, when I look at [random data source/cherry picked pair of places] I can refute the empirical evidence. Then, eventually, it’s, “Well, duh! Of course it’s more guns=more crime because of reverse causation!”
What’s also interesting is that when you lag predictors, more guns now predicts more crime in the future.
Where have you been?!?!
Honest question for those who oppose what some of us are calling “reasonable gun control” (from a guy who doesn’t know or care anything about guns or cars):
In this country, we have pretty significant regulation about features and characteristics that cars that are sold by manufacturers must meet. Hundreds of specific regulations, without which the car is not able to be sold.
Why is it impossible to do something similar with guns, and still have everyone (gun aficionados included) be satisfied on the other end? Is it utterly impossible to have specific regulations that limit two major categories?:
- Firing rate
- Capacity
Leaving aside what the “correct” values for these categories are.
I’m not saying this is fool proof. Obviously someone with a still legal weapon could still rampage, but would have to do so more slowly than current lunatics; this would be an improvement, not a cure. Obviously someone could alter the weapon post manufacture, though this would now be an illegal weapon. But, the same could be said of cars which can still be used dangerously and altered.
Is there anything different physically about guns that somehow makes it impossible to make specific codes that limit the rate and capacity? Would you (as a gun control opponent) still oppose a hypothetically bullet proof (sorry) law that managed to do this without infringing on your rights to own weapons for hunting, sport, protection or anything else? If you would still oppose such legislation, is there no limit to what weapons should be legal to sell?
Can we avoid the slippery slope argument and assume that this is not an attempt to grab guns?
Though these are not guaranteed to stop all gun violence obviously they may be able to cut the number down at least in regards to some instances. I would say we need more extensive screening where we look into the mental health records of an individual (granted not everyone is going to have records even if they are crazy), longer waiting periods before receiving gun (maybe allow for some of the aggression to blow over if its somehow related to them wanting to get a gun), don’t allow people on a no fly list to buy guns (because as it stands right now they actually can wtf), and ban armor piercing bullets from being sold to civilians.
The New York Times makes its first front-page editorial in almost a century: End the gun epidemic
That’s a silly analogy. Gun control folks always have reasons why gun control didn’t work the last time or the time before that. The grand daddy of them all is that gun control didn’t work because we only made them illegal in some places and not everywhere.
I don’t mean literally overnight but frankly we have guns in America and it is up to YOU to convince us. We are not obligated to simply believe something because it is obvious to you.
Who expects that? I expect most forms of proposed gun control not to work at all. (see assault weapons ban).
300 MILLION > ~30,000 like 10,000 times greater.
And where do we have “absolute laissez-faire, fuck it, let’s just give up”? Or are you making stuff up to bolster your argument?
The prior comments wasn’t directed at shooting. It was directed at terrorism.