As any sane person would, and we all know why.
Stabbing, slashing and impact weapons, though easier and cheaper to come by, are sub-optimal when trying to kill lots of people, very quickly, whilst keeping yourself disengaged and away from attack yourself.
True, Bombs are much better.
They are indeed, but not as portable or accessible or as user-friendly.
I guess if someone could harness the power of explosives into some sort of hand-held device that you could buy over the counter and provided you with multiple deadly, targeted detonations and shrapnel damage then that would be even better still.
There goes any hope that Gavin Newsom had of being a serious presidential candidate. There goes his financial backing. Maybe he would have made more progress for his ideals if he had put his face on a Bud Light beer can.
Which is why you can’t buy them at Walmart.
No, the opposite is true, the only reason pro-gun Americans try to take out suicide is the diminish the damage done by guns. It’s the same reason they are dismissive of “gang” violence: dead black people don’t matter to them and they don’t get that decent people aren’t like that. Racism and other irrational fears are the foundation of America’s gun culture. It’s why their arguments are so irrational, because they are. I mean we have someone in this thread arguing that you could run over over 400 people with a car. The pro-gun people just aren’t serious people and are ruled by their fears and fantasies.
I found this article to be interesting:
Listen to the southern right talk about violence in America and you’d think New York City was as dangerous as Bakhmut on Ukraine’s eastern front.
< snip >
In reality, the region the Big Apple comprises most of is far and away the safest part of the U.S. mainland when it comes to gun violence, while the regions Florida and Texas belong to have per capita firearm death rates (homicides and suicides) three to four times higher than New York’s. On a regional basis it’s the southern swath of the country — in cities and rural areas alike — where the rate of deadly gun violence is most acute, regions where Republicans have dominated state governments for decades.
The main problem, as I see it, is strict gun laws do not work when only one (or a few) states do it because it is trivial to travel to another state where gun laws are lax and buy what you need there (or use straw purchases to get guns).
Any decent gun control, whatever form it takes, simply must be done on a national level.
The Anarchists Cookbook disagrees
While this has a nugget of truth, I keep hearing that excise when some states byzantine gun control laws fail.
But then they ask for more state gun control laws and say that they work, that states with high gun control laws have less crime. Which Politifact rates “Half True” - see my cite above.
So, then you are proposing we get rid of all local level gun control laws?
No.
I think the article I quoted just above shows that red states with the most permissive gun laws are generally distinctly more dangerous when it comes to gun deaths.
State level gun laws do seem to have some effect. The cry from gun owners tends to be that if they didn’t stop all gun deaths then they are worthless and serve only to annoy them.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
What does this nonsense even mean?
There’s no point arguing with gun people, they believe nonsense. There so obsessed over imagined dangers, they are ignoring the very real dangers their fears and fantasies have created.
That instead of acknowledging that Walmart (et al) doesn’t have a bomb section it doesn’t matter because if you squint hard they might sell the parts to make a ‘’‘’‘bomb’‘’‘’.
It probably doesn’t matter what idea any of us could offer, because your response would be either that it isn’t reasonable or wouldn’t reduce crime. For instance, a national gun registry, strictly enforced, would probably cut down on the number of firearm-related incidents, but we don’t know that for sure because it’s obviously never been implemented. And requiring every gun owner to register all of her/his weapons and report every transaction involving a firearm would certainly be considered unreasonable by most of those affected by such a mandate.
Thankfully we basically do that with cars . . . which we’ve established are far more dangerous than firearms!
Yeah, I got it, it’s just nonsense. To claim that the number one cause of child death isn’t a problem is nonsense. It’s the only arguments they have: nonsense. It’s why they engage in silly parsing of numbers or bizarre scenarios with cars and knives, because they have no argument. They live their lives in fear and nothing will ever change that.
It’s like arguing with people claiming I can’t prove there’s not a monster under the bed, their only hope is to divert the argument into side channels because reality just does not jibe with their views.
The article I cite from Politifact seems to show there is no strong correlation.
They do, but not a lot.
Have you read the book? You can make explosives from stuff you can buy in your average Walmart.
Gun registration does nothing to reduce crime. How can it? SCOTUS has ruled that felons do not have to register their guns.
However, on your second part, I will go you one better- require most gun transactions (not to a gun store or a close relative as a gift or to a police officer, where you must maintain records) require a background check. In other words, you can not sell a gun to some dude without running his ID thru a national database. In several states- such as CA- you can ONLY sell a gun to a gun store. However, gun stores know this and offer a lowball price. So allow a sale to an individual, but require such sale to be recorded and with a background check. Yes, this means individuals would have access, but the only response they would get is “Sale okay” or “sale not okay” with no reason given.
No, we dont. You do not have to register your car- UNLESS you want to drive it on the public highways. Same with guns in most states- if you want to get a CCW, you have to register yourself, get a background check, and give the issuing agency the serial numbers of the guns you want to carry in public. But if you keep your car at home in your grange, or your gun at home in your save- no registration.
Of course it’s a problem. (Altho note a “child” is anyone under 18, like that 17 yo gangbanger who got killed in the drug deal). But rather than say “something has to be done”- what do YOU suggest?
Using The Anarchist Cookbook as a source of reliable information (the author actually touts the use of “babanadine”!) would be a major mistake.
If true, then that’s a compelling argument that gun ownership in the US should be even more severely restricted than in those other countries that don’t have a “cultural problem with violence.”
Well, I thought about it. Since prohibition dramatically reduced the consumption of alcohol, I think where you’re leading us is that prohibition is a good model to reduce gun ownership. So that’s two compelling arguments in favor of gun control you’ve made.
Well- maybe it did. But it also caused violent crime to spike, and the upsurge in organized crime. In fact there are arguments made that Prohibition caused organized crime in the USA.
But this is moot- any such “prohibition” would be illegal under the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps you didn’t closely read what I said about gun registration:
So you’re agreeing that one of us presented a reasonable idea that might actually reduce violent crime?
The Prohibition I was thinking of was the one they kicked off with an amendment.