Well I don’t know for sure but I think the two countries experienced similar reductions in violence over that time without a noticably larger reduction in violence in Australia. But to be fair, Australia didn’t have that many guns to begin with so taking away the guns just didn’t have a huge effect no matter what.
You neglected to work Benghazi into that whine. Fail.
Such as?
As Bricker has pointed out repeatedly, efficacy is not a requirement for legislation. But I don’t see why the existence of alternative B means there’s no point in regulating A. Besides, the mechanism of a revolver limits it to fewer bullets than a semi-auto in the same amount of time.
I don’t care what you think “gun grabbers” should do. I’m asking for a simple statistical analysis of what gun murders have in common and then regulating those elements in an effort to reduce gun murders, or if such an effort is a waste of time from the get-go.
He bypassed a tiny Spanish language theater and one that is a restaurant that shows movies. Neither of them would have many people even if they showed midnight movies, which they don’t. (The massacre occurred on the opening day of Batman Rises.) The closest large theater complex was the Century. Do you really think he scouted out every theater within 20 minutes for “no weapons” signs and made his decision based on that? Or is it more likely that he chose the one he was familiar with and where he could park his car behind next to a door that he knew led into the Theater that would be showing the Batman movie?
And you’re a self-professed fan of Occam’s Razor?
So, nobody ever gets shot where people can pack heat?
You’re not a native English-thinker, are you?
The speculation game! I’ll play!
It was in fact a planning oversight, had he thought about it he could have been responsible for killing even more people if he had picked a theatre with armed and suprised civilians shooting at eachother in the confusion when multiple weapons are drawn at once. Purchasing a ticket to the show is no guarantee these people drawing thier firearms aren’t part of the plot after all, and think of how many more innocent civilians could have been shot.
Thanks for fact-checking this one. I appreciate it.
Casual violence among soldiers? I’m confused.
There are, we are repeatedly told, good guys with guns and bad guys with guns, and the best defense against bad guys with guns is for every good guy to carry a gun. It goes without saying that soldiers are the very bestest of the good guys (and I dare anyone to claim otherwise). When you get a whole bunch of good guys with guns together in one place, how could there ever be such a thing as “casual violence”?
Whatever the reason, the obvious solution is— say it with me— more guns. With bullets in them. And plenty of extra bullets.
And more guns.
Suppose we can establish that 99% of all murders that are committed with guns are committed using breech-loading guns that take modern-style brass cartridges with smokeless powder. In itself, would this be sufficient evidence to support arguing for a ban on all such firearms, and only allowing muzzle-loading guns that use black powder? What would the consequence be of such a ban if it were implemented and successfully enforced?
On a related note, I have it on good authority that the vast majority of victims of automobile accidents were injured in incidents involving automobiles that are powered by reciprocating internal combustion engines. Perhaps we could improve traffic safety by banning all internal-combustion-engine-powered cars, and only allowing cars that are powered by steam engines, Wankel engines, electrical motors, rockets, or anything but reciprocating internal combustion engines.
Well, for one thing, a drive by shooting would take about fifteen minutes.
That is exactly what has been happening. Every time some new excuse arises, the gungrabber side pushes for yet a new set of restrictive laws, since the ones that they have already succeeded in getting into place have been proven ineffective.
That’s pretty much the standard approach of the far left^H^H^H^Hwrong. Put forth restrictive, and ultimately ineffective or even overtly-harmful policies, and then use the failure of those policies as “proof” that more of the same kind of policies are needed. Treat a poisoning victim by administering greater and greater doses of the same poison that made the victim sick in the first place.
I think you can take for granted that the common element of gun murders is “guns”. Given the practical impossibility of banning “guns”, though, what was a common element in a significant number of gun murders? Drug addition? Something relating to the drug trade? The shooter had a criminal record? Record of mental illness? Had the shooter been drinking alcohol? Is there a particular type of gun that is most favoured by murderers? If it’s truly random and no specific regulation is likely to make a dent, then I guess you’ll just have to ban “guns” or live with the consequences.
Well, ten thousand Americans a year won’t.
Better stay in first gear.
What’s “first gear”, Granpa?
Were they all showing Batman?
So what you are saying is that there is no such thing as “a little bit infringed?”
The vast majority of murders that are committed with guns are committed with handguns. Depending on what statistics you believe, shotguns and rifles account for anywhere from 1% to 3% of all guns used to commit murders.
As it happens, handguns are by far the most practical sort of gun to use to commit a murder. As it also happens, handguns are equally by far the most useful guns for legitimate self-defense purposes as well.
If you’re considering whether a particular type of gun should be banned because of its prevalence in illegitimate uses, then you need also to consider its prevalence in legitimate uses as well.
Well, seems to me, as a semantic point if nothing more substantial, that some words admit of very little modification by adjective. “Mediocre”, for instance. Can’t be “extremely mediocre”.
If we ban some extreme forms of weaponry, like Tommy guns, we have infringed. If we control extreme weapons, so that only the certifiably mentally sound and morally straight can own them, we have infringed. And if we ban them all, outright, across the board, well, you better believe that’s an infringing!
So, then, what authority can still rest upon those Constitutional words? Are we compelled to comply? Are we obliged to set the whole clock back, and erase any and all such infringements? Or will the Ghost of the Constitution be appeased if we just say well, OK, but no further restrictions! The Constitution is not violated yet, but not one step further! You can stick it in just a little…
Whether we believe in a living Constitution or no, the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment simply does not mean what it originally meant, even if we could figure out what that really was.
(Aside: if anyone doubted it, and wants to be assured that the Founders were not as smart as cracked up to be, behold the 2nd Amendment, a masterpiece of solemn ambiguity! Yes! and I repeat, No!)
Half the deadliest shootings in all of US history occurred in the past six years.
As I pointed out before, every soldier in Israel walks around armed - with an automatic weapon no less - on base and off, on duty and off. In restaurants. In movie theaters. In the streets, shopping or buying ice cream. Yet there is no “Wild West” going on. Wonder why?