Wrong. Of the 61 mass murders since 1982, more than three quarters of the guns were obtained legally.
Obligatory comic I trot out every time a shooting occurs (which is far too frequently): http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TMW2011-01-12acolorlowres-copy.jpg
I think there’s a cite in another thread that the number of murders commited by fully automic weapons (which includes AK-47s and actual assault rifles) since 1938 is two.
Cue the people that come in saying pistols and assault style weapons have no sporting uses, as if self-defense isn’t a legit use, and that AR-15 are well established in the target shooting circuit and large caliber pistols can be used for hunting. (The 7.62X39 round can be used for hunting too, but admittably and AK-47 is the last thing I’d take, too innacurate compared to an SKS-45 or similar.
So far as I can see, there are roughly 20 school shootings per year since the early 80s.
2012 has had 32, the vast majority from Newtown. 20-40 deaths per year seems to be the norm.
There are around 60 million kids aged 4-18, and most of those are in schools.
So, whats the problem again? Sure, these incidences are tragic, but they are also so statistically insignificant it is irrational to base any sort of decision on them.
I’m left thinking of this as a No-Win Scenario.
Let’s imagine this scenario:
Gun ownership is limited to say, five guns per licensed gun owners. Each gun owner must first be licensed to buy a gun on an individual basis (meaning the state certifies this person is fit to be allowed to purchase a gun.) This would involve passing tests on gun safety, usage, and storage. It would also involve him signing a “waiver of rights” that would allow local police to perform periodic inspections on the gun storage location in his home and insure all of his legal guns are stored in that area and that said area meets legal regulations. For each gun he wishes to purchase, he must first get a license from the State, explaining why he needs the gun and then get the license approved and issued. He then can take that to a gun store and buy the gun. The use must match the gun. If you say you need the gun for hunting, then it typically can’t be a pistol unless you certify it will only be used in hunting for a small number of game where a pistol is really one of the appropriate options.
If those laws were both enforced and followed widely, gun availability for non-legal gun owners would be low. Further, an unstable person would have a much harder time acquiring a gun, and even then it would “take time” meaning perhaps they would have a “cooling off” event that would stop them from going to violence. [You might have some exceptions on the 5 gun limit for collectors, but the collector license would be extremely hard to get and require waiving even more privacy/rights to insure compliance.]
Okay, so that system might work if it was both followed and enforced. But if it was just imposed overnight, it would create a large black market here in America where guns are plentiful.
Further, such a regime could never be passed given America’s feelings on guns. Further, if America didn’t have such feelings on guns, it’s quite possible we wouldn’t have so many guns in the first place and we’d have less gun crime, so the whole issue would be less important.
It’s hard to get around the fact that for any of the regulations that might help to be passed and to actually work, society would have to be so different from what it currently is that it’d be a society in which guns weren’t a major issue in the first place.
They are pretty significant to the parents of the kids. But at least you get to shoot target practice at the range. Definitely worth it.
How would this help? Hunting rifles and shotguns are actually excellent tools for mass slaughter - they are in fact far deadlier than handguns. Easier to shoot accurately, too.
If someone’s crazy enough to want to shoot up a school, mall, theater, etc., I don’t think he’s going to change his plans just because all he can get his hands on is a shotgun.
I should mention that the current political impossibility for gun control is brought about by decades of public relations.
In 1959 60% of people favored banning handguns. So what you’d need to do to ban handguns is get that many people liking the idea again.
If you wanna do that, I’d recommend taking pictures of the children’s corpses from that shooting today and putting them up on a billboard truck like the anti-abortion guys do with fetus images.
I don’t think you are accurately modeling the situation in you head.
Rifles do more damage, but they have fewer shots, take longer to reload and use heavier ammo.
The problem with your proposal is that the shooters in these scenarios aren’t using automatic weapons. Those have been heavily regulated since 1934. The weapons these spree killers are using ARE basic guns for hunting and protection.
Dude, that’s just silly. You’d need the speed loaders carefully arranged on a table in front of you. How you gonna carry 16 speed loaders?
Sadly, I think there’s quite a bit of truth in that. I would not countenance abridging the First Amendment, but would it be asking too much for the media to show some restraint in how it reports these tragedies? Assholes like the guy who shot up this school shouldn’t be made famous.
You seriously want kindergarten teachers to pack heat? Maybe I know too many teachers (my wife taught high school for years) but I seriously cannot wrap my brain around this ‘solution.’ Just add more guns! Up the ante! Instead of one mass shooter, let’s have twenty people shooting! :rolleyes:
The ugly approach is metal detectors and guards at school. The better answer is to rein in the second amendment and put meaningful restrictions on weapon ownership. The ideal answer it to transform our national attitude toward gun use and ownership to be more similar to that of other developed nations that have 1/10th the per capita gun violence that we do. But unfortunately that’s impossible, impractical and unrealistic.
But when my kids teachers start carrying in the classroom – that is the day I pull them out of public school.
nm
I’m happier living in a place with sensible gun control laws (Canada), but ultimately I do not think that imposing stricter laws in the US is going to make much difference - there are millions of guns available already, and a culture in which many view gun ownership of all sorts as a right. Changing the laws under those circumstances will have about as much impact as having pot illegal in the “war on drugs” has had - namely, not much. Doesn’t make sense to start an equally-futile “war on guns”.
Much more effective, IMO, would be to put serious resources into mental health issues, and to overhaul the laws relating to the mentally ill. I dunno about the US, but in Ontario at least it is very difficult (really, impossible) to legally and sensibly deal with someone who is crazy and appears to be dangerous - I’ve seen that first hand.
Are you under the impression that if someone cuts your feet off with a machete, and the news says nothing, that you can still dance?
On the upside, if you add a couple of bald eagles and some black helicopters and you could be president of the NRA someday.
There’s no need for hyperbole, Lobohan. All we need to do is uninvent mass media and social media and then that’ll fix everything.
You aready put your game piece on the table the instant you said that assault weapons weren’t used. That strongly implies that you have a specific definition of “assault weapons” that the those used in today’s shootings don’t fall into.
Robots
Feel free to cite an example where armed people have helped any of these situations. I vaguely remember citizens firing back at Whitman, but thats the only one that comes to mind.
The latest reports say the shooter used two handguns at the school.
