After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?
Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.
Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.
The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.
I've always wondered why crime shows always call it a "through and through" - if it went through, there's no need for a second through, unless it bounced off of something and went through again, ergo, a "through and through," much as in the case of John Connolly, which may well have been a "through and thorough and through," depending on who's telling the story.
Through the clothing and through the body?
I don't know, man. I've shot .45. It's a big, slow bullet. I think .40 kicks harder. I don't think any handgun will put the shooter on his ass unless he's totally off-balance.
On further research, I have to agree with you, but I think hitting him with several shots would definitely disorient him for a few moments.
Well, first, the U.S. isn't Australia and Americans aren't Australians. There are cultural differences to be taken into account. Secondly, gun control, like any law, only gives the government a law to prosecute with AFTER a crime has occurred. But given that a crime has happened, that means that there already is a law against the action.
When guns were mandated in Kennesaw Georgia, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent.
I also think we should trust data, above our guts and wishful thinking.
Clearly, there are examples and counterexamples both ways. If the dispute could be solved by examining data, it would have been solved by now.
I agree. Here is another. Gun crimes went up 40% after UK ban. Mostly in areas of low legal handgun ownership. The problem isn't gun control. It's culture.
"research commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting"
You'll need a far better source than that!
In many cases, the data is in, the facts are clear, but there is a committed group claiming that there's uncertainty (think global warming, evolution, etc.). That doesn't mean we shouldn't examine the data.
In the case of gun control, it's important to understand that the NRA's primary motivation is profit for the gun makers. That doesn't mean the causes and effects are easy to sort out - but it does mean their statements deserve special scrutiny.
In many cases, perhaps, but in the case of gun control, there's no doubt that results are mixed. Gun crimes went up in some places and went down in others. In any case, the crimes committed with guns are already illegal. The real question is whether making guns less available really makes them less available to criminals. And in the case of crimes of passion, the unavailability of a gun hardly makes it impossible to kill the other party. Not as long as there are kitchen knives, hatchets, and baseball bats.