Batman Theater Slaughter: Would Gun Control Laws Have Prevented it?
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
Fishing for compliments? I swear your ego is a bottomless pit --
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
This news article might be relevant to this discussion:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/02/china-teen-knife-atta...
A knife wielding teen managed to kill 8 people and wound 5 more. I realize the victim count is lower than the theatre massacre, but still surprising that a non-gun toting maniac can do so much damage.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
Someone with a sword or baseball bat could stack 'em up like cordwood along a wilderness park jogging trail. You find trails like that in Cleveland's "Emerald Necklace," in Portland, Oregon's Forest Park, and in other cities. Let's ban baseball bats.
Here's an idea: lure a flashmob to some area with bombs planted in the nearby trash receptacles. You could probably make the Aurora bodycount look pretty sad by comparison. Then only detonate half the bombs on the flashmob. When the emergency crews get there, detonate the remaining bombs.
Gee...I'd make a pretty good terrorist, wouldn't I?
The point: you don't need guns to kill people en masse.
-
Permalink Reply by James Cox on -
No you would not! You gave it away! The crazy people padded truck is coming to take YOU away!
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
Give me a sledgehammer, a machete, and a sack full of kittens and I'm a happy man!
-
Permalink Reply by Becca on -
The point: you don't need guns to kill people en masse.
But it's still much easier to access guns, much easier to kill with guns, and requires a lot less planning to kill with a gun plus you don't have to be some serial killer in the park woods to rack up a body count. If it's so easy to have a mass killing in these other ways then why don't we see it very often?
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
Because it's hard to get the look&feel of being all 'gangsta' without a gat in yer glove.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
Okay, you just listed all the reasons why it'll be impossible to get rid of guns in America, as long as the Constitution makes them legal to own. Want to ban guns? You gotta change the Constitution.
Good luck on that.
So, forget banning guns and go to Plan B, whatever that is.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard E. Robertson on
-
Actually, the U.S. still has the highest level of gun ownership per capita (about 80%), but Switzerland is close at around 50%. Countries with stricter gun laws still have incredibly high levels of violence. I'm not going to go into deep statistical discussion on this matter, but the data is out there. Wikipedia was my (weak) source for the numbers I just quoted. It also gives a better source.
I just did a blog post on an attempt at rational discussion on the issue:
http://diaryofabasketcaseprogrammer.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-arms-an...
I posted this elsewhere on TA, but this is a more appropriate location.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Daniel Rockwell 11 minutes ago. 556 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 7 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
