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.
"Bring out your dead" <ring>
"Bring out your dead" <ring>
Regrettably, the truck had already passed, but I dumped them on the curbside, where they'll be picked up next week, slightly the worse for wear, and likely, considerably lighter.
"Most of us do not fear going out at night or even going into poor neighborhoods."
Having lived for almost 4 years near University Blvd in Melbourne, FL - the street which has the dubious honor of being the most reported from in the show Cops - I respectfully disagree. A friend of mine who was the son of a French diplomat and grew up in Francophone West Africa got robbed there at gunpoint the first day he arrived in the US after having had no problem walking around poor neighborhoods in dirt poor and war torn countries. 3 friends of mine sharing an apartment right by experienced an armed home invasion. I locked the doors and never dropped below 20 when driving there, even blasting through the stoplight since it was common knowledge that it was a very popular spot for carjackings and robberies.
Face it, the US is a zoo and the audience is not advised to enter the cage.
That does NOT describe where most Americans live. I'm sorry you are trapped in a place like that.
They only pick 'em up once a week there? They do it daily here!
Certainly there are places like that in the U.S., @Arcus. And there are places like that in other countries. Your friend was fortunate to avoid those in his other world travels (poverty is not the only factor), and just unfortunate to find himself in a spot in the U.S. that at that moment was a dangerous place to be. I had been walking through the neighborhood I had gotten assaulted in for many months without concern. I had the misfortune of encountering the leader of a small youth gang that had violent tendencies. Just the law of averages. I had been in rough neighborhoods in other parts of the world too. Guess what? I still continued to walk through that neighborhood -with a more watchful eye.
Bravo, Catie. I think, when one has lived in a society, where it is not the norm, every week, to have a massacre, to send your kids off to school, knowing there is a pretty good chance of them coming home, without being shot at, to go about one's business without fear - in Australia, it's common for the crims to shoot crims. When people are so scared, sad really. But then, don't be surprised when the next one happens, and don't gasp at the numbers of people killed or maimed.
Yeah, I guess we should let everyone drive without needing a drivers license, too. That would make driving safer. Give your head a shake, this stuff happens because of freaks that think easy access to guns somehow prevents violent crime. What part of 1 + 1 = 2 don't you get?
The whole culture in the US is sick, and the threat of violence is supposed to make people think twice before committing crime is know as Mutually Assured Destruction. But, the more guns you have kicking around, the more whackos have access to them, and the more criminals have them. Don't give me that crap about criminals will have guns anyways, because criminals just have more reason to steal weapons when there are more to be stolen and bought and sold illegally. More guns equals more people use them. I mean, what do you think will happen??? 90% of guns used in crime are stolen from private homes, and 70% of guns used in crimes are stolen: http://www.firearmsresearch.org/content.cfm/article_summary?article...
As for Mexico, give me a break about gun control being introduced producing more violent crime. Mexico gets their illegal guns from the south US where it is painfully easy to acquire as many guns as you want, including assault rifles, automatic weapons, oversize clips - everything a drug cartel needs to keep their profits generated by the atmosphere of the 'War on Drugs.' The law enforcement in Mexico is far more corrupt than even the US, and a report by the WHO two years ago found that the war on drugs was responsible for the destabilization of the government in Mexico, Columbia, and Afghanistan with 87 percent certainty.
I live in Canada, and I don't need gun freaks providing multitudes and excesses of weapons to spill over the border. Live by the sword, die by the sword, anyone more than ten years old knows this.
I'd sure like to know where anyone gets their stats on deregulation of gun ownership preventing violent crime, or the converse - increased regulation leading to increase in violent crimes. The numbers of firearms deaths is always correlated to access to firearms, because more people get accidentally killed and more people commit suicide with guns when more are available and prevalent. In fact, the number one increase in violence that correlates to gun ownership is threats of using the weapons by husbands on their spouses. These are all overlooked when guns and rates of crime are related. You have to concentrate on violent crime, accidental deaths, and domestic violence. This paints a realistic picture of the repercussions of widespread access to guns, not whether crime in general goes up or down.
I get my stats from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/ and at these resources;
In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
The Secret History of GunsThe Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
Reducing homicide: A review of the possibilities Using data from the Homicide Index, international research on homicide, and crime reduction literature, the authors explore the potential for reducing homicide. Four categories of homicide are analyzed in depth: domestic partner homicide, the killing of infants, alcohol-related homicide, and homicide involving guns and knives. In order to reduce homicides committed with guns, there must be attention to both supply and demand factors, such as stronger controls on availability as well as strong penalties for illegal possession.
I am sick of people promoting gun possession as any sort of mitigating factor in society's danger; it is antithetical to common sense, and contradicted by evidence.
How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug g...
As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored
Or maybe if more countries had nuclear weapons, there would be less threat of nuclear war? That's the logic gun freaks follow.
I’ve noticed atheist normally share common view points on most issues (abortion, health care, civil rights, etc. etc.) , but when it comes to the issue of gun rights there appears to be a spilt right down the middle
And that's because when you look at the facts, there are hard facts supporting both views. Gun control seems to work in some places but simply creates a more vulnerable public in others. This strongly implies that something other than the availability of guns is really the controlling factor.
@Jason - Sorry, Jason, Atheists disagree on loads of things :) including abortion, health care, and who they are going to vote for.
The fact that this shooting is in the news seems to leave some folks with the idea that massacres are commonplace in the U.S.
The fact is, of course, that if they were commonplace they wouldn't be nearly so newsworthy.