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 checked out your link. It seems you don't have good "radar" for propaganda from special interest groups. For example, the stats come from a group named Toronto Small Arms/Firearms Research. To me that smells like an anti-gun group. It wouldn't be a name chosen by a pro-gun group and is wouldn't be a name chosen by a group engaging in controlled and peer-reviewed social research.
It's the website of "The Gun Control Network," which is a rather obvious (just from the name) pro gun control organization. I don't imagine you'd take seriously any stats presented by "The Gun Rights Network."
Your chart showing the United States compared to other countries is a bit misleading. What it doesn't show is that a number of countries have higher gun homicide rates than the U.S. The chart leaves the (I believe intended) impression that the United States has the highest homicide rate in the world.
Also, while the homicide rate by guns is three or four times higher than by other means in the United States, other countries, Scotland for example, have non-gun homicide rates approximating the gun homicide rate. People in Scotland get killed by being stabbed or being beaten to death about as often as by being shot.
Also, including suicide rates in the discussion is a distraction deserving a separate discussion. I, for example, believe one has a right to commit suicide. This is a view held by many, The main argument against suicide by gun is that it's messy, but so is jumping off an overpass onto a freeway.
Small Arms/ Firearms Education and Research Network is based from an accredited university (Ryerson). Their research may or may not be good, but it is unlikely to be a mere gun control advocacy group.
I have no idea about Gun Control Network, but my keen intuition leads me to believe they may favour gun control.
@Unseen - RE: "it's messy, but so is jumping off an overpass onto a freeway."
Onto a freeway, indisputably, but onto a less-busy two-lane blacktop, the buzzards are quite quick and efficient at cleanup.
I find it hard to believe that space aliens who have mastered interstellar (or even just interplanetary) travel could be all that much more incompetent leaders than humans. Space Aliens for president 2012!!!!
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there's a few fundamental differences between us and Switzerland. Each and every one of their males from 20-30 years is conscripted into their militia. They do not have a standing army. Their men must be ready at a moment's notice, so they keep their arms at home...
The U.S. on the other hand, no longer has a militia and hasn't for quite a long time. We have a formally trained volunteer military force.
Now, consider for a moment the first for words of the 2nd Amendment that people seem to miss.. "A well-regulated militia, .." .Now you have you ask yourself.."Since we don't have a militia anymore, but we do have a formally trained military, just how truly valid it the 2nd Amendment..? "... Just a thought..
D.C. vs. Heller. .. It was in relation to being able to have guns has household protection in a federal enclave.For instance, arson, theft, receiving stolen goods, destruction of property and robbery are all prohibited in Federal enclaves. Property offenses which violate state law but are not otherwise punishable under federal law become federal crimes when committed on a federal enclave within the state. Since D.C. is considered a Federal enclave not a state it would have different rules of law then say a state would. ... In others words, DC vs Heller didn't related to those living in a state.
The ruling came down to the constitutional amendment. While states do not have to adopt the specific practices of D.C., the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment does apply to individual states. That is my general understanding of the Supremacy Clause.
Right, but they weren't talking about states and the 2nd Amendment in that case. They were talking about whether or not the 2nd Amendment pertained to areas like D.C. which are not states, but federal enclaves.