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.

Tags: batman, colorado, control, gun, shooting

Views: 3405

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What is this im seeing about americas crazy gun laws? And these even crazier statics? I wouldnt trust half those stats just cause some of the information provided could be false. And the issue about gun control, lets say we did get rid of all guns, crime rates involving guns go down, there are fewer robberies, everything seems all good. Then all of a sudden, we are invaded by space aliens with intention to take over and we have no guns to protect ourselves. Think about it...

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!!!!

Batman hates guns. His parents were killed by guns (at a movie theater). Batman likes karate and batarangs.14 people were never killed by karate and batarangs. Batman has the final word.
Or tasers, come to think of it.

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..

The Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that the 2nd amendment is predicated on a preexisting right for individuals to bear arms. Or something like that.

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. 

The point was about how the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment and the reasons provided. Application to the states was settled in a latter case: McDonald v. Chicago.

Isn't "militia" just another word for an army? And wouldn't the terminology "well-regulated militia" describe a professional army like the U.S. military than some nut jobs running around the backwoods of Idaho or Arkansas? What "regulation" is there of those guys?

That's the thing, a militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramility service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.(wiki def)... So you can see the basic differences between the two.. For a good part of the our history, the U.S. used militias in their military battles... the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and the War of 1812 are prime examples. 

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.... (also from Wiki)


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service