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: 3312

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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)

No, "militia" is not another word for army. An army is made up of professional soldiers. A militia is an emergency force drawn from the general population who typically provide their own equipment. A "well regulated" militia simply means that emergency force gets some periodic training in emergency response. The National Guard isn't a militia either. They get paid. :)

Ok, I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere, but the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary for ...,"  does not read "You must be a member of a well regulated militia for the rest of this legal protection apply to you". It's a statement of belief by the writers of the amendment.  And you are in error. There are legally recognized militias in all 50 states last time I checked, and they were all "well regulated".  They typically help in national and local disasters. They attract their share of flakes (sadly, so do the police and military), but they are stable community service organizations with a long, respected history. Your conclusion relies on a false premise.

I am sorry but America is a society where it is easier and cheaper to buy guns than it is to obtain mental health care, well any health care I am guessing. You are swimming in guns, you are the worlds biggest exporter of weapons, you spend more on weapons than anyone else by a lllloooonnngggggggggggg margin. America has a gun fetish coupled with a law and order fetish in a society where its media output constantly portray violence and the use of violence as a way of solving almost every problem. Your leaders idea of diplomacy is to first stick an enormous weapons platform of another's nations shore, get CNN, Faux Fox and Reuters to show images of side arm wielding personel along with library images of previous bombing campaigns against other nations with zero effective defence and THEN start talking.

In other words "gun good, gun solve problem" pervades through an awful of society. Given this and the vast number in circulation I do not think gun control will work. I suspect the easiest solution will be to declare a policy of compulsory gun use to solve all perceived problems and hope to hell that the gun wielders will eventually kill each other off !

Yes, this stuff only happens in countries that are swimming in guns.  In the UK we get it maybe once in two decades.  In the US it seems to be at least twice a year.  We just never get someone walking into a crowd with full body armour and a selection of heavy weapons. 

What about your "Saturday Night Specials" I have heard about?  People getting drunk and foolish with their toys on a Saturday night?  Doesn't happen here.  People get knifed, they don't get shot.  If I want to shoot someone, I can do it from all the way over the other side of the room.  I don't have to engage them personally. 

Better to spend your money on health care, believe me. 

Believe it or not, you're more likely NOT to survive a knife assault. Why? A typical gun wound is one bullet hole. A typical knife assault involves multiple stab wounds, anywhere between 6 and two dozen penetrations. The result is that the victim will die of exsanguination before all of the wounds can be dealt with.

OK, that's a fair point.  It's better to look at the overall murder rate. 

On the other hand, how many people can one person kill with one knife?  About three, maximum. 

Well, over time, many, depending on whether one get's caught or not. In a short period of time, a couple guns would do the job as in this case. However, if I were a nut case wanting to make a splash, I'd choose a bomb due to the much lower likelihood of being caught, allowing me to bomb again on another day. Mass poisoning sounds good, too.

Thats why we have legally protected rights to carry bombs and poison.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by kris feenstra 19 minutes ago. 130 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service