That's the title of a Washington Post article.
While I don't know if anyone in the magazine wanted a weapon, if one of them had had a gun, things might have ended a somewhat different way, with at least less bloodshed.
One has only to look at the attack on Canada's apartment building where an individual citizen, the Sergeant at Arms, Kevin Vlickers, a private citizen albeit a retired ex-cop, to see how the presence of an unexpected gun can bring an attack to an end and prevent additional bloodshed if not the initial bloodshed.
If someone is attacked by a dog, we don't say "Don't fight the dog. Wait till the Animal Control people arrive." Yet that is basically the position gun control advocates would put us in when it comes to terroristic attacks.
We control access to automobiles probably in major part because misuse of them contributes to highway deaths, but driving an automobile isn't a right, whereas owning guns explicitly is in the United States' Constitution. We could certainly reduce many more deaths by cancer than gun deaths by simply banning cigarettes, and smoking isn't even an explicit right.
If we're going to start banning things that cause death, why not start with those things we don't have an explicit right to own or use like cigarettes, alcohol, automobiles, unhealthy foods, living the couch potato life, and so on.
But when attempting to ban weapons, we should also bear in mind what happened with prohibition and our war on drugs both of which failed and were windfalls for criminals and gangs.
You didn't really reply to my point, which was a direct response to your post. I suspect your attempt to change the subject is a result of your implicit recognition that I am right on that point.
Every society makes decisions about what to ban and how strictly to ban those things. It's all a question of cost and benefit analysis. Currently, the U.S. has a policy based on the notion that free access to guns outweighs the costs of said access. That is a different issue from whether or a not a different policy could result in perfect compliance with the law. Such a result is obviously impossible. If it were possible, there would be no debate because everyone would already agree. That is the only way to achieve perfect compliance--universal agreement.
You didn't really reply to my point,
Sorry you're not satisfied.
Every society makes decisions about what to ban and how strictly to ban those things. It's all a question of cost and benefit analysis.
Somehow, when I read "cost and benefit analysis" it sounds to me like you are talking about something other than the electorate and the Constitution. It sounds like you're talking as though some government agency sits down with research and statistics or something. That's hilarious!
Then it seems the anti-gun lobby needs to try manipulating the 4th amendment to get rid of the illegally possessed guns responsible for 90+% of the gun crimes before hammering the 2nd amendment, don't they?
And for what you call a "fact" you better back up and try ot put some facts with that... and read up on strict gun laws vs those with the least strict. Don't forget to look up Chicago, Washington DC and even the UK for the five + years after they took away all legally owned hand gins
First off why are you only concerned by gun death?
Why are you not concernedabout all unnatural death?
Wouldn't it be a more intelligent approach to look into the causes of all unnatural death first?
Should we confine ourselves to only those deaths brought about from human intent?
If so are we going to exclude deaths caused by government and police actions and suicide?
Are we going to confine our inquiry to just cases of individuals or groups of individuals who cause the death of one or more other individuals?
If we seprate this into a) individuals and b.) groups. Then a.) is self explanatory, how should we define category b.)?
1. Street gangs; Crips, Bloods, M13, etc.
2. Hate groups; KKK, Black Panthers, Aryan Brotherhood, etc.
3. Anti-government groups; The Intelligence Project identified 1,096 antigovernment “Patriot” groups that were active in 2013. source
4. Churchs and other Cults.
Mo. are we going to call for banning every object that one individual uses to kill another individual?
Are we maybe going to have a base number of deaths by each object per year before calling for a ban?
Mo, what's the root cause for why one person will intentionally kill another person?
Shouldn't that be the question we answer first?
I think it is.
Gregg, anti-gun people have a monomania about guns. They could give a rat's ass about tobacco deaths, auto deaths, etc., which kill more people every year than guns. It's like obsessive hand-washing.
I'm trying to get us to focus on cause and away from the "the gun did it!" mentality.
The "Why" is the most important question to answer before heading out on the path toward a solution. If we cannot answer the "Why" we will never make the changes that will prevent future tragedies.
If there were no AK47's no one would have died in Paris.
If there were no handguns no one would have died in Chicago.
If there were no Hellfire missiles no innocent women and children would have died in Iraq, Afganistan, Yeman.
without answering the "WHY" we have no chance of stoping the suffering, death, and destruction left behind by man's inhumanity to man.
Answer the "WHY" or humankind has no chance.
Crazy people in every country sometimes manage to get guns. But, since it’s more difficult in most countries and so easy in the U.S., the following is true:
France has approximately 127 intentional gun homicides per year,
BECAUSE OF STRICT GUN LAWS.
Britain has an average of 34 per year,
BECAUSE OF STRICT GUN LAWS.
In Japan, the most recent year for which stats are available there were 11 gun homicides,
BECAUSE OF STRICT GUN LAWS.
And the list goes on.
In the U.S. there are about 15,000 intentional gun homicides per year,
BECAUSE OF LAX GUN LAWS.
Compared to virtually every other country, gun homicides in the U.S. are many, MANY, MANY times larger. In the U.S., things like what happened in France are almost a daily occurrence, hardly worth mentioning in the news, because, thanks to the greedy weapons manufacturers and the NRA, criminals, crazy people, terrorists, angry husbands, etc. simply go to the gun show and buy any kind of gun, including military assault weapons, they want. And our cowardly, craven lawmakers stand back and let it happen.
Furthermore, the latest FBI statistics point out that death by guns is more prevalent in states where gun laws are most lax. EVERY SINGLE STUDY EVER DONE on gun deaths in the home PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt, that having a gun in the home makes it roughly 100 times more likely that that gun will be used to kill someone in the home than it will to protect the home from homicidal intruders. Just today, I read about a teenager - unarmed - who was shot and killed by someone who casually admitted that he would have lost in a fair fight. The judge, IN FLORIDA, OF COURSE, dismissed the case because of the “Stand Your Ground” law. No civilized country would let someone get away with that. But then, as the whole world knows, we are not a civilized country; we are the wild west, full of wannabe gunslingers lookin’ fer somebody to plug fulla holes, whether it be Iraqi women and children, innocent Afghans, or annoying people right here at home, especially if they happen to be black.
But I guess that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted to happen, instead of supporting the concept of state militias, as they stated explicily in the 2nd Amendment. Clearly, they hoped some nutcase would get ahold of an assault rifle and mow down a bunch of first graders in their classroom some day, right? Or do you believe that those first graders and/or their teacher should have been “packing heat”? That is INSANE!
I’ve mentioned this on this site before, but it bears repeating. My neighbor across the street took out his .45 semi-automatic pistol and threatened me with it because he thought (incorrectly) that I had implied he was the one who had shot out the windows of my next door neighbor. Of course, I didn’t report it to the police, for two reasons: they would have thrown up their hands and said there’s nothing they could do; and he might have gone ahead and shot me. So, you might ask, why didn’t I threaten him back with a gun of my own. Well, even if I had one, I wouldn’t have done that, even though I am a crack shot (with a rifle, at least). One or both of us could have gotten killed, over which the NRA wouldn’t lose a moment of sleep. Instead, I talked him down and we both survived. You see, I’m not a very good cowboy. I’d rather live than die looking like Wyatt Earp. And if I hadn’t employed the same strategy growing up in the worst gang neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles, I wouldn’t be an 80 year old, telling this story today. Fortunately, my crackpot neighbor, being a deadbeat, skipped out on nine months of rent and moved to parts unknown.
If those cartoonists had been armed with handguns, it probably wouldn’t have saved them against a surprise attack by determined killers wearing armour and shooting fully automatic assault weapons.
Implying that those unhinged terrorists in France were able to kill several people because France has strict gun laws is the most specious, dishonest, and dishonorable argument one could make.
The solution is real simple Dale.
Stop bitching at us responsible legal gun owners and go do something about the ILLEGALLY POSSESSED hand guns that account for over 90% of the shootings that you are talking about in the US.
When you get something done about the real problem come back and we'll be glad to throw you a party.
But you're wasting your time barking at us...
Indeed. What an elegantly simple solution for Dale. For him to just shut up.
Hey Dale...your whining and your thought out arguments have no place on a forum of discussion and debate when it might itch the soul of sensitive readers here who might not like or agree with what you are saying. So go solve all of the worlds problems and then we will address the ones you've just mentioned.
SO SHUT UP DALE AND STOP WASTING OUR TIME AND GO BECOME GHANDI AND MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD...BECAUSE NOTHING YOU CAN SAY HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND ABOUT ANYTHING!!!
Because that's the whole point of conversation and debate...to change people's minds.
Davis, you know as well as I that the real problem in America is not with the 99% of responsible registered gun owners. It's the saturday night specials being sold on the streets of southside Chicago for forty bucks so somebody can 'pop a cap in their ass' and throw it away.