In response to the bubling discussion over arms control perhaps this article will add a different perspective. Do read the article in full.
I don't agree with the title of this article but I agree with most of the content. It's the first time I've read an article that answers a few questions I've had and mentions recent reports that has information I've had a hard time getting my hands on.
The most interesting finding was that a prevalence of gun ownership does not only increase the rate of gun homicide in that state/county but that the overall rate of homicide also goes up. The idea that a murderer will murder anyway and will find some other way does not necessarily follow.
The second argument worth noting is that owning guns in general do not make you more safe and can make you less safe. An argument that I have heard repeated ad nauseum in the literature I've so far read.Must states and countries start to control arms more strictly? That's up to them. Should the debate focus more on stronger and clearer arguments with a grounded understanding of the benefits and dangers? Yes. Should we pay far more attention to statistics and empirical research. No brainer.
I certainly think that spending time discussing and mourning over a murderous rampage of school children is a waste of time. There are far more important things to worry about...such as if we have free will or not.
If you want to distract people from the most practical priorities, you can always wave the bloody shirts of dead schoolchildren.
Any idea how many children die in traffic accidents, house fires, or by parental abuse. Parents kill far more children through domestic battery and criminal neglect than are killed in mass school shootings.
If mass school shootings were happening on a daily basis, I'd be concerned. They don't.
Your argument fails you unseen. The first is that...various levels of government actively does much to deal with parental abuse. Social services, abuse awareness, advocacy, support groups, special classes in school, commercial campaigns. If several abuses happen in succession they will change policies, allocate new resources and case workers to deal with it. They react and change policy, regulations and even laws. They should do more...but they certainly to a hell of a lot (compared to just two generations ago). And for traffic regulations? The government regulates the f**k out of it. Hundreds of laws ranging from licencing to safety standards, speed limits, alcohol limits, age limits, signage, signaling, seat belt laws (I really could go on and on and on and on). What more do you expect the government to do? Take tests to make sure you've been awake an hour before you drive? Have robots drive everyone around to avoid further fatalities? Ban alcohol?
Meanwhile in some states nothing is done about anything regarding guns...even after shooting sprees. Even after lots of them (massacres happen in places other than schools).
What makes it worse is that these massacres are pre-meditated. The criminal plans to go to a school and shoot as many children as possible. Why on earth would this shock us more than a traffic accident?
Several people die from accidental car crashes on the bend of a hi-way? What is to be done? Change the signage? Change the curve of the hi-way?
A man calmly walks into a school with easily accesible weapons planning on murdering as many school children as possible. Then carries out premeditated murder. The response? "We shouldn't sensationalise this. Gun regulations are fine".
Several cases of death per child abuse = more case workers, stricter sentencing, change laws
Accidental car deaths = change signs, change the curve on the road, night time driver awareness campaigns, expensive road barriers, stricter road construction regulations, etc. etc. etc.
Premeditated child murdering spree = "let's not sensationalise this. Gun regulations are fine. More people should have guns".
So, you actually are naive enough to believe that the guy who wants to shoot up a school will be unable to get a gun because of legislation?
You don't live in the US, do you?
Shall I show you statistics comparing gun control and rate of massacres in the developed world? If I showed you a strong correlation between higher gun control and fewer massacres...I am rather sure you would yawn and then go blah blah blah.
BTW, this just shows how reactive people are to major news stories, as with nuclear disasters, which are actually rare. A mass shooting makes it into the news occasionally and in the public mind it becomes a major problem in their minds out of all proportion to the real scale of the problem.
"there still hasn't been a gun massacre since."
Davis, how many gun massacre were there before Port Arthur and how far apart were they in timeframe?
1981. Five dead.
1984(a) 5 dead
1984(b) 7 dead
1987(a) 5 dead
1987(b) 7 dead
1987(c) 5 dead
1987(d) 8 dead
1988 6 dead
1990 5 dead
1991 7 dead
1992 6 dead
1993 5 dead
1996(a) 6 dead
1996 35 dead (Port Arthur)
Change of law
The shooting in Denmark over the weekend was cut short when a man returned fire. A lot more people might have been killed otherwise.
I have a theory about guns in the US. I think that to many they represent "the great equalizer". For those who feel weaker, poorer, downtrodden, beat-up, over-looked and have given up, a gun is the last option that can allow someone who has nothing to loose to get even. Yes you are most likely going down, but you are gonna take them with you. I think of my nerdy skinny buddies who would get their noses shoved in dog shit at the schoolyard and go home and rub their guns down with an oily rag, fantasizing about fragging that asshole.
This is why guns are all at once so attractive and so wicked. They are the tool of choice for immediate satisfaction. They may just allow the one feeling abused to just imagine that they can equalize, or as is too often the case, to actually do it, after consideration.....or in a fit of rage.
We have much inequality in US society. A lot of disillusioned people. Throw 300 million guns and stir... yeah.....well there you have it.