...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Even things which obviously will never happen (Amerca getting tight gun control, for example) are still possible in a theoretical way.
Never mind that your mini-poster doesn't even respond to what Unseen said.
I find this sort of thing fundamentally dishonest.
While it's true that there are more gun related deaths per capita in the US than in those other countries, the poster gives an absolute count, neglecting to mention the considerably higher US population, so as to exaggerate the extent. Why do they feel the need to do that?
Finland has 5.4 million people to the US's 315; if you prorated the numbers, a Finland the size of the United States would have 992 there instead of 17. Canada (35 million) would have 1800. Germany, 752. Australia 484. England and Wales (why not include Scotland and northern Ireland... oh wait you wouldn't WANT to include northern Ireland!) 56 million, prorates to 219, so they are the champions of low gun homicides--in spite of an almost total ban on firearms, the equivalent of 219 murders happens there. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are the low homicide (including non-guns) capital of the world.
The discrepancy is large, bad enough. But why spin the discrepancy to such a huge extent? If you have such a strong case to begin with why present the data in such a way as to exaggerate it?
Clearly they are trying to blame guns for lots of death. But for that to be true you'd have to show that the overall crime rate is significantly higher here AND that it is because of gun ownership. It is conceivable that there are lots of guns here because of the crime rate (people seeking the means to defend themselves) rather than the other way around, no? But any attempt to show that also has to explain why Switzerland, with a high gun ownership rate (adult males have access to fully automatic assault rifles, issued by the government) has such a low crime rate. (In order to legally own one of these in the US you have to undergo a thorough background investigation, pay a $200 tax, get permission from local law enforcement and fill out a shit ton of paperwork, and thus far exactly ONE gun from this registry has been used in a crime. Oh, and by the way, manufacturing new full auto weapons for the US civilian market has been illegal since 1986, so the prices have skyrocketed.)
Intentional homicide rates for the various countries are (per 100,000) 4.2 (US), 2.2 (Finland), 1.6 (Canada), 1.0 Australia, 1.2 (for the UK as a whole), and 0.8 for Spain and Germany. You will note that the UK has a higher homicide rate than Oz and Spain and Germany even though its gun homicide rate is lower, which tells me guns aren't the problem. But the real kicker is this: Switzerland, with all those full auto assault rifles? 0.7.
No causal connection has been shown here between gun ownership or ease of access to guns and crime, and putting up cute little posters from the Brady campaign (that exaggerate--maybe they don't themselves believe it?) won't change that.
That is only true to a slight degree. Here in the UK where guns are illegal or damn hard to get we still have people smuggling in guns and using them. But in 99% of the cases it is nearly always hardened criminals and gang members. The general public would not even know where to begin to acquire an illegal gun here. And in virtually every case of such mass murder it is not gang members or hardened criminals who commit it , it is the quite person who you would never expect to do so who would not have any real access to illegal guns.
Here in the UK i have rather a few contacts in the drug scene and yet if i suffered a psychotic break and decided i wanted to shoot people i would not have the slightest clue how to get my hands on a gun. And would likely get beaten up or robbed if i tried to acquire one.
Technology may make buying guns unnecessary. There is now the ability to "print" working guns made of a plastic material in the privacy of your home.
Read about it here.
I don't own one of those printers, but I own a knife made out of glass fiber impregnated hard plastic. It doesn't slice worth a darn but it stabs just fine and is invisible to X-rays.
You can make them illegal the way we made counterfeiting money illegal, but how well has that worked for counterfeiting money?
Criminal laws get applied after the crime, and if the killer intends to kill himself at the end of his spree...well, there ya go. So much for laws.
So? someone with a lathe and mill can make afar better gun than that at home and it has been possible to do so for ages.
A plastic gun can be made on a kitchen table. A lathe and mill in a kitchen? Not likely. Also, once economies of scale kick in as more and more get sold, making a plastic gun will be much cheaper.
While these guns are only good for a few shots (they are plastic, after all). One can quickly and easily make many of them. They have the potential to bring gunmaking to Everyman in a way that a metalworking shop does not.
if you check the only part of that gun that was made on a 3d printer was the lower receiver. if they tried to make a whole gun on a 3d printer it would blow up in your face on the first shot.
Anyway i do not even see what you are trying to argue. you can easily make pipe bombs and even plastic explosives in your kitchen from easily and cheaply procured items , Does that mean we should legalize those then?
But if you can make a gun out of plastic today you can make one out of ceramics not far down the road, and ceramic guns won't just blow up on the first shot.
If there's anything religion has taught us (...) it's that you can tweak something so much that it's technically what it originally was in name only. It seems to me that that's how the 2nd Amendment pans out in the long run anyway.
Quite possibly!!! (my answer to your status question)