The number of people who die in the United States every year due to automobile accidents is triple the number of people who die due to gun-related incidents; I can link the CDC numbers for you, if you like (not right now--I have to pull the link from a different forum where I posted the same numbers). That being said, we never hear anyone calling for restrictions on cars (other than the restrictions which already exist) even though they are three times as deadly. Of course, cars aren't designed for killing people--those are accidents. Contrary to what many people may think, guns are not necessarily designed for killing people, either; they are merely tools which, if used in that manner, make killing people easier. Knives and baseball bats fall into this category, as well--if misused they can kill with relative ease.
There are numerous restrictions on automobiles that help prevent deaths.
Speed limits, seat belt laws, sober driving, even having to be tested before being allowed to drive a vehicle (getting your licence) are all restrictions vehicle operators must follow. Causing a traffic accident while breaking any of these can result in jail time.
Traffic accidents are usually preventable, but they are rarely a motivated way to end someone's life.
And I am sorry, guns, from the very first one invented in China (the fire lance) were used in wars. That does not mean, humanity hasn't found other non violent uses for them (like shooting at paper targets), but their primary purpose was and still is, to kill.
That said, I am in camp that says "America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem." But that is a fully other discussion I do not wish to get into.
I say this as a member of a family that has more guns than people.
It's my understanding that most Americans agree that we need strong background checks before people can purchase guns. I'm bipolar and I think that's a good enough reason to make me fail a background check. I might be stable, but most of us aren't--mental illnesses just aren't very good for your decisionmaking, and not everybody on medication stays on medication. I also don't want somebody with a criminal conviction of any sort to have a gun. It's another good indicator that somebody might have poor judgment.
But the NRA doesn't like background checks, and lots of voters make decisions based on NRA ratings of politicians, so there are politicians who oppose them. Hence, we have widespread support for background checks among the populace, but lots of opposition in the legislature.
It's true that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But I'd like that good guy to be a police officer who's trained to handle violent situations, not some random guy who decides he's good enough. As if most people who carry guns have the nerve to stand up to a dangerous criminal in the first place. Most people aren't heroes, either in courage or in skill.
Frankly, I'd prefer guns to be in the hands of law enforcement personnel. People who fight bad guys as a career, not as a fantasy.
The NRA is one of the most (if not THE most) destructive forces in American politics and culture. They terrify cowardly Democrats in rural districts, and they own the Republican party lock, stock and barrel (so to speak). They screamed from their blood-soaked hilltops for years about Obama coming to "take your guns" when in fact the President didn't even PROPOSE or MENTION a single piece of gun policy or legislation until after Sandy Hook, when 20 6-year old children were slaughtered. And the fact is, if that wasn't enough to make us change, nothing ever will. We'll destroy ourselves from within in this country, mark my words. Foreign terrorists are the least of our worries. We're doing a fine job on our own.
The more strict your gun laws are, the more difficult black market trade becomes. When the price difference between an unlicensed gun is like 5000 USD (USA vs Finland), gun crime will decrease. Heck, if you have over 5k for a gun you don't need to commit a crime, just continue saving!
While, I could go the typical british argument here, I figure I'll treat this with a little more thought.
While I in no means advocate the ownership of firearms by civilians I can understand why some americans might feel they need firearms.
The American police force have a terrible reputation, whether that's deserved or not is something I won't go into here but it still stands that people don't really trust the police or the government. If you don't trust the people who are supposed to keep you and your family safe what would you do? At that point I might be tempted to buy a firearm (probably not though as I'm something of a coward if I do say so myself).
In the UK the situation is different the vast majority of people trust the police to keep them safe and while we don't all like each government that comes along most of us trust that they aren't specifically out to get us. The police maintain a mostly friendly relationship with the public and even when presented with difficult situations they try to solve it with as little violence as possible through use of batons, pepper spray, tasers, riot shields etc. Police spend most of their time solving petty crimes and maintaining order, they're quite often called to sort out drunk people but still make sure that the suspect is ok. From what I can tell most officers are opposed to the routine carrying of firearms and the force as a whole would prefer to solve things by talking rather than with the threat of a gun.
The american Police and government need to improve their public image if they're going to reduce the fear that drives people to want guns to defend themselves
I don't understand the self defense argument anyway. How does that actually work? Are you allowed to carry a loaded gun at all times? If not, it's not very useful in a self defense situation.
The reason I mention other countries is because politicians here like to make it seem as if the United States is somehow more dangerous than everywhere else when, in fact, this is not true. FBI Crime statistics have shown that violent crime of all sorts has been on the decline for years--yes, I can pull those numbers if you want them--and there are no active war zones in the United States at this time.
I mention Chicago because every time someone says "if only we had better gun laws things like this wouldn't happen" the disproof of that argument is Chicago. The gun restrictions in Chicago are pretty strict but almost no day goes by without a shooting in that city--apparently the criminals don't bother to adhere to the gun laws, whether they are buying them from the trunk of a car in an alley or if they bought them in Montana and shipped them.
*ugh* The NRA--what a bunch of hypocrites. For years they screeched "the government had better not compile a list of registered gun owners because that would be wrong" only to find out that the NRA itself had compiled just such a list so it could send out promotional flyers and hold membership drives. As an organization, the NRA likes to kick over the hornet nest every chance it gets, stirring up paranoia just to make itself seem relevant.
The reason I mention other countries is because politicians here like to make it seem as if the United States is somehow more dangerous than everywhere else when, in fact, this is not true. FBI Crime statistics have shown that violent crime of all sorts has been on the decline for years--yes, I can pull those numbers if you want them--and there are no active war zones in the United States at this time.
Whether the numbers are in decline or not is irrelevant. They are higher than other countries. This is true. "The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations."
I mention Chicago because every time someone says "if only we had better gun laws things like this wouldn't happen" the disproof of that argument is Chicago. The gun restrictions in Chicago are pretty strict but almost no day goes by without a shooting in that city--apparently the criminals don't bother to adhere to the gun laws, whether they are buying them from the trunk of a car in an alley or if they bought them in Montana and shipped them.
Like other people said, the entire nation needs tighter laws in order to make a difference. This does not prove gun restrictions are ineffective in general.
Gun restrictions *are* ineffective, as Chicago proves.
Firearm deaths alone do not prove "more dangerous".
That being said, "guns" is one issue where everyone has already made up their minds and no one is likely to change their opinions or attitudes any time soon.
Gun restrictions *are* ineffective, as Chicago proves.
Do you at least understand why people are disputing this? We're saying that Chicago *might* prove that local gun restrictions are ineffective, but it can't prove that national gun restrictions are ineffective, because Chicago has absolutely zero border control. I'm trying not to be repetitive or entrenched, but I don't understand the basis for disagreeing with this point.
The number of people who die in the United States every year due to automobile accidents is triple the number of people who die due to gun-related incidents; I can link the CDC numbers for you, if you like (not right now--I have to pull the link from a different forum where I posted the same numbers). That being said, we never hear anyone calling for restrictions on cars (other than the restrictions which already exist) even though they are three times as deadly. Of course, cars aren't designed for killing people--those are accidents. Contrary to what many people may think, guns are not necessarily designed for killing people, either; they are merely tools which, if used in that manner, make killing people easier. Knives and baseball bats fall into this category, as well--if misused they can kill with relative ease.
There are numerous restrictions on automobiles that help prevent deaths.
Speed limits, seat belt laws, sober driving, even having to be tested before being allowed to drive a vehicle (getting your licence) are all restrictions vehicle operators must follow. Causing a traffic accident while breaking any of these can result in jail time.
Traffic accidents are usually preventable, but they are rarely a motivated way to end someone's life.
And I am sorry, guns, from the very first one invented in China (the fire lance) were used in wars. That does not mean, humanity hasn't found other non violent uses for them (like shooting at paper targets), but their primary purpose was and still is, to kill.
That said, I am in camp that says "America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem." But that is a fully other discussion I do not wish to get into.
To be fair, there are numerous restrictions on firearms that try and prevent deaths as well.
I know of a few people who have used their conceal carry weapon to deter would-be muggers. I'm not saying in that everyone should be able to carry a gun all the time, but it's not completely without merit, but some people living or working in a violent or dangerous area definetly have a reasonable excuse for their conceal carry permit. There's more I want to say but class is about to start so I'll be back with more in a little while.
@Mathsorcerer what does it matter if the laws are strict in Chicago when any citizen of Chicago can drive a few hundred miles, buy a gun and drive back? Of course the restrictions are bloody ineffective when there's free movement between states.
It's like opening borders with Syria and claiming that fighting terrorism is ineffective.
Do you at least understand why people are disputing this? We're saying that Chicago *might* prove that local gun restrictions are ineffective, but it can't prove that national gun restrictions are ineffective, because Chicago has absolutely zero border control. I'm trying not to be repetitive or entrenched, but I don't understand the basis for disagreeing with this point.
National restrictions would be similarly ineffective, especially since there is zero border control with Mexico. Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that today a national ban on buying any sort of gun went into effect. If I want to buy a gun I would drive straight to Mexico, buy some guns, then pay someone $1,000 to walk them back across the border--simple. Remember--all sorts of chemical substances have been illegal for years and yet people still buy them, sometimes on a daily basis. Why would anyone think that a ban on guns would be any more effective than bans on drugs? Freedom of movement *is* why gun restrictions are doomed to failure and restrict only the people who try to adhere to the law.
Now...if you think you have ideas how to secure the border with Mexico to prevent people from being able to bring guns from there back into the United States I am listening. The border runs for more than 2,000 km and vast stretches of it are essentially in the middle of nowhere with no real fence or security or guards, just open territory.
Here is the Wikipedia article about gun laws in various nations; the laws in the United States are not significantly more lax than laws in many nations. People who do not buy guns choose not to buy them because they don't want them or they don't want to put up with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops. People who choose to buy guns legally do so because they like them, they want to hunt or sport with them, or they are a collector. People who choose to buy guns illegally (or steal them from other people) are looking to do something they ought not be doing in the first place and don't care what the laws might say.
No politician will, at this time, seriously consider or say out loud anything about trying to enact some sort of national ban on guns. Not only will they come across looking like some sort of dictator wanna-be but they will stir up every quasi-paranoid nut who will shout "molon labe", take a defensive stance, and dare you to try it. No one wants that.
While, I could go the typical british argument here, I figure I'll treat this with a little more thought.
While I in no means advocate the ownership of firearms by civilians I can understand why some americans might feel they need firearms.
The police in America are a whole other issue I don't feel like diving into right now, so I'm just going to address this one thing. To me this sounds like "no one has any reason to own any gun but I see why those Americans think they need one." Correct me with I'm wrong. This seems to be something people with little interest or experience with guns seem to think. Lots of people have many perfectly legitimate reasons they own guns. Some people do concealed carry for personal protection, yes, and some people have their "tactical" 12 guages and AR-15's for the frankly rather dubious reason of "home defence" and that's legal and they can do that. But a lot of people have guns for sporting or collecting reasons. I went hunting these last two weekends. I have a friend who sport shoots skeet and trap. On a team, as a sport. Hell, back in the '60s my school had a rifle-shooting team. People collect antique firearms, or ones with novel mechanisms. I myself have a keen interest in the engineering and mechanical design that goes into a firearm. The idea that the only things guns ever do ever is hurt people(and by extension they should be banned or something) is wrong. Yes, guns where designed to kill. But they're not always used to kill, and when they do its not always people. Guns are used in lots of non-violent sports and hobbies, and even seemingly violent ones that don't hurt anyone. Even semi-automatic(sometimes even automatic) firearms are used in tactical target courses where you run around and shoot moving targets. That's a sport or hobby and that's ok. If you have a problem with violence/war simulation as entertainment, then you can take that up with basically the entire gaming community and a bunch of other people.
The sad thing about this issue, to me, is that on one side of the debate is people saying "Guns are the problem; if we do better about regulating firearms, things like this will be less likely to occur, so let's do that."
On the other side of the debate is people saying "No."
Within that second set is a smaller subset of people saying "Guns aren't the issue; mental health is the issue." But that same subset, more often than not, is opposed to the kind of healthcare reform that would be required to actually do something about mental health.
What would be great is if both sides could sit down peacefully to agree that, regardless of the cause there is an epidemic of gun-related violence in the United States, and that it needs to be investigated, diagnosed, and treated--just like any other epidemic.
230 people die, once, in Paris, and we (the western world) are ready to close our borders to the millions of refugees fleeing the people responsible.
Meanwhile, the United States faces a mass shooting more than once a day, and we're not doing anything about it. (Source)
I'm not saying increase gun control. I'm not saying institute universal health care. I'm saying do something that will actually address the problem.
Why not allow tanks and jet fighters for recreation then?
We do. Lots of people own demilitarized tanks, and though jets are generally prohibitively expensive, many people own airplanes. That said I see your point. I'm not advocating we loose any kind of ban on automatic weapons and let the populous roam free with military grade weapons for "entertainment." I was just making the point that lots of people use guns for things that are not killing people, so anyone saying that we should ban guns because all they ever do is kill people is wrong.
Do you at least understand why people are disputing this? We're saying that Chicago *might* prove that local gun restrictions are ineffective, but it can't prove that national gun restrictions are ineffective, because Chicago has absolutely zero border control. I'm trying not to be repetitive or entrenched, but I don't understand the basis for disagreeing with this point.
National restrictions would be similarly ineffective, especially since there is zero border control with Mexico. Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that today a national ban on buying any sort of gun went into effect. If I want to buy a gun I would drive straight to Mexico, buy some guns, then pay someone $1,000 to walk them back across the border--simple. Remember--all sorts of chemical substances have been illegal for years and yet people still buy them, sometimes on a daily basis. Why would anyone think that a ban on guns would be any more effective than bans on drugs? Freedom of movement *is* why gun restrictions are doomed to failure and restrict only the people who try to adhere to the law.
Now...if you think you have ideas how to secure the border with Mexico to prevent people from being able to bring guns from there back into the United States I am listening. The border runs for more than 2,000 km and vast stretches of it are essentially in the middle of nowhere with no real fence or security or guards, just open territory.
Here is the Wikipedia article about gun laws in various nations; the laws in the United States are not significantly more lax than laws in many nations. People who do not buy guns choose not to buy them because they don't want them or they don't want to put up with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops. People who choose to buy guns legally do so because they like them, they want to hunt or sport with them, or they are a collector. People who choose to buy guns illegally (or steal them from other people) are looking to do something they ought not be doing in the first place and don't care what the laws might say.
No politician will, at this time, seriously consider or say out loud anything about trying to enact some sort of national ban on guns. Not only will they come across looking like some sort of dictator wanna-be but they will stir up every quasi-paranoid nut who will shout "molon labe", take a defensive stance, and dare you to try it. No one wants that.
Organized criminals are always going to be able smuggle in anything into the country. They have the resources, means amd needs to do so. Stricter gun control is not to prevent them from obtaining fire arms. It is to prevent one off incidents from spawning such as Columbine.
If there were stricter gun regulations for purchase, proper storage, and ammunition the two cowards that committed that autrocity would have had to jump through hoops to get their hands on the tools they used to terrorize the school. Chances are, the kids in Colorado (pretty damn far from the Mexico border) would not have been able to commit the act at least to the degree that they did.
Yes there will be similar incidents that will fall through any safe guards, but many attempts will be hindered with logical regulations.
That is what gun restrictions are attempting to prevent.
The number of people who die in the United States every year due to automobile accidents is triple the number of people who die due to gun-related incidents; I can link the CDC numbers for you, if you like (not right now--I have to pull the link from a different forum where I posted the same numbers). That being said, we never hear anyone calling for restrictions on cars (other than the restrictions which already exist) even though they are three times as deadly. Of course, cars aren't designed for killing people--those are accidents. Contrary to what many people may think, guns are not necessarily designed for killing people, either; they are merely tools which, if used in that manner, make killing people easier. Knives and baseball bats fall into this category, as well--if misused they can kill with relative ease.
There are numerous restrictions on automobiles that help prevent deaths.
Speed limits, seat belt laws, sober driving, even having to be tested before being allowed to drive a vehicle (getting your licence) are all restrictions vehicle operators must follow. Causing a traffic accident while breaking any of these can result in jail time.
Traffic accidents are usually preventable, but they are rarely a motivated way to end someone's life.
And I am sorry, guns, from the very first one invented in China (the fire lance) were used in wars. That does not mean, humanity hasn't found other non violent uses for them (like shooting at paper targets), but their primary purpose was and still is, to kill.
That said, I am in camp that says "America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem." But that is a fully other discussion I do not wish to get into.
To be fair, there are numerous restrictions on firearms that try and prevent deaths as well.
Sure. But proper training in use and storage isn't one of them. I can still handle a fire arm while drunk on private property without breaking a law. There is some, but not as many as driving a car.
Lethal armament is meant to kill, be it a handgun or a warhead. The fact that it can be used recreationally doesn't make it any less lethal and is a poor excuse for selling it to people.
Do you at least understand why people are disputing this? We're saying that Chicago *might* prove that local gun restrictions are ineffective, but it can't prove that national gun restrictions are ineffective, because Chicago has absolutely zero border control. I'm trying not to be repetitive or entrenched, but I don't understand the basis for disagreeing with this point.
National restrictions would be similarly ineffective, especially since there is zero border control with Mexico. Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that today a national ban on buying any sort of gun went into effect. If I want to buy a gun I would drive straight to Mexico, buy some guns, then pay someone $1,000 to walk them back across the border--simple. Remember--all sorts of chemical substances have been illegal for years and yet people still buy them, sometimes on a daily basis. Why would anyone think that a ban on guns would be any more effective than bans on drugs? Freedom of movement *is* why gun restrictions are doomed to failure and restrict only the people who try to adhere to the law.
In fairness there are even longer stretches of the Canadian-US border with no border patrol and our murder rate/gun deaths are way less than yours.
Do you at least understand why people are disputing this? We're saying that Chicago *might* prove that local gun restrictions are ineffective, but it can't prove that national gun restrictions are ineffective, because Chicago has absolutely zero border control. I'm trying not to be repetitive or entrenched, but I don't understand the basis for disagreeing with this point.
National restrictions would be similarly ineffective, especially since there is zero border control with Mexico. Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that today a national ban on buying any sort of gun went into effect. If I want to buy a gun I would drive straight to Mexico, buy some guns, then pay someone $1,000 to walk them back across the border--simple. Remember--all sorts of chemical substances have been illegal for years and yet people still buy them, sometimes on a daily basis. Why would anyone think that a ban on guns would be any more effective than bans on drugs? Freedom of movement *is* why gun restrictions are doomed to failure and restrict only the people who try to adhere to the law.
In fairness there are even longer stretches of the Canadian-US border with no border patrol and our murder rate/gun deaths are way less than yours.
That's because all canadians are extremely nice people and incapable of doing anything nasty eh.
Truth be told, American citizens dislike each other more then Canadian citizens dislike each other. I have said it before (not here, but elsewhere) that if more people would just keep to themselves and mind their own business then many fights (some of which end in gunfire) would stop happening.
Actually, it is more general than that. Many groups of human beings simply don't like each other, a state of existence we have enjoyed for thousands of years.
As I think on it, the villain is the protagonist of his shooting spree: HE'S THE HERO!
Background checks would help a ton, but there are other factors. Namely, there's something in society driving people to think their lives are so worthless to do things like this. Maybe society has given up on them. Maybe they feel slighted. All I know is, while guns aren't great and sales should be regulated, bad people who want to do bad things badly enough will do them.
@Mathsorcerer: I agree that the more permeable border means that gun restrictions in the U.S. be less effective than in island countries. I still think that the difference in overhead between leaving the country and hiring a smuggler vs. just taking a bus outside of city limits is significant and would substantially reduce the number of guns purchased. It seems we disagree about whether or not that would help anything.
Why not allow tanks and jet fighters for recreation then?
This. It's not that I don't believe guns can be fun, it's that I don't particularly care. Your hobby matters less to me than thousands of people's lives.
@Mathsorcerer: I agree that the more permeable border means that gun restrictions in the U.S. be less effective than in island countries. I still think that the difference in overhead between leaving the country and hiring a smuggler vs. just taking a bus outside of city limits is significant and would substantially reduce the number of guns purchased. It seems we disagree about whether or not that would help anything.
Why not allow tanks and jet fighters for recreation then?
This. It's not that I don't believe guns can be fun, it's that I don't particularly care. Your hobby matters less to me than thousands of people's lives.
Restricting ammunition sales to firing ranges and other classified sporting stores can appease hobbiest. I shuldn't be able to walk into a Walmart and buy 30 cases of the stuff.
Comments
Speed limits, seat belt laws, sober driving, even having to be tested before being allowed to drive a vehicle (getting your licence) are all restrictions vehicle operators must follow. Causing a traffic accident while breaking any of these can result in jail time.
Traffic accidents are usually preventable, but they are rarely a motivated way to end someone's life.
And I am sorry, guns, from the very first one invented in China (the fire lance) were used in wars. That does not mean, humanity hasn't found other non violent uses for them (like shooting at paper targets), but their primary purpose was and still is, to kill.
That said, I am in camp that says "America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem." But that is a fully other discussion I do not wish to get into.
It's my understanding that most Americans agree that we need strong background checks before people can purchase guns. I'm bipolar and I think that's a good enough reason to make me fail a background check. I might be stable, but most of us aren't--mental illnesses just aren't very good for your decisionmaking, and not everybody on medication stays on medication. I also don't want somebody with a criminal conviction of any sort to have a gun. It's another good indicator that somebody might have poor judgment.
But the NRA doesn't like background checks, and lots of voters make decisions based on NRA ratings of politicians, so there are politicians who oppose them. Hence, we have widespread support for background checks among the populace, but lots of opposition in the legislature.
It's true that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But I'd like that good guy to be a police officer who's trained to handle violent situations, not some random guy who decides he's good enough. As if most people who carry guns have the nerve to stand up to a dangerous criminal in the first place. Most people aren't heroes, either in courage or in skill.
Frankly, I'd prefer guns to be in the hands of law enforcement personnel. People who fight bad guys as a career, not as a fantasy.
While I in no means advocate the ownership of firearms by civilians I can understand why some americans might feel they need firearms.
The American police force have a terrible reputation, whether that's deserved or not is something I won't go into here but it still stands that people don't really trust the police or the government. If you don't trust the people who are supposed to keep you and your family safe what would you do? At that point I might be tempted to buy a firearm (probably not though as I'm something of a coward if I do say so myself).
In the UK the situation is different the vast majority of people trust the police to keep them safe and while we don't all like each government that comes along most of us trust that they aren't specifically out to get us. The police maintain a mostly friendly relationship with the public and even when presented with difficult situations they try to solve it with as little violence as possible through use of batons, pepper spray, tasers, riot shields etc. Police spend most of their time solving petty crimes and maintaining order, they're quite often called to sort out drunk people but still make sure that the suspect is ok. From what I can tell most officers are opposed to the routine carrying of firearms and the force as a whole would prefer to solve things by talking rather than with the threat of a gun.
The american Police and government need to improve their public image if they're going to reduce the fear that drives people to want guns to defend themselves
@FinneousPJ: In many states, yes: except for specific places like airports, it's legal to carry a loaded gun all the time. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Permitting_policies and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States#Jurisdictions_in_the_United_States
I mention Chicago because every time someone says "if only we had better gun laws things like this wouldn't happen" the disproof of that argument is Chicago. The gun restrictions in Chicago are pretty strict but almost no day goes by without a shooting in that city--apparently the criminals don't bother to adhere to the gun laws, whether they are buying them from the trunk of a car in an alley or if they bought them in Montana and shipped them.
*ugh* The NRA--what a bunch of hypocrites. For years they screeched "the government had better not compile a list of registered gun owners because that would be wrong" only to find out that the NRA itself had compiled just such a list so it could send out promotional flyers and hold membership drives. As an organization, the NRA likes to kick over the hornet nest every chance it gets, stirring up paranoia just to make itself seem relevant.
Source: http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Whether the numbers are in decline or not is irrelevant. They are higher than other countries. This is true. "The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations." Like other people said, the entire nation needs tighter laws in order to make a difference. This does not prove gun restrictions are ineffective in general.
Firearm deaths alone do not prove "more dangerous".
That being said, "guns" is one issue where everyone has already made up their minds and no one is likely to change their opinions or attitudes any time soon.
There's more I want to say but class is about to start so I'll be back with more in a little while.
It's like opening borders with Syria and claiming that fighting terrorism is ineffective.
Now...if you think you have ideas how to secure the border with Mexico to prevent people from being able to bring guns from there back into the United States I am listening. The border runs for more than 2,000 km and vast stretches of it are essentially in the middle of nowhere with no real fence or security or guards, just open territory.
Here is the Wikipedia article about gun laws in various nations; the laws in the United States are not significantly more lax than laws in many nations. People who do not buy guns choose not to buy them because they don't want them or they don't want to put up with the hassle of jumping through all the hoops. People who choose to buy guns legally do so because they like them, they want to hunt or sport with them, or they are a collector. People who choose to buy guns illegally (or steal them from other people) are looking to do something they ought not be doing in the first place and don't care what the laws might say.
No politician will, at this time, seriously consider or say out loud anything about trying to enact some sort of national ban on guns. Not only will they come across looking like some sort of dictator wanna-be but they will stir up every quasi-paranoid nut who will shout "molon labe", take a defensive stance, and dare you to try it. No one wants that.
This seems to be something people with little interest or experience with guns seem to think. Lots of people have many perfectly legitimate reasons they own guns. Some people do concealed carry for personal protection, yes, and some people have their "tactical" 12 guages and AR-15's for the frankly rather dubious reason of "home defence" and that's legal and they can do that.
But a lot of people have guns for sporting or collecting reasons. I went hunting these last two weekends. I have a friend who sport shoots skeet and trap. On a team, as a sport. Hell, back in the '60s my school had a rifle-shooting team. People collect antique firearms, or ones with novel mechanisms. I myself have a keen interest in the engineering and mechanical design that goes into a firearm.
The idea that the only things guns ever do ever is hurt people(and by extension they should be banned or something) is wrong. Yes, guns where designed to kill. But they're not always used to kill, and when they do its not always people. Guns are used in lots of non-violent sports and hobbies, and even seemingly violent ones that don't hurt anyone. Even semi-automatic(sometimes even automatic) firearms are used in tactical target courses where you run around and shoot moving targets. That's a sport or hobby and that's ok. If you have a problem with violence/war simulation as entertainment, then you can take that up with basically the entire gaming community and a bunch of other people.
On the other side of the debate is people saying "No."
Within that second set is a smaller subset of people saying "Guns aren't the issue; mental health is the issue." But that same subset, more often than not, is opposed to the kind of healthcare reform that would be required to actually do something about mental health.
What would be great is if both sides could sit down peacefully to agree that, regardless of the cause there is an epidemic of gun-related violence in the United States, and that it needs to be investigated, diagnosed, and treated--just like any other epidemic.
230 people die, once, in Paris, and we (the western world) are ready to close our borders to the millions of refugees fleeing the people responsible.
Meanwhile, the United States faces a mass shooting more than once a day, and we're not doing anything about it. (Source)
I'm not saying increase gun control. I'm not saying institute universal health care. I'm saying do something that will actually address the problem.
That said I see your point. I'm not advocating we loose any kind of ban on automatic weapons and let the populous roam free with military grade weapons for "entertainment." I was just making the point that lots of people use guns for things that are not killing people, so anyone saying that we should ban guns because all they ever do is kill people is wrong.
If there were stricter gun regulations for purchase, proper storage, and ammunition the two cowards that committed that autrocity would have had to jump through hoops to get their hands on the tools they used to terrorize the school. Chances are, the kids in Colorado (pretty damn far from the Mexico border) would not have been able to commit the act at least to the degree that they did.
Yes there will be similar incidents that will fall through any safe guards, but many attempts will be hindered with logical regulations.
That is what gun restrictions are attempting to prevent.
And What exactly are you arguing for at this point?
Actually, it is more general than that. Many groups of human beings simply don't like each other, a state of existence we have enjoyed for thousands of years.
So they're going to celebritize him. Glorify him. The casters might not know this, but some higher up does.
Think about this: do we know more about the shooter or his victims?
Or perhaps a video with someone better able to explain:
As I think on it, the villain is the protagonist of his shooting spree: HE'S THE HERO!
Background checks would help a ton, but there are other factors. Namely, there's something in society driving people to think their lives are so worthless to do things like this. Maybe society has given up on them. Maybe they feel slighted. All I know is, while guns aren't great and sales should be regulated, bad people who want to do bad things badly enough will do them.
I'll put a fellow Canadian on the spot and ask @elminster if he has heard of Nathan Carrillo.