Does the death a stranger (or strangers) outweigh anything you want to point an agenda to?Yes, essentially, that was my point in the original post. I believe that my life and the lives of others does outweigh gun rights, however unpopular that view may be.
Why do you suppose that in countries with effective gun control mass murders are not being carried out with other weapons? Of all developed countries only the US has experienced regular mass killings, and they are carried out with guns. If killers will use other ways to carry out such killings, as you say, why aren't they doing it where guns are not available?Show me the numbers, and I disagree about the US being the only country experiencing mass murders. There are places in Africa and other continents where there are mass murders being committed, but those are mostly by organized gangs, otherwise called militias, or para-military, or even the regular military in an ethnic cleansing. So I suppose when one person kills 6 or 8 or a dozen people, gets caught and prosecuted it's a bad thing. But when a group massacres thousands and just walks away, it's OK? I didn't say the US was the ONLY country experiencing mass murders. I said the incidence per100,00 population is higher in the US than most Western countries. Do you not know how to read statistics? I never said any killing is ok. I don't think that having an armed populace is doing anyone any good. Why is Western Europe so low on the scale of homicides with guns? Even in Canada the incidence is half that in US, and they are just over the border with simiar population and simiar economic conditions. And there has been no increase in mass murders by rocks--or any other weapons. Why is that? Are Canadians and Western Europeans naturally more moral--and sensible? The fact remains that countries with effective gun control have fewer killings over all. But let's not emulate THEM! Let's keep everyone armed instead. And let's have a free-for-all every time someone starts shooting. Way to go! LL
I’d just like to say that while i am in favor of further gun control, I’m not in favor of the type rigid restriction that the U.K. has. Ultimately, by banning say hand weaponry outright, you penalize the majority (of gun owners) for a criminal minority (who often don’t even posses their weapons legally). That’s not a smart way to deal with our social issues.
Consider this:
“According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.”
“The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released new data today showing 10,322 drunk driving fatalities in 2012”
http://www.madd.org/blog/2013/november/2012-fatality-data.html
If you are in favor of banning hand guns or firearms outright, to be consistent, wouldn’t you have to be in favor of prohibition?
“The fact remains that countries with effective gun control have fewer killings over all.”
I won’t dispute that for a second, but the issue goes much deeper than firearm availability. Canada has a lower incidence of violent crime across the board and does have handgun ownership available to the general public. The U.K. has removed firearm availability to the general public but yet many of their social issues that fuel violence (steep class inequality, racial tension, police brutality) have gone largely unaddressed as evidenced by the 2011 England riots. Perhaps we should focus on building a society and populace better capable of handling such a responsibility as firearms.
“Both people and guns kill people.”
Or put better, people kill people with guns. And drunk drivers kill people with booze and cars. But we don’t hear people clamoring for a return to prohibition. Instead we’ve effectively reduced the number of drunk driving fatalities by means such as raising the drinking age, DUI check points, stiffer drunk driving penalties etc. That being said, nothings perfect, and to allow for freedom is to inevitably invite chaos. There are ways to reduce the social ills a potentially dangerous freedom inherently brings without denying that freedom to responsible members of a given society. This I think is a much smarter ideological pathway that avoids fascist policy.
Finally, I can’t help but notice the focus on mass shootings (white people fears) which likely account for a small minority of the death caused by gun homicide. I can easily find data showing that roughly half of all homicides are committed by blacks, against other blacks, and I have little doubt those numbers are reflected in the gun homicide statistics. Suddenly we care a lot about cleaning up the streets when it could be our kids at the local movie theater, but so long as it’s the bad neighborhood across town it doesn’t often grab headlines or inspire debate. Just sayin’.
“Both people and guns kill people." Or put better, people kill people with guns. And drunk drivers kill people with booze and cars. But we don’t hear people clamoring for a return to prohibition. Instead we’ve effectively reduced the number of drunk driving fatalities by means such as raising the drinking age, DUI check points, stiffer drunk driving penalties etc. That being said, nothings perfect, and to allow for freedom is to inevitably invite chaos. There are ways to reduce the social ills a potentially dangerous freedom inherently brings without denying that freedom to responsible members of a given society. This I think is a much smarter ideological pathway that avoids fascist policy. Finally, I can’t help but notice the focus on mass shootings (white people fears) which likely account for a small minority of the death caused by gun homicide. I can easily find data showing that roughly half of all homicides are committed by blacks, against other blacks, and I have little doubt those numbers are reflected in the gun homicide statistics. Suddenly we care a lot about cleaning up the streets when it could be our kids at the local movie theater, but so long as it’s the bad neighborhood across town it doesn’t often grab headlines or inspire debate. Just sayin’.Good points Wilson and I would like to add that there are no "one size fits all" gun laws that would apply to every country, due mainly to differing cultural patterns, governmental control, and national history. What works in England wouldn't work here as even though it isn't true, Americans perceive that we have always had a gun culture, i.e. guns were always popular and easily available, the myth of the armed pioneer etc. therefore everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In fact fewer people are actually buying guns finding them dangerous and expensive. A typical well made hand gun costs around $700.00, money that could be used for other needs, like a car payment or food! My contention has always been to enforce the laws already on the books and closely monitor the secondary market. These methods aren't fool proof but would provide a choking point to slow the illegal purchase of weapons. As to outright banning, ain't gonna happen. Too many conservative lawmakers out there and no one in this country wants the Constitution to be fiddled with. We tried that with alcohol and see where it got us, Prohibition and the rise of the Mafia. That's why same sex marriage is safe from the neocon politicians BTW. And to respond to your analogy to alcohol, the good news is that it's use by teens and post teens seems to be diminishing. Hmmm, fewer criminals owning illegal guns and fewer drinkers on the road sounds ok by me. Lastly, President Obama addressed the problem of race in his address at the AME church yesterday. He pointed out that Black youth need an equal chance at success and ending the spiral of poverty will curtail crime in black neighborhoods. I long for the day when they'll only be neighborhoods. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/16/teen-drinking-continues-to-decline-in-the-us Cap't Jack
To the 2 above posts, Well Said, and I agree with both of them.
Welcome to the CFI forums, Wilson86.
I tend to agree with what you said and I’m glad someone said it here. Far too many people on both sides of this debate are reacting emotionally instead of thinking through the problem and looking for viable solutions. From the rabid NRA boosters who want to arm everyone and return to the Hollywood version of the Old West to the let-ban-all-guns zealots who don’t realize or won’t consider that tens of millions of people own guns, know how to handle them, and have never hurt anyone with them. My family had guns when I was a child, and as far back as I can remember I knew to always check the safety when picking up a gun, never point it at anyone even if it is unloaded, and never pull the trigger unless you are absolutely sure what is in your line of fire.
Are guns a problem? Only when they are in the wrong hands. Instead of banning guns in this country we need to carefully regulate who can possess them, stop the ridiculous practice of allowing gun sales without background checks at gun shows, and provide comprehensive mental health care for those who need. Speaking of which, it may be time to modify HIPPA so mental health professionals can notify law enforcement when they suspect a patient may be violent.
Or put better, people kill people with guns. And drunk drivers kill people with booze and cars. But we don't hear people clamoring for a return to prohibition. Instead we've effectively reduced the number of drunk driving fatalities by means such as raising the drinking age, DUI check points, stiffer drunk driving penalties etc. That being said, nothings perfect, and to allow for freedom is to inevitably invite chaos. There are ways to reduce the social ills a potentially dangerous freedom inherently brings without denying that freedom to responsible members of a given society. This I think is a much smarter ideological pathway that avoids fascist policy. Finally, I can't help but notice the focus on mass shootings (white people fears) which likely account for a small minority of the death caused by gun homicide. I can easily find data showing that roughly half of all homicides are committed by blacks, against other blacks, and I have little doubt those numbers are reflected in the gun homicide statistics. Suddenly we care a lot about cleaning up the streets when it could be our kids at the local movie theater, but so long as it's the bad neighborhood across town it doesn't often grab headlines or inspire debate. Just sayin'.When I was in college and starting to argue intelligently with my father, I advocated for stronger gun permitting, he said, "Why should I have to get a license for a gun, I can just go buy a car and drive it if I want." I didn't bother responding and don't remember him ever bringing that up again. Cars have keys, which can be hidden from children. Insurance companies charge you differently depending on the age of drivers you insure. We have driving classes in public schools. The list goes on. So putting up numbers and saying that should lead to prohibition is a terrible analogy if you are against increasing restrictions on gun ownership. Not to mention cars are not intended to harm anyone and any use of them to harm is a crime. I imagine somewhere someone has claimed they rammed someone in self-defense, but that would be rare. As for mass shootings, there is a focus there because they get attention, and because they happen here a lot more. Violent crime in low income areas is also more common here as compared to other advanced countries, but you're right, it gets less attention.