If we're going to have an argument over who needs to change their "business model" so the FBI's anti-terrorism mission is easier, gun manufacturers and sellers should be at the top of the list, not software companies.
Guns should be reconsidered because they kill so many people every single day in "normal" violence. It's sad that it takes a bunch of affluent white people getting killed for us to have a discussion on gun control.
The problem is, for example, that gang violence is exempt from "mass shooting" classification. So yes, we care because there was a mass shooting. It's called a mass shooting because it wasn't poor people shooting at each other.
And still, you're missing the point. Mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of gun violence in this country. We clearly do not discuss gun control due to gun violence, so clearly the goal of gun control is not to curb gun violence. We discuss gun control due to specific, exceedingly rare types of gun violence. One can only assume that the goal, then, is to prevent those specific, exceedingly rare instances of gun violence.
Not a tautology. I called you out for making a baseless, refutable claim. Consider the shooting in Charleston, S.C. Were the victims in that church affluent and white? Seems to me we had a national conversation following that shooting, as well.
> And still, you're missing the point.
I only took exception with the part of your argument about the national conversation shifting to gun violence in the wake of mass shootings of "affluent white" victims. Anything else you inferred from my statement is strictly a product of your imagination.
and you can't stage a mass stabbing with a gun.
Unless you just want to take guns away from all civilians forever, and in that case I don't think we can have an actual rational dialogue.
edit: I don't mean "you" specifically, I mean the general "you". I can see how that could read wrong.
Ohio, for instance, has gun shows that advertise on TV and facilitate casual gun sales. Not even a Walmart, just a booth at a convention center.
* Some states have permissive gun regulation.
* There is no consistent, nationwide background check system.
* There is a large field of options between where we are and "take guns away from all civilians forever". We already prevent the sale of grenades. We prevent the sale of gas. Doing so makes it harder for criminals to be criminals in particular ways. We can similarly restrict the sale of certain kinds of weapons to make it harder for criminals to be criminals, just as some of our other rights are restricted outright or through case law (including free speech, freedom to assemble, and others).
I think something like 1% of gun crimes are committed from firearms purchased from a gun show.
> We already prevent the sale of grenades. We prevent the sale of gas.
Explosives are pretty easy to make. How many pipe bombs were found with the San Bernadino shooters? And this is California in that example, possibly the most restricted state in the US regarding firearms.
Tannerite is legal for purchase in Ohio and California, for example. All you need is a blasting cap to set it off (or shoot it with a gun, which is one hell of a fun afternoon)
Can I ask why not? I mean, why is it irrational to suggest that civilians not be allowed to own powerful weapons designed to kill humans?
The people that are interested in causing you harm for their own gain really don't care how they do it; at this point in time the best equalizer for all is a firearm.
The angle on a tyrannical government, and keeping that problem in check, is a whole different discussion and probably isn't suited for this forum.
Question too - how do you use a gun to defend yourself against somebody else with a gun? Doesn't it come down to who can "draw" quicker - which will surely always be the attacker because he's the only one who knows what's about to happen?
Or are you only talking about defending yourself against people without guns who who might use them impulsively so they don't have the advantage of surprise?
Because criminals don't care about laws and then they would become the only ones with guns. A law abiding citizen should be allowed the necessary means to protect himself, his family, and his possessions.
Besides that, they're not necessarily designed to kill humans; plenty of people need guns to defend against animals (like anyone working in bear country, farmers protecting chickens against coyotes, etc.)
Are you genuinely so in fear for your family's' safety, that you need a firearm and ammunition on hand?
If that is the case, and I were in your position,I would seriously consider moving elsewhere before I armed myself.
I live in a country where they were banned some time ago for all civilians who don't have a very good reason for owning one. ("Because I like them", or "I need to protect my property/family" are not considered good reasons).
Many farmers and rural types were very angry about the ban when it was proposed and implemented. But now, the vast majority of the population considers it to be the crowning achievement of the politician who implemented it.
Guns and gun crime are now so rare in my city that almost every time a gun is used to commit a crime it is front page news.
And yet it still happens. Additionally, you're from AU; You have a very different culture and level of poverty that you really don't see in the US. We (the US) have issues with income disparity unseen in a first world country, and the majority of the gun crimes occur in that area (poor urban areas). Poverty is a huge driver for crime. Fix that problem and gun crimes plummet.
Are you aware that knife crimes are up some 10+% in AU versus gun crimes? It seems that the criminals are still willing to be criminals.
Take a look at Vermont for example. Pretty boring if you want to live in an urban area, but probably the safest state in the US with the most relaxed gun laws. Vermont allows concealed carry without a permit; what we call "constitutional carry".
It is worth noting however, that Sydney (where I live), is larger than every city in the US, except New York. And yet I am vastly (something like 400x) less likely to be the victim of any gun related crime than a US city dweller.
In countries that have banned guns, including Australia, the restriction on guns has done nothing to reduce crime. In every single country that has banned them (again including Australia) there was an initial uptick of crime. The UK in particular had a massive increase in homocides (the number one reason people give as to why guns should be banned) and also saw home invasions where the victims were physically at home at the time of the invasion increase. Australia was lucky in that after its uptick, crime returned to normal rates. In many other countries, crime has continued to trend upward.
Also, Australia still has guns including plenty of rifles and even handguns. You banned some types of guns, not all of them.
But the zero massacres since 1996 is still significant.
Yes, guns are still available for sports shooters, and hunting etc. But we also strengthened the laws concerning how weapons must be stored (in a safe). The police have the right to turn up at the door of any registered gun owner and demand to inspect their storage at any time.
I am not sure how often that actually happens, because my guns are all digital :P
There have been many massacres since 1996. One even involved guns. All that has happened with the banning of guns is that the weapon of choice for difference crimes has changed. In the case of mass killings, arson seems to have become the weapon of choice.
Most people who live in those areas can't really afford to do that.
In any case, the onus is on the prohibitionist to defend the policy of prohibition, not the other way around. "Guns increased your chances of dying this year by 0.003%" (~11k gun homicides over 300M population) is a totally unmoving argument to me and I suspect most people in the US. At those risk levels, might as well ban cigarettes, motorcycles, aspirin, alcohol, leaving the house...