It’s the guns. It’s the guns. It’s the guns. The phenomena exists because the object exists and is sold in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister.
> It’s the shooters. It’s the shooters. It’s the shooters. The phenomenon exists because the criminals exist and are not imprisoned in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister.
Did I do it right?
We could do this all day.
Rocket Launchers are highly illegal. We have a massive amount of illegal weapons coming from south of the border. That's Obama had a big scandal called the fast and furious (https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/obama-relents-in-figh...). The illegal guns they sold the cartel were coming back over the border and being used in crimes.
If the solution was putting people in jail then we'd have the lowest rate, so it's gotta be something else
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_in...
This is also compared to every other country, so to explain the discrepancy then it would have to be something every country does more than the US
"It’s the trucks. It’s the trucks. It’s the trucks. The phenomena exists because the object exists and is sold in every town in America for reasons that range from the deranged to the sinister."
In foreign countries without second amendment rights criminals just ram trucks into people instead. Since no guns are involved, these don't get reported as "mass shootings", not that it would bring any comfort to the victims and their families [0] [1] [2].
In all seriousness, this isn't Harry Potter where the wand "speaks" to the wizard. An inanimate object won't "convince" someone to commit a crime. Focusing on the human shooting the gun would yield much better results. But say "mental health" and watch everyone suddenly go very silent and ignore the issue. Much easier to blame the evil inanimate object!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack
Let’s say you are a fifty year old woman. Just try defending yourself without a gun.
An infant isn't capable of handling any weapon. At around the age of twelve, children, if accustomed to guns, are capable of defending themselves, and have done so, both in the pioneer days and currently.
But, we don't allow children to be armed in school, because not all children are emotionally mature. That's why we set age limits on legal firearm ownership.
We depend on the school staff and facilities to keep them safe and we expect that children will be civilized by their families and their schooling to respect authority. Sadly, that is not always the case, especially in the last few decades.
Using a gun in self defense is a last resort. Lawful gun owners are very reluctant to do so, because they understand the responsibility and ramifications of doing that.
Found the person who not only didn't read the article, but is essentially summed up by it.
VT and NH, with triple the gun ownership of CA, have one half of the CA gun murder rate.
NH and VT are constitutional carry states, with gun laws consistent with the US Constitution. CA is heavily regulated.
How do you account for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
The point of the entire article is that people are just using simple graphs like the one you linked to without actually doing any studying and then making laws based upon some perceived correlation. California is strict with its rules but it doesn't say that it's a good thing.
The plot I posted shows that there isn't any correlation between gun ownership rates and the gun murder rates state by state. I haven't looked at the states behind the few outliers, but I suspect that people who do won't like what they find.
It gets even murkier when you include gun suicides, which are half the deaths, in the polemics. People will always find a way, and some states can be more depressing, e.g. winter in New Hampshire.
Edit: That 18 / 100,000 outlier seems to be bogus, I don't see it in the data table.
Oh wait...
Who said I'm white?
tell us what those demographics are.
You can't study it.
By banning any observation no one can prove whether the majority of shootings come from the gun owner or someone who stole the gun.
As such the negative "making them illegal does not make them go away" also cannot be proved by you.
Sure it doesn’t get rid of all guns. No one is claiming that it would but that’s an unreasonable bar that’s only set by critics. Even countries with strict gun control still have guns. However gun deaths are more rare because the penalty associated with even holding a gun illicitly are quite high, so in practice the number of guns floating around is lower and their use is really constrained (mainly because the cost of acquiring a gun is higher). Sure, the US has way more private gun ownership than other countries when they took steps towards effective legislation. It’ll take longer for any meaningful legislation to take effect, and only if it’s a national thing to mitigate cross-border transport. And SCOTUSes current ideological bent and strange 2nd amendment interpretation further complicates things at all levels. For what it’s worth the 2nd amendment seems to only ever have been interpreted about national regulations of formal state militias (eg the state’s National guard, police, etc). The reinterpretation in Heller to mean protection of private ownership is both recent (2008) and quite strange. A significantly worse decision than whatever Roe got wrong in legal theory and one that had strict social harm vs Roe which actually at least had positive social outcomes.
Uh, what? The National Guard most definitely IS the militia. Did you miss the Militia Act of 1792? A whole four years after the 2nd became the law of the land, they formalized the militia into what became the National Guard. You can argue about the militia clause in the 2nd being prefatory, but you really have nothing to stand on when you say the National Guard is not the militia.
You don't have to make them go away, just reduce the numbers so they don't get used in everyday murders. Most murders are crimes of passion and the difference between pulling out gun and having to find weapon will stop most of them. Britain still has a few illegal handguns, they get used in crimes, but their murder rate is much lower. A good indication that ease-of-killing matters is that murders with shotguns and long guns are pretty rare.
The single most-common weapon used is a handgun, around 4x as common as knives. But the Supreme Court has unambiguously ruled on the constitutionality of handgun bans and refusal to grant handgun licenses. And even under the most expansive gun control position that the Second Amendment only protects guns that existed in 1789... well... pistols were invented in the late 1500s.