And really, while mass shootings get all the news attention, they are only a tiny part of the problem. The real tragedy is the way easy access to handguns has transformed communities like the South Side of Chicago, where kids are gunned down every week. This American Life recently did a remarkable report [3] on the conditions in and around one Chicago high school where in the past year 29 current and former students were shot. That reporting could have just as easily been done in Oakland, or Detroit.
This is not about ideology. People are dying every day, innocent people going about their lives, and our current strategy of doing nothing, of burying our heads in the sand, is accomplishing...nothing.
[0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/12/in...
[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootin...
[3] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/h...
Do you have any idea how many laws are already being broken when that happens? How are more laws going to help?
More to the point, how is registering my guns (in preparation for future confiscation, it's safe to say, because that's what's happened elsewhere) going to protect those kids?
Must not be the guns. Must be something else.
There is just no evidence that easy access to handguns has done any such thing. There's easy access to handguns pretty much everywhere in the country. Why is it to blame in south Chicago, when it hasn't had the same effect elsewhere? If anything, it's harder to get a handgun in Chicago.
Cars are useful and beneficial devices that enhance our lives. Guns are weapons intended to kill. They have zero utility to people who are not farmers or members of the police or military. That leaves recreational hunting as the sole activity for which one could justifiably claim gun ownership as a necessity. You don't need a hand cannon or a semi-automatic assault rifle to hunt deer.
Seriously, fuck guns.
Furthermore, not everyone lives in an area where the police actually give a shit. There are plenty of bad areas in major cities where you are basically on your own (Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, etc.).
Don't you think there's something seriously wrong with a society that requires people to carry guns in order to feel safe? Focus on fixing that, not protecting your right to bear arms!
Just for the sake of argument, where is that not true? Are you aware that a Swedish prime minister was gunned down in the street (Olof Palme)? And in Norway, a mass murderer has just been sentenced to 21 years for gunning down 77 people.
I mention these cases because people tend to think of these Scandinavian countries as polar opposites of gun-crazy America. They are certainly much safer than the U.S. with respect to gun violence, but they're not safe in any absolute sense, as in your claim.
The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
I never claimed abolishing guns would lead to absoute safety. As you point out, there's plenty of senseless violence all over the first world, including gun violence. The difference between America and other places such as Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ is that people elsewhere do not see gun ownership as a necessary prerequisite in order to feel safe.
> The problem with your position is not that it's false -- it's very clearly true -- it's that nothing can be done about it. Life is dangerous, and as world population increases, it's becoming more dangerous. It's an existential problem, not a practical one.
The problem is that American society glorifies guns and gun violence. A good first step to changing that is to limit gun ownership to people who actually need them: farmers, police, and the military. A good second step is to limit the types of guns that are available; e.g. famers need shotguns, not semi-autos.
Not even remotely true.
These would be the same organizations (well, excluding farmers, I suppose) who killed about a hundred million of their own countrymen in the twentieth century alone?
Yeah, I can see where allowing the government to hold a monopoly on the use of force is a really bright idea. Good thinking there, Tex.
The right to bear arms is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Two points:
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
Fine, that's a valid opinion. There's a process for that: work for the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, please stop the passive-aggressive end runs around the Constitution. Your favorite part of the Bill of Rights may be next.
1. Civilian small arms are useless against an organised modern military. If your government wanted to tyrannise you, they would and all the AR15s in the world wouldn't save you.
(Shrug) If you say so. History, including very modern history, suggests otherwise.
2. If you do not trust your government, elect a new one. If that doesn't work, move.
No.
You move.
Mine must not be working right then. Do you think I could get a refund? Seriously though, what does it mean or matter to say that an inanimate object is "intended" to do anything?
And there are all kinds of legitimate uses. Target practice/sporting uses, hunting (as you mention), self defense, defense against tyranny...
see how silly you're being?