|
You know all of the anti-ban arguments were identical in Australia yet they haven't had any shooting sprees remotely like before, right? There is no good reason for most people to have any type of weapon and I say this as a gun owner. A proper gun buyback and proper registration of hunting/farm weapons would stop the vast majority of the daily gun violence in America. This isn't like we're reinventing the wheel here. Plenty of places around the world have went from armed populace to not and have been almost entirely free of gun related massacres since.
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Australia was actually very federalist and all gun laws were ran by the individual states. The 2A makes it more difficult for sure, but as for the matter of effectiveness we only need to look to the rest of the world. See also healthcare.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Like if you legit have livestock, it makes sense to own a shotgun or two and some hunting rifles. You do not need an ar-15 with a bump stock. Basically if the only purpose of the weapon is killing people (handguns, assault rifles, etc) it should be banned from regular civilian use. This is common sense unless you really think that an armed populace is going to overthrow the government. I hazard that even if every gun owner banded together now that it couldn't be done. The original intent of the 2nd is null in a modern context.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Professor Bling posted:Okay so these statistics aren't of gun crime, they're of gun use both lawful and unlawful. And they define "mass shooting" as four or more injured, not the government's definition of four or more (aside from shooter) killed. Looks like some massaged statistics and scare mongering. Yeah those people were only maimed not killed!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Professor Bling posted:And the majority of that violence is committed by pistols. Keep moving the goalposts if you want but you're trying to conflate two very different things here. So you're saying ban pistols. Sounds good to me and i say this as a pistol owner.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Buy them and put extremely harsh penalties on any possession after a certain point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
at the date posted:No, I meant Godholio's. You intended it differently and Godholio took it in a willfully stupid direction. While the bill of rights is technically an alteration, no one was going to ratify the original without those amendments. The BoR was in the final approved constitution and have been in force since day 1. If they were added later on, you're right it wouldn't be a relevant comparison, but the BoR is what got the constitution adopted in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
at the date posted:The Retard Olympics: This is gunchat, afterall. People gotta cling to their murdertoys for dear life. Rationality is out the window. We just have to accept that people are going to get massacred periodically. Sometimes it will be schoolchildren. Sometimes sodomites at a gay bar. Sometimes good god fearing country music fans in vegas. Guns aren't to blame, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
We invented cars here in 'merica and we've been killing people with vehicles in creative ways since the start. There's been more recent vehicular based attacks in the United States you could have cited. Look at Charlottesville. We're lucky only one person died there. Cars and trucks at least have a justification for existence besides killing people. Just because assholes are going to be assholes regardless doesn't mean we should actively make it easier for them. Just because guns aren't the only way to kill a large group of people doesn't mean that guns have any purpose besides killing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Regulating firearms similar to motor vehicles would be an amazing start. Mandatory liability insurance, registration, licensing requirements, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
TAQIYYA PURVEYOR posted:
Voter ID laws are crafted specifically to target minority voters to prevent them from voting and solve no fraud issues at all. Sure you can get a free id but the only office that issues them is 4-5 hours away and only issues them the third wednesday of the month. I work a lot with indigent vets. There are a lot of them with no valid ID or an easy way to get one. We help cut out a lot of the red tape and bullshit for people, but there are tens of thousands of others out there in similar shoes that do not have free legal assistance to aid them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
TAQIYYA PURVEYOR posted:Is 'voter ID law' just a pretty label that is applied to the actual law which is more nefarious? Unless the law was called 'voter ID law' but in reality you had to provide a passport in order to vote, that might be a real problem. Basically. There are very specific IDs that are allowed that are predominately held by republican voters while common IDs for minority voters are not. It has nothing to do with identification. Concealed carry IDs are accepted in many states with voter ID laws despite the fact the CCWs do not have photos. On the other hand very few states with these laws will accept student IDs from state colleges that do have photos. Free IDs that meet the requirements are deliberately made onerously difficult. Also, 98% of the country does not have a valid driver's license. There are quite a lot of people in places with decent public transportation that either never get drivers licenses or do not renew them when they expire. It really is pretty insidious because it seems innocuous until you dig under the surface.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
I think it's the roof of the captains cabin at the back of a sailing ship.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. There's a difference between a mistake and what happened to shaver, castile, or any other number of people senselessly murdered for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Can't do that, the 2nd amendment exists as a final protection of your personal freedom and sovereignty should the 1st fail. Its litterally written with the intent that a man should be armed to kill another in extremis.  that wasn't the intent of the 2nd nor how it was construed until the 20th century. It was entirely because the founders feared a strong central government with the entire army and preferred that each state handled their own military affairs. The militia system was supposed to be the effective "standing army" so that one didn't actually need to exist. The militias rightly got their asses kicked in basically every conflict and were quietly swept into history. It was never about making sure that every person had a gun to overthrow the government. It was because they didn't want a full standing army and states wanted their own private armies. Cause you sure as gently caress better believe they didn't want slaves, women, or really anyone besides landowning white men to be armed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:You're right in that it absolutely wasn't "every person own a gun to overthrow the government". But it was absolutely to ensure that local municipalities would not be toothless against authority run amok. Either individually or in groups, the militia was not just a singular state level entity. The whole setup is supportive of the ethos that individuals (land owning white men) have a right to weapons to defend their communities. Its not a right to own hunting rifles, its a right (for land owning white men) to own weapons whose purpose is to kill another person. Just because the militia system was garbage and collapsed eventually doesn't remove the original intent and purpose. The failed militia system was the original intent and purpose. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Godholio posted:No, that was the expected means to the intended end. No, it was the whole point. They never intended for every american to be armed. That wasn't a notion until the 20th century.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:They wanted every member of the "militia" to be armed. The militia was defined as every male aged 15 to 45. That's a pretty broad compared to every land owning white male. I know. That was the point. The militia system failed miserably and was basically swept to the dustbin of history. The 2nd amendment was never treated as a general right of the people to bear arms until heller. That is entirely a modern interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
While some of your sentiments ring true, gun deaths in the last 50 years in the USA eclipse all USA casualties from every war we’ve ever participated in going back and counting the revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Over 1.6 million americans dead in the last 50 years because everyone needs their guns so they can be ready to fill out militia ranks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Violence is high in countries that are hotbeds of drug trafficking (namely providing USA supply) and crime? You don't say. Brazil is a special case because everyone has toxoplasmosis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Mexico is also one of three countries in the world that has gun ownership as an enshrined right vs a privilege. I don't want to ban guns, but lets make it at least as hard to own a weapon as it is to get a driver's license.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
also it is entirely unnecessary to have one weapon per person. voluntary buybuck to get excess arms off the streets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
psydude posted:Also lol at the idea that post is some kind of refutation of the point he's making. But because the term "developed" is a bit open ended, let's go ahead and just use the G7 as a benchmark because arguing about highly diversified market and services economies vs. sheer GDP is kind of silly when we're talking about gun violence. For this sake of this, I will leave territories and protectorates out of the equation since their statistical impact is negligible. It's because we have almost 4x the gun ownership per capita than all of them. France: 0.31 guns per person Canada: 0.308 Italy: 0.119 Germany: 0.303 UK: 0.062 Japan: 0.06 USA: 1.01 Numbers pulled from estimated gun ownership per country from wikipedia like hell if I'm actually digging up stats for this poo poo individually. I trust the autists at the wiki have done it for me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
The auto comparison rings true for some people, I've found. It's pretty easy to get people to agree that weapon ownership should have at least as rigorous requirements as getting a driver's license.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Steezo posted:Cars aren't enshrined in the constitution as one of the tools of or reasons for revolution. Do you need a license for speech, trial by jury, not be forced to quarter troops in your home, etc. etc. It's part of the litmus test of the republic. You are guaranteed the right to travel, but there has been restrictions placed on every method of doing so besides walking, and even then you cannot wantonly travel across another's property. Various other parts of the bill of rights come with explicit requirements or tests to balance them out. You don't get your attorney unless you specifically and unequivocally ask for one. Likewise you don't get your fifth amendment right to remain silent unless you explicitly invoke it. There are tons of restrictions on speech from fighting words to assault to tortious acts. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to put similar registration and licensing requirements for weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If you had the Constitutional right to shoot, I would agree. What the gently caress else are you owning a gun for other than to shoot it? You don't buy a hammer unless you're gonna hit some nails. You buy a saw to cut something. You buy a gun to loving shoot it. There are reasonable restrictions (and in some cases unreasonable like the 4th, 5th, and 6th) on many of the constitutional rights both in the main text and in amendments. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable or even unconstitutional when compared to any other constitutional rights. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I've probably put fewer than 100 rds through my Garand in 10 years of ownership. I own my CCW to keep and bear it; I shoot it so I can do so responsibly, not the other way around. You're completely glossing over the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on basically every other constitutional right except firearms. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that there can't be public safety restrictions on things. There didn't need to be an amendment to criminalize some speech, and we already restrict ownership right now (lautenberg amendment). Godholio posted:Fair enough on the car thing...I hadn't heard about that happening in the US. It's still not the same as a national or statewide restriction on a Constitutional right. What the gently caress are you smoking? Republicans actively campaign against restoration of felon voting rights all the drat time. Disenfranchisement is a core GOP party platform. Godholio posted:The idea of a real political party advocating the removal of firearms rights is not. And plenty of people ARE worried about voter registration lists...in any other administration the Russians hacking numerous states to gain access to the rolls would be loving groundbreaking news. In 2018 that was Tuesday. The government is not going to come take your weapons away. Your guns are safe until an amendment gets past. You're just wringing your hands about a boogeyman that decades of NRA backed fearmongering have instilled in your mind. The SCOTUS, especially in it's current makeup, is not going to allow any wholesale confiscation program. This is entirely a strawman argument. This holds true no matter how prevalent this fear may be. Fight against the fallacy and look at the reality of the situation. edit: removed some snark. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They don't have to send loving gestapo squads door to door for this to become a problem. All they have to do is throw down 10-25 year sentences (or anything, really) if you're caught in possession of something that Mike Bloomberg doesn't like. That feels like infringement. Hope your taillight doesn't go out, that little flag when they run your license might make your night considerably worse. Want to address your claim that republicans don’t actively engage in voter disenfranchisement? Also holy cow you guys are arguing against sensible poo poo with slippery slopes and other logical fallacies that were untrue decades ago when other countries passed sensible legislation and opponents said the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:While I definitely respect where you're coming from, there already are a bunch of reasonable restrictions on firearms. Driver's licensing, vehicle registration, TSA travel regulations, etc. are all constitutional limitations on your right to travel. You cannot freely trespass on someone's land to do said constitutional traveling. Likewise, there are restrictions on free speech including appropriate charges for criminal speech and costs related to use of federal venues. If you do not explicitly invoke your right to counsel or right to remain silent, those are waived automatically. And no, you can't institute a test that must be passed before voting because those were used entirely to deprive people of rights rather than to protect anything. Bored As gently caress posted:What precisely does licensing for firearms ownership "do" to promote public safety? You're already handed a manual with the gun and I think that most people generally understand "killing people is bad." Cars are comparatively a significantly more complex mechanical device with a huge number of rules and regulations more complicated than "don't point the pointy end of this at something you don't want destroyed." Nationwide licensing and restricting firearm ownership leads to a direct and traceable reduction in both violent crime and homicide rates. This is supported by the decline in both in every country that has instituted sane firearm measures. There is an almost direct correlation in western countries with the homicide rate and gun ownership rates. By enforcing some sort of licensing procedure before we allow someone to possess an instrument of lethality you become much more able to stop your Stephen Paddocks and Nick Cruz types. As it is now with basically no restrictions, people who obviously are in no shape to handle a weapon can amass a massive stockpile with little to no trouble. Bored As gently caress posted:Let me explain why I feel this way: If you have a constitutional right to "X" and there is no public safety reason for you to not exercise right to "X" there should be as little impediment to accessing "X" no matter which right we're talking about. And let us consider that under most understood forms of modern liberalism that expansion of access to rights is ALWAYS a good thing. It is something fundamental to modern philosophy of how a modern free nation should operate. There is an absolute public safety reason to limiting instrumentalities of death. That public safety reason is less dead people. And before you say "ah ha, chicago has restrictive gun laws and an extremely high homicide rate!" you cannot compare one city to a nationwide scale. Just because one state or municipality restricts things doesn't mean that said restricted items can't just come in. There is no customs or anything to travel from state to state. Without nationwide restriction, individual area restrictions mean little. Additionally Chicago's homicide rate is a multifaceted problem but primarily has one major cause (and it's the same as any high homicide area) - illegal drugs. Bored As gently caress posted:Increased access to abortion? Some people don't agree with it. But we can all agree that limiting rights for someone is generally a bad thing. Consider the case of Texas where "reasonable regulations" have halved the number of clinics. Do we consider waiting periods on abortion acceptable in a free country? The regulations in Texas weren't reasonable and they didn't cut clinics in half. The unconstitutional laws basically forced all but 4 or 5 clinics in the state to close entirely. This isn't an apples and oranges comparison. One is a medical procedure where one is literally a tool for killing things. This is a false equivalency, and not really relevant to a firearm discussion. Bored As gently caress posted:Increased access to firearms? Maybe you don't agree with it. But if it's a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. And you wouldn't regulate an abortion clinic out of existence would you? Why is this right somehow "okay" to have restricted access? It's absolutely ok to restrict certain constitutional rights. It happens all the time depending on the circumstances. And it's only even in the bill of rights because states wanted to have their own little militias. Once again, though, using the abortion comparison is a false equivalency, but I'll address it. Abortion is protected because of the penumbra of privacy rights interpreted by the supreme court granted by the 5th and 14th amendments. Even still, states are allowed to pass reasonable restrictions on abortion (Texas' were not reasonable).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 09:45
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Sure, it might, but it's very arguable that it is a net positive, even though horrible people use them to commit crimes - because good people use them to defend themselves. Firearms do very little on a large scale for personal protection. Having a firearm on you, depending on your color of skin, is actually going to make you more likely to get killed. Very few people who open carry or concealed carry have ever had or will ever have a reason to actually use their weapons in self defense. You're much more likely to be a George Zimmerman than you ever are to actually defend yourself or other with a firearm. Bored As gently caress posted:That's not even considering the very questionable idea that you can reduce access to firearms without 1) violating the constitution, (see: Heller, McDonald), and 2) without somehow making all existing guns disappear. While I intellectually know that you can reduce access to newly purchased firearms to people that don't have them already, and that that might impede someone from committing a mass shooting or a crime, I also know that it's quite possible that they will just find another way to commit that crime. Whether they purchase a firearm illegally, manufacturer one illegally, manufacture a bomb instead of a firearm, or use a large vehicle. Or, if an assault weapons ban is in place, simply bring more pistols or a ban compliant rifle, and bring more and more reduced capacity 10-round magazines. Due to the prevalence of firearms in this country, and the fact that you won't be able to ban all standard capacity magazines, and the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of them out there, even if you did put a ban in place, the person could simply bring more guns or more magazines. I see this "crazy people will just find another way to kill" argument used a lot, but it doesn't hold water if you look at it with any sort of scrutiny. Let's run with it, though. So America is essentially on par with the rest of the developed world with regards to mental health (at 3-4x the cost but that's a different subject). While our mental health system could definitely use a lot of improvements, we're not so significantly worse than our European counterparts. So it follows that you should have an approximately equal proportion of crazy people throughout the similar societies. Remember that these places consume the exact same (or even less censored) media and video games. And yes, there are occasional but extremely rare events there committed by these "lone wolves." However, they happen with such infrequency that each event on it's own is basically a statistical outlier. We can quickly name specific knife and vehicular attacks from Europe because they are so remarkably rare. In the USA those death numbers are loving Tuesday. So either our sickos in America are unique enough that they would still kill en masse significantly different than the rest of the world, or the simplest explanation is that those massacre methods aren't near as simple as getting guns and shooting up a place. The way you get some of the 300 million guns off the streets of the USA is with a voluntary buyback. It's basically the only effective way, but there is no god damned reason at all for our country to have half of the world's privately owned guns. As for your remaining strawmans about capacity limitations and such, the more difficult it is for someone to go through with a massacre the less likely they are going to pull it off. See, for example, how Europe's crazy people aren't crashing cars into highschools twice a week. Bored As gently caress posted:I simply disagree with the fact that because reducing access to new guns MIGHT stop a few shootings, that we should impact every other gun owner in the nation and their ability to purchase new firearms. Because unfortunately the most effective firearms for self-defense are the most effective fire arms to kill innocent people. Unfortunately I think that is just a fundamental disagreement that cannot be changed on either side. Which is why I believe that we should focus on things that we can agree upon, like fixing the background check system. There is no might. If we reduced the number of weapons in this country to a rate similar to other developed nations we would see a massive drop in homicide rate and mass murders. Once again this fact is supported by everywhere else in the world that has done it. We're no different on a base level than English, Aussies, Italians, Germans, Japanese, South Koreans, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
psydude posted:Have you ever been to Central and South America? I can assure you that Americans are very different, with the obvious exception of those who emigrated from those areas. Americans are most culturally similar to Australians, a country that has already banned guns for the most part. We're basically fungible peoples culture wise with most of the developed world. There's zero different about Americans that should naturally make us more violent as a culture. Other places have the exact same (or less censored) media, approximately the same mental health resources, religion (although our fundies are a special crazy, Christianity really isn't vastly different globally), etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:the inescapable conclusions are that we both have too many guns and are mentally incapable of responsibly owning and using guns I don't think any place in the world is going to be able to handle the equivalent of 1 weapon a person without getting violent. Just a reminder that we have half of the world's privately owned weapons (approx 300 of 600 million worldwide) with only Yemen and one other place even remotely close (approx 0.5/per person) while basically the rest of the anglosphere has 0.3 or less and most countries in the world period less than 0.2 guns per person. The homicide and violent crime rates track right along with those ownership rates. Unfortunately we're fighting against a massive propaganda effort for the last 30-40 years from the NRA who own the republican party wholecloth.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
People in power in Florida are actively campaigning against an amendment that restores voting rights to felons. This is a part of the country where you get hit with a felony conviction if you’re black and have 2g of pot on you half in your grinder and half in a bag. Voter disenfranchisement is a core GOP platform and they actively campaign on it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Are you trying to change my mind? If I don't trust the government not to abuse its powers, giving me examples of the government actively trying to do it to other people isn't going to change that. Congrats, I'm even MORE entrenched in my position. I’m just calling out one of your outlandish claims, but to the other side, these attempts at disenfranchisement are short lived. No one is changing the second amendment. Your toys are safe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I was specifically thinking of an overt motion in violation of this: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." You're right that felons have had their rights abridged. Your fears of getting your arms taken away are not reasonable and are on the edge of phobic paranoia, but you said you don't shoot them so what should I call them? I highly doubt you've ever actually used any of them in self defense of yourself or others. The federal government is not some big boogeyman out to get you. I'm really not trying to be super snarky, but seriously what would be a reasonable restriction to you? What good justification is there for half of the entire world's private arms to be in the USA? Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There are senior Democrats that have been rallying for exactly that for years. What's the unreasonable part? Just because they've been incompetent on a national level since the 90s? It's not going to happen without a constitutional amendment. Until that's actually a real possibility, your fears are entirely unreasonable. If they tried to actually take arms, the SCOTUS is not going to suddenly flip back on Heller. Godholio posted:I've almost drawn my pistol once, when I was an armed guard; fortunately I haven't had to go further than that. I've also got a friend who is permanently disfigured from an evening when he answered the door and four dudes kicked it in, cut on him a little bit, and discussed whether or not to murder him in his own living room. I bolded the important part. I understand the need for a guard to be armed, but you've never been in a situation at all where you would need to carry a weapon 24/7. Your friend's story, while tragic, probably would have been worse if he had a gun on him when he answered because he wasn't prepared to draw to fire right away anyways (being that they seem to have caught him off guard). He has a gun on him and he probably gets shot. Also, to this extent, do you carry your weapon ready to be drawn every single time you open the door? If not, then you're not actually protecting yourself with it. Godholio posted:I'm fine with expanding background checks, provided that the infrastructure is put into place to support it. Or if there's a way to flag people with mental conditions that should preclude firearm possession without violating HIPAA. Hell, if there's a way to codify a registry that could never be employed to identify/track/prosecute/etc gun owners simply for being gun owners, I'd be willing to listen to that. I think this is a good start, but it's going to be insufficient on it's own. Expanded background checks wouldn't have stopped Cruz or Paddock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
I'm not trying to single you out or poo poo on you in particular, godholio. I'm just tired of the bullshit in general. It's frustrating to watch family and friends report garbage memes, spout false equivalencies, build giant strawmen, etc all the time and it's just tiring constantly trying to tear down falsehoods and half-truths.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Humans are trash. Extreme and brutal violence is not going to go away no matter what gun control efforts are enacted. Whether it's guns or driving into crowds, people who want to do this for whatever reason will find a way. To me, the more important issue is "why is this happening?" It's not happening because of the guns on the street. Gun ownership rates in this country have hovered around the same level since we were colonies, as borne out by numerous historians that decided to fact-check Michael Bellesiles' Arming America. So if we've always had the guns, why haven't we always had the shootings? It's not because of "high capacity" magazines, it's not because of semi-automatic machinery. It's not because of picatinny rails or pistol grips. So then why do we not see these kind of massacres happening everywhere else in the anglosphere? Our contemporary countries have ostensibly the same issues that we have here. The mental health systems in other countries may be a bit better, but they're not so much better that they're catching every "trash" human you're talking about. So all of these other massacres should be occurring everywhere else in the world that doesn't have the weapons that we have, and yet they don't. There are one off attacks every year or two elsewhere in the modern world. In the USA we have a mass shooting every 60 days. There is nothing that inherently makes USA peoples more violent than people anywhere else. No one is massacring school children with trucks, knives, or bombs in any of the rest of the world that's effectively disarmed despite the claim that this is the outcome. The only statistically significant difference between the populations in the USA and people in Canada, UK, Australia, France, Italy, Germany, etc. that would explain the massive disparity in massacres between us and them is the firearm ownership rate. Violent crime and homicide rates drop almost exactly on par with the reduction in total number of weapons per person.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:11
|
|