I'm watching the news and the tragedy in CT is hitting hard.
But before everyone gets caught up in an emotional fury and decides that all gun owners are wrong we must realize an undeniable fact.
You can't regulate evil. You can't keep a twisted person from killing if they really are determined to do it. Whether by vehicle, improvised explosive device, by baseball bat or by butcher knife...evil will find a way to kill.
Gun Control doesn't work and won't make anyone safer. Life is hard. Get harder.
NOTE-To the leftist out there that want stricter gun control be advised. Right after the election of President Obama to a second term gun sales spiked, after this incident they're gonna spike even higher. Now instead of people buying enough supplies for defense, hunting or recreational shooting now they're going to buy in case firearms are outlawed. All you're doing is laying the ground work for a MASSIVE black market in the future. Gun control will work about as well as the prohibition on alcohol, the war on poverty and the war on crime (which this is) and the war on drugs (an adjunct to the war on crime). The solution is painful because it requires individuals to be held responsible for their actions. That's the key.
But before everyone gets caught up in an emotional fury and decides that all gun owners are wrong we must realize an undeniable fact.
You can't regulate evil. You can't keep a twisted person from killing if they really are determined to do it. Whether by vehicle, improvised explosive device, by baseball bat or by butcher knife...evil will find a way to kill.
Gun Control doesn't work and won't make anyone safer. Life is hard. Get harder.
NOTE-To the leftist out there that want stricter gun control be advised. Right after the election of President Obama to a second term gun sales spiked, after this incident they're gonna spike even higher. Now instead of people buying enough supplies for defense, hunting or recreational shooting now they're going to buy in case firearms are outlawed. All you're doing is laying the ground work for a MASSIVE black market in the future. Gun control will work about as well as the prohibition on alcohol, the war on poverty and the war on crime (which this is) and the war on drugs (an adjunct to the war on crime). The solution is painful because it requires individuals to be held responsible for their actions. That's the key.
A mate on FB has just posted that according the brady campaign, CT has the 5th strongest gun control laws
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/2011/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf
We have to do something though. The frequency of mass killing is getting shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, a break point will be reached when people can no longer stand this kind of atrocity happening in their communities again and again and again! But I agree gun control is not the solution. If you take a country like Japan which has tough gun control since the beginning, crime rate is very low. But the situation in US is totally different, even if you outlaws gun completely today it won’t make a difference since so many guns are already in the circulation. It can back fire, just look at probation or drug war as your history lessons.
ReplyDeletewhat would you recommend? schools are already gun free zones. are you going to put police in schools? we do it down south. why aren't they doing it up north? are you going to try and confiscate weapons? won't work. so what do you do?
ReplyDeleteHiring armed contractors may not be a bad ideal. Give them shoot to kill authority, just like Federal Air Marshal gets when he aboard civilian air line. Kill the SOB first, ask question later.
ReplyDeleteas much money as local school boards collect in taxes they should be able to afford private security or even develop school security based out of the sheriff's dept. that's what we do down here....
Deleteanony: You forgot one little drawback.
DeleteFirearms are banned in schools and within 100 to 500 feet of a school.
No security guard would be armed under this law while in a school. It's doubtful even a LEO would be allowed a firearm in schools.
Now what about liability?
If the security guard just happens to have a gun and uses it to kill a perp but the action deafens, wounds, kills or traumatizes the rest of the school who gets sued?
The security guard would be treated just like the Principal who used his .45 to stop a shooter who was a child and was castigated for it.
The security guard if he happens to shoot a protected minority, then he or she will get what George Zimmerman is catching now.
You cannot as a student even draw a gun or make your fingers point like a gun without being punished severely, hell I wore a USMC weapons training Battalion T-shirt to my grandson school as was chastised about the guns on the emblem!
Your not going to get armed security in a school.
It is if these shootings are occurring to a timetable.
ReplyDeleteeveryone took a holiday from reality during the election but now that the thing is over and Christmas time is here people are stressed because the economy is not good, people are hurting and Washington is fiddling. its gonna get worse too once people realize the full cost of Obama Care, spending for defense is reduced and you suddenly have a bunch of young trigger pullers walking the street looking for a job and then you add to it big defense firms laying off people. things are gonna get much worse.
DeleteIt works in Australia. Less than 50 gun related deaths a year compared to 30,000 in america. Cant argue with the facts.
ReplyDeleteAustralia doesn't have the population of California. Hardly an apples to apples comparison. additionally Australia has a much different history than the US. in our tradition gun ownership is protected. in Australia it was beyond easy to de-arm the people. its almost as if no one wanted the right. keep your laws, i'll keep my southern laws.
DeleteAustralia also is an island. Makes smuggling a lot harder.
Deletesmuggling? who needs to smuggle weapons? the citizenry gave them up willingly. the American people (or at least a large portion) will never do that...at least in my life time...the pussification of the people will continue and perhaps after i'm dead it will be complete but not quite yet.
Deleteoh and don't be fooled. as much international shipping as comes into australia you can bet that you have people that have a desire for weapons being able to lay hands on them. its just a given. too big...too many open spaces ... too many drop off points. if you have illegal drugs in your country then you have illegal firearms.
What happened to america can achieve anything when it puts its mind to it? Or is that just spin???
DeleteUSA doesn't need gun control in terms of what you can buy. It just needs insanely tight laws on storage and weapons handling, backed up by an agency like the ATF undertaking audits at individual homes and putting folks in jail when they fail. This would create the environment of responsible gun ownership. If you don't store your weapons in Aus correctly, its considered intent and you lose your license and guns on a one strike your out policy. Very easy to get jail time here if you break the storage and handling laws.
You wouldn't need to audit every individual in America, just enough to create doubt in the back of everyone's head.
what you describe sounds like a police state. the really interesting thing is that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment as applying to individuals and not the "so called " militia. the people ARE the militia.
DeleteBJ88. Nice illustration of the difference between subjects and citizens.
DeleteSolomon, I live about 10 miles from the school, folks around are in a state of stunned disbelief.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as someone else noted Connecticut already has fairly restrictive guns laws -- including an a "assault weapons" ban on the books... They didn't stop this shooter, the sad reality no so-called gun control has ever prevented a single shooting. The only this that can is people who are will and able to protect themselves.
Some of the bigger towns/cities do assign police offices to schools here, but Newtown is fairly small town with small police department and with very little crime. They requested assistance from the state police and surrounding towns to help handle this incident.
What do we? Call me crazy, but I think we should take page from the Israeli's playbook and train and arm our teachers... From what I understand the school principle and school psychologist ran towards the sound of the guns. It's shame they weren't able to defend themselves and the students under their care.
my heart goes out to you but the biggest anti-gun people on the planet are involved in education. its a great idea but will never work.
DeleteGun control does work, that's why earlier this week in China a man was forced to use a knife to injure and seriously injure 20 kids at an elementary school.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
And that's one of many similar knife attacks on kids in schools in that country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)
My point is that we can take away the guns but we can't take away the crazy. There's a kid-killing epidemic going on and it's not limited to the US. Just ask Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
Note 20 kids injured by a knife attack, not 20 kids dead. Big difference.
DeleteWhat is it with people today and killing kids
ReplyDelete------------------------------
BEIJING (*******) - A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on schoolchildren in the country.
The man attacked the children at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province, the Xinhua news agency reported.
Police arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as villager Min Yingjun, Xinhua said. It did not give further details of the extent of the injuries.
-----------------------------
Prayers to all the families across the globe.
If you americans want to continue paying your right to bear arms with the life of the sons and daughters of other people, the rest of the civilized countries cannot do anything for you.
ReplyDeleteIn all Europe we have more restrictive laws for arms possession. As a result, the combined figure of firearms casualties is far less than yours.
I like shooting. But I sacrifice my theoretical right for the benefit of knowing that most of my neighbours are unarmed
that sounds good theoretically but you forget one thing. the only thing keeping Europe from boiling over is the massive social welfare programs that you have. those are under stress and once they go away (and they will go away soon) you're going to have all the old ethnic hatred rear up and the killing that goes on here will look like a warm sunshiny day. the only right you gave up was the right to defend yourself. i don't want to do that. as it is, you're dependent on another person to protect you from the beasts in your society.
Deletedo you really sleep well or are you in denial?
Europe prefers to do its mass killings in the millions. That's what gun control gets you in the end.
DeleteEurope's strict gun laws didn't stop Anders Breivik from killing dozens of people in Norway.
DeleteThe sad reality no law can stop a person who is hell bent on killing. As Plato said "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Simply put: laws only apply to those who are willing to follow them.
Even if by some miracle we could remove all the guns from the planet it wouldn't end violent crime... people would just back to using sticks and stones or swords and knives. Laws can't stop a deranged, murderous, anti-social moron from committing a violent act.
If you think otherwise you're in denial.
Sean- you're so right. the country to keep an eye on is France. they have some massive ghettos outside of Paris and when the poor start pouring out disrupting the rest of France then you can expect violence like you haven't seen since Kosovo.
DeleteJeffery- well said. evil is evil and it won't end until mankind does.
Us American's?
DeleteYour Mexican?
How's the cartel business doing?
I hear they are making a killing or 400,000 or so.
Ever hear of the two tribes called the Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda?
Mass murder with machetes.
Ban Machetes?
@Solomon: As I said, I sleep well preciselly because my neighbours aren't armed (most of them). Sadly, you're right in one sense: when the governments of South European countries finish their treacherous job of saving the banks at the price of the ruin of the population, there will be a moment in which the unrest will be massive.
Delete80 years ago, here in Spain there were a lot of weapons in the hands of civilians. Even before the civil war, different militias and political hitmen kill a lot of people every year. People didn't use the weapons for defending themselves, but for attack other people.
Even the disciplined Swiss had to change their arms legislation after a spree killing. Norway was a similar case after WW2: every citizen was prepared to defend the country, carrying the assault rifle with himself after the compulsory service. But after the damn bastard, they had to change the law.
Finally, Israel is less restrictive about arms bearing and possesing. On the one hand, the reservist of the first-line service maintain their service weapons. On the other hand, civilians train a lot and carry weapons.
But what's the reason for carrying weapons? Terrorism. If there is an attack, maybe a citizen will be able to stop the attack if there aren't servicemen near him. It happened a couple of years ago in Jerusalem: a terrorist use a bulldozer for attacking people, and a civilian sent him to paradise. I find this excessive, because the majority of the attacks are not stoppable using a handgun. But the accidents are really low, and the vast majority of arms bearers don't use arms outside of the appropiate spaces.
Israelis has not to defend against other israelis or against the State. Moreover, if they start to fight against each other, their enemies would use this against them.
But returning to my country: even when the unrest will spike, I do hope that our security forces will maintain the law and don't use their arms beyond the rules and their mandate. We have had to pay a monstrous price when this didn't happen, and the rememberings of massacres are too recent.
And as most of the inhabitants of citizens are unarmed (even with hunt weapons), it's really difficult that unresting will provoke massacres.
Or I pray G*d for that
Juan.
DeleteSpain is a beautiful country. Your Marines are good to go. Security Forces likewise, but its a myth to believe that the armed forces of a country combined with its internal security can keep a handle on things if they ever get out of control. those forces can handle localized incidents but if its nationwide then all bets are off. thats what happened in the former Soviet Union. the people finally realized that there weren't enough forces to keep them from expressing themselves.
change that scenario from one of wanting to express an opinion to one of trying to get food for survival and you have anarchy. if it ocurs all over Europe then there is no where to go. that's the nightmare scenario and i know many Europeans that are planning just for that. get a gun dude. ask a guy i know in S. America what happened when that economy collapsed.
Solomon,
DeleteI agree that there is a possibility of a catastrophic default in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy... but I don't think that this will produce a total social collapse. Not from one day to the next, anyways.
In South America, when defaults and collapses happen, there are mutinys, sure, but there are a lot of good examples of community cooperation. I was afraid of massacres in Argentina, for instances, when the famous corralito. But instead of that, people adapted themselves quickly and there were a good number of community cooperation events in which people support each other for not starving.
But there is also the peak oil effects on the horizon. It's going to be a global issue, for sure. There are going to be periodic shortages of everything, from energy to raw food. The only relevant question is not if but when. I want to think that it is going to happen in the middle of 2020, but possibly the first waves are going to arrive early.
In such cases, a gun is not the solution. If there is a total collapse with an utter lack of cooperation, cities are not going to be livable anymore. I live in a 6.5 million city (counting metropolitan area). If armed clashes are going to happen, such a huge city would be a huge bet against anyone: too much places from which a shooter can get you.
Between a catastrophic collapse and nowadays there is a long downpath. Before the final stages, a gun is a nonsense here: we don't need it in Madrid at all, and I am happy because the raw majority of the bystanders don't carry weapons. I'm working (better said, exploring) ways of change my perspective and learn how to collaborate better with my neighbourhood, preparing for the non-stop downwalk. If we surpass certain point, it would be advisable to abandon the city, but then weapons are not going to be a solution too: before that, roads are going to be inhabitated by gangs of armed bandits, like in the past.
As I said, I like shooting. It's a nice focusing exercise. But I sacrifice it for the benefit of a small number of guns circulating in the streets.
Restrictive gun laws will not stop a determined assault, see the Norway attacks.
ReplyDeleteNot having a gun will not stop an attack, see the China Attacks.
the china attack with a knife? resulted in how many deaths exactly?
DeleteThe norway attack was a tragedy, but it's the exception in that country not the norm, how many happend in the u.s.a in the last 6-8 years ?
America has not asked the rest of the civilized world for help with this issue, Juan. But thanks for chiming in.
ReplyDeletewell said Brandon. and we NEVER will ask the rest of the world for help AND could care less what they think. don't like it, then don't visit and PLEASE don't apply for citizenship.
DeleteSuper Lib is after the guns now. Meanwhile, the faithful opposition is on its way to committing political suicide. God help us.
Deletei've been wondering about that too. i don't see how they can pass a new assault weapons ban with a Republican congress.
DeleteConsidering that only two pistols were used in the attack, he cannot use this as a rallying cry for banning "assault rifles".
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSome news outlets are reporting that a .223 chambered weapon was used. I read it somewhere this morning.
DeleteRegarding a ban: I'm worried the Reps are going to horsetrade assualt weapons to keep tax shields in place for people making over $225000 a year -- that gives Dems a victory over AWs and gives republicans what they need to keep the donor money flowing; it's not like gun-rights advocates are going to start voting democrat just because the republicans don't stem the tide that's pushing for a ban. But republican donors will melt away if their party can't protect their money.
they could try that trash in the lame duck session but the results will be the same. they'll be primaried and Obama will lose the Senate in his last two years of office. as it now stands his agenda is in trouble and the left is pushing for more and more and time is running out.
Deletethe key things will be Obama Care taxes and the public's reaction to rising insurance premiums and then the effects of sequestration. either way taxes are going to keep getting pushed down. 250,000 and above is just the beginning they want across the board tax increases.
keep an eye on Presidential findings and orders...oh and the EPA. regulation will be the rule, not the exception...which leads back to gun control. he can try and do it by executive order or by ATF regulation but i don't think that dog will hunt. we'll see.
I think of an incredible and immeasurable arrogance ways to continue a discussion or expression of ideas; saying THINK not, nor come to the U.S., which we have not asked your opinion, or want them here.
DeleteGo education and manners, of shame, for any thinking being said.
Great article that basically says gun control is a waste of time because it is an ex post facto, ineffective and illogical treatment for a complex issue AND there are just too many firearms with over 300 million (not to mention billions of hi-cap magazines) and millions more sold each year.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/1/
these copy-cat murderers are like terrorists in that they know we have a feedback loop relationship with our exploitative media which keeps spoonfeeding this filth to us. We, in turn, keep returning to it like a dog to its vomit, morosely obsessing about it over and over.
I really don't see gun control winning out. We had a safer, more stable society in the 80s without AWB or Brady laws, but with more institutions being exposed for the corrupt, ineffectual entities they are, more people see the logic in being able to defend and provide for themselves if a total collapse, temporary or otherwise, should happen.
If we look at the latest shootings where have they occurred? and who were the victims? Whether it is in the theater, a shopping mall, or a school, what did these locations have in common?
ReplyDeleteThey were all "No Gun Zones". So what did these zones do? They created ready made victims, victims that were set up by the government in a mistaken belief that if we advertize the people in this area are no threat to any hostile force, bad people will stay away.
Most of these perpetrators we individuals who had "issues" and felt powerless, so they attacked those they were confident they would have power over. Perhaps we should look at stopping the government from setting us up as targets, instead of blaming the tools they used to commit violence.
Unknown & Paralus--
Deletewell said gents. the thing that has my head spinning is the fact that schools are no gun zones for a quarter mile in all directions. so in addition to CT having some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation, besides ALL schools in America being no gun zones, besides all that, a madman was able to defy the laws that are on the books and kill.
AND YET GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES THINK GUN BANS WILL WORK! AMAZING!
Seems to me like there are too many crazies going around with no mental treatment. I bump into at least one or two everyday.
ReplyDeleteNo gun zones make about as much sense as No Suicide Bombers did in Israel ten years ago. If someone is dead set on doing wrong and plans something out, a sign don't mean shit.
ReplyDeleteI heard a psychologist on NPR today and he made some great points. There is no way to predict who will commit horrific acts. While many people may fit a profile, there is no way to know who will murder others in this manner. It is almost always someone who suffers from depression or a psychosis, who has access to firearms, people who blame others for their failures, etc., AND who has suffered catastrophic loss (loss of loved one, end of relationship, being fired, etc.). There are literally millions who fit that profile, but only a handful who methodically plot and carry out the murderous acts.
The psychologist also pointed out that those with severe psychosis, e.g. schizophrenics, target random people at malls, theaters, etc., because they blame everybody (paranoia I am guessing) whereas workplace and school shooters tend to target specific people because they blame them for the wrong done to them.
OK mental unstable people cannot own weapons of any kind, not even a butter knife, Soooooo who decides and how which one of us is mentally unstable and needs to be disarmed?
DeleteWho gets disarmed? Why dangerous mentally unstable people they pick, like veterans (they have the training and are dangerous even without weapons) former police, MMA wrestlers and boxers, karate and kung Fu practitioners. You get the idea.
What we need to do is find some solutions that will actually be effective. We could be spending a lot more in terms of mental health to identify and possibly treat dangerously disturbed people. Trouble there is that public spending for mental health is normally not in the top 100 of programs we commonly want to spend more money.
ReplyDeleteWhile everyone can agree we don't want mentally ill people having access to guns we start to disagree when defining mentally ill and access. We need to find agreement here. We need to agree as a nation that if there is a dangerous mentally ill person in your home that your weapons need to be secured or that person can't have access to your home. We do need to do a better job of identifying these potential mass murders and do a better job denying them access to weapons.
That said we've got more guns than citizens so, as Sol has pointed out, we should also be relying more upon our citizens protecting one another. However demanding the course work we need more education workers in school armed. Especially retired police, veterans, etc., should be strongly encouraged to be armed. If the left scream loud enough that this is a job only for law enforcement then fine make them reserve police officers.
As an aside it's not just gun ownership. There are other societies with high levels of gun ownership such as Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Israel, etc. with varying murder rates all significantly lower than the US. The murder rate in Norway is about 1/4 that of Finland which is about 1/2 the US while both Finland and Norway have about 32 guns per 100 people. The US has both a diverse population and a somewhat violent culture and history. We also have a rather unique Constitution where the government power is given by the people vs almost every nation where the government has all the power and grants back some rights to the people.
its all of that and more. simply look at the "beacons" of control...california, new york (basically the entire eastern sea board) and chicago. they're all havens of gun violence and instead of identifying it for what it is...a complete failure ---what they're actually looking to do is to double down on control. false control but control none the less. they get off on denying God given rights and by expanding questionable, morally reprehensible rights instead. advancement is disbasement.
DeleteI saw where the media made a big deal about that petition to the white house for more gun control and even confiscation.
DeleteI sat and wondered who are these folks?
Then I read where a petition was sent and received at the white house demanding the United States build a Death Star, yes, 25,000 signatures.
So much for public petitions.
i dont believe gun controls, stops people, doing bad things. guns act as a multiplier, force projection, you can out run a knife, if caught, more likely to defend yourself, less likely to be killed, if stabbed.
ReplyDeletejust look to the following example:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/?hpt=hp_t3
I am going to sound like a conspiratorial nutjob but I just can't stop thinking it all a bit odd. He gets re-elected and mentions gun control in his re-election speil. The 7th Circuit judgement forces CCW on his adopted home state. And then a mass shooting at an elementary school just before Christmas in a state with the 5th tightest gun laws in the Union.
ReplyDeleteAs for Connecticut and its laws I think many are looking at it the wrong way. In one way reading it that this happened where it did despite laws is common sense. But you could look at it another way and see it as reason for them to impose tighter laws as they interpret it as the laws not being strong enough even somewhere Connecticut. Where that leaves the likes of Vermont, Utah, and Arizona who knows?
Check Six...Is this a Sudetenland event manufactured by the same Bill Ayers who attempted to kill police and soldiers with a home made bomb and has a quote in his manifesto/book that to implement their liberal, socialist paradise "We may have to kill 25 million American citizens" Yup He is big in the education of our children, wants gun control and dedicated his book to various people such as Sirhan Sirhan who used a hand gun to kill Robert F. Kennedy.
DeleteThese people in my view are ready willing and able to have their goons shoot down people to manufacture a crisis to take full advantage of for political gain.
The old liberal favorite statement about false flag ops sounds evil when I hear it now. And very suspicious.
Maybe I'm crazy but a POTUS who can watch four American's fight and die by drone camera and do nothing can easily handle killing our children to implement their plans.
I tried to think of something good to say on here, but I remembered hearing once of a Vice principle that had his concealed carry permit, but left his gun in his car out of the gun free zone. He heard gunshots and ran to his car grabbed his 45 and returned to the school and stopped the shooting. Here is the article I located when I googled it. I wanted to say something deep, but this proves what we all wish we could get through to the idiots who fear gun rights... You might find the older more in depth story behind it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm
I'm sorry the gun was in his truck which was actually on school grounds.
DeleteI will not willingly give up my firearms.
ReplyDeleteIf I am forced to give them up I will obtain another illegally.
If there are no guns I will make a sword or a pike.
Crossbows, war clubs and tomahawks.
A shovel or mattock.
A rock.
My two bare hands.
I am never un armed as long as I have my brain.
One Mind, Any weapon, USMC.
A comment i found interesting from elsewhere, i take no credit on authering it, that goes to "lj ruex", from the independent.
ReplyDeletefigures stated from both the uk & usa include suicide, i know that homicides in the usa are closer to 11k, but am unsure of the homicide figure for the uk.
The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 residents.
From your list of stated countries where guns are also "readily available", Switzerland comes closest with 45.7 guns per 100 residents. In other words, guns are "twice as readily available" in the United States than Switzerland. A HUGE difference. In Canada it's 30.8, and Yemen is the only middle eastern country which comes between Switzerland and the US, but still nowhere near the US with 54.8 guns per 100 people. The other difference between these countries and the US is that they have much smaller populations and are nowhere near as densely populated. The most densely populated areas you have, then the more likely mass shootings are going to occur when people are armed to the teeth.
Incidentally, two countries you mention: Columbia and Brazil have serious gun problems with more firearms related deaths per year than the US.
Then there is the issue that mass shootings aren't the only problem with guns in the United States. Shootings on a much smaller scale (homicides and suicides) are the main contributor to the 30,000 annual gun deaths in the US - a shocking figure compared to the 40 or 50 in the UK each year. If you extrapolate the UK figure according to UK/US population size, then the UK should be seeing 6,000 gun deaths per year.
So no, I'm not convinced. The idea that US as a nation needs to look more towards its collective psyche than its firearms regulations doesn't have much basis. Crime levels have actually been dropping through the floor all over the US since 1990, and US/UK culture and media are more alike than the US and most countries. But the UK sees nowhere near as many gun deaths. It is no coincidence that the UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
i find it amazing that people that don't live in the US actually think they have the right to try and tell us how to live.
Deletei can't begin to tell you how irritating it is to hear someone with a British accent, a recent transplant to the US try and demand that history be ignored so he can feel comfortable.
so to make a long story short. i don't care what you think Darren. actually i'm tired of talking about this. what i will do is write my Representative and since we have pure Republican districts i can tell you that an assault weapons ban will not pass. not unless these guys want to lose elections.
I don't find that amazing nor do I think it's amazing how frequently people misuse statistics. The murder rate in the US is roughly 3.5 times higher than the UK. In 2009 the US rate was 4.2 while it was 1.2 in the UK (almost double in Scotland). Canada's rate is 1.6, Russia 10.2, Finland 2.2, Belgium 1.7, Cuba 5.0, etc. The top ten worst nations have rates between 32 and 88.
DeleteThe US is a uniquely diverse nation with a specific history and more guns per capita than any place on earth. With all that you're twice as likely to be murdered in the US than Scotland or Finland. Is that a problem, sure, but it's not anything like the picture normally presented.
You're also twice as likely to be assaulted in the UK, Australia, and Canada than the US. You're marginally more likely to be raped in the UK than the US. In fact isn't there an epidemic of violent crime in the UK involving knives? Wasn't some thought given to a ban on kitchen knives?
hay solomon,
Deletean outside perspective, someone removed from the situation, is sometimes good, not always, just sometimes. Just because, i dont live in the u.s, doesn't preclude me from commenting / having an opinion... rather it's the case, on the internet being global means, i'd be surprised, if many people read your blog aren't from across the pond, so insulting them really isn't very nice just because they have differing opinions/accents...
your view on this subject doesn't seem to change, well to be honest mine doesnt really change eighter. If everyone believed the same, thing the world would be boring.
lane,
as far as i can tell the figures are accurate, not meant to distort.
i wouldn't believe everything you read in the papers, about knife crime. epidemic, sounds very much like a paper headline. but i digress, i'd much rather meet a mugger armed with a knife than a gun, like i said, in an earlier post, guns act as a multiplier, you can out run/less likely to be severly injured, by a knife, you can't outrun a bullet.
also referencing assualt/rape, that comes down to the way figures are compiled, to an extent, but i'd be interrested where those figures come from.
i wasn't referencing crime in general just the murder rate, because guns are pretty effecient, at the whole dead thing.
i dont believe america is any less safe, than the u.k. just more likely to die because the guy's armed with a gun
culture doesn't come into it, anyway you look at it, banning guns/removing, said guns would reduce the murder rate, not because, there would be less violence, but because, less efficent methods would have to be used.
I actually agree with you 100% that banning guns would lower the murder rate. The issue is that the right to own guns is part of the US Constitution and a very strong tradition. Even if most American's wanted to ban guns the process to amend the Constitution is so difficult it's never going to happen on this issue.
ReplyDeleteThat said the main problem with the numbers you cited is that it involved gun deaths not murders. The murder rate in Scotland is about half the US and for the UK as a whole it's about 1/4. Paradoxically, you're twice as likely to be assaulted in the UK. Yes that's a lot better than being murdered but a lower crime rate with a higher murder rate doesn't exactly make the US some primitive land in need of radical change.
Lane,
ReplyDeleteglad we agree on that issue, about lowering gun deaths. anyways, you dont need to ban all gun ownership, just curtail to an exstent, gun ownership, make it harder to own, more complex than that but look back to my posts on the cinema shooting for a more complex understanding of my views.
i did preface, at the very top of the post, that the figures stated, where homicide & suicide.. but i do believe it would have an effect on the suicide rate, simply because of the effectiveness of guns at the death thing & suicide is a thought that doesn't always last. therefore a person who trys it, doesn't alway try again.
Darren I hate to mention this but I think suicide should be legal and that we'd be well served by more people killing themselves and/or removing themselves from the gene pool. The killer that sparked all this could have done his community and a nation a great service by simply killing himself.
DeleteI also think you misunderstood my point. While I agree with you that lower gun ownership will result in less murders I'm saying in our society we've chosen to pay that price for a specific right. Getting rid of automobiles will lower traffic accidents but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of banning cars.
We may all come to the terrible conclusion, that maybe sick people just do sick things, and no amount of navel gazing or laws could have prevented this and thats what really scares people. Its not the guns, gun statistics, video games, music, whatever flavor of the week is popular right now.
ReplyDeleteIts reactionary and stupid. I thought the TSA was a necessary thing after september 11th. Now over ten years later, and with Bin Laden dead, I get to remove my shoes and then pick between getting my nuts cupped or getting into a nude X-ray machine (BTW went to high school with some of the "winners" that work for TSA, you can bet they troll for females to run through that machine and yes, they keep the pictures)
There are no amount of laws, regulations, or law enforcement that can prevent such shootings without encroaching on 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights. You are foolish if you think this only has to do with the second amendment.
Thanks for the comments Europe, but as Sol says, you basically are held together by the social glue that is socialist systems. We have already seen full on riots when talk of stopping those systems (or even cutting them) is brought up. So please, spare us the lectures. Its a time bomb, you don't have the money to keep it up and then we will get to see a "peaceful europe" (which is a relatively new trend BTW) erupt.
A spoiled child doesn't bite the hand that feeds.