A person using a gun to defend themselves, their property or their family is largely a fantasy. The cases are outliers, the likelihood of nearly ANY other outcome (accidentally shooting someone else, missing the target, failing to engage or being engaged by law enforcement) are much higher. It makes some people feel better, kind of like having the Bible in a hotel room. The likelihood that it's going to stop someone from doing anything is slim to none. The deterrent argument is moot, because a gun can be replaced in this situation by a bouncer, a giant dog, a baseball bat, etc. People are FAR more afraid of a barking pit bull than someone carrying a shotgun, our instincts have at least that much covered. All of that said, no way do we end up with less guns. I think we mandate how these events get media coverage, to prevent the copycat effect and I think we try and provide actual mental health services to people who look at murdering dozens of people as a viable expression of discontent. Joe Rogan said it best: We have a mental health problem masquerading as a gun problem. With 300 million guns, the access will not change. What needs to change is why some asshole thinks murdering dozens of people with further his cause.
More like an Islam problem masquerading as a gun control problem, at least in this case. This guy pledged allegiance to the Islamic state and then opened fire in a gay club. And even then, we dance around it like its some fringe group or "radicals". A homosexual will get executed by the state in 12 Mliddle Eastern countries just for being gay. The "moderate" refugees in Europe are running rampant and committing sexual assaults on women and demanding Europe integrate with Islamic law. But we would rather pretend it's a small group of radicals, talk about gun control as if that's the only thing that matters, make dubious comparisons to Christianity, etc. I even saw some HuffPo article yesterday that went out of its way to blame literally everything but the one thing that's the actual answer. It's remarkable.
And yet another hallmark of the pro-gun lobby, an argument that evokes fear without basis in fact. While I agree that response times in rural areas may be slower than in the city, it's an irrelevant argument. Do criminals sit around and say 'oh, the response time is such and such, let's DO THIS?' By your own post, Philadelphia would have much quicker response times. Ok, yet we had 277 murders last year. What rural area even comes close? By the way, you can't say 'Cabot Cove, Maine' - which may be the most dangerous place ever. While response time may well lead to less fatalities, it does not apparently lead to less crime, otherwise, Philadelphia would have less murders, by your argument. So even with our super fast response time, the reality is we have more murders than rural areas. So again, this idea you raised that somehow living in a rural area requires a gun for personal safety is less applicable than if you were in the city. Which is what this line of argument was about. Oh, and the wild animal argument? Apparently, between 1999 and 2007 there were around 1,800 deaths nationwide due to animal attacks. So that averages to around 220 a year, and again lower than the murder rate in Philadelphia in any given year. And that 220 is for the entire nation. The biggest culprits? Bees. Let me know how that handgun saved your family from a bee sting. The biggest culprit? Cats, hoofed animals, pigs, horses caused 655 deaths over 8 years, or about 82 deaths per year. For the entire US. Again, far less dangerous than a city. Look, here is why the gun debate goes nowhere. Just look at the responses to my post. People getting annoyed at me because I put up some facts? That's because as our Canadian members have pointed out - we have an emotional love affair with guns. Which was my initial point as well. The facts and arguments proposed in defense of having a gun out of necessity all fail, because frankly we live in a first world country and there rarely is danger of that magnitude, and further when there is such danger, the facts show that citizens with guns rarely prevent it anyway. Are there certain occupations that would require it? Sure. But we live in a country with 350 million people and 300 million guns. Surely our society can't be so dangerous that you have to be armed to survive. Is there crime? Of course. But even in the face of crime, the stats show that you are far more likely to have a weapon in your home used on an occupant than an intruder. All I want is for folks to be honest in the US and say 'You know what, I love my gun.' I'm totally cool with that, but don't throw specious arguments at me to justify when the actual facts show just the opposite. Again, I have no emotional connection to the gun debate. I don't care if we get rid of them, or we get more of them. I'm a policy wonk. You present me with a problem, I'll tell you how to solve it, but I'm not connected to policy. It either works or it doesn't. If you believe that there is too much gun violence in the US, then our current policies aren't working. If you believe that it's an acceptable amount, then they are working. It's that simple.
Well then, what do we do about it? If we all agreed that Islam is the problem, what policy changes to we enact to combat that problem? Besides, do we really have an Islam problem? Because Dylan Roof, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, Aaron Alexis, and James Holmes weren't Muslim. Again, if we're going to start pigeonholing groups of people as potential troublemakers, to be honest about it we'd have to start with our own gender. Because that's the biggest commonality that these mass shooters possess.
Well I did qualify my statement in the first sentence, but I understand your point. The examples you mentioned, of which there are still many more that could be listed, should be divorced from the Orlando case. But I think an important factor that may or may not reveal itself in the investigations into this guy is whether or not he had a history of mental illness and that his allegiance to ISIS was just a by-product of that or if he was a true sympathizer, was communicating with terrorist groups in the ME, etc. Because of the information coming out and his declaration as a soldier of ISIS, it should not be lumped into the group of lunatics you mentioned. The actions are similar, but its a completely different issue if he was directly linked to a terrorist organization. If Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up Columbine in the name of the Westboro Baptist Church, I would make the same argument. And we (western civilization) absolutely have an Islam problem. You have two groups existing at the same time with incompatible values in a world that is becoming increasingly small. They are vocalizing their motivations and their values, which are obviously in direct conflict with ours and Europe and then committing extremely violent acts to win that culture war. As far as policy goes, we need to be far more aggressive with foreign policy in dealing with them, but not just with boots and bombs. The downsizing of US forces in the ME has directly coincided with the strengthening of ISIS and similar groups. Now whether or not its a result of the Iraq War or other acts previously committed against these people by western civilization is a perfectly legitimate argument and one that should be examined so its not repeated. But it doesnt negate the need to deal with the immediate threat, which diplomacy doesnt seem to be working. ISIS seems to be getting stronger because their new recruits and potential recruits think they are winning. If we absolutely annihilate them in the spirit of the Powell Doctrine, the psychology of that might be better contained. And even typing this out, it seems like an immediate repeat of past offenses, and may be it is. But I think a good start would be to: 1) Dump far more money into budgets for alternative energy and in the interim, start tapping our off-shore gas and oil reserves, including Alaska. The potential environmental impact (of which there is no consensus of) is more attractive of an acceptable risk than having to bend over for Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations. If we can dramatically reduce our dependence on them, we can start yanking that leash any way we want to. 2) Stop providing foreign aid to countries that are openly harboring terrorist organizations. Pakistan comes to mind. Now, without having access to intelligence briefings, perhaps propping up these governments is the only thing that keeps them from collapsing, and therefore the nuclear arsenal falling into the wrong hands. Who knows. 3) Engage in a hardcore propaganda war in the Middle East.
It's actually laugh out loud funny that, sitting here and imagining banning all men from owning guns, I can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work. Sure, it would never happen and no, it does not solve the problem of existing guns, but imagine a society that did not have a single gun and wanted to start importing them. They decide only women could be licensed and hence own firearms. Fast forward fifty years and break down the amount of gun deaths happening. BOOM. The only times I recall women involved with shooting are domestic disputes or when their husband involved them in whatever his crazy plan is. PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED FOLKS. This opens up a can of worms regarding trans wo/men, but hey. How interesting would it be to see a 6'4" 250lb guy stand up in court and say, "I know our laws prohibit male gun ownership, but I identify as a woman." And all you vehement gun owners, chill out. This is a tongue-in-cheek post. But an interesting idea.
An underlying theme in this discussion is really interesting. I thought Archer's post on the breakdown of Australia vs. the US was fascinating and bang-on. The underlying theme among some Americans on this board is, "I do not trust the police to protect me. I do not trust them to respond quickly enough. I do not trust a situation where they have guns and I do not." That, right there, is the heart of it. I'm Canadian and, while I would never speak for my country, I'd hazard a guess that your average Canadian is okay with policemen being armed, feels comfortable calling them in a crisis and in general does not have a total distrust for their position. Do we have cop-on-civilian violence? Sure we do. We also have a disproportionate amount of Native Canadians incarcerated. So our system is not perfect. But we don't have this seething paranoia that suggests only an individual is capable of personal safety. A strange co-occurance (I make up words on Wednesdays), though, is the hyper militarization of local police forces in the US. It's INSANE how any particular county can be equipped with tanks, assault weapons and gear, military training, etc. So it creates this weird cycle. I do not trust the police to protect me -> I own powerful guns -> Police must have weapons capable of protecting and overcoming criminals with high-power guns -> Police force's armory exceeds anything a civilian could ever hope to defeat. -> Civilians feel unsafe. -> I do not trust the police to protect me. There's no logic. If as a country the individual is paramount, why militarize the local police forces? And if any particular police force has a SWAT response unit that rivals the Marine Corps, how exactly do you think an army of well-armed civilians would ever defeat that, if it came down to the people having to overthrow the police? Like VI said...y'all just love your guns and that trumps personal safety in most cases.
What you miss here is the reason the police in the US are so militarized. It's not because of the caliber and power of civilian weapons at all. That's one of the excuses interested parties use. Terrorism and drug gangs being others. But neither of those is the actual reason either. The reason for US police militarization is the government wants to control the citizens. If it can do that and make money from its weapon manufacturer and military friends then that's great for them.
[ Criminals look for soft targets. What is a softer target then a house in the middle of nowhere, with no neighbors for a mile or so? Especially when they KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will not encounter armed resistance? In the two rural areas I've lived combined there haven't been that many murders in 200 years, but I'll bet those two rural areas have had more poaching of wildlife in the past year. So what? We have more wildlife. I'd also be willing to bet those two areas have a much higher density of gun ownership and it's sometimes years between murders. We're not all walking around strapped and ready to shoot at anything that rustles in the bushes or offends us. You're trying to take an urban problem and apply an across the board fix for areas that don't have the problem, by taking away one of the reasons they don't have the problem. Philadelphia has a population density of 11,457 people per square mile. That's 3000 more people then live in the entire 400 square mile county I'm from in MS, in just a few city blocks. Urban solutions to urban problems don't work in rural areas. They are apples and oranges. What if rural codes were implemented in the big cities? Things like no at the curb trash pick up? You either bury, burn, or haul your trash to a community dumpster station 10-15 miles away. It would not work in the city. I realize that getting mauled by a wild animal is not on your list of things to worry about in Philadelphia. By the same token, getting caught in the cross fire of a gang shoot out isn't even on the radar of rural folks. It's just not going to happen. But being stalked and targeted by a wild animal happens quite often in rural areas and a gun is the answer to that problem. Look, if big cities want to enact gun control laws that may work for them....fine. Just don't try to force it on the other 95% of the land mass that doesn't have the problem.
Totally agree with you that it's partially economic - special interests make a lot of money. Particularly if they sell weapons. Government contracts are lucrative shit and probably we should have a whole different discussion on how bad it is right now that special interest money is essentially dictating policy. As to government wanting control...to a degree, isn't that kind of desirable? For a moment, remove the corruption and special interest money from the equation. Government regulations tend to help, and we see the biggest environmental and social failures in areas that have the most restricted government involvement. People don't seem to realize that the choices are not The Government's Plan vs. The People's Plan; it is The Government Way or Capitalism. In the absence of strong government oversight what takes over is not a utopian state of humans in harmony...it's big corporations that serve only their bottom line to shareholders. Can you name me a scenario where it would be preferable to have the government totally dissolve and people with no control or restrictions? Also, the government is actually people. It's a group of collective thoughts. So if there's bad government, it's because there's bad people or because good people are indifferent.
I can think of a few experiences where I would've liked to have had a firearm. I went camping a few years ago with friends up in the mountains. This one guy tagged along, no one knew him that well so we really had no idea that he was as mentally disturbed as he was. Everyone is having a good time and around midnight he decides to go for a walk in the woods with his dog and tells us if we hear three shots he's in trouble. By this point in the night he's started to freak people out so when he did this I have some genuine concerns for my safety. We had a guy out in the woods who is unstable with a weapon. We really couldn't have defended ourselves even if I did have a firearm. It was a bad situation thankfully he came back and didn't become violent. This guy had told people he's killed several bigfoot and can communicate with them telepathically and that bigfoot are actually demons mentioned in the old testament. One thing I would like people to try to agree on is that there should be some sort of do not fly list for weapons. I wrote about this before, and I think its one of the few things that can happen that will help keep communities safer. When I get my adderall filled its goes on a national database, if I try to get it filled twice or in a different state I'm in serious trouble. Some people on here know I've battled depression, I do think that if I've been diagnosed with depression or some other issue I should be on that list. I know some will disagree and not every concept is perfect but the suicide stats show that for men, firearms are the preferred method. So lets step away from the mass murder aspect, lets get to more realistic scenarios. I know some people will think this violates their rights, but if a person diagnosed with depression or bipolar or whatever Dx buys a firearm there is a potential that they will use that to harm themselves. I think this board is showing how divided people are on this subject. Pro gun people dig their heels in on the self defense claims, and the other side is as far apart claiming community safety. There has to be a middle ground somewhere and I know some people aren't willing to find that middle ground and thats fine. For me that middle ground is a mental health do not buy list. I think consensus can be found that this isn't banning guns, or stopping people from legally buying guns, its preventing those who may harm themselves or others from legally purchasing them. I think this would decrease the suicide by firearm rate and I do think thats worth reworking HIPAA for.
Spoiler: Hell no. How would you do that? They're integral to the system as it exists. That's definitely false. Schools, terrorism prevention (apparently), banking, medicine, foreign policy. All screwed up, all heavily under government control.
I would at least be an advocate for a federal registration list. We don't have a way of tracking who owns what guns, and that would be a step in the right direction.
Robbie do you know about the Irish Potato Famine? Nice little story about laissez faire. When the famine first started the English who controlled Ireland at the time decided that the free market would provide the food necessary because there was a market and certainly people willing to buy. That didn't work out. People starved horribly while the English sat back and waited for merchants to deliver food to the starving people, for a price of course. It wasn't until the government stepped in the people got some relief from starvation.
Uh...the English government was actually exporting a great deal of food from Ireland during the famine. http://ighm.org/exports-in-famine-times/
Yeah, if you love you some no government, take your next vacation in Mogadishu. They're into their third decade of utter breakdown of any and all government. I'd love to hear about your holiday there.
Yea, when I was writing that I had an sense that the English were busy screwing the Irish because they hated them. Ok, so never mind that example.
Gun licensing should be federalized anyway. If I for whatever reason want to take a gun across state lines, I have to have a permit in each state that doesnt have reciprocal agreements or the Utah permit.
Agreed. But when you compare education systems, health care, public safety, etc...don't Europe and Canada kind of do it better than the US? I can't believe I'm about to defend Canadian healthcare in a post, but on the whole Europeans and Canadians enjoy greater physical health and our university educations are orders of magnitude cheaper for equally prestigious accreditation. We're way less violent, and we don't live with this daily paranoia that suggests owning a gun is a safer option. We also have less of a divide between the rich and the poor, although that is eroding. So if you see examples of socialist countries that enjoy a better quality of life than your own, why reject them in favour of a culture that's more violent and dangerous? I don't know that these questions have answers, but I think their examination would represent a heart of a lot of these issues.
Well as I previously said, its easy to fund those programs when your national defense is paid for by the US.