That’s fine, but no one will actually turn in their weapons, they’ll just hide them. License-holders will report theft. And that assumes that somehow the legislation passes with widespread popular support, which is almost inconceivable at this point.
But in the improbable event that public opinion somehow changed in the US to support national gun control, it would still take generations before guns were actually removed from the scene. So in effect the options on sanity have been foreclosed for many years to come, regardless of legislation.
That’s probably all true. And I’m under no illusions that any of that will happen in my lifetime, no matter how much I’d like to see it. Still, I think a framework could be worked out that, over time, would drastically reduce the number of guns in circulation. I mean, Australia did it.
Of course, who knows if that would affect violent crime or even gun crime. I tend not to buy the “criminals/crazy people will just use some other weapon argument” entirely, because guns make killing people so easy. I don’t think magically eliminating all guns would end violent crime, though–I’m not naive. Would cut the number of mass shootings, however.
"There are aspects under which one can discuss gun laws and gun culture, but this incident isn’t one of them.
Such mass shootings happen everywhere, even in countries with strict gun laws.
Following a discussion on Fb, I just looked up a few statistics - in the last 25 years, there have been 15 fatal shootings (this one not counted) with more than 10 victims in Western countries. Of these, 9 took place in countries with gun control, 1 in Switzerland, where citizens have the right to bear arms, but guns are uncommon in public, and 5 happened in the US.
I suggest we focus on the incident here, not on a virtual discussion about gun laws."
That mass shootings/attacks are a different breed of thing from standard criminal homicide, I think. It’s a valid point, though it’s easy to read some sort of pro-gun stance into it. I personally don’t think that’s what he was getting at, though.
Mass killings are caused by mentally unstable people. Taking away guns may prevent those but the day to day murders are for the most part acts of emotion, aggression whatever that would happen anyway.
Although drive by knifings (sp) probably would not replace drive by shootings. But the gang bangers would find a way to get their guns.
Luckily all those people who really care about gun ownership also make sure to vote for politicians who support a universal health care system that would help mentally unstable people get help.
Put mass shootings and other grand atrocities aside, since they don’t contribute much to murder totals in this country. But the US nevertheless has a much higher murder rate than other wealthy countries.
As you may know, knife-based crime is a huge news and policy issue in the UK right now. The tabloids have been blaring about the assault and murder rate with knives for years.
The UK murder rate is 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people. The US murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 people, [i]300%[/i] higher. Is this due to guns being readily available? There’s no way to say for sure that Americans wouldn’t just stab each other repeatedly instead of shooting one another, but I’m going to go ahead and guess that without guns, the murder rate would be much much lower.
As for it being ass-figures, I don’t know. Just a repost and food for whatever thought anyone would personally like to give it.
Generally, I regard mass murder as different than not, and obviously most of us do on some level, or we’d not be discussing this incident–as compared to the very many murders that happen every day.
Anyway, I would offer a more-detailed injection of thought, but I’ve been awake for about 27 hours now, and I don’t get any rest days til Monday. Maybe it doesn’t make sense (my cognition is low right now), but I think what my friend was getting at was fairly easy to see.
I do think there is something about the personal factor of popping someone with a gun that is more appealing to evil people like this than pulling a smarter move like secondary explosives.
Ugh, I’m too mentally slow to keep up, but yes. And it’s a point loaned to me by a European friend.
As for being pro-gun, I’ll offer the disclaimer that I carry in the woods, and have gotten by in lean times because of a firearm, and been protected by a firearm.
That said, see my above posts. I believe what’s his schmutt (I don’t care to remember his name) in Norway had explosives, as this “man” appears to have. Taking a gun to someone is more cruelly “soothing.” When I worked 911, I had a ton of patients from violent stabbings, and many from sidearm use (other firearms were 99% self-inflicted), and something about the use of sidearms seemed to appeal to this sort of person. Of course, the most killings I ever had on scene was 3 at once.
Of course not, but the usual psychology of mass killers is so vastly different from the psychology of the guy who commits a murder as a crime of passion (for instance), to the extent that discussing ways to mitigate one have almost no bearing on how to mitigate the other.
Citation needed otherwise it's ass-figures.
Wikipedia has a slightly-disturbingly comprehensive and well-cited list, although it’s organized by region instead of by date. It also conflates mass murders with spree killings, which are similar in appearance but different in precise mechanics.
I don’t think anyone is taking it lightly, rather that it seems to have a different motivation than, say, a robbery/homicide or domestic homicide. It will be interesting to see what the shooter says his motivation was.
I don’t know if this is a national trend but in my wonderful city probably 75% of all murders (could easily be more) that involve guns are gang related. The murder rate must reflect that. I would imagine most large cities face the same thing.
The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the gangs. My office sits in an area that borders the turf of three different gang groups…Mexican, Asian and Black. The whites are more the meth fiends who kill over that.
You could outlaw guns tomorrow and the gang members would still have their guns. To think they wouldn’t is very naive.
