I agree, that is the crux of the matter. The truly common sense stuff is fine by me, such as universal and mandatory background checks. Gun free zones make me nervous. A sign on the wall or in the window aint doing nothing to save nobody. On the other hand, I don't think CCW should be necessary. Or if it was deemed necessary, it should be accepted in all states just like a driver's license. If getting that done means really tightening down on the background checks and such, that might be a good trade off. Working to decrease the acceptance of violence within our culture would help, but man oh man what a big problem to tackle.
Except my girlfriend (or so she says). CCW makes sense to me, actually. Regulations against open-carry make less sense.
What about other weapons? State laws vary widely on the issue of... swords and knives. Even in Texas knife blades longer than 5.5 inches isn't allowed. This seems weird when you can carry rifles around. Or is there evidence that knives are actually more dangerous than guns?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oregon-shooter-came-california-described-shy-skittish-054725663.html Probable paragraph by the shooter is noteworthy.
I think it's mostly hold-overs from previous legislation, changing attitudes, and the like. There's over a hundred years of legislative actions in the States, and it doesn't all get cleared out when new laws are made, even if they 're on a similar subject.
Gun free zones will not magically change hundreds of years of gun culture in America. I appreciate the effort though, but 'murica needs it liberty to carry a weapon at all times because who knows what could happen. USA USA USA
It is stated in the article itself that the numbers may be misleading. For example, "areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime". The question is: who is owning the weapon? Most legal weapons here are owned by hunters, and they use those weapons for hunting and usually live in rural areas rather than cities, which usually have lower rates of violent crimes. The general problem which I believe has not gotten enough attention in this thread is not just the number of weapons, but who owns them and how readily you can access them. Where I live, people own about 70 guns per 1000 inhabitants. And those weapons may not be carried around unless you have a special licence (i.e., you are some kind of bodyguard), which most civilians do not have. If somebody robs me, they can be almost certain that I will be unarmed. They rob me and get away, no escalation happens. If, however, everyone must assume that the respective other has a gun in such an encounter and is both willing and ready to use it, your might decide to use your own weapon in self defense. Escalation is more likely. In this light, it is reasonable to restrict guns where guns are already hard to access (a friend from the U.S. told me once that we do have less homicides in the entire nation than the city of Chicago; it's not quite true, they are about equal). On the other hand, I can understand that it is quite different in areas (i.e. the United States), where everyone is already assumed to have a gun. If you are assaulted, and the one assaulting you assumes you have a gun regardless whether you have one or not, it puts you at a disadvantage not to have one. Escalation is still likely, because every move you make may trigger them to use lethal force against you. They cannot flee easily, since your weapon is ranged.
Syria could happen. How many Isis fighters could there possibly be? It's nowhere near a million. Imagine if those refugees were gun owners and had the chance to fight instead of flee? Sigh. Let's put it it this way, when the rednecks in America rise up to take care of the 'Muslim problem', wouldn't you want those people to be able to defend themselves if the government can't (or won't)?
"muslim problem" It seems like it's impossible to form once sentence without sounding like a total moron. I'm talking to someone who's recyclying all the bull that comes out of the political GOP machine. Go bomb some more countries. It's just not worth the bother to take you off ignore.
The Syrians that had guns now fight in islamist militias. Yay. Those that had guns and didn't conform with them probably got killed and got their guns taken away or fled, because fighting an army alone is for morons.
imagine if those refugees had guns and had to decide between putting their families lives in danger or fleeing? ...nothing changed? wow! didn't you give a comparison between europe and the US earlier that showed the population density? because based on that there is more than enough 'lebensraum'.
Your scenario assumes the confrontation. The expectation of meeting deadly force prevents the confrontation in the first place. Nothing to escalate. And I'm pretty sure the Oregon shooter was assuming his targets were unarmed.
Yeah don't you know? The NRA and the GOP will have you believe that if everyone has guns, gun related accidents will lower! Even now with the US having so much guns in private hands, mass shootings and armed incidents are so much lower compared to Europe! No idea how Europe makes it through the day without every civilian pointing a gun at every stranger to check if he's not a heterosexual white male! You can't explain that!
I believe the #1 cause of these mass shootings is the mass media who make the killers infamous and broadcast their motives.
I doubt mass media would stop these mass shootings more effectively than, you know, no guns. From what I can tell, most of them has some sort of anger/frustration towards their targets and while attention is a big part of it, the act of inflicting damage, be it in revenge or hatred, seems the driving motive to me.
