Recent deaths will not change U.S. gun laws

When you talk about guns, it's worth pondering the World War II generation.

Millions of American men joined the military, were taught how to use a military weapon and then carried it into war for three or four years.

Then they came home, got jobs, got married, bought houses and raised children.

What's interesting is how seemingly few people in that generation felt the need to acquire an arsenal of military weapons and constantly badger Congress for access to even more.

But, like we said, millions of men in the WW II generation had probably already been there, done that and were sick and tired of lugging a gun around.

In 1945, the U.S. had 12 million soldiers, sailors and Marines on active duty. Five years later, the total was fewer than 1.5 million. That rose briefly to about 3 million at the height of the Vietnam War and has settled at fewer than 1.5 million in any given year since.

Despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, far fewer men today have had actual military experience, thanks to our volunteer army, than previous generations.

Which may, when you think about it, explain why so many men today seem so intent on having their own military-style hardware. There is, of course, no practical reason to own a military weapon with a 40-round clip.

Nearly all of these people will be satisfied to own and occasionally shoot their guns.  Only a statistically negligible number will turn them on other human beings, like James Holmes did last week in Colorado.

That tragic massacre has predictably been followed by calls from a small number of politicians in liberal, urban areas for more gun control.

But it is all sound and fury and nothing will result.

Here's why:

The National Rifle Association has almost every member of Congress, and both presidential candidates, too frightened of political retribution to even talk about the subject.

Voters should know, however, that in past political lives, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have supported gun control laws. Right now, they both realize it would be political suicide to do so.

The NRA is at its heart an industry lobbying organizations that must constantly gin up fear of gun control and crime so its corporate sponsors can sell ever more weapons and ammunition to an increasingly fearful public.

The NRA is good at what it does and very good for its sponsors.

Beyond that, public support for new gun laws has steadily declined over the past 20 years as more and more Americans have turned against government in general. Fear of an intrusive federal government has become the perfect foil for the NRA to raise money.

Beyond that, the mass shootings may be horrific but, surprisingly, this is not a growing problem. About 20 people a year are killed in these group-shooting incidents, according to USA Today, and that rate has changed little in decades.

Most of the real gun carnage is confined to inner cities and involves impoverished minority people killing each other one or two at a time, which rarely warrants sustained media coverage like the Colorado shootings.

In fact, 10 people may be killed in Chicago on a hot weekend and you will never hear any of their names.

So, the Colorado tragedy will pass. Our outrage is fleeting and there is little public or political will for changing the status quo.

rrhoades@sunjournal.com

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

The View

.... pretty much sums it up I'd say.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Recent deaths will not change U.S. gun laws

Rex 11 am ish HST •  Monday
Ayuh , today's ? 1 4 6 deaths from guns will not change U.S. gun laws ?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_get_killed_by_a_gun_a_day
? 1/2 get killed by their own weapon
Poor Bambi , too :D /s Steve

Steve  Dosh's picture

. . btw - Agree with me if

. . btw - Agree with me if you have ever had a gun pointed at you in anger
Some of us have , defending your rights :D
/s Dr. Dosh , former anti-narcotics officer stationed in Guatemala

Where were you?

You were likely in an hostile environment that warranted a gun? If that's the case that's far different than most people will ever see.

Steve  Dosh's picture

More recent deaths --->

More recent deaths ---> http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/2012/07/29/police-identify-shooter-... <-- ? in ME . tragic . . .

Andrew Jones's picture

The founding fathers may not

The founding fathers may not have had automatic weaponry in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment, but keep in mind they had just finished a bloody war with England. I'm sure they would have been thrilled to have weapons that would have allowed one colonial soldier to shoot at many rounds per minute as an entire British regiment.

MARK GRAVE's picture

First and foremost, guns are

First and foremost, guns are here to stay. Why not focus on profiling these individuals before they commit these crimes. All of these perpetrators left many bread crumbs.

Lastly, many WWII veterans bought hunting rifles, perhaps they would have bought military style weapons if they were produced for public sale; these weapons were not available for public sale post WWII.

That takeaway is that you cannot infer why WWI veterans did not buy military style weapons since those weapons were not available for sale.

IF ????

Why is it one usually sees the word "if" here? It's a purely speculative word if I may say so. it has no basis with this discussion. The discussion should be about "how can we make things better than what they presently are"? Of course, we aren't allowed to so where does this lead us? Carry on ....matey!!!

MARK GRAVE's picture

My back ground is in science.

My back ground is in science. In science, you present a hypothesis, conduct experiments, and measure results.
Now let’s apply this concept to gun legislation. Gun regulations have been incrementally more restrictive over the past 20 years with virtually no improvement in measured results – reduction in firearm deaths.

Out of the total number of U.S. gun deaths per year, politicians do not even know how these statistics breakdown. The CDR reports that more than 2 or every 3 firearm fatalities are due to gang/drug activity and suicide, not from the average Joe who owns firearms.

A casual observer would say that more regulations applied to the masses will produce little to no reduction in firearm deaths. My speculation is that our politicians know this, but use these mass shootings to further a political agenda, which sounds like you bought hook line and sinker; it is sad when people don’t apply critical thinking to the problem.

In closing, this country will not see any reduction in gun deaths until action is taken to address those who are most likely to contribute to that statistic.

Mark, I reread what you stated....

In closing, this country will not see any reduction in gun deaths until action is taken to address those who are most likely to contribute to that statistic.

This is exactly where I'm going! Prevention. But most people can't, or won't accept this. Why? Because certain people are "afraid" and the NRA won't allow it. We have speed limits for reasons. We have limitations on vehicles. We even have laws. Why? Because of a few the many have to abide by these. Some we don't like but we do. This fall into science? It will always be that way until we all act alike. A simple question could be: why can't drum clips only be allowed at ranges and such? Why can't all gun sales be tracked? Why can't there be limits as to where one uses certain things? Naw, we have our rights and all law-abiding citizens are law-abiding. Right?

MARK GRAVE's picture

“why can't drum clips only be

“why can't drum clips only be allowed at ranges and such?”

If you are interested in the science, a statically insignificant number of firearm deaths involve using drum magazines (clip is not the appropriate nomenclature). Again, the data shows most firearm deaths according to the CDC are related to gang/drug activities and suicides. Of those, most involve using handguns. Moreover, many states already make using these clips illegal.

You are still focused on the emotion aspects of gun control, “more limits”, not the logical aspects – who is doing the killing and how?

“Why can't all gun sales be tracked?”

What will that do? Gang and drug traffickers don’t purchase guns through legal channels, so that will do nothing. Those how commit suicide may have a registered firearm, but how does that prevent them from using it.

Again, there is what value does this provide – none whatsoever.

“Why can't there be limits as to where one uses certain things?”

There is today. For example, most cities have ordinances against discharging a firearm within city limits. This is routinely violated isn’t it? Simply having a law does not eliminate the activity.

In closing, we have having a discussion. All that you propose is in action today in U.S. law, but still we have issues. Why would you expect more is better?

I did what I complain about the media doing...

I meant magazine but in trying to get out words they don't always work when typing. This is my main complaint with the media and assault rifles and whatever else is already banned or restricted but they continue to use it. To me both sides spew the some old stuff, over and over and it's gets us nowhere. Science? Science may apply with some things but, gun control, naw. John Lott has enough to go around. Now that's science, junk science as someone aptly described.
Mark, I think you can't see the forest thru the trees, in all due respect. You make statements but if you would just use your logic with vehicles you might grasp where I'm going. We track VIN numbers. Why? Criminals can grind them off, and they often do . We have ordinances, but people abuse them, and they often do. We have courts and laws, but people abuse them, and they often do. I can go on till hell freezes over. Why do you suppose we have these laws and ordinances? Because if gives just cause to prosecute violators. You say I'm hung up on emotion, I'm not. I'm trying to use some reasoning. You're hung up on rights and I believe that. I also respect that. However, it doesn't do society any favors. Using so-called science based on non-standard data is what we call - garbage in ... garbage out.
I got involved last year and did much research on both sides of the debate. Most debates are fruitless.

My background is in common sense ..... socially.

To make a statement that nothing can be done fly's in the face of common sense. Maybe what we've been doing is keeping the problem figures relatively constant with the relatively constant restrictions? To refuse to have a serious discussion is just not socially acceptable, in my humble opinion. Figures can mean many things if what you're using is not a good sound database.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Please read this aloud: “this

Please read this aloud: “this country will not see any reduction in gun deaths until action is taken to address those who are most likely to contribute to that statistic.”

Moreover, go back and reread my entire post. There is nothing in my post that says we should do nothing.
You keep repeating the following statement “To refuse to have a serious discussion is just not socially acceptable” but refuse to acknowledge there are alternatives to more regulation.

Perhaps you’re in denial because alternatives to more regulation rub against your political view. Can that be correct? Your response is typical, continue to claim we are not having a discussion if it is not in line with your views. Before you can effect a change, you must know where the problem lies, and it is not with the average Joe.

MARK GRAVE's picture

P.S. Just look to the war on

P.S.
Just look to the war on drugs for an example of how more of the same legislation is failing the American people. The only thing it does is to provide a revenue stream from your pocket to Law Enforcement.

Drugs are a whole 'nother animal

Drugs are an addiction. To compare is frivolous. You stop the need and you stop the problem but drugs bring out corruption within ALL levels. Weapons are used for many good reason and should continue, weapons not used for good reasons should be prevented. How? Time to talk.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Perhaps you miss the

Perhaps you miss the connection with drugs. Step up to the 1K foot level and it becomes a demand and supply problem. If there is demand, there will be a supply. There is no need to micro analyses the source of the demand. People want drugs, people supply drugs. People want guns, people will get them.

I proposed several times how to address the problem, since it is not what you want to here, you keep acting like the Parrot (on offense to the Parrot) and keep squawking – let’s talk, let’s talk.

Your bias is transparent.

I reread and I see what you said earlier Mark.

I understand where you're coming from and there is a problem with screening people. Unfortunately there are many reasons why that is, privacy being one of them. There are provisions for domestic violence and a number of other things and agencies constantly try to improve. To say the average joe isn't the problem is true, like the average driver isn't the problem. To only say we have to better enforce our laws is only half the equation. The other is controlling/restricting/regulating, whatever you decide to call it, firearms and maybe their accessories. That requires two sides sitting down and talking.
I know the "parrot" and he and I agreed to disagree on a number of things regarding the gun topic.
I thought I'd never be commenting here again on gun issues but here I am. These are my opinions only and if this doesn't sit well, then we have nothing more to discuss. Like Paul, we can agree to disagree, and like the article started, we're back at square one. Only good time spent.

MARK GRAVE's picture

It appears to me that you

It appears to me that you have your mindset and don’t want to be presented with contradictory data. I guess it is easier to say something meaningless like garbage in garbage out instead of corroborating or refuting the data I presented.

To draw on your analogy, you’ll never solve the problem by staring at the forest instead of removing the bad trees in the forest.
This is my last post on this thread. I need to do more productive activities.

My last post also - to clarify

My mindset - registering certain weapons, tracking sales nationwide, restricting large capacity clips and/or drums. Background checks for all sales. If one can't bend on any of these I'm out of the discussion. Pure and simple. I too have to do something more productive! Have a nice day Mark.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Take a look at California gun

Take a look at California gun regulations. All of what you ask for already exists. Does that make California any safer?

Can anyone answer that question ... as a fact?

Probably not safer, probably it is. In what city, town or outlying area? safe is up to an individual's personal belief. So what's the point? If it saved at least one life, prevented one serious offense, changed one person's mind attempting a crime, it was that much more safe. The point I try to make is not making things safer. My point is to make it more difficult to acquire and commit. Like most people agree, we can't stop, but we sure can made it difficult, without infringing on the sacred 2nd amendment. I thought you were done? I am.

MARK GRAVE's picture

What I don’t understand is

What I don’t understand is that everything you propose is already regulated, more or less, in all states, and it is not working. Why do we need to talk about more regulation of the same? That is insanity according to Elbert.

You keep going back to wanting to discuss more regulation while ignoring the facts about firearm deaths. While you and I can agree to disagree. The rest of us will agree more of the same failed policy is insane.

Let's step back ...

Explain to me what steps you would take to address the problem. I seemed to have missed it. I know people who want guns will get them. I understand that. let's stick with one link, here.

MARK GRAVE's picture

I’ve posted this

I’ve posted this before.

1. Legalize drug use to remove the violence associated with that criminal activity.
2. Repurpose some of the dollars used to fight the war on drugs to mental health.

Keep in mind, there is no way to completely eliminate firearm deaths, but 1 and 2 above will address the more than 2 of 3 firearm deaths each year. Broader gun regulation will not.

Legalize drug use?

Coming from a gun advocate I can believe you said this. I take a deep breath with this. Drugs can't compare to smoking or alcohol. I can't fathom how it would remove the violence. I can see it now, drug cartels bringing over cheap drugs to compete with the US. Now we'd be faced with regulation across borders. On and on. Sounds good and prohibition didn't work. But, unlike our forefathers, we're blessed with new and more serious events.
Funneling dollars would only work if your first worked. Has to wait. Putting more money into mental health is a big plus. But wait, we're already overspending everywhere.
Both sound good in an idealistic world, using science. However, in the real world, not much hope.
I understand we can eliminate much of anything but, REASONABLE broader regulations will help.

MARK GRAVE's picture

My ideas are not idealistic.

My ideas are not idealistic. There are many studies that support what I say. Just do a little reading. Read how Chile reduced drug related violence. For many years I supported stronger drug regulation.

The data to the contrary is overwhelming; please spend a little time educating yourself. If you don’t ignore the data, perhaps you’ll change your mind like I did.

Also learn what the word asymptote means. To completely seal the boarder is asymptotic. You must remove the incentives like the profit margin in trafficking illegal drugs or the benefits to illegal immigrates. It all boils down to supply and demand.

OOps!

I understand we CAN'T eliminate ....

AL PELLETIER's picture

1. Nuts ,2. Guns and 3. Ammo

Way to many of those three uniting together cause horrible havoc.
When our founding fathers wrote about the right to bear arms, they didn't have a clue about an AK 47 with a 40 round clip.
To defend my home and property from" foreign invaders" I have a 30-30 and a 16 gauge shot gun. Pretty basic, but effective if needed.
For city folk to need a machine gun is just plain stupid! City folks can legally carry a weapon with a permit for self protection and that should be sufficient.
Assault weapons are simply that--an assault against common sense,

MARK GRAVE's picture

Al, You are showing your

Al,

You are showing your ignorance about guns. There are differences between a semi-automatic and full-automatic (aka machine gun).

Now did this criminal have a semi-automatic or a full-automatic weapon? Tell the truth.
I find it funny now these tragedies bring out the all this advice from people who don’t know what they are talking about.

I can only assume you’re misinforming the readers to suite your anti-gun agenda.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Speaking of ignorance

Mark, "machine gun" was an figure of speech. Leave it to you to turn it into something to make yourself sound cute. And he DID have a semi auto just like my 30-06 hunting rifle with a 5 shot clip. Have you ever fired a twin 50 cal. anti-aircraft gun? I have.
And the only one who misinforms readers in this forum is you.

MARK GRAVE's picture

My assertion stands. Your

My assertion stands. Your figurative speech was chosen to inflame emotion in your argument. The law is specific, so must you be specific in your explanation. There is a clear and powerful difference between a semi-automatic and a machine gun, but you already know that when you chose your words. It only makes your argument irrational.

Lastly, perhaps you can elucidate how I’m misinforming the reader by clarify your false classification of a weapon. An error too great to be unintentional.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Hmmmm

Dah?

Andrew Jones's picture

There may be no practical

There may be no practical reason to own a "military weapon with a 40 round clip". There is also no practical reason *not* to own the same weapon.

You say "Why?", I say "Why not?".

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Some suggestions

Whenever one of these gun massacres occurs there are two factors that are always involved. One is drugs and you always hear the word "loner". If the NRA and its gun enthousiast friends spent one third of the money they spend lobbying our legislators to make sure every nut job in the country has the right to have all the weaponry they can imagine on funding grants to create mental health programs designed to be especially attractive to men, it might benefit veterans returning from the wars with mental health issues as well as the gun crazed nut job; not to mention the victims. Ditto for drug treatment programs. Also, the NRA could spend some of the money they use to spread fear and paranoia about gun control so people will donate to them and buy more and more guns on promoting gun safety and responsible gun ownership. As an educator I always feel that education on how to own guns responsibly is more valuable than a ban. Gun enthousiasts constantly harp on rights and freedoms. However, freedom should also come with responsibility. It's funny how the folks who always preach individual responsibility always take a pass when it comes to cleaning up their own mess.

Wilma Turcotte's picture

Suggestions

Claire this is very well written and makes a tremendous amount of sense. For anyone not to agree with this it suggests they are one of the "nut cases" referred to in another column. The NRA with all their money own and control most of Congress(at least the controlling portion of it). This ranting about people having the right to go hunting, target practice and protection has gone beyond the pale. No one hunts or target practices with an AK-47 nor needs such for protection. For one person to collect an arsenal of weapons is done for no good purpose. The NRA is not satisfied to own a hunting gun or such but to have as many as they want. In the case of the man in Colorado that is assinine to say the least. If you have to be checked out whenever you purchase a gun how come no one knows when you have a 100 or more of them? I would say at what it must have cost for what he had and the fact he didn't work then someone better check that gravy train and how much more of this is going on. Maybe the Colorado medical services can collect whats owed from the NRA. If they want all these privlieges let them pay for the damages caused by them.

MARK GRAVE's picture

You make is sound like the

You make is sound like the NRA was there pulling the trigger. This dribble is all misplaced anger in my opinion.

Many more people die daily in automobile accidents than from mass shooting. Perhaps you should put life (or death) into perspective.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

.."cleaning up their own

.."cleaning up their own mess"???
Some demented wack job shoots 70 innocent people in a movie theater and all of a sudden it becomes 'their own mess'??C'mon, Claire, you can do better than that.

MARK GRAVE's picture

It’s all about emotion, not

It’s all about emotion, not logic.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Regulation isn't always the answer.......

For some reason, whenever something goes wrong in this country, we need to "regulate" it more. I have what may come as an eye opener to a lot of politicians and the general public as well.
Laws are only good, if people obey them. If you take the time to think about something instead of the typical knee-jerk reaction to all these tragedies, there may be other solutions out there. Now I'm going to do something I vowed I would never do, and probably will never do again, but I'll have to admit that the NRA does have a legitimate argument here.
You can pass all the laws in the world, institute all the regulations you can think of, ban everything outright. Nothing will improve. All you've accomplished is making it much more difficult for the honest law abiding citizen to acquire a fire arm.As the old saying goes, "only the criminals will be armed"
I don't have a solution to this tragedy. I don't think any one person does. What I do think is that instead of jumping to enact new laws to be broken, everyone work together and find a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, that may take time, It may not even require new laws, it will however take time. time to think through the problem. Its the exchange of ideas that may lead to a solution. In some cases, its solutions, not laws that solve problems........

MARK GRAVE's picture

Frank, Outlawing all weapons

Frank,

Outlawing all weapons will simply make many law abiding citizen instant criminals.

Anarchy results from to many laws, not to few.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If we're gonna ban guns,

If we're gonna ban guns, because criminals and idiots injure or kill people with them, then we might as well ban cars because they injure and kill people when drunks are driving them. While were at it, let's ban airplanes because too many people die in them when they crash.

Zack Lenhert's picture

I spent MANY hours in classes

I spent MANY hours in classes and a full year with a drivers permit before I could get my licence. I need to have all of my vehicles inspected and registered EVERY YEAR if I want to drive them on the road. I must occasionally submit to eye test in order to renew my drivers licence. I imagine receiving a pilots licence is even more difficult .

...to get a gun, I just had to wait until I turned 18. Or if you buy one from a gun show or off craigs list you probably don't even need to meet that requirement.

Most gun control advocates don't want to 'BAN' guns, we would just like to see more effective regulations, as in 'well-regulated militia'. If you think the U.S. does a good job keeping irresponsible people from owning and operating firearms you're blind to your own ignorance.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You were doing very well

You were doing very well until you decided to call me ignorant. Differing opinions do not necessarily constitute ignorance, as so many liberals seem to think. You may want to be a little more selective in your choice of words when addressing me, or you might find yourself walking the plank, as they say. I expect the same respect from you that you expect of me.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Do you think the U.S. does a

Do you think the U.S. does a sufficient job of keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible? I doubt you do. So the real question that the NRA doesn't want to talk about is "what do we do about it?" Educate? Regulate? Where are their proposed solutions?

Everyone has some degree of ignorance, it doesn't mean you're an ignoramus. Didn't realize pirates were so easily offended.

MARK GRAVE's picture

“If you think the U.S. does a

“If you think the U.S. does a good job keeping irresponsible people from owning and operating firearms you're blind to your own ignorance.”

Replace firearm with automobile to make this statement more relevant.

Your argument is pure emotion not supported by any data.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Data of gun violence in other

Data of gun violence in other countries with stricter regulations on guns DOES support my argument. Claiming common sense gun regulations are a "slippery slope" is pure emotion.

Zack Lenhert's picture

I would also claim that the

I would also claim that the US needs to do a better job with vehicle safety. Regulations regarding texting and driving, harsher penalties for drunk driving, etc.

I don't know what this has to do with guns though, why do you keep bringing up automobile safety?

MARK GRAVE's picture

The connection is that you

The connection is that you are far more likely to die in an automobile accident than from a Colorado style shooting.

Another takeaway you should ponder is that all the increased regulation to curb drunk driving has not stopped drives from getting behind the wheel while drunk.

The same concept applies to gun regulations. More gun regulations will not prevent Colorado style shootings.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I'll jump in on this, I'm getting all this in my e-mail anyway

Mark I do agree with you on how these laws are obeyed. It will never be a perfect system. I have a little story that might just make you wonder about all this.
Back in 1995 during the short time I went back to Mass to stay with my father after my mother died, I went back to work at a Boston"concert club" I used to work at in the late seventies and early eighties. It was still owned by a friends family. One night, I believe it was a Saturday, we had a guy from one of the biker clubs that frequented the club start acting drunk (our term for stupid). another bouncer made contact with him and showed him the door. He produced a large hand gun and said no. We relieved him of his weapon and took him to the parking lot, that was all we could do legally. We advised him,he could pick up his gun from the police station after eight o-clock in the morning. He got all upset and stormed into the lot. Two minutes later he reappeared with a pick up truck and hit me with it. Now we could hold him for the police. I wasn't hurt, but he was. Just goes to show you, it doesn't matter if its guns, cars, or even transit buses, if their going to get you, nothing is going to stop them. The guy, by the way got two and a half years in the county jail.........

MARK GRAVE's picture

Good real-world example.

Good real-world example.

Zack Lenhert's picture

... I guess we'll all die

... I guess we'll all die some day, huh, so whats the point of even trying?

MARK GRAVE's picture

What an emotional whiplash.

What an emotional whiplash. Trying means measuring what you are doing to see if it is effective.

U.S. cities with the most restrictive gun laws, such as Washington DC and Detroit Michigan, have some of the highest gun homicide statistics.

A rational man would say – this is not working. An irrational man may say, we are trying.... give it more regulations Scotty... we all have to die some day.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Maybe one of the reasons

Maybe one of the reasons those cities gun laws are ineffective is because anyone can just go outside of city limits and buy a gun. Comprehensive gun reform is needed, IMO.

Some countries with restrictive gun laws have very low gun violence statistics, proving that regulations CAN work if they're implemented effectively.

My "emotional whiplash" is in response to your automobile analogy. This is a completely unrelated argument, it implies that we shouldn't try to curb gun violence until automobile accidents cause less harm than guns... that we can't can't work on solving both problems at the same time. "Whats the point of making roads in America safer when millions still die from heart disease?" In my opinion this is misdirection.

"Gun control is not an either/or proposition. Most would agree that at least some degree of regulation is necessary, so the real question is where to draw the line: At what point does regulation become an unreasonable encroachment on our Second Amendment rights?" (CNN, Christina Zdanowicz)

Would you support getting rid of background checks? Removing the ban on fully automatic weapons? Should we allow citizens to "protect themselves" with rocket powered weapons? What about a bullet registry?

But you don't want to even have the discussion, the argument is black and white in your world. Keep sticking your fingers in yours ears, "la-la-la-la-la...."

MARK GRAVE's picture

Let’s take a page out of book

Let’s take a page out of book from the “war on drugs” to see how more restrictive gun laws would work.

1. Make all handguns illegal, like illicit drugs.
2. People still get drugs, people will still get handgun.
3. Criminalizing drugs, increased violence. Criminalizing handguns will do the same.

There is no time in this country’s history that prohibition worked.
Prohibition of guns, like drugs and alcohol, will be failures to suck up limited resources (i.e. Money) for little return.

Since the majority of gun homicides in this country are gang/drug related, one should argue legalizing drugs is the path to reduced gun violence.

Stating that more gun regulation will not solve the problem is a far cry from arguing for less. Stop making emotional assumptions to dramatize your position.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Name one.

Name one.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Australia, Canada, UK...

Australia, Canada, UK...

Bob Woodbury's picture

Remember...

...guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Do knives kill people?

Do knives kill people?

Bob Woodbury's picture

Yes.

Along with baseballs hitting Little Leaguers in the chest, baseball bats, tire irons, meat cleavers, little tiny biological things, automobiles, motorcycles...oh, well. I think you get the picture. But I haven't been able to find a knife, or any of these other things, with a 100 round clip - except maybe the little tiny biological things.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I agree with you, but the

I agree with you, but the laws of incrementation being what they are, give up one type of weapon and then they go for the banning of another, and another, until the next thing you know, only cops, thugs, and sneaky, but crafty citizens have guns.

Zack Lenhert's picture

They've already banned

They've already banned surface to air missiles for civilians... the gov't oppression is killing me.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Yeah, I know what you mean;

Yeah, I know what you mean; next thing you know they'll be rationing cigarettes.

Bob Woodbury's picture

That's an old...

...worn out argument with no basis in fact.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If you have facts to the

If you have facts to the contrary, put 'em on the table.

Bob Woodbury's picture

You made the statement.

Prove it.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You stated no basis in fact

You stated no basis in fact and I asked you to submit facts to the contrary and as usual, you didn't have any, so you get cute with 'prove it'. Typical.

Bob Woodbury's picture

You asked me...

...to prove a negative. Typical "I have no idea what you're talking about" reply. Now where would I go to prove a negative. I know. Never, Never Land. Just a minute. --------- OK. I'm back. The King of Never Never Land, Walla Walla, said what you're saying about a domino effect has never, never happened.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I knew you could do it. You

I knew you could do it. You just needed the proper motivation. BTW-the parrot, an avowed liberal, is fearful that you may have gone off your meds. Walla Walla??
Arabs flying passenger airliners into tall buildings, or wack jobs going into dark movie theaters and shooting 70 people had 'never never' happened either.
You're old enough to where you should have come to realize by now that we live in a world in which nothing is impossible any more.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...