Border Patrol 1: Aren't you worried we'll be overrun by refugees fleeing violence and bloodshed. Border Patrol 2: No... they're Americans... thy have a high tolerance for senseless gun massacres!
“Joe the Plumber: ‘Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights”—Joe the Plumberhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/27/joe-plumber-your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitut/
As usual, the answer to “what can we do to reduce gun violence?” is met with an answer that does not begin to address the question: “you ain’t taking my guns away.” (Thanks, DaSharkie, for being today’s spokesperson. Nothing personal; if it wasn’t you, there’d be someone else saying the same thing…)
Until gun owners decide that the question is actually a valid one, the carnage will continue unabated.
Nah, Canada has only a fraction of the gun deaths the US has… and only a fraction of the population… Too bad those fractions end up pretty close to the same number of gun deaths per capita..After all, it isn’t like in Canada you can’t own a gun.
Stronger gun regulations might increase the difficulty for people wanting to do harm to others who are mentally unstable—if the laws are properly enforced. However, those who want to do harm to others who are criminally intent on it (as opposed to mentally unstable), e.g., bank robbers, auto thieves, gang-bangers, etc., don’t follow laws anyway. Laws have not stopped people who wanted them from getting drugs, so why would they stop people who want them badly enough from getting guns? Yes, laws sometimes put people away for doing drugs, but there are still numerous people out there doing them regularly.
My concern is that limiting law-abiding citizens’ access to guns makes them sitting ducks, not only because they don’t have a gun, but because criminals then know that law-abiding citizens will be unarmed, which may encourage them to be more aggressive than they normally would be. If there’s a 50/50 chance (and I’m making these numbers up) you’ll get shot, you might think about it more carefully than if there’s a 1% chance of getting shot. I’m not saying this will happen, but it is is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of eliminating guns.
The number of mass-murders is alarming, no argument there. I agree with martens: rather than trying to eliminate guns as a means to kill others, try to eliminate the motive for killing others. Take away guns, and people will use knives. It’s probably not as easy to perform mass-murder with a knife, but it doesn’t stop people from trying. Figuring out and addressing people’s desire to murder others does a much better job of mitigating the problem for all weapons: guns, cars, knives, and baseball bats, to name a few.
Jason Allen almost 10 years ago
“Joe the Plumber: ‘Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights”—Joe the Plumberhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/27/joe-plumber-your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitut/
moosemin almost 10 years ago
The way things are going down here, Inuvik looks pretty good to me!
I Play One On TV almost 10 years ago
As usual, the answer to “what can we do to reduce gun violence?” is met with an answer that does not begin to address the question: “you ain’t taking my guns away.” (Thanks, DaSharkie, for being today’s spokesperson. Nothing personal; if it wasn’t you, there’d be someone else saying the same thing…)
Until gun owners decide that the question is actually a valid one, the carnage will continue unabated.
echoraven almost 10 years ago
Pat yourself on the back for that one! Great post.
Enoki almost 10 years ago
Nah, Canada has only a fraction of the gun deaths the US has… and only a fraction of the population… Too bad those fractions end up pretty close to the same number of gun deaths per capita..After all, it isn’t like in Canada you can’t own a gun.
TripleAxel almost 10 years ago
How dare those Canadians not allow open immigration across their borders!! Where is their compassion??
jd720 almost 10 years ago
Stronger gun regulations might increase the difficulty for people wanting to do harm to others who are mentally unstable—if the laws are properly enforced. However, those who want to do harm to others who are criminally intent on it (as opposed to mentally unstable), e.g., bank robbers, auto thieves, gang-bangers, etc., don’t follow laws anyway. Laws have not stopped people who wanted them from getting drugs, so why would they stop people who want them badly enough from getting guns? Yes, laws sometimes put people away for doing drugs, but there are still numerous people out there doing them regularly.
My concern is that limiting law-abiding citizens’ access to guns makes them sitting ducks, not only because they don’t have a gun, but because criminals then know that law-abiding citizens will be unarmed, which may encourage them to be more aggressive than they normally would be. If there’s a 50/50 chance (and I’m making these numbers up) you’ll get shot, you might think about it more carefully than if there’s a 1% chance of getting shot. I’m not saying this will happen, but it is is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of eliminating guns.
The number of mass-murders is alarming, no argument there. I agree with martens: rather than trying to eliminate guns as a means to kill others, try to eliminate the motive for killing others. Take away guns, and people will use knives. It’s probably not as easy to perform mass-murder with a knife, but it doesn’t stop people from trying. Figuring out and addressing people’s desire to murder others does a much better job of mitigating the problem for all weapons: guns, cars, knives, and baseball bats, to name a few.
PepeLePew2010 almost 10 years ago
@TripleAxel
We did let a Michigan cop into Calgary…….wished he had is gun on him….