A very short article that’s well worth reading. In a very few words it explains why there is such a disconnect between those who support the Second Amendment and those who do not.
Support for gun control and support for the second amendment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Did you even read the short article?
I did, and I agree that “Support for gun control and support for the second amendment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.”
it really boils down to what you mean by gun control
if this is your idea of gun control …
The best way to prevent gun violence is to ban handguns.
Michael K. Beard (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, president); “Letters to the Editor”, Wall Street Journal, p. A19, 1997-07-23
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
Joseph Biden (US Senator); quoted by AP, 1993-11-18
Yes, I’m denying you your rights.
Tom Bradley (Los Angeles Mayor), on constitutional rights at a “Save the Brady Bill” rally; from article by Steve Comus, Western Outdoor News, 1992-09-04
The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of most handguns and assault weapons from the United States. CSGV seeks to ban handguns and assault weapons from importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, ownership, posession and use by the general, American public. Reasonable exceptions would be made for the police, military, security officers, and gun clubs where the guns are secured on the club’s premises. Gun dealers would also be permitted to trade in antique and collectable weapons kept and sold in inoperable condition. Hunting weapons, such as shotguns and rifles would un affected by these bans,as those weapons do not pose a large threat to the American public in comparason to handguns and assault weapons.
Recruiting flyer, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
I don’t believe that assault rifles ought to be sold in America.
John Kerry (US Senator, D-MA)
You bring up a very interesting point. BY FAR most gun-related violent crime is committed using handguns. Yet the gun-banners attacks are never (at least for the last 20 years) focused on handguns. Ever wonder why?
After James Brady was shot, he and his wife started “Handgun Control, Inc.” In short order they got politically hammered. It seems that politicos (and their constituents) from both sides of the aisle didn’t want to give up their handguns! Needing to make a buck, the Bradys re-branded as “The Brady Campaign” and have floundered on for the past 20+ years.
Anyways, great posting. Thanks…
In many respects, I think #4 is the most important on the list:
“The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy.”
A wonderful article mentioned in the list:
Yep…those would summarize their idea of “common sense” gun control quite nicely all right. Though they’ll probably never admit it. They would get more respect from me if they would simply admit the truth and stop beating around the bush, and acknowledge that what they really want is banishment and confiscation.
Ever notice that gun control laws are almost never removed from the books even after they have been shown not to be effective? The anti-gunners are taking are freedoms away, step by step.
They lack the courage to tell the truth…
I’m in favor of gun control. I don’t know that I want them confiscated, which implies that the government will have them and we won’t. The National Guard, who I assume would be neighbors, would have them, as well as police and the military.
True, I don’t always trust the government and wouldn’t want them armed while the citizens are not. But I feel like the National Guard would be a safeguard.
I just know that in countries where every idiot doesn’t have access to firearms, far fewer people get killed. And people are irresponsible. Little kids are getting their hands on guns to play with, teenagers are using them for suicide, and crazy and drunk people are running amok.
I would be happy to listen to any suggestions that might work. But unless we can change human nature, there seems no solution short of decreasing the number of guns.
Gun control does not reduce violent crime. That much has been proven.
Why? The National Guard is state-funded military.
The problem is that you will NEVER decrease the number of firearms criminals have. Not ever. All you will do is disarm law-abiding people. It’s not about changing human nature. It’s about dealing with some very difficult issues, beginning with mental health.
For some on the left, not all , to be sure, the law abiding with firearms is a much greater impediment to power than criminals
Which is…problems within society. Not the number of guns. I think everyone should concentrate on working out why the US has a worse problem than other comparative countries.
- We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries
We really, really don’t. That, of course, is because of the Second Amendment. The countries often brought up in the gun control debate not only have less than conclusive results (see the above link) but they don’t recognize personal possession of a firearm as a constitutional right. That is the bottom line. While their gun confiscation laws and the outcomes might be interesting, they are not applicable here.
You didn’t read Bradski’s message. You reshaped it to fit your particular view which is all about gun liberty and gun ownership.
The problem is not laws or ownership. It is culture. Do you have any ideas why the US has so many gun-related deaths? Rather than throwing our hands up and saying nothing can or will work, let’s figure it out and make it better.
Even if you “Seriously Don’t Care” what’s going on in other countries, it might be useful to examine why many other countries don’t have so many gun-related deaths.
Even if you restrict your attention to the United States, you should examine why some states have much lower incidence of gun-related deaths. It must be culture, but what aspect of culture?
In another of your gun control threads, I had suggested it is good roads, schools, and sports teams. You didn’t like that. Okay, if it’s not that, then what do you think it is?
As Random said, my post wasn’t about gun laws.
If there are fewer gun related deaths in other countries, by a huge margin, and your argument is that the number of guns and gun control is not the problem, then you have to explain why. Which you have already done in another thread. You claimed it was the problems in society.
So why are those problems causing so many deaths in the US whilst in other countries they do not?
If you don’t know, then cool. Just say so. If you do, then let us know.
Your argument seems to lack logic. Shouldn’t you be looking at total deaths due to violent crime or suicide. Since there is obvious substitution, focusing just on one method is a red herring.
The murder rate in the US is something like four or five times as high as the rate in Western Europe.
That is a datapoint that provides no insights, proves nothing.
In a separate thread I showed the comparison between gun ownership in US states and their homicide rates. Analysis showed there was no statistical correlation, not even a weak correlation. This was with 50 data points and what I assume is consistent methodology in measurement.