Are you being obtuse, or are you genuinely this stupid?
Let me spell it out. It's not about Obama's - or anyone's - kids being more valuable than others. It's about some being at a measurable risk, and the vast majority being at none at all, save for that posed by lunatics with semi-automatics.
And, though you may not have a de iure aristocracy, you do have a de facto one. Power and wealth are just as heritable in the US as anywhere else. Or do you genuinely believe that all it takes to get to the top is gumption and a winning smile?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 16 Jan 2013, 19:13,
Share,
Reply)
Now, now, you can't win an argument by name calling. Just breathe deep.
The vast majority of mass shootings have occurred in places in which guns are specifically banned. Making them more banned, or criminalizing legal gun ownership by non-criminals will only serve to make more people like fish in a pond. New York and Illinois have talked about having to release offenders early to provide cell space for those (previously non-criminals) who breach their new, stricter gun laws.
And the past has proven that stricter gun laws do nothing to prevent firearm homicides. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides, and presumably those won't be stopped by stricter gun laws. What will happen under this regime is more stigmatization of mental illness and more criminalizing of ordinary people while gangs and drug cartels will continue their murders.
And I don't think anyone person is more important than another. The rich may want to be rich: I don't. But, I certainly don't accept that these de facto aristocracy should have armed guards and then turn around and say that I can't defend myself. That is not my country.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Wed 16 Jan 2013, 19:41,
Share,
Reply)
...
The vast majority of places in which guns are specifically banned are the kinds of place in which you could reasonably expect there to be lots of people: schools, churches, temples, shopping centres, and so on. It's hardly surprising that most, if not all, mass shootings are in places like this. With fewer people around, there'd be fewer people to shoot.
These people are vulnerable to mass shootings not because they don't have a gun, but because they're in a crowded place (hence the "mass" part), and someone else does have a gun (hence the "shooting" part).
Mass shooters are not, on the whole, criminals. They either hold guns legally, or have easy access to legally-held guns. A good many go out on shopping expeditions for more guns before carrying out their shootings.
Points about prison policy are chaff; they don't speak to the issue here, so I'm going to set that aside.
It may be true that the majority of gun deaths are suicides; but it's by no means a given that they wouldn't be stopped by stricter gun laws. A gun makes suicide quick and easy. Noone would say that there would be no suicide without firearms, but I don't see that you've got any basis for your presumption that the rate wouldn't fall if there weren't such easy access to firearms. Neither is there any reason to think that more restricted gun laws would stigmatise mental illness. Mental illness is plentifully stigmatised already - as is evidenced by the "but what about the mentally ill?" response to each and every mass shooting.
As for defending yourself? Against whom, precisely? Who is a threat to you? And are you so certain that that threat is mitigated by the availability of firearms? If there you do - arguendo - face some kind of threat, isn't it at least possible that it might be reduced by having fewer firearms? 'Cos, the way I see it, the general thrust of the argument against restriction seems to be that the law ought to impose minimal restrictions on gun ownership, precisely because anyone can get hold of one. And that's nuts.
EDIT: By the way: my 5000th post on this board is only a little way away. I'm going to go quiet now, because I'd hate to piss away a milestone on a debate as fruitless as this.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 16 Jan 2013, 19:57,
Share,
Reply)
...!
These mass shooters are generally cowards seeking to make a splash. That is why they go to where people will be victims, and not fight back. Recently, a shooting in a shopping mall was stopped by a man carrying a pistol: once the person pointed the gun at the shooter, the man took his life. This has been repeated over and over in the past, but are under-reported by the media. But do a search, and you'll find them.
Mass shooters may not be criminals before their act, but then again no one is. The point is that many people die in cities like Chicago and New York on a daily basis, despite their strict gun laws. Maybe society does not think their deaths are important enough to report on, but that's a different discussion.
I also grew up in an area where lots of drug trafficking took place. Violence was ubiquitous as criminals tend not to obey gun or drug laws. Until the unicorns and rainbows assure me that there are no longer bad people, I choose not to live unarmed. I went back and read /links during the London/Manchester riots and was not surprised at how many b3tans stated they wished they had a more powerful way to defend themselves. Plus, with transportation and loose borders countries still can be targeted by extremists.
And I have worked in government, been a public figure and received death threats. I spoke to the chief of police who suggested I carry. I have been beaten and injured in sports and car accidents and it has affected my education, livelihood and family life. I don't want to be assaulted, threatened or have that happen to my family. No one has the right to harm me or wreck my life for their own sick purposes.
Again, it is not your law, but in the US gun ownership is a Constitutional right. We fight here for any infringement or abridging other rights like even requiring a photo ID to vote. You may think it's nuts because you don't understand the culture.
(
BrokenCoccyx doesn't mind if you grope on, Wed 16 Jan 2013, 20:11,
Share,
Reply)