I had to do it. Someone on the internet was wrong.
There’s a person on the interwebs who is pretending to be an extremely left wing dog. He (or she) posted about gun control, complaining that we’re just not having the discussion.
We’ve heard the President and his opponent talk about (and talk around) taxes, wars, domestic policies, Wall Street and even Big Bird. But there’s one subject both candidates won’t touch with a ten-foot leash: gun policies.
I left this comment. I want to preserve it here in case “Reasoned Discourse™” happens.
Wow. Talk about a dog’s breakfast.
” Would it surprise you to learn that gun injuries (accidents, murders, suicides) take nearly as many lives in our country as breast cancer each year?”
yes, it would. In 2010, 31,224 people died as a result of a gunshot. That’s 17,352 suicides, 12,632 homicides, 351 legal interventions (cop or citizen legally shoots someone in self defense) 613 accidents, and 276 undetermined intents. In according to BreastCancer.com 39,520 women are expected to die from breast cancer. That’s 79%, and not “Nearly as many.”
” Where is the discussion?”
Where have you been? We’ve been having this discussion at least since the 60’s. Longer if you count prior fails to accomplish gun control. The high water mark of gun control was probably the Clinton gun ban. We’ve rolled it back, plus lots of other gun laws too. There used to be very few places where you could easily get Concealed Handgun Licenses. Now you can get them in 49 States and in most of them its extremely easy for a law abiding citizen to get one. That’s progress, and it’s a result of the very long “conversation” we’ve all been having while you were ignoring us and hoping we’d go away. We brought facts and figures, your side brough lunatic theories about “blood in the streets” and “gunfights over parking spot disputes” and yet it doesn’t happen. We’ve had the discussion, you lost. You might want to accept that.
“Why are American humans incapable of having a serious chat about the correlation of increased firearms and more gun deaths?”
Please point to some data somewhere that actually shows an increase in “gun deaths” with an increase in guns. Given we are really concerned with overall violence, not the raw number of people who use a gun to kill themselves or others, that’s what we should actually be looking at. The problem with your theory is that you can’t actually prove this theory you have. Within the US, places with more guns have less crime overall and fewer violent crimes as well. Places with very stiff gun laws tend to have bad crime problems. Think Chicago and New York City. Besides, crime is on a long downward trend even as the number of guns skyrockets. More people own guns. More people legally carry guns. Yet the crime rate drops like a rock. How can that be? Could it be that the number of citizens who have guns has nothing whatsoever to do with the number of crimes committed?
“After the Aurora shootings, ABC New reported “the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.” ”
So what? Are you suggesting that people who get stabbed or strangled to death are better off than those who get shot? Are you going to claim that you don’t care if people die, just so long as they don’t get shot? The people who kill the largest number of people, serial killers, rarely use guns. Rarely as in almost never. Check out the Wiki entry on serial killers if you don’t believe me.
“Last week a father in NJ shot and killed his own son because he thought he was a prowler. No call to the police, just pull the trigger and ask questions later.”
This is a disgusting misrepresentation of what actually happened. What really happened is that the man received a call from his sister who lived next door. She had a person breaking into her house and needed help. He ran over there to assist her from the person breaking in and the “prowler” jumped out of the bushes wielding a shiny object. The man shot him dead, and when the cops got there to identify him they discovered that the “prowler” was the man’s drug addled criminal adopted son, who had a knife in his hand. The kid deserved what he got.
“The Aurora shooter bought (legally) thousands of “cop-killer” bullets and that didn’t raise a red flag with anyone.”
Wow. And you wonder why we don’t want to have more conversations with you. What’s a “cop-killer” bullet? Let me tell you what it really is. The term “cop-killer bullet” was applied to some experimental handgun bullets back in the ’80’s that were designed to shoot through a car doors and windshield glass. They were made of very hard metal and needed to be coated in Teflon so that they didn’t wreck the pistol barrel. In typical fashion, the media decided to call them “Cop Killer” bullets because they thought that they would go through police vests. Ironically they didn’t. They are banned for sale to civilians. Cops don’t use them either. Let me be perfectly clear, the Aurora shooter didn’t have any “Cop-Killer” bullets. He may have had hollowpoint bullets for his pistol. They are the same bullets that the police (and I) carry. They are pretty standard. As for “Thousands” of bullets, so what? He couldn’t carry them all. It’s not like he brought the truck he would need to lug 6,000 bullets along with him. He did plenty of damage with only about 200. Are you planning on banning people from buying more than 50 at a time?
We’ve had a long conversation about gun control. It doesn’t work. We know this. Crime rates are down, gun ownership is WAY up. Concealed Carry is WAY, WAY up. Yet the rates of violent crimes are in the toilet. We’ve still got too much gun regulation and we’re doing everything in our power to get rid of it. And we’re going to succeed.
And they wonder why we don’t want to “have a conversation.” Why would we try to hash out policy with people who haven’t a clue which end of a gun the bullet comes out of?