Ultimately who is at fault for such? Again, the obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make? Being "safe" is nothing more than illusion. One can be safer than others in limited circumstances, but no one is every truly safe under all circumstances over the course of their lifetime. Something will always happen at some point and demonstrate the notion of "safety" is nothing more than an ignorant illusion. The claims on the part of yourself demonstrate that there are those in the united states who are perfectly willing to murder others for whatever reason, and who will not refrain from such. Since these individuals cannot be removed from the equation, they remain a constant rather than a variable and must be accounted for. Meaning those who have no such desire to commit harm, must instead go about protecting themselves from those that will do them harm for no reason.
I suspect you don't fully believe your own arguments. Guns make it easier to kill. The whole purpose of a gun is to kill. Clubbing people with a baseball bat can also kill, but it's a lot harder to club a whole school or the Vegas strip. There's no "drive by clubbings" or "suicide by baseball bat." "So what" is your response to my suggestion that a baby born today could see eight million Americans shot during his or her lifetime. This reminds me of the "so what" with Coronavirus.
Quote, "And" ? Is this how Americans feel about gun deaths? During your lifetime you might see eight million Americans shot by "fellow" Americans.
How many of these people would still be alive if a gun wasn't handy? Half? Three quarters? And what of the 100,000 people shot each year? Your country is a war zone. A journalist found another journalist's indifference to the killings in Baghdad during Second Gulf War surprising. The second journalist said, "I come from Florida." The first journalist went to Florida to write a book about the violence there - and was killed.
Can't see a headline, "Man with baseball bat attacks 600 people in LV." If you are motivated in Australia to mass killing then you will find it harder to achieve than in America. No-one has done a mass shooting since most classes of firearms were banned. Don't get me wrong, I was asked to attend a protest rally to defend the OUTRIGHT ban on firearms (we live on a farm) and I was sorely tempted to go.
Individuals are free to believe whatever they wish to believe. However their beliefs are not right by mere virtue of being what they believe. What of it? Any implement that can be used as a weapon serves to make the ending of lives sufficiently easier than attempting to do such in a bare-handed manner. That is why weapons exist, to compensate for the weaknesses and shortcomings of the human species when compared to other species found in the animal kingdom. The number of deaths attributed to mass shootings is statistically minute, bordering on insignificant. Add up all the number of deaths that can be attributed to mass shootings in the united states for a given year, and it will always be far lower than the number of firearm-related homicides committed in the city of Chicago for the same year. Despite all of the sensationalism they garner by the easily panicked who do not wish to admit to how vulnerable they really are, mass shootings are simply not a serious problem in need of being addressed. The same infant will see approximately fifty two million deaths attributed to heart disease in the same eighty year span of time, all because individuals do not care enough to eat a healthy diet because they prefer flavor to health. What of it? Disease cannot be stopped so long as life exists.
I fear - this is America speaking. My Texas family feel the same way. Try to imagine how other people see America. How would a Japanese, with six gun deaths per year, feel about America as world leader and example of good governance? Quote - "mass shootings are simply not a serious problem in need of being addressed." We Aussies think they are - and we stopped them.
It is a purely logical, factual outlook on the situation. What difference does such make? So long as other countries continue to seek funding from the united states, for whatever reason, they are in no position to be complaining about the one who is providing that funding. If the nation of Japan believes it is better fit to be a world leader, simply because they do not have private firearms ownership, but an overwhelming number of suicides, let them try and prove their case. Let them assert why they are fit to be a world leader and respected above others. The nation of Australia was never particularly well known for experiencing a significant number of mass shootings in the first place. It is not an accurate comparison to make. And yet they are still finding a way to periodically happen. To say nothing of the fact that, while mass shootings specifically have arguably dropped, mass killings in general have not stopped at all, and are continuing unabated.
Of course they do do - that's why our constitution specifically protects our right to own them and use them for that purpose. Unsupportable nonsense.
Given the impossibly tiny % of guns used to kill someone in the US, your position has no rational basis. It has an -emotional- basis, but rational reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies. Why are you?
Why do you argue from willful ignorance? And yet, it can still be done. Thus, your laws do not prevent anything.
But there are things in the law which can REDUCE mass killings. As Japan has done. In Japan there was a cult which created sarin gas to kill people on a subway. It's rather hard to make sarin gas and authorities monitor the sale of precursor chemicals for sign of people creating chemical, biological or explosives. But in America you can buy an arsenal of guns and a truck load of ammunition without any questions. This amazes most of the world.
No, you most assuredly cannot buy an "arsenal of guns and a truck load of ammunition without any questions." And no, it does not amaze the rest of the world. Thanks for another 10,000 votes into the Trump column.
Remember that guy Paddock? Vegas shooter? He had an arsenal in his hotel room. Who's to stop you from having 100 guns? Who's to stop you buying ten ton of ammunition? I don't support Trump. I am Australian and like most Australians I think the guy is little more than a child.
Acquired at a rate of approximately one firearm per month. Meaning no red flags would have been raised, as many measures intended to prevent firearms trafficking hold that an individual can only purchase one firearm every thirty days. Supply and demand. The attitude being demonstrated on the part of yourself is ultimately what will ensure more votes are cast for Donald Trump. Those in the united states do not appreciate being attacked by those who reside outside of their country.
Paddock was a heavy user of psycho-active drugs. You would make yourself useful by actively pursuing elimination of these drugs and their availability. Shut down the pharmas that manufacture them. As an Australian, you may tend to your own, thank you, or do the Chinese do it for you?
Sure, I agree. Stop the druggies and their pushers. But that's as big a problem as the guns. The 'war on drugs' is over and America lost. No psycho-active drug addict is going to get hold of a "semi-automatic" in Australia. With a lot of study he might get a "shooters license" but even here he is restricted. Also, lots of firearm deaths have nothing to do with psycho drugs.
Not sure what incident you refer to. But if a psycho-active druggie DOES get hold of a "semi-auto" or "assault" weapon it would be the exception and not the rule. Part of the problem for us is the smuggling in of hand guns. Penalties need to be applied Japanese style - and be higher for the possession of a gun than the crime committed with it. Remember, Japan has about half a dozen gun deaths per year. That equates to about 18 gun deaths per year if Japan was the population of America. But America has 35,000 gun deaths. No American can fight for their freedom against the govt with hand guns in any case. You will need A10 Warthogs, cruise missiles and tactical nukes for that.
Japan is your evidence. No guns = about six gun deaths per year. ps. I am not anti-gun - I love guns. Enjoy firing them when I go to Texas. I am anti-just-anyone-owning-guns.