Oh, Crime happens? I wasn't aware of that... Never mind then, we'll just let the number of mass shootings increase as they have in the last few years... No point doing anything about it because, as onalandline was kind enough to point out "Crime happens." Crime can be prevented and reduced through legislation.
Mass shootings have not increased over the years. They have actually declined. - - - Updated - - - Tell this to the city of Chicago.
Do you follow the goings on in Afghanistan? Yes, the ragtag group isn't going to be taking on the US military on a head to head basis. It's called an insurgency.
Only if you call ALL shootings with 4 or more victims "mass shootings". If you discount drug crimes and gang crimes to include incidents that actually represent the types of incidents we saw at Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Virginia Tech; you get a very different result. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation Right.... If only Chicago had a more tangible border with customs officials to keep guns from being freely brought in and out of the "gun control" area... LIKE THE USA HAS!!! NATIONAL programs can only be compared to other NATIONAL programs (apples to apples).
Sam Harris was on the Bill Maher show last night and while a discussion show on television cannot go into a lot of depth I believe it revealed a lot. In addtions to Harris NJ Mayor Cory Booker was on so there was a point counter-point foundation for the discussion. What Harris pointed out correctly is that the firearms that would be "banned" are not the problem at all. The gun control "bans" overwhelmingly relate to rifles that are insignificant when we address gun violence. Only 3% of murders are committed with a rifle while 6% of murders are committed with the person's bare hands. It would be more effective to cut off everyone's hands so that they couldn't strangle people than it would be to ban ALL Rifles. Cory Booker supports gun control and he commented that in his town only one killing was done with a "legally purchased" firearm. I assume he means a firearm purchased with a background check but that has only been required for firearms sold by licensed firearms dealers. In fact a regular citizen can't even run a background check on a person that wants to purchase a firearm from them as access to the background check database is limited to licensed dealers and law enforcement agencies today. Not surprisingly on a recent news story at a gun show the FFL (licenced dealers) advocated background checks on all firearm purchases. As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment I would also advocate this but the devil is in the details. I don't believe the background check should be intrusive and denial of the Right to purchase the firearm should be exclusively tied to a court order that prohibits the individual from purchasing the firearm. It should not be based upon some bureaucrat deciding that a person should not be able to purchase a firearm. Additionally the firearm is unrelated to the Right of the Person to purchase a firearm. What Booker couldn't and didn't argue is that banning firearms because they're "scary looking" wouldn't do anything to curb gun violence. What seemed to be the consensus was that background checks that prevent those that shouldn't have firearms (e.g. criminals and those judged to be mentally incompetent) and licensing for those that want to carry a firearm in public is reasonable regulation whereas banning firearms, predominately rifles based upon "appearance" where they look scary, is ineffective and unnecessary related to curbing gun violence. We could go on but Bill Maher presented a question to the two women on his show, Jackie Jucinich and Eva Longoria, where he asked, "Imagine this situation, you're in a movie theater and a man comes in and starts shooting people. Would you want that man to be the only person in the theater with a gun?" I think that is a great question for the "gun control" advocates. Should the crazy murderer be the only person that's armed or would it be better if someone else was armed that could effectively defend those being killed? We're never going to get rid of the crazies regardless of any laws that are passed because the "crazies" don't care about the law.
How about this, I'd rather that nobody in the theater had a gun so I could just watch the d@mn movie and eat my d@mn popcorn... If laws are passed that make it difficult for "crazies" to get their hands on guns, there will be fewer "crazies" attacking people with guns. Unfortunately, it's difficult to identify "crazies" until they do something "crazy" like shooting up a theater or school full of kids... So legislation HAS to effect everyone equally or be dismissed by SCOTUS as "discriminatory". Do you get it now?
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun There is no actual evidence that mass shootings are increasing although news reporting of them is obviously better today. I've read that the peak in mass killings in the United States occured in 1929 and then fully automatic firearms were being purchased legally without any restrictions. Many of the mass shootings in 1929 related to criminal gangs related to prohibition (prohibition creates criminal activity like we have today related to gang violence). What we also know is that the list of "prohibited" firearms as proposed by Sen Diane Feinstien won't have any impact on mass shootings. Fewer than 3% of killings use rifles of any kind and "assault weapons (rifles)" are only a very small percentage of these. A rifle is not a good firearm selection for most mass killings or murder in general which normally is at short range where a handgun, including revolvers, are better from a functional standpoint. So while people like to point to "mass shootings" they aren't even addressing the problem of gun violence in America. If they want to address gun violence then mass shootings aren't what they should be addressing. Yes, mass shootings are horrific but they aren't the problem that needs to be addressed.
Actually, the FBI data that may be confusing the issue includes any shooting where there were 4 or more victims (not including the shooter, in case of suicidal conclusion). If you withdraw gang and/or drug related crimes, there is a significant increase in the types of incidents represented by Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook (what most people are referring to when they discuss "mass shootings"). http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/mass-shootings-james-alan-fox I agree that Feinstien's approach to gun control is "off the map" in terms of viability and return. The ban she is talking about simply won't work. That being said, I support gun CONTROL wholeheartedly. There's a lot of grey area between here and there... Obviously mass shootings are the extreme of gun crime, not the sole form being looked at... The point is that if you prevent a prospective mass shooter from having access to a firearm, you will also have prevented numerous other prospective criminals from accessing those firearms - because the legislation cannot be so specific as to accurately predict who is a prospective mass shooter and only impact them.
Mass shootings have not statistically increased in frequency. They just get sensationalized more. First of all, the areas in the U.S. with the most gun restrictions, have the highest crime rates. Second, what makes you think our borders can thwart a black market for guns when they can't even stop illegal aliens or drugs from coming our way?
From what I've read most "mass murderers" are also first offenders. Yes, they have serious psychogical problems that might be identified and treated (while denying them the Right to keep and possess firearms) but it is also ironic that our public mental illness institutions have had funding cut dramatically by "conservatives" that oppose most social welfare program funding. As I've also noted most law abiding gun owners support background checks but the average person doesn't have anyway to do that. Background checks can only be done by FFL's and not by the average person. How about the FBI simply open up the database for anyone that wants to run a background check before selling a firearm? We, legal gun owners, have a self-interest in running those checks because none of us logically want to sell a gun to a criminal or "crazy" person. I should be able to simply type in a person's name, mailing address, and perhap SSN online and get a response in a matter of seconds. Only the information required to correctly identify the person needs to be entered and no records should be kept by the FBI unless the person identified turns out to be a person prohibited by the courts from owning or possessing a firearm. BTW the FBI should also be held liable under civil law if their database stops the sale of a firearm to a person that is not prohibited by court order from owning or possessing one. The Rights of the person take precedent.
I'm sure there are a lot of stalkers out there who would love to see an end to privacy laws by the exposure of data that you're referring to...
