When will America wake up to gun violence? | [September Updated]
![When will America wake up to gun violence? | [September Updated]](http://thenewstalkers.com/group_discuss/image/discuss_image/24386/xxxlarge/_v=63f541758076753 "When will America wake up to gun violence? | [September Updated]")
When Will America Wake Up to Gun Violence?
(September updated)
America will awaken to the full horror of gun violence when the collective pain of loss outweighs the deeply ingrained political and cultural barriers preventing meaningful change, and when a critical mass of citizens demand action surpassing the influence of entrenched special interests. This awakening will require a fundamental shift in perspective, prioritizing public safety over unfettered access to firearms and acknowledging gun violence as a multifaceted public health crisis demanding comprehensive solutions.
The Unfolding Tragedy: A Nation on Repeat
The grim statistics are recited with numbing regularity: mass shootings in schools, workplaces, and public spaces; daily acts of gun violence devastating communities; a staggering number of suicides committed with firearms. America's gun violence rate dwarfs that of other developed nations, a stark indictment of policies and cultural norms that prioritize gun ownership above all else. The question isn't whether more tragic events will occur, but when and where the next unspeakable horror will unfold.
The problem is far more complex than a simple equation of guns equalling violence. It involves a confluence of factors: mental health issues, economic inequality, social isolation, easy access to weapons of war, and a political landscape paralyzed by partisan gridlock. Addressing this multifaceted crisis demands a holistic approach, one that moves beyond simplistic solutions and acknowledges the deeply ingrained societal challenges that fuel gun violence.
Political Paralysis: The Stumbling Block to Progress
For decades, meaningful gun control legislation has been stymied by fierce opposition from gun rights advocates, powerful lobbying groups, and politicians beholden to special interests. The Second Amendment, interpreted by some as an absolute right to bear arms without regulation, has become a sacred cow, hindering any attempts to enact even modest reforms. This political inertia, coupled with a highly polarized electorate, has created a climate of inaction, leaving communities vulnerable and families shattered.
However, cracks are beginning to appear in the wall of resistance. Growing public outrage, fueled by the relentless cycle of violence, is putting increasing pressure on elected officials to act. Younger generations, in particular, are demanding change and are refusing to accept the status quo. The voices of survivors and victims' families are growing louder and more insistent, challenging the narratives of gun rights advocates and demanding accountability. The question is whether this burgeoning movement can overcome the entrenched political forces that have long blocked progress.
The Role of Culture: A Nation Obsessed
Beyond the political arena, American culture plays a significant role in perpetuating gun violence. The romanticized portrayal of guns in popular culture, the normalization of violence in video games and movies, and the pervasive sense of fear and insecurity that fuels the desire for self-defense all contribute to a climate where guns are seen as a solution rather than a problem.
Changing this cultural landscape requires a fundamental shift in values. We must move away from the glorification of violence and embrace a culture of peace and empathy. This requires a multi-pronged approach, including promoting responsible gun ownership, advocating for media literacy, and addressing the root causes of violence in our communities. It also requires a willingness to engage in difficult conversations about race, class, and inequality, factors that often intersect with gun violence.
Finding Solutions: A Path Forward
Awakening to the reality of gun violence demands a comprehensive and multifaceted approach that addresses both the immediate threat and the underlying causes. This includes:
- Strengthening background checks: Closing loopholes that allow individuals with dangerous histories to purchase firearms.
- Banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines: Removing weapons designed for military combat from civilian hands.
- Investing in mental health services: Expanding access to mental healthcare and addressing the stigma surrounding mental illness.
- Implementing red flag laws: Allowing temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others.
- Promoting community-based violence prevention programs: Investing in initiatives that address the root causes of violence in communities most affected by gun violence.
- Enacting safe storage laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent accidental shootings and suicides.
These are just a few of the many steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence in America. The key is to move beyond partisan bickering and embrace evidence-based solutions that prioritize public safety.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
H3: What is the Second Amendment, and how does it relate to gun violence?
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, often interpreted as the right to own firearms. However, the scope and limitations of this right are subject to ongoing debate. Some argue it's an unfettered right to own any weapon, while others believe it allows for reasonable regulations to ensure public safety. Understanding the nuances of the Second Amendment is crucial for navigating the complexities of gun control policy.
H3: What are the most common types of gun violence in the US?
Gun violence encompasses a broad spectrum of incidents, including mass shootings, homicides, suicides, accidental shootings, and domestic violence involving firearms. Suicides account for the majority of gun-related deaths in the US, highlighting the intersection of mental health and access to firearms. Understanding the diverse forms of gun violence is essential for developing targeted prevention strategies.
H3: What are 'assault weapons,' and why is there controversy surrounding them?
'Assault weapons' typically refer to semi-automatic firearms with military-style features, such as high-capacity magazines and pistol grips. Opponents argue that these weapons are designed for warfare, not self-defense, and contribute disproportionately to mass shootings. Proponents argue that they are commonly owned for recreational shooting and self-defense and that restrictions would infringe on Second Amendment rights.
H3: What are 'red flag laws,' and how do they work?
Red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders, allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others. These laws are designed to prevent suicides and mass shootings by providing a mechanism to intervene before violence occurs.
H3: How does the US compare to other developed countries in terms of gun violence?
The United States has a significantly higher rate of gun violence than other developed countries. Factors contributing to this disparity include easier access to firearms, a higher prevalence of gun ownership, and a unique cultural and historical context surrounding guns.
H3: What role does mental health play in gun violence?
While mental illness is not the primary driver of gun violence, it can be a contributing factor in some cases. Addressing mental health issues, expanding access to mental healthcare, and reducing the stigma surrounding mental illness are crucial for preventing gun violence and promoting overall well-being. It's important to note that people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
H3: What are some evidence-based strategies for preventing gun violence?
Evidence-based strategies for preventing gun violence include strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, investing in mental health services, implementing red flag laws, promoting community-based violence prevention programs, and enacting safe storage laws. These strategies have been shown to be effective in reducing gun violence in other countries and communities.
H3: How can individuals get involved in advocating for gun violence prevention?
Individuals can get involved in advocating for gun violence prevention by contacting their elected officials, supporting organizations working to reduce gun violence, participating in peaceful protests and demonstrations, educating themselves and others about the issue, and promoting responsible gun ownership. Every voice matters in the fight against gun violence.
H3: What is the impact of gun violence on communities?
Gun violence has a devastating impact on communities, leading to loss of life, physical injuries, psychological trauma, and economic hardship. It disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income communities, exacerbating existing inequalities. Healing and rebuilding communities affected by gun violence requires long-term investment in resources and support.
H3: What are safe storage laws, and why are they important?
Safe storage laws require gun owners to store firearms securely, typically unloaded and locked up, to prevent unauthorized access, accidental shootings, and suicides. These laws are particularly important for protecting children and teenagers from gun violence.
H3: How does domestic violence relate to gun violence?
Domestic violence is a significant risk factor for gun violence. Firearms are often used in domestic violence incidents, and access to firearms can escalate the severity of domestic abuse. Removing firearms from individuals with a history of domestic violence is a crucial step in preventing further harm.
H3: What is the role of the media in covering gun violence?
The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of gun violence. Responsible reporting on gun violence should focus on the victims and survivors, provide context and analysis of the issue, and avoid sensationalizing the violence. The media also has a responsibility to accurately report on the research and evidence related to gun violence prevention.
The answer to 'When will America wake up to gun violence?' remains elusive, but the growing chorus demanding change offers a glimmer of hope. Only through sustained pressure and a commitment to evidence-based solutions can we hope to break the cycle of violence and create a safer future for all Americans.
5/5 - (92 vote)
About Wayne Fletcher
Wayne is a 58 year old, very happily married father of two, now living in Northern California. He served our country for over ten years as a Mission Support Team Chief and weapons specialist in the Air Force. Starting off in the Lackland AFB, Texas boot camp, he progressed up the ranks until completing his final advanced technical training in Altus AFB, Oklahoma.
He has traveled extensively around the world, both with the Air Force and for pleasure.
Wayne was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (second award), for his role during Project Urgent Fury, the rescue mission in Grenada. He has also been awarded Master Aviator Wings, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, and the Combat Crew Badge.
He loves writing and telling his stories, and not only about firearms, but he also writes for a number of travel websites.
The topic is gun violence in America, and comments about any other subject or disparaging comments about any other nation will be considered off topic along with 'no value' comments and any comments that the administrator considers to be offensive, and all such comments will be deleted, and continuing to post any such comments will lead to being banned from this group.
YouTubes, videos and images that the administrator is unable to open must be described and explained or they will be deleted.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Buzz of the Orient]
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Has there been enough gun violence yet?
I know that posting this is a waste of time and effort, cause I'm sure the opposition is bound to come, you know, with comments like "If guns are taken away, only criminals will have guns", or "But the Second Amendment guarantees our rights....", etc.
I'm a gun owner and enjoy shooting that I haven't indulged in lately, and by golly, I believe I will let a few rounds fly tomorrow. Guns will not be taken away, irregardless of what the "right' fearmongers claim about them damn Dems be coming to take their guns away, just to garner more ignorant support. I do not want my right to own firearms removed, but I also DEFINITELY realize, we need to DO SOMETHING. I am for about ANYTHING that might make even the slightest reduction in gun violence, but with this administration, and its purposeful division of US, it is not going to happen anytime soon. This is just my opinion, and unfortunately, most likely the case.
I agree, and it doesn't have much to do with guns. Kind of funny that the more the values the left are trying to impose on the country the worse things are getting, including gun violence. I think the gun violence is what happens when people are intentionally disconnected from truth and reality. When victimhood mentality becomes the identity of the nation rather than responsibility and accountability. Instead, the public education system teaches our children that they are the center of the world rather than responsibility to community.
That's me, though.
Entirely expected response. It's amazing how differently people feel who live in nations that HAVE done something meaningful to reduce gun violence, or where ownership is not so easy, or how absolutely free of concern about gun violence can be like where I live,
Yes, the problem is a mix of politics, health issues, tradition, education (both school AND home), and IMO greed (thinking of the NRA and vendors).
Well as I did opine, DO SOMETHING, should cover that. I'm all for whatever is brought up, as I ave not a problem with some tougher restrictions in obtaining guns, regulating guns, and or mental evaluations and more red flag laws. For I know Guns will not be made illegal in my lifetime, as there is just not the numbers and the will of US citizens to give them up. And our current political environment, is example A.
Then look at how Gun Manufacturers are not even able to be held liable for gun violence, and the money that the NRA spreads when its former head isn't stealing it, along with the misinformation spread about ANY restrictions on guns is the first step on that slippery slope. As I write this a clip of Charlie Kirk stating how it is worth it to have a few victims every year so we can protect our other rights, rather ironic i would say, for I wonder if he knew his fate back then, he would have felt the same way, but from what I've read, as I am not familiar with his positions, pretty much at all, it appears he may have.
I believe Buzz has an inaccurate view of todays' America from my interactions with him on this subject. I've worked in some nasty neighborhoods In Philly, Camden, Chester, and Trenton to name a few, and these were the only main places I felt I should probably carry, yet I had a few guns and knives pulled on me in my former local bar where I oversaw my local neighborhood gathering spot. This was in a suburb of Philly, and it is a bit concerning how many younger people carry, and then imbibe. Well after writing this, he'll probably have a worse view of US, but overall there is basically no thought or worry of guns or gun violence by me. Actually, about two years ago, one of the locals wound up killing two men who attacked him a few miles up the road after he was attacked and brutally beaten. After a thorough investigation, he was cleared of any wrong doing as deemed a clean act of self defense.
We are so used to hearing about shootings anymore, it is becoming no longer a big deal, and that is sad and unfortunate, but that is where we are.
LOL. Not so inaccurate. I don't think you can deny that there is more gun violence happening in America than in any other develped nation. Surely I don't have to link to reliable sources that indicate that. I'm not saying there should be NO guns. But Canada is a pretty good example of what I respect insofar as gun control goes although I've been reading that it's changing, primarily due to guns being smuggled over the border. (Maybe Canada should demand Trump to stop it or else Canada will impose a 50% tariff on all American imports. LOL). In my whole life I knew only 3 people in Canada who had a gun. One was a person who lived in the woods and he had a rifle, one was an actor I repesented and he had a permit for a pistol, and one was a kind of (but not actually a) biker and he had a pistol with NO permit, was caught with it, and I represented him in court wherein I succeeded in getting him to be able to walk away and only pay a small fine. But in the USA, the next door neighbour to our Florida golf condo couldn't wait to show me his pistol, asked me if I wanted to hold it, and there was no way I would even touch it.
Fact?
Or Opinion?
Maybe he actually wanted you to fondle it...and keep repeating (in a soft tone of voice): "I love you. I love you, I love you"!
Just a guess-- but I imagine the the late Charlie Kirk might agree with you!
Neither. Just plain old-fashioned prejudice.
Now that I think of it....you are probably right. He was so proud of it he had to show it off?
Apparently at one point #Australia had a serious gun problem. Then it got worse-- IIRC there were suddenly some serious incidents of mass shooting-- enough to finally motivate the people to take effective steps to end it!
I don't remeber all they did. But one thing they did was institute a program where if people turned in a gun (or guns) the gov't actually paid them a significant sum for each gun they turned in! (I don't remember all the details, they probably did some other things as well.
But-- it worked! Tremendous decrease in gun violence. (#Shona would probably know the details).
Back to the author of this article:
What have other countries done to reduce gun violence?
LINK -> What have other countries done to reduce gun violence? | [September Updated]
Gun violence has nothing to do with guns?
Well sure, Krishna. Why would gun violence have much to do with guns, or car accidents have much to do with cars, or drownings have much to do with water? Why do you ask?
Wow, just wow. You determine your own values, no one else.
If that be the cause, what about all the other countries that have lower rates of gun violence then we do-- do you really think that we are so much more "disconnected from truth and reality" than they are?.
Pretty much. It's been explained over and over again, but people still want to believe the fantasy. Fine. The rest of us will just skip the conversation and just do what we need to do to protect our rights. Thank you.
It's just too bad that some people seem to think that the right to kill others is more important than the right to just bear arms. Of course, that could be one of the reasons America has the most powerful military.
My experience has been that when most people online say fact they actually mean their opinion
When they say fantasy they mean the other person has a different opinion then they have.
(Of course all of what I just said is merely my opinion...it may or may not be actual "fact"!!!).
Hopefully you're never in a position where "protecting your rights" means actually shooting someone.
Well could it be posible that some people feel that "the right to bear arms" is meaningless unless they occasionally shoot someone!
You're welcome!
Good analysis.
Your opinon is pretty factual.
Although that's a stretch, it's possible.
Well, when you've been in this business as long as I have you learn a few tricks!
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
(BTW, DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE AWARE OF IT-- BUT NOONE'S EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT BEFORE!
)
This is a bit off topic-- but its interesting that this conversation got me to remember that line! It was from a show by an excellent group of British comedians (from the 60s!) called "Beyond The Fringe":
It seems like many on left want to DO SOMETHING about gun violence but come up short on offering ANY practical and workable solutions. We're waiting for your suggestions. It's just so much easier to blame those dastardly right-wingers for all the world's problems
Check out my reply to Krishna above, posted as number 1.1.12
No its not!
In your opinion . . .
Let me offer some non-ideological, pragmatic pushback.
The things we're willing to do aren't going to help. The things that would help, we're not willing to do.
BTW, that's true for a huge number of issues in this country. We could greatly improve our numbers on everything from childhood obesity to gun violence to car crashes if we were willing to take the necessary measures.
But we're not. So yeah, in that sense, it's a waste of time and effort. But glad you posted it anyway.
Absolutely.
Necessary measures?
That means the measures that are necessary... in your opinion!
(People disagree as to what measures are "necessary"... and to what measure would not help-- or would have other disadvantages).
That means measures that would make significant, empirically documentable improvements.
That's exactly the point. We don't think think they're necessary.
We're willing to live with traffic deaths, obesity deaths, gun deaths, overdoses, and all sorts of other problems because we don't think the severity of those problems necessitates the actions required to eliminate them.
Canada allows private ownership of firearms. The only significant difference in gun controls is that Canada regulates ownership at the Federal level while the United States regulates ownership at the state level. The attempts to Federalize the regulation of gun ownership in the United States has become a polarizing political issue. But that may have more to do with controversies over the idea of Big Government solutions rather than actual violence.
The correlation between guns and violence doesn't tell us anything about causes of violence. What would Israelis do if personal firearms were banned? Is gun violence more prevalent in Israel because private gun ownership is allowed? Why would the Israel example prove that the presence of guns is the controlling factor for violence in society?
Israel has a lot more reason for civilians to be armed than Americans should have. It is a different situation when the enemy is among you, and religioulsy dedicated to kill you, as it is in Israel. However, even then, the percentage of gun violence in America is considerably higher than in Israel.
And for that I suggest you go back to read 1.4. The powers don't want to actually work to figure out why violence is high and what leads to that higher violence, they tend to ignore that. After all, why fix a problem when it can be used as a political club against the "other side".
Yes, and as Joni sings....both sides now.
Yes, that's why I deliberately chose Israel to explore the linkage between guns and crime. What is typically cited is a correlation between homicides and the number of guns. But gun related homicides is only one type of violent crime.
Gun controls could materially address the lethality of violent crime but may do very little to reduce the amount of violent crime. Removing guns from the equation shouldn't be allowed to gloss over the amount of violent crime. Obviously prohibiting guns would eliminated gun related criminal fatalities.
The available statistics for the United States are spread over a time range but the comparison despite being imprecise does give some idea of the problem. The rate of violent crime is about 374 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The estimate of the criminal homicide rate is 5.9 criminal homicides per 100,000 people and 5.4 gun related criminal homicides per 100,000 people. (That would be about 4.6 criminal homicides per 100,000 guns.) Handguns are used in the majority of gun related criminal homicides. Rifles (including assault rifles) are used in about 4% of gun related homicides.
So, guns may be involved in 90% of all criminal homicides but rifles (including assault rifles) are used in 3.6% of criminal homicides. And only 15% of violent crimes are fatal. Rifles used for criminal homicides account for 0.5% of violent crimes. So should we expect an assault rifle ban to significantly reduce criminal homicides and violent crime?
The example of Israel fails the test of correlating guns with crime which raises doubts about guns being the cause of crime. And the statistics, while imprecise, also suggests that guns are not a cause of violent crime. Gun controls will obviously reduce gun related crime. But gun related crime is only a small part of the problem. Eliminating gun crime may have very little impact on the amount of violent crime. Correlation is not causation.
Thanks for all the statistics. No matter what, gun violence in America is excessive.
In what universe?
If there are no guns, there can be no gun crime. That's no different than pointing out that if there are no eggs there can be no omelets. It's one of those correct facts that doesn't tell us very much.
Guns were invented in 10th century China. So, we can say, with certainty, there wasn't any gun crime before the 10th century. (Thanks, China!) But it's also fair to say people were killing each other before guns were invented. The Chinese did not invent criminal homicide.
Should the United States adopt some of the gun controls Israel has in place? Permission to own a handgun in Israel requires 1) the person be a citizen of Israel, 2) the person can speak the Hebrew language, 3) the person undergoes formal gun training (for defensive use?), and 4) the person age and military service requirements. There is also a requirement to show a need but the categories are sufficiently broad that showing need is a low bar. There are also ways for non-citizen residents to obtain permission to own a handgun but the requirements are considerably more stringent.
You are surely not suggesting that "prohibiting" guns actually removes them.
Prohibiting guns would actually remove the bulk of them in, maybe, 100 years. A lot of the 'gun free' countries didn't remove guns overnight. China, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, and North Korea are examples of extreme prohibitions on private ownership of guns but even in those countries privately owned guns have not been completely eliminated.
So, yeah, prohibitions will remove remove guns. But you are correct that prohibitions would likely not eliminate guns.
Prohibitions would not eliminate guns.
Just as laws against drunk driving would not eliminate drunk driving. Prohibitions against selling Cocaine does not eliminate Cocaine sales or usage. Prohibitions against murder does not eliminate murder . . . and so on ….
What about what Australia did about their gun situation? 🤔
Canada's permits for gun ownership are fairly restrictive as well.
Even a total prohibition will not remove ghost guns.
And as a result, China (and I'll assume those other countries) experience only a minimal fraction of the gun violence that the USA exhibits. Biut the sad thing is how many Americans prefer having guns.
I guess it just all comes down to what the people want to live with.
It led to some reduction of gun violence, but it was voluntary, and criminals would not comply.
In the United States, states and cities are allowed to impose their own gun laws. California and New York state have comprehensive and strict gun control laws. Here's the Google summary for California:
"California's gun restrictions include a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases, universal background checks for sales and transfers, an age requirement of 21 for handguns and 18 for long guns, a ban on certain "assault weapons" (though facing legal challenges), strong mental health reporting laws, and the requirement of a CCW license for concealed carry. Additionally, there are significant restrictions on where firearms can be carried, such as government buildings, schools, and public transit facilities."
Canada's national gun control measures are comparable to those enacted by some states. Of course, those who favor national controls would consider Canada's approach to be better simply because it's a Federalized system. But that argument avoids considering that the prevalence of gun crime is not uniform across the United States.
In the United States gun ownership is a right protected by the Constitution and not a preference. Canada has no such right.
I'm not sure how we arrive at that conclusion, given that it hasn't worked with any other banned thing ever. Even when we were unified enough to change the Constitution, we failed miserably to remove alcohol.
Why would we assume comparison with Asian countries is applicable? Unless you plan to work like some of those places and just kill everybody who disagrees with the ruler(s), I don't think you're going to have nearly the success you imagine.
That doesn't begin to discuss ideas like 3d printing, which didn't exist 100 years ago.
Australia is probably the best example of the only way you can make this work. In the wake of a terrible massacre, Australians became united in a national conviction to reduce the number of firearms. Australian citizens voluntarily turned in over 700,000 firearms.
That said, they still have private firearm ownership today.
The key thing here is that they were united enough not only to enact the ban, but for most people to abide by it voluntarily.
Americans are light years from anything we could consider "united". We are not going to get the folks who own the majority of these weapons to simply turn them in. This is a fantasy.
Notwithstanding your "scare" comment, I feel a lot safer here in China than I would feel in the USA.
You're absolutely right.
Going back to my first comment.... we're not willing to do the things that would work.
We could reduce violent crime dramatically simply by keeping violent criminals locked up.
We could reduce traffic fatalities dramatically by making it much harder to get a driving license.
We could reduce obesity by taxing junk food like cigarettes.
We could reduce the number of people without health insurance by making enrollment a requirement to get other govt aid.
We're not going to do any of that
Mercurochrome? DDT? CCA treated lumber? Creosote? PCBs? Chevrolet Corvair?
Why must I do all the friggin' work? I have already posted statistics that suggest gun control laws won't be effective in significantly reducing the amount of violent crime.
But if someone wants to carry around a 100 round 10 gauge shotgun, then I have a right to call an idiot and idiot. There is absolutely no excuse or justification from some the crap that's being traded. The military wouldn't use some of these firearms because it would be stupid to carry so much worthless weight.
If we could ban stupid then would we need gun laws?
You are right about that being right
Morning...and it will never ever work in the States..
And as I have said previously we have a completely different mind set to you mob when it comes to guns and your rights etc..
The gun obsession is wholly and solely a US thing and that is something you will have to live with, it will never change even after all the shootings you have had...
I am afraid it will only get worse regardless of prayers, candlelight vigils and the Government should do something about this problem.. until the next one..
As always that won't be far away sadly....be it a politician, gang or worse a school...😔
Now, yeah. But in 1950....not so much.
No doubt you'd also feel (and probably be) safer in Japan.
But we're talking about largely homogeneous cultures with heavy emphasis on respect, family, and self discipline. You can't replicate that in America.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, many of our folks forget that.
"Happiness is a warm gun." (The Beatles)
Cocaine, heroin, prostitution, pornography, gambling?
Gun laws aren't even effective in reducing the number of guns. That's the point and the problem.
Of course not. We could get rid of 3/4 of existing statutes. But it's protected by the 1st Amendment.
For sure. Would be as successful as trying to ban beer.
You got it!
they tried that once
Are you referring to prohibition about a century ago, or something more recent?
Aye, that's the rub.
prohibition of alcohol, made people distrust government and organized crime powerful
IIRC we used to have an "assault weapons" ban.I believe it was started under the Clinton administration Mass shooting descreased signigicanly.
But the ban expired.
We did. It lasted from 1994-2004.
We did see a reduction in mass shootings. We also saw mass incarceration. From 1989 to 1995, we doubled the prison population. The same law that banned AR-15s also mandated much tougher sentences on repeat offenders (3 strikes sentencing). Added to the aggressive prosecution of even small time crack dealers, by 1995 1/3 of black men between 20-29 were in prison, on probation or on parole.
The Columbine shooting in 1999 involved banned guns.
The 1994 law still allowed people to keep weapons acquired before it went into effect, as well as buy and sell them on the secondary market. People stockpiled them in advance of the ban, and there were about 1.5-2.5 million in circulation when it went into effect.
In my opinion, Jack. It's no use - it's never going to be solved.
I hate to be this pessimistic, but I tend to agree.
Violence is (or was) extremely prevalent-- a reign of terror for quite some time. But gun violence by Arab terrorists wasn't all that common.
Why? Because the Arab terrorists resorted to suidicide bombers. (One terrorist could kill more Jews by, for example, blowing themselves up in a crowded bus.
The correlation between guns and violence doesn't tell us anything about causes of violence. What would Israelis do if personal firearms were banned?
The Israelis are very innovative. One thing they used to do to prevent terrorism (I don't know if they still do it).If they causght a terrorist they simply told everyone to leave the terrorists house-- and blew it up!
Once that was generally known I believe it decreased acts of terrorism significantly. (Even if a particular wannabe terrorists didn't care, if his mother (and other family members) knew someone in their family was sonsidering terrorism, they pressured him/her not to do it!).
They don't blow them up any more - they bulldoze them. And then the Palestinian government uses the UNWRA aid money that the west contributes to to rebuild the houses and support the terrorists in prison.
This article has had its run, now locked.