Watching the horrifying gun violence of the past few weeks, many people are once again asking, “what can I do to help?” That sentiment is the reason why we will ultimately prevail in keeping our families, friends and neighbors safe from random gun violence: As much as gun-toting loners hiding under their beds in man-sized safes at the bottom of bunkers have tried to turn us into a nation of atomized individuals, the truth is that in times of crisis, we are still a community that shares common values and cares about each other.
The Second Amendment will not be dismissed so easily. The first clause, in particular, offers the public welfare its most promising openings. It also, indirectly, offers democracy some rich ground for healthy growth. What is wrong with public deliberation that results in "A well-regulated militia" rather than sits on it's complacent ass while the Courts, Administrations, and Congress, continue misleading the whole nation into believing that the State National Guards are the only form of politically possible militias the US may Constitutionally have? To suppose we can ignore the question of these well-regulated militias, whether the imperial military might of the National Guards or a variety of more meaningful local regulations of weaponry, ignores the entire US military-industrial-campaign-cash-imperialism that is the worst threat to US national security and domestic unity. The article above is merely another piece of Wall Street Democratic propaganda aimed at securing a Hillary candidacy.
I'm fairly certain that I am in the majority, and my view is that it's one thing for individuals to have hunting rifles--if they must hunt for (not human) game, and a gun for protection at home. It's another matter entirely when individuals build up firepower arsenals and think it's their divine right to own assault weapons.
I don't especially like the military hardware coming home from foreign wars and becoming part of state and city police department tools of combat, either.
Nor do I have any special love for the M.I.C. and its bases in 140 nations.
If you think a fancy rifle can afford you protection against the KIND of weapons DARPA has dreamt up ... and produced, you are kidding yourself.
Ultimately, NO amount of guns makes any society safe. Doing the right thing produces that result; and that means effecting policies that are based on justice, fairness, decent wages, and a functioning justice system (as opposed to one that rubberstamps any policy or protocol that's deferential to the 1%/corporate interests).
Following the logic of "gas-lighting" as mentioned in today's piece by Roseann De Moro, there's a species of that very thing that takes hold when friends of the NRA conflate a viewpoint like the one I just expressed... with an outright ban on guns. Obviously, that is not what I said.
There is a vast span of positions between a total ban on guns and eliminating reckless assault weapons from the public sphere, a sphere that is growing more destabilized by the hour due to job insecurity, violence rippling down from the highest seats of govt., and that visceral sense that the seasons are out of joint--the kind of climate we once enjoyed with freak storms now normalizing into endless FREAK conditions.
In short, all that destabilization is the harbinger of more spontaneous violence to break out more often. A pistol that can deliver 6 shots is a lot different than a weapon that blazes a zone with massive firepower. The distinction is important, and will grow more so based on the preponderance of circumstances just mentioned.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I think what more important then the number of guns in the USA and the regulating thereof is how does the society break down that attachment to the gun and to violence? That attachment was born in that 2nd amendment followed by all of the myth making that went on for years after by persons calling themmselves HIStorians and by that Hollywood myth making machine.
The major problem is too many people and powerful lobby groups LIKE the NRA invent reasons for why people must have a gun and too many people believe those reasons must be legitimate.( One I always hear is people in the country need them to defend against wild animals...I mean really? ) These people generally do not have a firm grip on history nor do they bother to look outwards and to other jurisdictions when making their claims.
As example we had a person post a defense of guns by giving a list of mass shootings that an armed citizen likely stopped in the USA. There something like two mass shoootings a day in the USA. The list was some 16 mass shootings prevented over 12 years. Stopping one mass shooting in 700 is hardly a measure of success and what ABOUT those other countries, the ones where there less guns in the hands of the people, would there not be yet more mass shootings there if that the means by which such incidents prevented? The numbers suggest many of those other countries have found much better ways to prevent such.
Now added to this I have looked at some of these pro gun sites where they in fact claim that self defense with a gun is used hundreds and thousands of times a day in the USA but the press just does not want to report it because they are anti-gun. That itself just begs the question. If there an average of two mass shootings a day in the USA and its homicide rate is 4 times that of another country and IF as claimed this number would be many times higher were it not for those guns used in self defense, than acting as a devils advocate and accepting that premise one has to question what it is with citizens of the USA that has them so eager and willing to kill one another when peoples in other countries seem to get along without all those guns and that killing?
It boggles the mind how those so enthralled with guns THINK because from where I sit I see little thinking going and in place of it a whole lot of jingoism and mindless rote.
I actually read that since the election of Obama over 100000000 more guns have been purchased by citizens of the USA.
Now keep this in mind. There around 120 million households in the USA and more than half do not half a gun. That means all of those guns go to the same household. That also means that for every household with just one gun there a household with 10.
It suggests that the same people buy guns over and over and over again and still do not feel safe. It quite frankly madness. They are in fact nuts which is in part why there so many shootings. I sort of got this hunch that if a person owning 5 guns and more still deems his life at risk or that his liberties being taken away unless he gets more, is already on the mentally unbalanced side and likelier yet to go out to shoot someone " preemptively" before "they" get him.
This something like how the US Government acts as it bombs countries the world over so that "the terrorists do not come here" . That same government spends as much on arms as the rest of the World combined and still claims they not safe from their "enemies"
Good lords you contradict yourself within your own post. It immaterial that weapons purchased legally. The perpetrators had multiple weapons.
I have already stated it not so much a matter of law and regulations as it is a mindset of persons attracted to the concept of violence as a social value.
Again other countries might see one mass shooting in a decades time and the USA has more than one a day. You have too many people with guns that are willing and eager to use guns.
One more time.
How do those other countries manage to deal with it so much more effectively?
I do not know what source you are using to get your statistics on mass shooting from, but one commonly used source called the Mass Shooting Tracker uses a definition that leads to highly inflated numbers. The “Mass Shooting Tracker’s definition of a mass shooting as any gun violence event in which 4 people including the shooter are injured would include gang shoot outs, robberies and drug deals gone wrong, suicide-by-cop incidents in which bystanders were inadvertently injured by police, and other incidents that deviate drastically from the Columbine and Sandy Hook type events that most Americans think of when talking about a mass shooting.” Their count of incidents included one case where some boys shot people with BB guns but there were no serious injuries. According to PoliFact 42 percent of the Mass Shooting Tracker's numbers for 2015 involved cases with no fatalities. The Congressional Research Service which uses a more rigorous definition, has a count of 29 cases so far this year.
If you would actually meet and talk to some gun owners, you would not be so paranoid about them. It is a similar problem that conservatives have with Muslims, they believe all kinds of negative stereotypes that get reinforced by others in the echochamber.
Well no. You see other countries exist on this globe other then the USA. Most of those countries do not have a second amendment and Citizens running around packing guns.
You gave a compiled list of some so called mass shootings prevented over a 12 year period which give 16 in that 12 year period. I find out odd you would use this list as evidence that an armed citizenry needed to prevent mass shootings then in the next breath claim the mass shootings that do in fact occur do not really count because they involve gangs or drug deals gone wrong or no fatalities. A mass shooting is still a mass shooting whether there fatalities are not. 16 people shot in the leg who did not happen to die were still subject to violence at the hands of a person with a gun.
A mass murder is something else entirely and again the USA has more of these then most other countries in the OECD .
Other countries outside the USA use many of thesame definitions for mass shootings when measuring gun crime. They still have orders of magnitude less of them without having an armed citizenry.
Again how do they manage it?
As to meeting some of those people who have arsenals of guns. I would rather not. I do not tend to get along with people who are so infatuated with violence.