(edit: mind you that I'm also under the opinion that everyone who wants to own a handgun should have to go through mandatory safety and general usage training, much like you need to pass tests in order to be able to drive)
Another stupid question from me:
Isn't that what "gun control" means? Or "restricted" gun ownage?
So, yeah.. having seen people drive and the stupidity which that causes I don't trust them and nor do I trust them with a weapon.
Yet they ARE trusted with a drivers license.
Per capita many more people are killed by cars than by guns, but somehow you don't see people calling for bans on automobiles.
IYet they ARE trusted with a drivers license.
So, yeah.. having seen people drive and the stupidity which that causes I don't trust them and nor do I trust them with a weapon.
Per capita many more people are killed by cars than by guns, but somehow you don't see people calling for bans on automobiles.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. If we do not restrict guns, then how do people propose to lower gun violence? It may be on the decline, but it still is a problem.
I'm curious to see what people propose.
I have already answered that with a few things which would likely result in less violence and crime across the board, not just gun related.
@tstrimple: true about nothing short of a ban preventing the tragedy. But this family has shown that their judgment regarding gun safety is lacking, and as much as it was an accident it was also a coincidence that the toddler was killed rather than someone walking their dog in front of the house at the last moment. An unsafe situation was created through carelessness, and the danger was, in this case, realized.
There aren't going to be any legal consequences for this family. That would also likely be the case if it had been a jogger outside killed instead. If the five year old shot a passerby and paralyzed him, the family would also face little to no responsibility of any kind.
That's bullshit. The prevailing attitude and current legal approach enshrines nearly unlimited ability to own and operate guns whle refusing to ascribe any reponsibility for the damage they can cause. That's not the case for cars or really anything else. Why are guns the only liability-free category? How can that be justified?
I haven't said there shouldn't be consequences for their action, but that is a separate issue from gun control. I would say they are guilty of criminal negligence if not negligent homicide. However consider the ramifications of such an outcome. Is the surviving child really better off if one or both of his parents are imprisoned? Is society safer because his parents are behind bars? I also wouldn't say the parents got away lightly. They have to live with the knowledge that it is their fault that their child is dead. Many would consider that punishment enough.
Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. If we do not restrict guns, then how do people propose to lower gun violence? It may be on the decline, but it still is a problem.
I'm curious to see what people propose.
While I'm all for gun control, the US is still special when it comes to gun violence. There's many other countries where citizens are allowed to own all sorts of dangerous handguns and rifles, yet they don't have the same levels of violence as the US, which indicates there's many underlying problems that cause people to want to use their guns in bad ways.
Personally, I see the biggest underlying cause of US violence as the massive level of inequality between citizens...
I think Frob explained the overall reason for gun violence being higher in the US as compared to other countries where guns are legal pretty well. The underlying reasons are hard to get at. The NRA tends to blame media, while liberals point at guns. The fact is that neither has better proof than the other. We can look at examples that seem to disprove both. Many countries have the same media that the US does, yet violent crime is not as high. At the same time, there are countries that have freely available guns, as you pointed out, but not nearly as high a violent crime rate. The truth is that much of the gun crime is gang related, and the reasons people join gangs...I'm no real expert there.
It may be simplest to make guns illegal in urban zones while letting them remain legal in less urban areas. I think someone suggested this earlier in this thread. The more urban areas do not have the same need for guns that people may have in more rural settings. In more rural areas, I can see why people would want to keep guns, even though I personally do not like the idea of freely available guns.
The number of gun deaths in America each year is actually about equal to the number of vehicle deaths. Most of them are accidents though and caused by things you can't control plus we use cars far more than we use guns.
Just to back this up, in 2011 they were close enough to be pretty much statistically equal. The death rates for both were 10.3/100,000. I just looked an apparently in 2009 cars got way better. I found that interesting that there was like a 20,000 death drop in a years time. Good job auto industry o.oThe number of gun deaths in America each year is actually about equal to the number of vehicle deaths. Most of them are accidents though and caused by things you can't control plus we use cars far more than we use guns.
