Whilst there are lots of grey areas around gun ownership there is a simple reality. Every year thousands of people die as a result of gun related incidents in the US, far more than per capita than most other countries, especially if you look at moderate democratic countries in Europe.
Here we go. Statistics... we can argue over these for months. For example, are you including suicide in those gun deaths? Are you considering all the prevented crime (good guys with guns) doesn't get put on air? Are you considering net effect on crime in general? It is complex. There are many, many interconnecting variables. Having government lawmakers fuss with them like dials and levers often makes it worse because of unforeseen consequences.
If nothing changes in the way America approaches gun ownership either legislatively or culturally then America will have to accept that incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Virgina Tech and Las Vegas etc are going to continue to happen. By accepting that the incidents will happen then by implication you are accepting that this is the price to be paid for maintaining the gun culture that exists.
If you are not proposing changing the law, then you are proposing changing the culture. How do you manage that? What does it mean to change the culture? What ideas are toxic in the culture specifically?
I am not advocating changing laws for the sake of it, especially when the root problems for a specific crime may lie outside of what can be legislated (e.g. mental health or criminal activity for example). I understand that for those determined to do something then the law is no deterrent. I also understand that removing guns does not remove the threat of death through some other criminal and violent act.
Fair enough.
What I don't understand is the apparent lack of will to formulate some kind of change. Those like the NRA simply throw the same arguments out that absolve anyone with a gun of any responsibility. Politicians can do nothing due to the gun lobby. Those representing the so called responsible gun owning citizens want to maintain a position where there is no restriction to the type, quantity and capability of weapon available.
The "nutters" are always on the defensive, that's why. The blood from these people hasn't even dried on their lifeless bodies and the left comes out and wants to ban guns. There can't be a discussion about what might actually ail the patient when the left wants to cover him with leeches.
So far I have not seen a report detailing the type of weapon used here. Everyone seems to think it was automatic, and not legal. What does that imply? In other words, there are limits. Yet, this ass hole got around them. The limits didn't matter.
Here is an interesting exercise. Google how to convert a semi-automatic AR-15 to fully automatic. I found a YouTube video on how to do it. And I found a document outlining how to make your own AR-15 block. All you need are some good machining tools, most of which you can get at Sears.
Just because the problem is complex does not mean those with a vested interest cannot even try to work things out to have some positive effect on it.
I agree. But it does mean there will be a simple legislative "fix".
From what I can see, everytime something like Vegas happens the gun lobby put their hands over their ears and shout "lalalalalalala nothing to do with us".
No, they make a lot of noise in response to talks about gun bans.
Change is formulated through discussion, compromise and a willingness to accept responsibility where responsibility is due. This seems totally lacking in how the gun lobby approach the problem.
Responsibility for the Vegas shooting lies directly on the shoulders of shooter. It does not fall on the second amendment or "nutters". I do agree there should be a discussion.
In any case, I still appreciate your post, so I +1ed it.
