Thresholds of Violence: How School Shootings Spread

Re:Thresholds of Violence: How School Shootings Spread by DanBC on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @02:54AM (#10385329)

You say NOBODY in caps, but this sub thread was started by me (strongly in favour of gun control) when I wondered why "has the intent to shoot many people, but fails" isn't counted anywhere. Elsewhere in the thread I question why people don't care about criminals who shoot and kill each other.

And it's not just me. There have been many many campaigns to reduce gang violence that have wanted to ban guns.

"NOBODY" is wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Thresholds of Violence: How School Shootings Spread by Nrsolis on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @11:51AM (#10387295)

I meant the hyperbolic nobody as in "the vast majority of people that express an opinion on gun control but do nothing until it comes to their neighborhood."

And here is the issue: you can't ban guns. Even if you do, it doesn't affect gun violence AT ALL. I can point to examples like Washington, DC, NYC, and Chicago as examples. All cities have had very strict gun control laws (and even knife control laws) and yet they haven't eliminated gun violence. In some cases, it actually increased.

So this is a sociological problem that doesn't have a simple answer. Making "guns" the boogeyman is just another example of avoiding the problem by politicians. That's a real issue when it comes to restricting a fundamental right to bear arms.

And yes, I said fundamental. The Constitution was designed to recognize and protect rights, not grant them. Those rights are natural rights given to men by virtue of their existence in the world, not their presence in any particular jurisdiction. It's a distinction that I wish more people were aware of.

[ Parent | on HN ]