Yes, it sounds cold, but human life has a certain value, and just like any rational decision, we have to consider in some objective manner whether conceivable preventative measures are worthwhile.
>just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection
Do you not normally make decisions regarding the future based on observed past data?
Likewise the argument can be made that there might be psychological results from drills like the ones used to allegedly prepare kids.
Let's put it this way: how many incidents of violence did you NOT hear about because simply brandishing a gun was enough to diffuse a situation or deter a would be criminal?
Please do not presume that this is some black and white issue where simply banning guns would solve all problems with gun violence. The implication that 2A supporters are all psychotic "gun nuts" who choose guns over innocent lives is a slanderous , oversimplified strawman, which only serves to further entrench divisiveness.
Why is it that we require tens of hours of training in order to operate a car, and just a few more to drive bus loads of people, but require absolutely nothing to purchase a tool capable of inflicting just as much, if not more, damage? That's fucked up.
To put it simply: how's do you know if whatever you did has an effect instead of the numbers being a result of a random downswing?
(You can know if you can know by employing Bayesian statistics - with these low rates you really cannot.)
I am okay with that because it spreads the violence but each instance of violence is less deadly. So for the sake of no school schootings, I will accept increase in general violence. Let's repeal the 2A.
"Tthere are notes about anomalous events included in each year's numbers. Since the numbers are so low these can throw the graph off. In particular two large events which happened in previous years were reported for 2003 and 2017 respectively which accounts for their anomalous spikes.
2003 includes 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman, one of the most prolific serial killers in history. While these killings happened over 25 years, they're recorded for 2003.
2017 includes 96 victims of Hillsborough which happened in 1989.
2001 includes 58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK.
2004 includes 20 cockle pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay.
2006 includes 52 victims of the 7 July London bombings.
2011 includes 12 victims of Derrick Bird."
Many Americans already believe that gun control legislation is part of a program to phase out gun ownership and undermine the Second Amendment - and that's why they're stockpiling guns in expectation of an inevitable civil war. It's never going to not be tricky in the US.
Anything approaching what the rest of the world considers "sensible" gun control in the US would first need a massive cultural shift to take place, or an acceptance of protracted guerilla warfare as a consequence.
Second, the ECHR mainly concerns itself with the "duty of states" to protect life, not the people's right to life itself.
Here is Article 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Conv...
It is relatively recent that courts have even rules on this, primarily with McCaan v UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCann_and_Others_v_United_Kin...
In the US, the right to life and liberty supersedes the right to safety. Based on the founding documents, Americans, because they are HUMANS, are born with the right to protect their lives and to pursue happiness. There is no right to safety (as there is no "RIGHT TO HAPPINESS") as safety would be something that OTHERS would have to provide YOU. Nothing that others must provide you can be a right.
US: I'm on fire
CANADA: jump in the water
US: water won't work, i need more fire
UK: we used water when we caught fire
US: it won't work for us we like fire too much
US: I'm burning
AUSTRALIA: here is a video of water putting out fire
US: *stuffs fire in pockets*Canada has a comparably high-rate of gun ownership and yet a substantially lower murder rate. I've seen plenty of pissing and moaning on firearm forums about their restrictions, more severe than the US', but one could reasonably carry out a massacre up there just as much as one can in the states.
It's not the guns. It's us.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-...
> The shooter, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, had been investigated by federal authorities for links to terrorism. This would likely be enough for the RCMP to restrict his ability
When a PAL is denied, does one have the right to appeal or is that the final word on the matter? In the US the NICS background check has something similar, the Delay. If, in the course of your FFL background check, the Feds think you're up to something they issue a Delay which can be followed up with a Deny or the go-ahead to sell the firearm. One can appeal a Deny, however there is no way of handling a Delay which is particularly annoying since something as benign as having a similar name to a known criminal can result in one.
There has not been a single "mass shooting" in Australia since the gun ban. In the US, mass shootings decreased after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and then increased after it expired 2004.
The US media glorifies violence and yet censors the reality of it.
How many of those other countries with stricter gun control laws have been involved in as many violent conflicts across the globe as the US?
(also, perhaps surprisingly to Americans, school trained me on guns at 14: http://atc.wikia.com/wiki/L98A2_Cadet_GP_Rifle )
Well, the short answer is that deaths from incidents like this are actually more common, considerably more common, in some other parts of the developed world[0]. The majority of U.S. mass shootings result in no deaths, the overwhelming majority result in one or fewer. Only about 70 of the 474 or so mass shootings in 2017 were also classifiable as "mass murders" (single incidents resulting in four or more unjustified killings).
[0]: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/...
The thesis is that you ought not make expensive, likely unconstitutional policy goals based on a fantasy about stopping a type of crime which happens less than once every seven years (in a country that is several times larger than the next most populous developed country), based on an unlimited attack on all risk.
The projected effect of this policy is so low, in fact, that it could just as easily cause more deaths, youth deaths even, than we expect it to limit; and there's a good chance that the policy will do essentially nothing at all, even for the limited cases it applies to.
added: If all risks are worthy of unlimited policy resources, I hereby declare that all children should be driven to school in Caterpillar 797s, to avoid the problems of pedestrian collisions and deadly vehicular collisions.
“The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” Fox said, adding that over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting.
this seems weak. if shootings are rare events stopping one would make a considerable difference. just because assault rifles were rarely used in past 35 years in what way does that influence a future projection? What if we had a Vegas type event around a school? I don't really understand the thesis here