This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gun Control: Fashionable Prohibition For Modern Lawmakers
Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,
With the latest school shooting, all humane people are expected to jump up and do something to stop the next shooting. The most popular response among media pundits and national policymakers right now is an expansion of the various prohibitions now in place against guns.
For anyone familiar with the history of prohibitions on inanimate objects, however, these appeals to prohibition as a “common sense” solution are rather less convincing.
Americans and others have tried a wide variety of similar prohibitions before, and with mixed results at best. Nowadays, prohibitions on drugs are in decline as states continue to unravel prohibitions of the past and make the nature of prohibition less drastic and less punitive. And, of course, the prohibition of alcohol has been dead for decades.
The prohibitions of old have been deemed failures. But fortunately for prohibitionists, there’s a fashionable form of modern prohibition that won’t go away.
Why Not Ban Alcohol?
Now, I know what some of you are saying: “Hey, McMaken, you can’t compare alcohol prohibition to gun prohibition because alcohol mostly only hurts the drinker, while guns have many harmful side effects for the public at large.”
But the fact that anyone could think this shows just how well the anti-alcohol-prohibition rhetoric has worked. Since the repeal of prohibition in the 1930s, alcohol has taken on an image of fun and relaxation. Sure, some people use it irresponsibly, we are told, but for the most part, people should be allowed the freedom to use it. For those high risk behaviors linked to alcohol, such as drunk driving, we’ll regulate that, but the ownership of alcohol itself, of course, should be open to all adults.
And yet, in the face of this laissez-faire attitude toward drinking, we could offer a host of illustrations of how alcohol is in fact a public safety menace.
Indeed, prior to the 1920s, during the heyday of the temperance movement, alcohol’s image was as anything but a mere benign luxury among a sizable portion of the population.
While many people today assume that the prohibitionists argued along puritanical lines, and emphasized the dangers of moral ruin, the arguments against alcohol were really far more complex than that.
The prohibitionists argued — quite plausibly, mind you — that any number of social ills could be addressed through alcohol prohibition. Chief among these was the fact that many families, including children, were often rendered destitute by the drinking of the male head of the household who was unable to hold down a job due to his addiction. Moreover, cases of child abuse and spousal abuse were clearly connected to alcohol consumption, as were household accidents and accidents on the job.
When breadwinners were killed or injured on the job, or if a drunk spent half his income at a bar on payday, families often ended up on the local dole. Or worse.
And there was a connection to non-domestic violence too. Public drunkenness, bar fights, and the deadly and irresponsible use of guns were connected to drinking as well.
Ironically, back then though, it wasn’t the guns that were seen as the problem (although gun control advocates did exist). For many, the problem was that drunks were irresponsibly using guns and that the common-sense solution was to prevent them from getting drunk.
Guns are Less Deadly than Alcohol
Nowadays, 88,000 deaths per year are attributed to alcohol abuse, and thirty people per day in the United States die in alcohol-related auto accidents. Heavy drinkers are more prone to violence, suicide, and risky sexual behavior.
In fact, if we compare these statistics, we find that alcohol abuse is significantly more deadly and problematic than misuse of guns. There were 36,000 gun-related deaths (including suicides and accidents) in the US in 2013, and as a percentage of all causes of death, alcohol-related deaths are more than twice as common as gun deaths.
What’s more, one-third of gun deaths are alcohol related. Thus, according to prohibitionist logic, we could eliminate one-third of gun-related deaths overnight by prohibiting alcohol consumption. So why aren’t we doing it? If it could save one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?
Most have concluded that saving one life is not, in fact, worth it. In practice, alcohol-related deaths (including those inflicted against third-party victims) are treated very differently than gun-related deaths.
For example, it is clear that alcohol is a central component in the more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths that occur each year. So, is the response to restrict certain types of alcohol or populations that can buy it? Are background checks instituted to prevent sales to incorrigible drunk drivers? No, the response is to ban how alcohol is used in certain cases.
On the other hand, in response to the 11,000 gun-related murders per year, the prescribed response is to restrict the guns themselves. But, if we were to apply the same logic behind drunk driving bans to gun violence, the only legislation we would be considering would be something along the lines of special penalties for carrying firearms when mentally impaired, on psychotropic drugs, when sight impaired, or in crowded areas where accidents are more likely to affect bystanders. The mere purchase or ownership of guns would not be restricted, just as the purchase or ownership of alcohol is not restricted in response to drunk driving.
Indeed, if we add to drunk driving all the cases of spousal abuse and child abuse and public cases of assault, bar fights, and more, it becomes clear that alcohol is in fact far more damaging to the social fabric than guns have ever been. Once we factor in the harm that alcohol does to the user himself, in terms of health problems, riskier sex, and suicides, the numbers look even worse for alcohol.
Does Prohibition Work?
Now, you might be thinking, “yes, but if gun prohibition works, shouldn’t we try it?” Unfortunately, there are few reasons to believe that it would work, or that the cure would not be worse than the disease.
Mark Thornton illustrated years ago that alcohol prohibition led to more alcohol consumption, and more consumption of harder distilled drinks versus more mild beer and wine beverages. In addition to the complete failure to end the behavior it targeted, Americans also became acquainted with numerous unpleasant side effects of prohibition including more organized crime and more government harassment of peaceful citizens.
Comparing the States
As far as gun prohibition goes, thanks to a diversity of gun laws among the American states, we can compare between gun ownership levels in the states and homicide rates.
And what we find is that there is no correlation between the level of restrictiveness in gun laws and the murder rate. Most recently, Eugene Volokh ran the numbers looking at homicide rates and the so-called Brady Score assigned to states by gun-control advocates. Volokh even provides the data so you can analyze it yourself. (Volokh explains why homicides and not “gun deaths” is the important metric here.)
We can also see that this is quite plausible by simply eyeballing the data if we look at gun restrictions by state and homicide rates. Gun-control advocates like to point to southern states that have both permissive gun laws and high murder rates, such as Alabama and Mississippi. But, even a cursory analysis beyond this cherry-picking shows that there are numerous states with permissive gun laws (such as Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and others) where the murder rate is very low. And states with more restrictive laws, such as Illinois, New York, and California have higher murder rates than numerous states where it is easy to buy a gun.
So, while gun-control advocates press for “common-sense” restrictions, real common sense suggests that gun restrictions cannot explain the prevalence of murder in a state. This means that gun-control advocates are looking at the wrong social statistics to explain the violence.
Reasons Why They Want to Ban Guns and Not Alcohol
But none of this matters when gun violence is being exploited to drive for more state power and more regulation of private citizens. Many gun-control advocates really do believe that government regulation and management can solve every social ill. They ignore the realities behind failed experiments such as alcohol prohibition or the war on drugs, and instead move on to the latest sexy prohibitionist drive because they sense an opportunity to control one more aspect of daily life.
Most everyone accepts that prohibition creates unintended consequences that can be negative, and with alcohol prohibition, these consequences included organized crime and the criminalization of peaceful citizens. Gun-control advocates assert, however, that whatever the downsides of gun control may be, they are minimal compared to the many advantages.
As Murray Rothbard pointed out in For a New Liberty, whether or not you come face to face with those down sides ban depend a lot on your wealth and influence within society. For example, white, middle class people who live in safe suburbs, have influence over local police forces, and can even resort to private security (including alarm systems) see little down side to gun control. After all, they have little reason to fear police or common criminals when they can exercise their well-established political influence at the local level or purchase a home security system with the expectation that police will arrive quickly in case of emergency.
Powerless minorities, on the other hand, face much larger downsides to gun control. For them, police are an unreliable deterrent to local crime, and are little use in cases of social unrest. Many may remember how police in Ferguson, Missouri protected government buildings, but left the rest of the town on its own during the riots there. Local citizens paid for police protection, but got none. And then, of course, there are countless cases of the “proper” authorities using their legal guns against powerless populations, with no resource left to them other than private firearms. Just one example would be the Texas Ranger rampages that followed the so-called Plan de San Diego when the Rangers swept through southern Texas lynching Mexican-Americans who were deemed traitors.
Consequently, some principled leftists, most of whom are radicals, do not subscribe to the dominant gun-control position of the left. But certainly the mainline left, dominated by university intellectuals, government employees, and politicos with nice houses in safe neighborhoods, see few problems associated with centralizing coercive power in the hands of “official” law enforcement.
The downsides of restricting alcohol, however, are plentiful for those who spend many hours at cocktail parties and send their children to booze-soaked elite universities to be paired up with the appropriate social class.
So, until this changes, we ought not expect much of a change in the double standard applied to alcohol and guns in terms of violence, health, and safety. The people who make the laws are quite happy having plenty of booze around. But they can afford to pay someone else to handle the guns for them.
- 17370 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Gun Control: Fashionable Prohibition For Modern Lawmakers
CORRECTION! Gun Control: Fashionable Prohibition For Liberals
The vast majority of murders by gun are committed by Obama sons and Obama voters. See any inner city run by Democrats for proof.
OBAMA SON AND DEMOCRAT CONTROL...
NOW!!!!
Hollywood movie violence has been proven to be a yuuuuuuuge contributing cause ... yet, because those producers donate yuuuuge $$$$$$$$$ to DC Dem politicians, you won't hear a peep out of the Drone Master about Hollywood.
Stop confusing me with facts and common sense. Gunz r bad. Only Obama is allowd gunz.
Only government workers can be trusted with guns.
We democided some folks.
'Shall Not Be Infringed'.......PERIOD!
If you don't like that....best get on the new amendment...good luck.
Yeah it never.worked in australia. Wait what?
Obama is an ignorant cocksucker, so is the idiot who made that clip.
Since the author is too scared to say it, I will: there IS a correlation, a very strong one, that can be used to determine why an area has a lot of murders or gun violence, and it had absolutely nothing to do with if there are strong gun laws or not, and everything to do with if there are a lot of black people there or not.
Everyone freaks out when some nutjob on SSRIs shoots a bunch of people at once, but no one on the left gives a shit when 45 blacks are shot by other blacks in chicago every weekend.
White people aren't allowed to talk about black culture gun violence. Further evidence of the Orwellian nature of this country and its government.
These (generally) white gun mass murders are a distraction from all the other horrible issues that we aren't able to deal with politically. Out of control government, out of control black culture of violence and state dependence, a military that is in a perpetual state of war, and a political class that enables the banks and other corporate interests to rob upward mobility from the lower and middle class.
Black lives in the media matter.
Black lives in Chicago don't matter.
Especiallly when they make over 200K drink heavily at night and surf porn most of the day.
I don't believe that at all.
You should watch a movie called Serenity and look for the paralels with our current society.
Most people have chemicals in their bodies they don't ever heard of before and a lot of that shit influences us in a big way.
9 out 10 people don't really change because of it but 1/10th does. Depressions, crazy behavior... it was never this bad before.
This week, numer 6 in my circle of friends had a burn out. Number 6!
My parents never new anybody with a burnout before. I know 6!
And they're not violent, they're broken. And society doens't do shit about it of even looks at them. Society turns away from people like that and they're scared for life.
Society...there ain't no such thing...just individuals who do this or that, believe this or that. Socialists want you to believe that there is such a thing so that they can justify all kinds of stupid laws, rules, and regulations to control you, the individual.
If anything good thing gets done on this earth, it is by indivuduals; and anything evil almost always comes from some dickweed trying to improve things...world-fixers.
You'll pry my booze from my cold, dead hands...after I run out of ammo.
If only there were more left like you, O.P.
you'll pry my booze from my cold, drunk ass hands.
why are your hands on your ass when you're drunk? Where did the bottle go?
The latest shooting is just as scripted as the rest. The media uses the killers middle name, check. They find (multiple in this case lol?) manifestos of the killer... the last half dozen shooters seem to all have these manifestos... strange how the media finds them within an couple hours. Statistically speaking for the last handful the killer shoots themself before/during engaging officers (who respond in super human time, mind you, the latest Oregon one they were there in under 4 minutes). So no suspect in custody means no trial, no formal investigation, no forensics and ballistics realeased to the public which used to be fairly normal). It is basically a trial by media, throwing everything they have at them, including their online dating profiles.
The scenes tend to take place in a smalll county who either waives their investigation to the FBI or DHS who can hide behind the veil of 'national security'. The rest happen on- you guessed it- federal property, military bases, training and recruiting facilites etc, also making the investigation under FEDERAL jurisdiction and giving them a higher level of protection from civilian and local journalists/inquery.
What happens after each shooting? Usually the sheriff or mayor comes gives a press conference within a couple hours, invoking an assortment of emotion triggering words about the loss of life and how their 'tight knit community' is going to be able to pull through. The fund raising starts immediatly. The latest oregon one has pulled in over a million within 10 days. The mayor/sheriff then continues to ramble on about how fast their inter-department response time was, listing off each individual department, patting themselves on the back. Talking about how well the 'fusion' centers are working. In the case of the texas theater shooting the victim killed themself before the police arrived and they still went on for hours about how fast their response time was...
Then comes the pre-canned gun control debate. Usually Obama chips in his two cents. In the latest Oregon one bodies were FLOWN TO THE HOSPITAL IN APACHE MILITARY HELICOPTERS. Strange right? Strange that the campus had 'active shooter drills' months before the event happened right? Strange that the Paris train 'savior' just happened to make his way on to Dancing with the Stars (i know how much ZH loves DWTS) so that even the dumb fuckers who don't read news are spoonfed this twat saved a trainful of people from a massacre AND he can swing dance. Even more strange that he was ENROLLED at this campus and should have been there had he not been at DWTS. He then completes the talk show circuit (mostly female audiences) talking about how he should have been there, felt like he could have helped the situation if only he was there. REALLY? WHAT ARE THE FUCKING ODDS?
Funny that a bunch of members here always point out that the shooters had a history with SSRI drugs or depression in the past like they are some sort of modern day Columbo. Gee, they threw you crumbs to catch on to that one, most go for it at face value and don't understand that these events are part of a LONG game. 10-30 years. They dont invade overnight like Alex Jones might have you believe (great for freeze dried food sales tho). Within the next decade when the gov has taken over the medical and insurance side of Merika' they will know who is on what SSRI and who owns the guns. Doctor client privelage is a thing of the past and pretty soon they will have a medical backdoor to gun rights - brought about by the publics outcry of these mass shooting events who just 'coincidentally' happened to all be on SSRI drugs. Last I checked 1 in 7 US adults was on some sort of SSRI. Wonder how many of them own guns. I am willing to bet MILLIONS. Anyone who has filled out a 4473 in recent memory knows the clause about depressants I am referring to. Even the people who claim to be awake can be herded back into a cage
"Hey sheeple! Look what we can do to you!"
APACHE MILITARY HELICOPTERS huh? So, did they strap the body in up front in the gunner's seat, or maybe tie them underneath it? Have you ever actually seen at least a picture of what an APACHE MILITARY HELICOPTER looks like? If you are going to make stuff up in a deranged SSRI-ish sounding post, at least make stuff up that makes sense.
Listen, if we just outlaw methamphetamines and heroin we won't have any more addicts!
Oh wait...
Gun control.......yeah....not gonna happen.
What we need is FBI, NSA, doj, Feral Reserve, white house, congress, lobbyist, media and nasa control. Hell, I can't name 'em all !
Why don't we just outlaw murder? Problem solved. Idiots.
/sarc
"They can't keep drugs out of prison and they look in your ass!" -- Doug Stanhope
Everything one needs to know about prohibition and corruption can be extrapolated from that one-liner.
Let's not stop there. Everything that one needs to know about central planning is gleaned from the prison system. Would you like a side of slave labor with that free housing, meals, healthcare, and regular dormatory searches?
If we just had a Constitutional Amendment, banning Alcohol....oh....nevermind.
Anyone wishing to own a gun should (1) prove that they are not taking any behavioral drugs. (2) take a gun safety course. (3) obtain at least 3 reference signatures.
AMEN!
i don't know that your exact prescription is right but something like that plus excellent records of what was bought by whom would be useful, imo. like cars. everyone that can keep from dui, etc. gets to drive.
it would be better if the reasonable people had guns as well as cars then they could shoot the bad guys before the police got there.
Your prescription for crack isn't helping either.
Your prescription for crack isn't helping either.
Watch your neighborhood point these signs at your house
Double post.
Bad sear?
Double tap.
(fixed it for him, no charge)
I think you have thrown away your mind instead of your tv.
Only White men should be permitted to be armed. If you want to be a nigger thug then move sub-human Afreaka.
The words "shall not be infringed" were written by White men for White men. If you want to act like a judeo-bolshevik then move to Israel or shut the fuck up.
Anyone who is anti-gun should be required to attend classes on the U.S. Constitution and on the global history of why the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. It is apparently no longer taught in schools and universities!
As the final exam portion, they should then be bussed to an inner city (take your pick), let off in the 'hood; then told that in order to graduate they;ll need to walk out of there to the outer suburban ring.
If they can survive 1 night in deepest darkest Afrimerica without a firearm, they prove they're smart and worth enough. Only if they pass your part of the course first though.
Or maybe the ghetto walk survival training 'crucible' should be an entrance exam into your course.
We've got plenty of Afrimerican jungles throughout this nation that are teeming with hungry predators. We could have schools like this nationwide. Anywhere where anti-gunners congregate.
Let's do this!
"We've got plenty of Afrimerican jungles throughout this nation that are teeming with hungry predators."
They are called "Great Societies"!
>>>obtain at least 3 reference signatures.
But, but... that would mean crazy young loners could never buy a gun!
That's why nobody smokes cannabis recreationally in the 47 states where it is illegal. Or is it 54 (57-3)?
Molon Labe Bishes.
In the kingdom of the banned,
the still-armed man is king.
We can create a iCrapplecrap App to show the theives who doesn't have a gun.
Then the media stoning and stabbing stories outside a gay bar at 12:30 AM should ensue.
Shall not be infringed.....
in·fringe in?frinj/ verb verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)."making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright" synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights" antonyms: obey, comply with act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; MoreWe must have an infringer around here. Good post.
What we really need is Jew control... that's not to say that Jews are in control but that good White men are in control of Jews such as during the years 1933 to 1945.
Yes, the world was much more peaceful and happy in those days.
But fear not, the "good times" you pine for are quickly making a come back.
If Jews didn't insist of having total control then they'd likely be treated better and wouldn't have to fear 'anudda shoah'. If I were to poke a bear everyday should I be surprised when it finally mauls me?
If anybody needs mauling...
You kind of lost me with this. The only Jew I know is a disabled vet who likes wearing cowboy hats. He doesn't seem that interested in making me wear one.
lol
Ban control freaks. That would be more effective.
Getting rid of all the guns in America is easy - here's a five step plan for doing it:
https://youtu.be/bnoFKskvSq4
(in reality it would probably make prohibition look like a walk in the park)
Let's see stats on how much of the 'gun violence' is actually committed by repeat felons who are still walking the streets! Maybe we should 'ban' felons (who are not supposed to legally have guns but seem to have no problem getting them!).
The rifle and the pistol are democratic weapons of defense. The atomic bomb, stealth bombers and nuclear submarines are weapons of totalitarianism.
I really wouldn't give a damn if the constitution didn't have the second amendment. Defense and the tools of defense are a natural right for all human beings. People are beginning to recognize that fact and are acting accordingly. 3D printed guns are just the tip of the iceberg. They will get better.
Many responsible people in areas where guns are prohibited have lots of guns and ammo: UK, Australia, Europe, etc.
Plenty of tyrannies past and present got by using mostly pistols and rifles. Some of them were taken down by conventional or even nuclear bombing.
Kudos to the pro gun crowd that showed up in Roseburg to protest Obama's visit. The MSM spent so much time on them that we did not even get the usual Obama anti-gun sound bites!
I do hope that Obama did have a chance to meet with the families (privately?).
Haven't they suffered enough, you sadist.
The total number of tears I've seen emitted by all family members of these 'mass shooting tradgedies' is ZERO.
FUCKING ZERO.
Wake the fuck up. This shit is staged. You might think of it as 'operant conditioning'.
Pavlov's dinner bell for humans. Provokes an autmatic emotional response. The sheep chant 'guns bad guns bad'.
When somebody notices the anomalies in these staged events, the sheep chant 'respect the victims' and 'consipiracy theorist lunatic'.
Hw many more times with the USGOV ring the staged shooting bell?
These "lawmakers" should step lightly....they just might get those guns returned....lead first.
everything that kills people needs to be banned. let's see, where do we start....how about:
people
governments (people)
the sun
the earth
sharks
pirhanas
nature in general
death
doctors
viagra
cars/trucks/suv's
cigarettes
drugs
alchohol
zh
isis/isil
hormonal women
vd/std's
aids/hiv
stupididity
voting
sorry..gotta go, 24 is on (dvd)
The time to start burying your guns is the time to start digging them up.
Now that is shovel-ready advice bitchezzzzzzzzzzz.
That is right, the US has some of the highest rates of alchool related deaths, heart disease relatead deaths, and gun related deaths among 'civilized' nations. A bunch of alchoolics carrying guns while driving under the influece, after having eaten some of the worst food in the world. But at least it is a country where kids can safely go to school and church. Live the dream
"A bunch of alchoolics carrying guns while driving under the influece, after having eaten some of the worst food in the world."
dude, that sounds like a great fuckin' time. where do I sign up?
You can tell a lot about a woman's mood by just looking at her hands... for instance, if she's holding a gun, she's probably angry.”
I'll keep that in mind.
She's gonna hurt someone, that girl's got a gun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-kpgpTD4-0
the definition of insanity:
the aftermath of a mass killing and what to do (mostly what not to do) about it
cognitive constipation
...next...
If you start with a man, then you take away all accountability and logic, you end up ith a liberal. I know, I know, Nicholson said woman, but what is the difference really?
Interestingly, I happen to know 5 C&R license holders pretty well. Combined, I am sure they account for well over 100 guns in their possession. All of them are probably as interested in the mechanics and the history of the guns, why and how they were developed, as they are about shooting them. Oddly, nobody has been killed by any of their guns (at least while they had them, likely many did die by those guns prior to that as they are mainly older military weapons).
So if guns, the inanimate objects, are truly the problem, how is it they can own so many and bring no harm to any innocent person?
What is the real reason the ZWO wants the nation disarmed? To make us safer? Really?
To make them safer?
The mass amount of the mass shootings are not mass.
Re: "Americans and others have tried a wide variety of similar prohibitions before, and with mixed results at best."
Wrong. The results are unmixed. The title of academic John Lott's 1998 book says it all, "More Guns, Less Crime," the converse also being true. And nothing has changed since that date. This writer, obviously, needs to spend some time educating himself at Lott's site... http://crimeresearch.org/
The very concept of a "prohibition" on deadly force presupposes the existence of an authority with the overweening power to enforce it. A bigger gun, that is. Who has such a gun?
The government wants to have the biggest gun. All the blathering about gun control represents nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to bequeath upon the government the biggest gun.
Because, you see, it all comes down to a matter of sovereignty. Sovereignty, by definition, indicates that whoever is sovereign has the biggest gun within the compass of their sovereignty. A monopoly, that is, upon the legitimate use of deadly force.
The Second Amendment is nothing more and nothing less than the Founders' acknowledgment that sovereignty rightfully belongs in the hands of a free people. Liberty demands no less, for without that sovereignty, Liberty will be lost.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
If your happy "living" ( for the time being) with that year in year out.
The UK, Australia and other civilised countries have gun deaths of usually less than 100 per year. Your choice to allow children to have the means to shoot each other because its your "right."
Well good luck with that.
GUN CONTROL - It "Worked" In Bolshevik Russia!
-This Message Proudly Sponsored By USSA ZIO SCUMMM*
(SCUMMM* - Satanic CAbal Underwriting Mass Murder & Mayhem)
Why is it that violence and thug culture are broadcast 24_7 and get no mention? It is the moral decay of our society that is the root cause of the "problem". As long as I get mine by any means then we all good, right? Wall street or ghetto back street, it's all good cuz!
Same as it ever was
re Why is it that violence and thug culture are broadcast 24_7 and get no mention?
Because you are in a war. And the aim is to soften you up - de-moralise you - and promote the very violence that makes gun-control seem palatable.... thereby hastening your planned demise when you have no defense.
Look no further than the "usual suspects" - who own the media & spew such trash.
America is so wound up with their gun culture ( and a government subservient to the NRA ) that they will never institute effective gun control.
The rest of the civilised world shakes their heads in wonder and bemusement at every mass shooting in America while pundits on FOX news speak of mental illness being the problem and they are correct.
IT IS mentally Ill to allow a situation where too many guns in a country allow the constant tide of massacares and deaths to continue with the same type of fatality rate as a military conflict and do nothing about it.
WHAT ABOUT LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS WITHOUT BEING SHOT TO DEATH.
With the exception of one mass shooting Mrcoffee, all mass shootings happened in Gun Free zones. Maybe allowing those zones to be like every other zone in America would put a stop to cowards going to places where people cannot defend themselves and are basically targets at a shooting gallery being killed.
How about TV stopping the five day to two week runs of the shootings. Helping these so-called fucked up in the head people become famous and then celebrating it every year is not helping anything either. Yep lets plaster the nut jobs face all over America every year is really helping to curb gun violence. In fact it is just enabling the next screwed up person to go out and shoot people. Of course it is against the law to have a firearm in a gun free zone.
Actually the government is to wound up in gun violence not law abiding citizens. I bet you do not even know what AR stands for. It is not assault rifle like your lead to believe.
Your dellusion is in thinking of a country with more than 300 million guns as a gune free zone.
If they were killed with a gun, it is by definition not "gun free"
Im sure that the families of the people killed will be comforted to know it stands for Armalite Rifle and not assault rifle what an excellent point you make!
Maybe we could get an update and see how Robbie Parker is holding up.
Mr. Coffee I am glad you you see my point even though you did your best to dismiss it. Gun free zones are for law abiding citizen and a criminal with a gun does not abide by it. The problem is law abiding citizens get killed needlessly because of people like you who think doing away with my right is the solution. Your gun free zones obviously do not work. Maybe some enlightenment is coming to you.
300 Million guns and some nut job killls people and you think you have the answer take them all away. Keep drinking the government tea my friend until you have no rights at all. You see the government does not grant that right nor has the ability to legally take it away. The only reason they want all firearms has nothing to do with crime and has everytrhing to do with tyranny.
We are also discussing gun violence like there is some solution to be found. If this psychopath didn't have a gun, what stops him from building a bomb? What stops him from driving a car through a busy metropolitan pedestrian sidewalk? What about from starting a fire and blocking exits?
47 y/o American here. Owns guns. Never had to use one. NEVER.
The way not to get shot to death in America:
1. Don't go where niggers live. We say "avoid thr groid". And if you do then "around blacks, never relax".
2. Don't talk to police. And if they initiate an encounter with you, be polite and by all means do not resist or attempt to escape. Nowadays that's practically a death sentence.
3. Treat your own firearms as if they are loaded at all times, and never point them at yourself, especially your head or face.
A firearm is no more dangerous than a table saw, chainsaw, or 5 gallons of gasoline. At least to people who understand how they work.
To the brain dead ignorant emotive liberals who've never seen, held, fired, or needed a gun, guns are the manifestation of evil.
Eric Holder's statement 'we have to brainwash them into thinking a different way about guns' has worked on the ignorant city dwellers who wouldn't know an inalienable right if it slapped them in the face.
Are you one of those? Sounds like it.
. . . while pundits on FOX news speak of mental illness being the problem and they are correct.
Yes they are correct, and it is not any mental illness that has to do with firearms that's for sure. If one was to check virtually every case of "mass shootings" in the USA over the past 20 years or so one would find that in virtually EVERY case the perpetrator was either mentally ill or was on some form of psychotropic drug, or both.
Maybe a way to address the problem of "mass shootings" would be to get all of these (primarily young) people off of these chemicals that are screwing their brains up. How many "mass shootings" took place in the decades prior to when big pharma started pushing the widespread use of drugs such as SSRI's???
How conveniently you forget all the worldwide muslim violence. And of course the skewed progressive media lies.
The rest of the world cowers in fear of their government. Government by far is the biggest murderer, killing moar than war by a longshot.
There is nothing civilized about government. A collection of thieves and murderers, that is all.
American gun owners shake their heads in wonder and amusement at the stupid government worshipers who meekly submit to be killed by their ruling criminals.
You might look up democide. See what comes up. Murder by government. I will make it easy for you.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
What about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without being murdered by criminals in government? Hundreds of millions would still be alive. The numbers are off the charts but you are obviously in support of government. How f-ing stupid is that? But the real question here is just how CRIMINAL is that?
Oh so you want to compare death rates from mass public shootings and mass public violence in the US and Europe?
Sure lets go:
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-...
The rest of the world is more fucked up. Dude. But be proud in your state of progressive media brainwash, mmkay?
Hey I got something else for ya. Notice in most of the mass shootings here in the US recently it was Christians that were targeted? And not a peep about it from Obirdbrain or the rest of the progressive government worshipping tyrants?
I'm waiting for the obirdbrain regime and CONgress to declare themselves and their families gun-free zones. Let's see how well that works. Or how about the rest of the governments in your "civilized" world declare themselves and their families gun free zones?
You are the one mentally ill. It might be too late for you but consider:
The progressive stupid, it burns.
Grimaldus
It is really difficult for those outside the US gun lobby to understand how you can deny the facts and twist the argument in favour of gun ownership. Having in the past owned guns and shot game in the UK, I understand the pleasure of the ‘sport’ and gun ownership. I also understand that in some areas of the world there are mortal threats which are likely to get worse as the economy implodes. I have in the past, understood the libertarian principle of personal freedom trumping the edicts of the state, however in this case there is only irrational loss bias. We should go with the data and come to a rational utilitarian law and take measures to restrict gun ownership or at the very least use. The clear truth is that guns kill people, and more guns kill more. A 21st Century mature & intellectual view would show you that we need to end blindly supporting ones traditional left/right Libertarian/Liberal polarisation. Cherry pick (if you will) what is true and stop going with the dogma.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-20759139
It is really difficult to understand why a man outside the USA or Canada would be so concerned.
First, some of us live in more than one country in our lifetimes.
Secondly other countries get brought up as bad examples of what happens when they have gun laws. IE Fox news et al and Americans are so insular as to believe it. So in the interest of Freedom of speech ( you may have heard of it), you shouldnt be surprised when someone who lives in those countries corrects stupid assertion and frankly just completely wrong statements.
Third, for a country who sticks its nose into so many other countries business, there are other opinions in the world so suck it up princess.
4- Many of the plethora of US guns make it's way into countries with gun control (id est exporting the US problem).
Bullshit.
Did Eric The Dickholder tell you to say that? How many people did Eric and Obirdbrain kill with Fast and Furious? Why are they not in jail for that crime?
You are a classic example of the progressive stupid, it burns.
Grimaldus
you're the insane with the problem, we're pointing it out to you (because we're outside looking in, and we - in the developed world- don't have that problem), but it's futile, you're intractable sociopaths (nationally and internationally), think you're exceptional
Please don't come to the US. Use any reasoning you want, tell yourself its not safe because of guns.
we don't need to be told by Americans not to go there
and if I fly, I make sure the flight doesn't land there
Thanks. Tell your friends and family not to either.
let the insane and criminal onto their own (and most of those represent the Gov)
I agree. The UK, Australia and other countries are not gun free they just have strict laws governing their use and storage. I think thats something people in the US dont understand. I dont think all guns should be banned, just that appropriate laws and governance are in place. Similarly those countries have populations that make a conscious effort to restrict gun ownership and will change the law if necessary to prevent gun massacres and shootings.
Hmm. There are already too many people on this globe man. If you try to stop every death, what will that leave us?
I choose to be able to use any means necessary to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones. Calling the blue heroes doesn't work. They don't arrive until its time to take witness statements and draw chalk lines around the bodies. Just because you don't think your life is worth defending, doesn't mean you have a right to force me to believe the same.
I don't advocate for laws that force people who don;t like guns to own one. Why so much pushing from disarmed people for me to disarm?
And the delicious irony that most gun grabbers don't see is that they who have no guns presume to force us that do to comply with their fucked up idea of how things should be.
HA
HAHA
HAHAHA
Ok. Attention all gun grabbers: Join the gun grab swat team army. You can be the first through the door at every evil gun owner's house.
The clear truth is that guns kill people, and more guns kill more.
This is typical left-wing illogical thinking and is a totally false premise. "Guns" do not kill anyone. For a human being to be killed with a gun REQUIRES that another human being points and shoots the gun at someone. The gun by itself cannot commit murder.
False premises like this are prevalent through-out the so-called "gun control" debate and are used by those who think that it is inherently better for the State to control the lives of the People rather than the People taking responsibility for themselves. One good example of this is the false assertion that "assault weapons" (i.e. military style semi-automatic rifles) are used far too often in murders and therefore should be banned. The reality is that for the last year data was available from the FBI on causes of murder in the USA (2011) that the use of rifles accounted for about 325 out of about 8,500 murders reported where firearms were used - that's roughly 4%. The REAL reason why the Statists are so keen to ban the use of "assault weapons" (or virtually any high power semi-auto rifle) is that they know that those weapons are really the only effective tool for the People to defend themselves against a tyrannical and oppressive government and therefore must be outlawed at all costs. This is really what the "gun control" issue is all about . . . . .
An even more interesting and suprising data point according to the government collected data:
Deaths by hands and feet were greater than deaths to ALL rifles including "assault" rifles.
"Deaths by hands and feet were greater than deaths to ALL rifles including "assault" rifles. "
The libtard media use this term,and you just did also.
So lets educate those here that MAY NOT be aware of the TRUE definition of what a REAL ASSAULT weapon is.
Firstly,it must be capable of FULLY automatic fire(select fire),that means MORE than 1 shot per trigger pull.
Secondly,it must use an less than FULL powered centerifre rifle cartidge.(Intermediate)
If any weapon does not have BOTH these features it is NOT, and never has been/never will be an ASSAULT WEAPON.
Homicides/gun deaths by ALL centerfire rifles/long guns, is less than 1/10th of 1% of ALL murders committed in the USA,So much for those evil assault wepaons belabored by a left wing, marxist media machine ran by idiots and traitors,with an agenda of DISINFORMATION.
90% of all police officers believe an armed citizenry is the best thing to have,highly contrary to what is reported to the bleating sheep.
I mean, are you just daft or new to the internet? I clearly took the effort to put assault in quotations for a reason.
"I also understand that in some areas of the world there are mortal threats which are likely to get worse as the economy implodes"
and you think that isn't going to happen to the US and europe? why is that?
I was pretty much born with a gun in my hand. The only person I ever shot was my brother, with our BB-rifles.
Took my hunter safety course at age 12, and got licensed to hunt deer. We always respected the animal, and wasted very little.
Field dressing a 180 pound buck at 6 thousand feet with 10-20% humidity is challenging. Not to mention the 4-5 miles of uneven terrain to hike out of.
My thought on this is that any government that actively arms terrorists with our very best military weapons and any politician who rolls around with their own private armed security (courtesy of my tax dollars I might add) has pretty much ceded any right they have to tell me what kind of security me and mine can employ for same. The hypocrisy here is stunning. I can think of a few things that need controlled but they are not politically correct to discuss and nobody apparently wants to hear that ugly nugget of truth. Guns ain't one of them though.
Thanks for your input, Mr Coffee -- obviously its a topic you are passionate about --but why direct your fervour towards the USA? Cheap-shot maybe? Yes, gun deaths in the USA are high but there are over a dozen other countries around the world with much higher rates. For example, in Brazil, the gun death rate per 100,000 population is 19.04 versus 10.64 in the USA. In South Africa its 21.5 !! These 2 countries have a one thing in common with the USA: they all have a large underclass of black citizens who are increasingly disaffected and disportionately prone to violence. No...come to think of it...they have a second thing in common: a white population who want guns to protect them from their black countrymen. Who are we to say thats not their right -- to protect themselves?
[Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ]
Here in Australia, the Federal Govt brought in tough gun ownership laws in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in 1997, even though the shooter in that case was using stolen guns. The shooter was a mental retard who had a history of threatening behaviour that his local police should have addressed but were too laid back and complacent to do anything about. The apathy and naivete of small town police is a classic around the world, sadly.
In spite of our gun control laws, people who really want to wreak mayhem can still get them. Last week, a 15-year old (!!) Islamic zealot managed to get a handgun, walk up behind a police dept accountant as he left his office and shoot him in the back of the head. So much for gun control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Parramatta_shooting
The key question we have to ask ourselves if we are to understand the phenomenon of modern gun violence is: WHY NOW? Guns weren't invented in the last couple of decades, e.g semi-automatic handguns were invented over 100 years ago. There are many possible reasons: prevalence of psychotropic drugs is one. I think we are also dealing with a major case of copy-cat behaviour as well. Especially with the endless cases of spree shootings at schools. Bullying at school is an eternal problem but now some kids, after hearing about incidents elsewhere, are getting the idea of fighting back, of wreaking vengence, however crazy and nihilistic this is. Columbine started a dangerous trend.
If Obama REALLY wants to address this then he should call a summit of media organisations. For starters, there should be an attempt to not publicize the names of these shooters. After John Lennon was killed, many of his peers in film and music business refused to utter the name of his killer -- as media people themselves they understood his motivation. Virginia shooter, TV reporter Bryce Williams, sought revenge but also media attention by filming himself.
Let me start by stating from an idealogical standpoint I believe gun ownership is an inalienable right. I just want to visit some of gun control advocate's thought process.
The issue that is conveniently forgotten when discussing how gun control "works" in other countries, is that gun ownership was significantly lower in these countries before they inacted laws banning them. Furthermore, gun control "works" only in the sense that death by guns does infact drop, but at a serious social cost: violent assaults, rape, home invasions, and of course the heightened risk of future miliatry/police state. The US already has so many guns, is it even practical *if* gun control reduced *some* murders, and those murders were deemed to have a higher social cost then that of other outcomes that happen in the absence of legal gun ownership? I'm not aware of an argument that addresses this nuance.
Expanding on that discussion, we need to consider who is actually dieing to gunfire. We know that many of the gun murder "victims" are infact criminals in the act of an actual crime. So in a practical sense, how do we weigh the risk of an actual innocent being murdered by gun (filtering out the net positives of gunfire deaths) vs rape/home invasion/violent assault/kidnapping etc, because a family/individual isn't legally allowed to protect itself? This must also consider that many murders might still occur with a different weapon (hammer, knife, fists/feet, car, poison, bomb, etc), and so lowering deaths by gun, is in some way actually effectual.
For me these are extremely difficult objections for the gun control advocates. They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that lowering death by guns has a social benefit for society. And even if they were able to leap this massive hurdle, how would they address repression by government officials? I can't even imagine an argument that does so?
The day our politicians come for our firearms they will unleash Public Backlash Hell the like of which this country has ever seen. They better think twice before doing that. There will be no place in America they can hide where we won't hunt them down and string them up!!!
the left are totalitarians and totalitarians hate impediments to their power over the citizenry.
We have come a long way since we dropped out of the trees. Out and out competition x zillion years ago has declined making way for ever greater communication and cooperation, from the invention of language, written communication, the printing press and current internet. All of which has enabled prosperity, health and peace. Along with these advantages are trade whereby one country’s steel ore or expertise can be traded into another man’s tractor (& dare I say it, gun).
Since the age of enlightenment, Europe (from whence most of the US population arrived) has led the world with the development of better and better methods of communicating and the social contract, police, respect for other humans and the rule of law. It is a retrograde step to imagine a world where we only think of our own interest and not of others. Indeed if we stopped, any of these principles we would no doubt collectively head back to the trees that so richly deserve the knuckle draggers.
"On the other hand, in response to the 11,000 gun-related murders per year, the prescribed response is to restrict the guns themselves."
If they took out homicide gun deaths of JUST the inner city drug gangs,and turf wars, and ethnic murders by ethnic minorities,these 11,000 murders/homicides,would be cut 50-75%,but that would be raycissss.
The right of the people to to keep and bear arms Shall Not Be Infringed, PERIOD!
thus said some before women had the vote and smoking bans. But thankfully the brain prevails and we do progress
*smoking bans
But thankfully the brain prevails and we do REgress.
Fixed it for you, statist fuckers.
Better to have the government have all the power - then we will be safe.
/s/
A little food for thought from Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pg 22:
"In 1830 democracy was growing rapidly in Europe and in America. At that time the development of weapons had reached a point where governments could not get weapons which were much more effective that those which private individuals could get.. Moreover, private individuals could obtain good weapons because they had a high enough standard of living to afford it (as a result of the Agricultural Revolution) and such weapons were cheap (as a result of the Industrial Revolution)...Moreover, in Asia, these better weapons arrived before the living standards could be raised by the Agricultuiral Revolution or costs of weapons reduced sufficently by the Industrial Revolution. Moreover, standards of living were held down in Asia because the Sanitaition-Medical Revolution and the demographic explosion arrived before the Agricultural Revolution. As a result, governments in Europe in 1830 hardly dared to oppress the people, and democracy was growing; but in the non-European world by 1930 (and even more by 1950) governments did dare to, and could, oppress their peoples, who could do little to prevent it."
In brief, firearms in the hands of the people keep tyrany in check. An unarmed citizenry has no recourse. No wonder governement agents force abort unsanctioned pregnancies in China. Wonder what would happen if they tried that here?
Any quotes from Quigley deserve a up vote.
Thanks for sharing. Try popping this earlier, so others can see. Since this ZH post is falling off the main page.