6 Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings-The Daily Signal

D

DaleA

New member
An interesting article from "The Daily Signal" about gun control.

Disclaimer: I haven't had any previous experience with "The Daily Signal".

The article specifically addresses Australia and the claim they have eliminated mass public shootings by implementing an "assault weapons" ban.

Also interesting is a list of mass killings in other countries, some of these countries are routinely held up as reasons for tighter gun control in the U.S.--it shows that other countries, some with tight gun control, can still have problems with mass violence.

The article can be found here:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/16/6-reasons-gun-control-will-not-solve-mass-killings/

Another place where the article was published is here:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...rol-will-not-solve-mass-killings-24975?page=3
 
Machine guns were highly regulated in the Firearms Control Act of 1934 and death by machine gun went to zero, at least for civilians in the USA.

We do have gun control, it’s a matter of degree.
 
It’s a complex issue, gun violence or just violence
A homogeneation of a society, presents of organized crime all affect the stats
USA is not the UK, or EU or Deutschland, if some likes the laws they have they could move there(;
 
The article specifically addresses Australia and the claim they have eliminated mass public shootings by implementing an "assault weapons" ban.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Australia didn't really have mass shootings before the Port Arthur shooting. If I have one mass shooting in 1996 and none in 1997, that's a 100% decrease, right?*

Um. No.

As for the effectiveness of the legislation they passed afterwards, actual compliance is only around 19%. The vast majority of guns turned in were not "military style" weapons, but "low risk" guns like SXS shotguns and single-shot rimfire rifles.

As for effects on violent crime in general, the numbers suggest no significant change.

* It's also important to note that mass shootings (what we used to call "spree shootings") were very infrequent occurrences with lower body counts prior to Columbine. Since then, we've seen a copycat effect attributable to increased media coverage bordering on hero worship for these guys.
 
Tom, your last sentence is exactly right. If the media has to report on these incidents, they should NOT PUBLISH ANY INFO ON THE SHOOTER. It is absolutely not necessary information and should be banned somehow. (And please don't bring up the First Amendment. They can report the story and just say "the shooter" or whatever and this is how it should be restricted.)
 
And please don't bring up the First Amendment. They can report the story and just say "the shooter" or whatever and this is how it should be restricted.
Click to expand...

It would be a 1st Amendment issue if they were restricted by government regulation. We'd have to rely on public pressure and media responsibility for that to happen, and well...

The thing is, you really can't avoid making some mention of the shooter's name and background. The matter of hero worship and emulation is an issue for which the horse left the barn during the post-Columbine ratings scramble. When Rolling Stone put one of the Boston bombers on the cover, it was just a symptom of a larger cultural problem. This is why we have 21.2 crime shows about serial killers running on television at any given time.
 
The anti-gun forces are again (for the moment) hot after "sssault weapons," because the Parkland shooter used an AR-15. They don't choose to discuss that a week after Parkland, a far worse school massacre was avoided in Utah because the would-be assailant was a lousy bomb maker. Bans on so-called "assault weapons" don't help stop weaponized backpacks.

Today's shooter in Maryland was armed with a handgun. Again, a ban on so-called "assault weapons" wouldn't have made any difference, because the weapon wasn't an "assault weapon." (At least, not by their definition.)

The message we need to keep stressing, IMHO, is that guns are not the problem, "gun violence" is not the problem, violence is the problem.
 
They don't choose to discuss that a week after Parkland, a far worse school massacre was avoided in Utah because the would-be assailant was a lousy bomb maker.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? It seems like 'they' would say, "a school massacre was avoided in Utah because the would-be assailant did not have access to an AR-15."
 
It would be a 1st Amendment issue if they were restricted by government regulation. We'd have to rely on public pressure and media responsibility for that to happen, and well...
Click to expand...

On the one hand, "If it bleeds, it leads." On the other hand, they have voluntarily declined to publish the names of rape victims in order to prevent further trauma and stigmatization. They could do the same thing with mass shooters for the purpose of dissuading copycats. :(
 
The problem with being in a panic is that reasoned sense comes later. Usually much later.
We are still in the witch-burning stage of our current panic.
Hang on to this for later...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top