I don't follow. Are you suggesting places like England have failed societies? The suggestion is not to encase humanity in giant pillows. But it isn't whack-a-mole. That's my entire point. There is no other form of deliberate violence that equals what a gun can do with the ease a gun can do it.without an authoritarian crackdown the likes of which our society will never survive, you can't do it.
It's the fact that it's whack-a-mole.
Umm, to put examples to what OftenBen said... Happy Land fire, Boston Marthon bombingBut it isn't whack-a-mole. That's my entire point. There is no other form of deliberate violence that equals what a gun can do with the ease a gun can do it.
If only we had just two cases of mass murder every 25 years. I think that would be hailed as a national success.
I was being sassy because you're ignoring the frequency of gun murders compared to bombings. I won't bother listing shootings for you. My point remains valid, even if you choose to ignore it.
I was only responding to your direct point about the damage non-gun killings can do. Neither of us can really confirm or deny OB's point because it's a prediction: If you add more barriers to guns, people will resort to other tactics for mass killings. It's slightly corroborated by evidence from other countries where strict gun laws are coupled to greater violence of other forms, but it's still basically impossible to confirm or deny without making changes to the law. Rather it's something to keep in mind when trying to design a way forward. And for the record, I'm fine with background checks, but I think most gun legislation presented post-shootings is reactionary, poorly thought out, and usually ineffective. (See: magazine capacity limits)
I don't disagree that a non-gun killing can be similarly or more deadly compared to a gun killing. The point I take issue with is that they can be interchanged such that a person who would commit a gun killing would instead commit a non-gun killing with similar effectiveness. I also agree when comparing US deaths to deaths in, say, England, it's inappropriate to suggest the sole difference is access to firearms. It is certainly a variable that can't be ignored, but it's one of many variables. I'm cynical to the point of assuming any legislation, whether reactionary, related to firearms, or something else entirely, is poorly thought out and ineffective. My point, which may have been poorly stated throughout this thread, is that we could do better than we are doing. I don't have good suggestions for how to get there, unfortunately, and with politics and culture the way they are, doing better may be impossible.
Pardon my lack of clarity. You can limit individuals access to guns, but not dangerous items. That's going to be a suggestion eventually. Seriously, people joke about it but if we keep up the track we're on it will be bubble-wrap undies for everybody. I'm glad we got to the meat of a sensible debate about firearm regulation. Which I am all for, in the same way that I am for the regulation of the operation of motor vehicles.I don't follow. Are you suggesting places like England have failed societies?
The suggestion is not to encase humanity in giant pillows.
There is no other form of deliberate violence that equals what a gun can do with the ease a gun can do it.