Which is impossible. No seriously, without an authoritarian crackdown the likes of which our society will never survive, you can't do it. You cannot neuter the world enough, you cannot put enough bumpers on reality to keep dangerous predators in human shape from ever getting to significant materials/tools, and still have a functional civilization. The ability of a human being to cause the deaths of other human beings has been increasing since we started putting rocks in the heads of clubs. As technology becomes more advanced, high energy density materials become more available, and more easily understood and applied to cause death. As a species, we will either get to a point where basically everyone will have the ability to kill everybody else and choose not to, or we'll regularly suffer large, self-inflicted die offs. I'm ignoring the rest of the comment and focusing on this part not because the rest isn't valid, but because this is the part that I am most worried about. It's the fact that it's whack-a-mole. Cars kill shit loads of people every year on accident and would probably kill more if other forms of violence were more difficult.One answer is 'you limit the ability of individuals to access dangerous items.''
If the two were interchangeable
There's your problem right here. It's deeply ingrained that Americans need handguns for protection, and I don't see that changing, in spite of the fact that statistically, you are much more likely to be harmed than protected by your gun. I don't know the answer, but I can tell you that here in NZ, if you say you want to get a gun for self-defense or protection, you will be declined, because that's not seen as a valid reason to have one here.No seriously, without an authoritarian crackdown the likes of which our society will never survive, you can't do it.
Correct. Banning guns in the UK has lead to bats and knives being used to perpetrate violence instead. Britain has a higher, or at least on par, violent crime rate than the U.S.... though it has a far lower murder rate. What can we glean from that? I dunno.
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.