The US had 2.97 firearm homicides/100,000 people and Australia had 0.14/100,000. Yes, there will always be a few shootings to post a contrarian view that something doesn’t work but those statistics say that the program was very effective.
note - these are 2007 numbers but I doubt that there has been a reversal trend. If anything these numbers are likely further apart now.
Is it possible he’s even stupider than his brother?
Here is the greatest American alive’s thoughts on the matter:
Is it also possible that the 2nd amendment and it’s proponents are clinically insane? From the perspective of an outsider, I say without a doubt, it is. If I was an American lawmaker, I would be making this my top and only priority. The 2nd amendment has become a terrorist, far more deadly than all other terror groups combined. If you can’t handle your “right” then it should be taken away.
Of course I know that not all Americans are of the “cold dead hands” variety, in fact, most aren’t. Why do you continue to let that extremely vocal minority even speak? Stand up and stop the insanity.
[quote]No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
In the hours following a violent rampage in southwestern Oregon in which a lone attacker killed nine individuals and seriously injured seven others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.[/quote] theonion.com/article/no-way- … y-ha-51444
Best Onion headline since their comment on the election of George W. Bush:
“At Last Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Over”
The thing is that there don’t have to be no guns. They could implement a policy like Canada or Australia and things would greatly improve. But even that would be impossible because the 2nd amendment guarantees that Americans can possess assault rifles and all kinds of other ridiculous weapons that have no use unless the Russians and North Koreans are parachuting in like in Red Dawn. Wait a second… It doesn’t.
You are shedding light on something that is often overlooked in this kind of debate: as rowland points out, the right to bear arms cannot be revoked against the will of those who exercise that right at present. And i would say, this right is one of the preconditions for US citizens never having to suffer “government crackdowns”. I take issue with much of that the NRA stands for and does, but I think the 2nd amendment contains some wisdom.
The problem, as i see it, is that the right to form armed militias has been almost legislated away already (suggested slogan: wake up Americans! ), so private gun ownership is in the minds of many the only defense they have left against government tyranny.
And tyranny is the direction in which even originally democratic governments often develop when people don’t keep said governments in check, and the authors of the 2nd amendment appear to have understood this.
School shootings?
Maybe the ultimate outcome of this unsolvable problem will be the decline and eventual elimination of mass schooling…
There are gangs out here that for initiation you have to go kill someone. This guy could be such a victim. Same goes for the one who was painting a mural.
Should Australians, Kiwis, Canadians, British, French, German, or any other major western country be concerned about gov’t tyranny (that could be prevented by using guns against the gov’t) because they have a limited number of guns in the hands of private citizens?
The American Government has far more subtle and effective methods for controlling its citizens than the use of firearms. For one, focussing their attention on debates such as abortion, vaccination and health care while allowing big business to basically control the country.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Chris”]
The 2nd Amendment has to do with government-regulated militia, and grants the right to bear arms to members of such militia.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. It grants the right to bear arms to everyone because a well-regulated militia is necessary.
That’s why we’re in this mess.[/quote]
If a citizen militia is necessary then how do the other major western countries survive without militia’s?
It was necessary 250 years ago. It might have been necessary 100 years ago but now it is completely unnecessary.
If a citizen militia is necessary then how do the other major western countries survive without militia’s?
It was necessary 250 years ago. It might have been necessary 100 years ago but now it is completely unnecessary.[/quote]
I’m not arguing any of that, although I’m not sure it’s completely unnecessary. You’ll have to ask the writers of the constitution to account for their lack of foresight here. I should note though that the writers did have the foresight to provide for amendment of the constitution.
), so private gun ownership is in the minds of many the only defense they have left against government tyranny.