There are a million ways to dissect WHY gun violence is astronomical in the USA compared to the rest of the world, AND WE NEED TO START PUBLICLY DISCUSSING THOSE REASONS.
Conservatives who so staunchly advocate the right to own guns amid senseless shooting deaths can't scream about banning abortion, birth control or gay marriage and refuse to talk about gun violence in the USA. I'm not saying ban all guns except for the military and police, but I am saying we need to start looking into other ways to change the current course.
The conservatives refused to open a dialogue in the wake of the theater shooting in Colorado, Sandy Hook or anything in before, after or in between because it was "too soon", or the liberals were trying to politicize tragedies.
HEY GUN ADVOCATES, TIME TO SUCK IT UP AND TALK ABOUT A DIFFICULT ISSUE. I get most people are brainwashed with being raised by gun advocates, and feel personally attacked for some reason when their political ideals are challenged. But real people are dying and no one is accusing you of being the ones killing them. But your tacit support needs to be re-evaluated!
Ok, I'll play.
Firstly, your generalization of firearm advocates being conservatives makes me think that you're just a hoplophobic ideologue who either has an irrational fear of firearms or doesn't understand the true macro picture of the firearm "issue" in the US. Now, I'm about to blow your mind but I support a woman's right to choice, I support gay marriage, I support the legalization of drugs. But I also support the right to bear arms as is stated in the one of the grandest documents ever written, the United States Constitution. I believe both you, I and every other human being on this great planet has an inalienable right to live and because they have this right they also have a right to defend themselves.
Now, don't get me wrong. I didn't always have this position on firearms, as, like you, I didn't know enough about them AND I was listening to the talking heads on an issue that is not as complex as one would think.
I think most of us firearm advocates are NOT of the Duck Dynasty variety but just regular law abiding citizens who don't fear the often touted meme of "the gubmint's tyranny is at work and they're coming for us." On the contrary I think most of us realize that citizens, not emergency personnel, in almost every emergency situation encountered is the true first responder. American's as a whole have a short memory. I was of age during the 1992 riots here in Los Angeles. I still remember the Korean folk protecting their livelihood against looters while LEO's were off doing whatever they were doing. The police can never be at all places at all times. There's a saying in the firearm world, when the police are needed in seconds, they are minutes away. This is almost an absolute throughout all of society.
For reference (1992 LA Riots and Koreans protecting themselves):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs&feature=youtu.be&t=72
Since I can't link two videos in one post, here is another one:
[url[/MEDIA[/MEDIA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J7kPNe7fI&feature=youtu.be&t=92[/url]
Now, to your initial question about a dialogue being avoided from the gun advocate side.
********. We've had that dialogue and we've capitulated to many of the demands. We have 10 day waiting periods for law abiding citizens. We have background checks for law abiding citizens. We have magazine limits in certain states for law abiding citizens. We have FFL requirements for private party transfers and intra-familial transfers for law abiding citizens. It's really a pain in the *** to buy a gun here in California for a law abiding citizen.
I think we can both agree that both of us want no violence in this world. But since we both know we can't achieve that, we agree that we want the least amount of violence in our respective cities. If you look at the FBI UCR stats, the US is safer today by a wide margin than it has been in decades.
https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-crime-fbi-idUSKCN0IU1UM20141110
Some say that there's an alarming trend in mass shootings (definitions are important here) and I disagree. I think mass shootings are incredibly rare and the chances of you or I finding ourselves in one are incredibly slim. I think for decades the instances of mass shootings as a whole have been flat.
This article:
https://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09/why-you-shouldnt-fear-the-mass-shooting-rise.html is based on the findings of this recent FBI report:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013
You know what is not rare? People defending themselves daily from violence and mayhem with the use of a firearm.
From just the last few days:
https://www.fox8live.com/story/29942732/cashier-pulls-gun-on-robber-who-walks-out-empty-handed
https://newsradio1310.com/jerome-home-owner-holds-attempted-robber-at-gun-point/ (albeit bad form with the warning shot)
https://www.news9.com/story/29930451/resident-shoots-kills-burglary-suspect-in-sw-okc
https://nbc4i.com/2015/09/01/police-homeowner-says-she-shot-person-knocking-at-her-door/ (this woman equalized the situation)
https://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/01/rockland-homeowner-shoots-intruder/
These are all examples from the last few days. I can go on and on and on. Are you willing to take away these law abiding folks' right to ****ing live for rare instances of mass shootings?
I also want you to think about the aforementioned gun laws and how they affect criminals:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7...crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long
Remember, someone is referred to as a criminal because inherently they have no respect for the law. And when said criminal has decided to commit a capital offense no other laws matter because they can only be tried once. Do you understand what this means?
It is absolutely 100% your right not to want to defend yourself or to NOT have anything to do with a firearm but where do you draw your principle from in denying my right to life and defense? THIS is what is up for debate.
Chart[/IMG]
anyone want to take a stab at explaining this?
When comparing different countries you are always comparing apples and oranges. I wonder why Mexico was not included in that chart considering they have some of the strict gun laws in the world.
