6 ms·

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. He's right, gun free zones don't work. Every school shooting in this country was in a gun free zone.

3chelon 9y ago
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.
- the_trapper 9y ago
  That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American colonists were so well armed is probably a major reason for their success during the American Revolution. The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. A lot of the gun statistics that are reported are quite misleading. For example, more than 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides. [1] I would suspect that the majority of these individuals would simply choose another means of suicide. From everything I have read our suicide rate is no worse than other similar developed nations. We also have a massive inner city gang homicide problem. No matter how many gun control laws we pass, these individuals will continue to obtain guns through illegal means. There are wide swaths of this country that are very rural and very remote. The police response times are over an hour in some parts of the country. Self defense via a firearm could actually be life saving. Additionally, as the recent Parkland shooting demonstrates, law enforcement is not guaranteed or even required to intervene to defend anyone from homicide. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mos...
  - mr_overalls 9y ago
    > The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.
    - the_trapper 9y ago
      > The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump... That is probably because the Democratic party platform pushes strongly for gun control. [1] I know many people who vote Republican in elections primarily because of this single issue. > ...whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Could you elaborate on this? I don't think Trump is a great president by any means, and several of his speeches, interviews, and Twitter rants are not very Presidential to say the least. However, I can't think of any authoritarian actions he has taken that are outside of his Constitutionally granted powers. [1] - https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      >> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. > How's that working out for you? ...Trump... Trump is not a tyrant, even though he'd probably like to be one if he could. > Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately. Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate judgement or restrict rights to only those with judgement. Insurrection by its very nature is illegal, even if it's necessary and right.
    - ropeadopepope 9y ago
      > The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.
- cameldrv 9y ago
  Maybe so, but he's still obviously right. The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. Maybe you want that in the U.S., fine. The fact is that guns are very prevalent and easily available in the U.S. Someone meaning to shoot up a school is not going to be thinking much about a gun possession in a school zone charge.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. You mean like Canada?
    - cameldrv 9y ago
      Yes, Canada has border controls and customs inspectors... I honestly don't understand how this is controversial. It's fairly difficult to get a license to own an AR-15 type rifle in Canada, the magazine is restricted to 5 rounds, and if you try to cross the border with one, you have a reasonable chance of being arrested. Once in Canada, if you take your American AR-15 to a shooting range, you'll be arrested. In the U.S., for better or worse, most anyone can buy almost any kind of gun they want. For someone that intends to shoot up a school, the prohibition on taking their legally acquired gun into the school zone is the least of the crimes they're committing.
- tsaoutourpants 9y ago
  Article author here. There are indeed very few shootings in Europe (excluding Turkey and Russia, of course). But there are plenty of stabbings. And occasional bombings and trucks running down crowds. And let's not forget the Bataclan. My point is that people find a way to kill each other. We can reduce violence by addressing the root causes of violence better than by trying to take people's weapons.

3chelon 9y ago

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.

the_trapper 9y ago
That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American colonists were so well armed is probably a major reason for their success during the American Revolution. The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. A lot of the gun statistics that are reported are quite misleading. For example, more than 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides. [1] I would suspect that the majority of these individuals would simply choose another means of suicide. From everything I have read our suicide rate is no worse than other similar developed nations. We also have a massive inner city gang homicide problem. No matter how many gun control laws we pass, these individuals will continue to obtain guns through illegal means. There are wide swaths of this country that are very rural and very remote. The police response times are over an hour in some parts of the country. Self defense via a firearm could actually be life saving. Additionally, as the recent Parkland shooting demonstrates, law enforcement is not guaranteed or even required to intervene to defend anyone from homicide. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mos...
- mr_overalls 9y ago
  > The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.
  - the_trapper 9y ago
    > The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump... That is probably because the Democratic party platform pushes strongly for gun control. [1] I know many people who vote Republican in elections primarily because of this single issue. > ...whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Could you elaborate on this? I don't think Trump is a great president by any means, and several of his speeches, interviews, and Twitter rants are not very Presidential to say the least. However, I can't think of any authoritarian actions he has taken that are outside of his Constitutionally granted powers. [1] - https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    >> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. > How's that working out for you? ...Trump... Trump is not a tyrant, even though he'd probably like to be one if he could. > Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately. Unfortunately, there's no way to legislate judgement or restrict rights to only those with judgement. Insurrection by its very nature is illegal, even if it's necessary and right.
  - ropeadopepope 9y ago
    > The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.
cameldrv 9y ago
Maybe so, but he's still obviously right. The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. Maybe you want that in the U.S., fine. The fact is that guns are very prevalent and easily available in the U.S. Someone meaning to shoot up a school is not going to be thinking much about a gun possession in a school zone charge.
- scarface74 9y ago
  The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. You mean like Canada?
  - cameldrv 9y ago
    Yes, Canada has border controls and customs inspectors... I honestly don't understand how this is controversial. It's fairly difficult to get a license to own an AR-15 type rifle in Canada, the magazine is restricted to 5 rounds, and if you try to cross the border with one, you have a reasonable chance of being arrested. Once in Canada, if you take your American AR-15 to a shooting range, you'll be arrested. In the U.S., for better or worse, most anyone can buy almost any kind of gun they want. For someone that intends to shoot up a school, the prohibition on taking their legally acquired gun into the school zone is the least of the crimes they're committing.
tsaoutourpants 9y ago
Article author here. There are indeed very few shootings in Europe (excluding Turkey and Russia, of course). But there are plenty of stabbings. And occasional bombings and trucks running down crowds. And let's not forget the Bataclan. My point is that people find a way to kill each other. We can reduce violence by addressing the root causes of violence better than by trying to take people's weapons.