posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by Honor93
IF you realized that Lanza killed the gun owner to illegally gain access to the guns, you might have a point. IF we knew for sure that's what
actually happened, you'd have no point whatsoever. IF he owned them legally, what was stopping him from doing the same thing ? Nothing. IF B or D
were true, things could be a whole lot worse than they are today. and on the flip side, IF one of the adults had been armed, perhaps all of those
kids would be alive, today. (whether they had presents or not) xt
NO, Laza shot his mother, therefore he had access to the guns. Anyway, he had guns, therefore he had access to guns. DUH.
A gun owning society gives criminals access to guns. One of the reasons criminals are not typically gun wielding in the UK is that they can't
accquire them by theft from legit owners, which I read is a major source of the guns used in American crimes. Even if you are lucky enough to burgle a
house with guns, they are securely locked away, usually in sodding heavy metal cabinets that are a pig to break into. Also, rifles and shotguns are
not easy to conceal on your person. Walk down the street with them in the UK and the cops will stop you before you reach the end of the street. So,
they are of limited use for crime.
The Australians altered their gun laws after the port arthur massacre. The murder rate/armed robbery rate etc dropped, as did others as some crimes
like home invasion which are much harder without a concealable firearm. Criminals, generally, couldn't find them to steal to use anymore. Ther was no
increase in crimes against the citizenry who didn't own guns.
This is sobering reading. You should read it
In all other high-income democracies, it would have been very difficult for Loughner legally to have obtained his weapon. Some of these countries
have very few private guns (e.g., Japan, United Kingdom), while others have fairly many (e.g., Canada, Australia, Israel, Switzerland, Finland), but
have more restrictive gun laws than the United States.
Every one of these countries has been more successful than we have at keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
In Canada, for example, to legally buy a handgun requires a license, training, proof of legitimate purpose, a four-week waiting period, and two
references, who must sign the application. Handgun ammunition magazines are restricted to 10 rounds or less.
I have been studying injury and violence prevention for more than 40 years. What is known is that all injuries follow generally predictable patterns,
and most are preventable.
While we cannot predict at the individual level which specific people will be shot, we can predict fairly accurately at the population level about
how many people will be shot.
Thus I can predict with complete confidence that in the next decade, the United States will have many more homicides than the other high-income
democracies, and many more mass shootings.
As a benchmark, in 2003, the United States homicide rate was seven times higher than that of these countries, largely because our firearm homicide
rate was 20 times higher.
Why do these other countries have such low homicide rates?
Their children watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games as our children. They have as much bullying in schools. They have
oppressed minorities, and similar rates of non-firearm crime and violence (assaults, robbery, burglary, rape). And they all have crazy people.
But these other countries have stricter gun policies than the United States. And when disaster happens, they typically respond.
Following the 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania, massacre of 35 people, Australia acted quickly to effectively ban assault weapons. A mandatory buyback
obtained more than 650,000 of these guns from existing owners. Australia also tightened requirements for licensing, registration and safe gun storage
The result? In the 18 years before the intervention, Australia had 13 mass shootings. In the dozen years since, there has not been a single one. The
laws also helped reduce firearm suicide and non-mass shooting firearm homicide.
Written by Dr David Hemenway, Professor of Health Policy Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
IF one of the adults had been armed, perhaps all of those kids would be alive, today.
You think we should all carry around guns 24/7? That's tragic. A substantial proportion of the adult population is mentally ill, or just nasty.
They'd get guns too. The murder rate would be appalling. You know,like America's is..