I don't think that's correct.
The children killed in school shootings are absolutely murdered by guns... by bullets shredding their bodies at high velocity. They're not being punched or choked to death by people, they're being shot... in their classrooms... with guns.
Without guns, the murderers wouldn't be able to kill nearly as many children in these school shootings.
Politicians don't want to ban guns... they love receiving money from the NRA. It's parents and citizens who want common sense gun regulations. The majority of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center want more gun regulations. That's not politicians, those are your fellow American citizens.
I don't know about mass shootings per capita, but by school shootings the USA has a very serious problem:
19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN):
United States — 288
Mexico — 8
South Africa — 6
Nigeria & Pakistan — 4
Afghanistan — 3
Brazil, Canada, France — 2
Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1
Source
Without guns, there are still pipe bombs (Boston Marathon bombing), truck bombs (Oklahoma City bombing), mail bombs (The Unabomber), and other mass murder options for those with ill intent, to say nothing of poisons, biological weapons, etc. Banning guns will not address the root cause of the violent impulses, and only serve the demonstrate the Politician's Syllogism yet again.
Using real government violence against peaceable people who have harmed no one does not solve crime, it institutionalizes crime. Governments are by far the greatest mass murderers in history, and democide dwarfs "private sector" murder rates. You present raw numbers of incidents, not deaths per capita. You also treat the US like a homogeneous whole when it has more states, more land mass, and about 3/4 the population of the entire EU.
RazörFist phrased it best when he said "what you demystify, you disarm, what you demonize, you attract the impressionable to."
@aussieninja is hardly a unique case, as you may have guessed. I have never seen an honest argument for gun control. The people presenting the arguments may honestly believe what they are saying (thus making them useful idiots), but the arguments themselves are always dishonest in one way or another, from misleading statistics to misinformation about guns themselves.
I've known many people who were terrified of specific guns, and even guns in general, simply because all they know about them they have heard from legacy media propaganda. I've managed to "cure" one such person, and I'm working on two others. Luckily, my neighbour owns an AR-15 and I own this thing:
so exposing people to such items and informing them that what they've been told is wrong isn't all that difficult.
How easily can people get access to bombs? How easily can they purchase poisons or biological weapons? How many school children have been murdered in their classrooms by bombs or poisons?
The problem is the absolute ease that people in the US can get weapons of war to carry out their ill intent against innocent school children.
Nearly half of US parents are worried about their children getting shot Source... how many people in the US are truly worried about the government murdering them versus a random lone gunman with a high-powered weapon?
I understand your concern, really I do, the US government has never proven itself to be trustworthy... but my question to you is what percentage of school children would it take to be affected by gun violence before you'd change your mind on gun regulations?
Many deadly poisons are (or can be made by mixing) household chemicals. Fertilizer has been used to make bombs. Black powder can be made at home.
Guns are not "weapons of war" by default. The obstacle erected to prevent people from buying guns do not promote safety. Crime does not correlate with firearm ownership rates or types of firearms available.
Appeals to fear and popularity are irrational. Do you know what the real trend has been in violent crime over the past 35 years? It was dropping before the Clinton gun ban in the 90s. It continued to drop after Bush allowed that law to end per its sunset clause. It has dropped as states relaxed restrictions on carry. It remains high in two key areas: 1. impoverished neighborhoods with gangs and a black market in drugs, and 2. "gun-free zones."
No misdeeds by others can ever justify anyone infringing on peaceful people. Should crypto or cash be banned because they are "preferred by criminals"? No. Same for firearms, even machine guns. "But what about the children" is the exact same argument used by these book-banning Karens who prefer state violence as a solution to their fears.
He's not going to listen. He's just going to keep brow-beating you until you make some kind of concession. I thought he was a useful idiot, but now, I'm starting to think that he's just another narcissistic moral busybody. Arguing with such people usually feels like this after a while:
I'm absolutely willing to listen.
I totally understand why people would want to own single shot rifles for hunting, but I don't understand why someone might need to own a firearm that can fire 60 rounds a minute.... especially now that we know so many innocent children have died in school shootings to those types of weapons.
If there is a real reason why citizens need those weapons that is more important than the lives of those school children I'd love to hear it.
Your failure to understand is irrelevant. Your are building a false choice when you present either owning modern firearms or protecting children. You are also deliberately ignoring the violence necessary to enforce these arbitrary edicts and the dearth of evidence that firearm freedom is the root cause of violence in society.
Why are your fears more important than my liberty? Why do you advocate government violence against peaceful people as a solution to your fear?
He completely missed the point of my arguments as well. When I informed him that countries which restrict access to firearms tend to have a lot of knife crime, he deflected to "gUnS dO mOrE dAmAgE tHaN kNiVeS."
When I informed him that his statistics are lies by omission, he said they weren't misleading.
When I informed him that the majority of gun crime in the US is committed with handguns, he expressed support for banning them as well, not just semi-automatic rifles. Apparently he really liked my brief explanation of Russian gun laws, and fully supports implementing them in the US. I don't. Russian gun laws are a wee bit restrictive IMO, but I could at least live with them, unlike British or German gun laws.
I don't advocate for government violence against peaceful people.
Is a child in the United States of America more likely to be killed by a firearm wielded by a US citizen... or by government violence?
What are the leading causes of death of children in the United States of America?
It's not poison. It's not bombs either.
At what point is the "cure" (guns) for "government violence" worse than the disease (children being killed by firearms)?
What would it take to change your mind on gun regulations in the US? What percentage of school children affected by gun violence will it honestly take to change your mind on this? 100%?
People who want common sense gun regulation and people who want to ban books are not making the same argument. The people who want regulations on guns are trying to solve the very real problem of children being shot in classrooms. Too many children are being murdered in their classrooms in the USA. That is a real problem that requires a solution.
Book banning is just religious people trying to enforce their views on others. They are very different arguments... the similarity is that children are involved in both scenarios.
How many "firearm-related deaths" are suicide or gang violence as opposed to school shootings? How does a ban address the root problem? How many instances of war, genocide, and police brutality will it take for you to change your mind about governmental legitimacy? We are facing a mental health crisis and a police state crisis. Blaming guns and demanding new laws is scapegoating, not taking serious responsibility. Your faith in political solutions is religious.
Honestly, I think there is a ton of work to be done in the USA to solve the violence affecting children.
I would absolutely love to see more resources devoted to mental health services, to housing, to solving rampart drug-use, etc. I absolutely want to see far more accountability for police in the United States. Police are absolutely a huge problem in this country, especially in their actions towards underserved communities.
If an increase in mental health services decreased gun violence in the United States, great, amazing, let's do it. If putting more resources into communities reduced violence, then awesome. I'm all for that.
To me, common sense gun regulations are part of the overall solution, and I might be wrong here, but they also seem like the easily place to start... the quickest win as it were, especially with buyback schemes that have been successful in other countries.
There is a problem with the amount of gun violence in the USA that I think needs to be solved.
Right, now you're starting to get it. The problem, however, is that the quick and easy solution is rarely the best.
First of all, judging by the rates of violent crime in your own country, I think it's safe to assume that the 1996 gun buyback didn't actually do anything. I sincerely doubt that gun buybacks in general are actually effective, even if the violent crime rate decreased afterwards. Correlation does not equal cause.
Second, the problems usually start in the public school system, which is why I mentioned the "public school to prison pipeline," in reference to the fact that the Prussian model (which American schools are based on) is an absolute failure, and @jacobtothe could explain why if you don't already know, because I can't be arsed to explain at the moment. I was spared from that experience, fortunately, otherwise I may very well have turned into a murderous psychopath... okay slight exaggeration there, but maybe you see my point.
Third, consider what I told you about the average school shooter, and bear in mind that not only are these (usually) boys abused at school, they are also neglected at home. Parents who don't want to raise their children stick them in public school and don't help them with their problems. Some people shouldn't be parents, simple as, but I don't think the government should be making the determination of who can or cannot be a parent; as before, Russia has this problem too, as @taliakerch routinely mentions.
by -> with
Okay, murdered with a weapon that shoots 60 rounds per minute, enabling the murderer to kill more children in their classrooms.
Do you have any personal experience with firearms? You keep throwing out random nonsense like "60 rounds per minute" as if you are regurgitating someone else's talking point instead of making any real effort at discussion. Repeating rifles have been a thing since the 1860s. Semi-automatic rifles have been for sale to the public since long before militaries adopted them.
After World War II, the M1 carbine was a popular surplus semi-auto. It was made with a wood stock, but it was a mag-fed semi-auto with widely-available "high-capacity" magazines. The AR15 went on sale to the public in the 1960s. Before it exploded in popularity as prices fell later on, the Ruger Mini-14 has been for sale since the early 1970s, and is also a semi-automatic in .223/5.56mm with readily-available "high-capacity" magazines.
I don't remember school shootings being a thing until Columbine (also an attempted bombing, BTW). That was during the Clinton gun ban, and long after the gun-free school zone act. This is decades after "high-capacity" semi-automatic rifles and pistols became popular in the firearm community.
People wanted to blame guns, video games, movies, and TV then. People still want something they can ban today so it looks like they are doing something. However, this is completely irrational. And the loudest cries of action are from people who don't know a damn thing about the topic at hand.
I've fired a 9mm at a firing range a couple of times and my grandfather won a ridiculous amount of awards for marksmanship with rifles... but that's my only experience. I don't own any guns and have never fired a semi-automatic rifle.
The US has a huge number of school shootings annually and large numbers of mass shootings and firearm deaths of children. This is a problem that seems to be increasing, and is a problem worth addressing.
Do you think school shootings are a problem worth addressing? If so, what are your proposed solutions?
My very first post on this blockchain was Basic Firearm Safety and I have considerable experience with firearms. Imagine if someone who never drove anywhere tried to declare how traffic laws should be written and enforced. Can't you see how absurd that might be? It's almost like the armchair quarterback certain he could lead a team to victory better than the pro athletes on the field.
I think it is a problem worth addressing, I just reject your proposals as misguided and unjust. Correlation is not causation. Again, guns have been banned on school grounds by federal law for about 33 years, and the result is an increase in school shootings. Meanwhile, firearm sales have grown and restrictions on carry have been relaxed while overall violent crime has plummeted. If you want to make a correlation/causation argument, the basic data suggests we need to just allow teachers and other school staff to arm themselves if they wish.
What if the very structure of modern schools is detrimental to mental health? We aren't just seeing more shootings. We are seeing suicides, substance abuse, gender dysphoria depression, and other widespread signals of a deeper crisis. The symptom is not the disease. And school isn't necessarily the only factor. I am just pointing out the single most influential institution in the lives of the youth should not be overlooked. We also have economic chaos, over 2 decades of war abroad, the collapse of religious institutions and the nuclear family, government de facto segregation policies, toxic social media, and a legacy media which thrives on tragedy, and innumerable other factors all spiralling into the issue.
Can't you see how "regulate guns" entirely misses the mark now?
I don't disagree that all those factors are contributing and important, extremely important, but the problem with this argument is that lots and lots of other countries have very similar issues. This deeper crisis affects both developed and developing countries all over the world... and yet the USA has dramatically more school shootings than other developed countries. Why is this?
I think there are a slew of reasons, but a major contributing factor is the ease in which someone can legally buy high-powered weapons and ammunition.
Giving a 50 year old, overworked, underpaid, overweight, stressed-out, female English teacher the option to carry a pistol in her workplace I don't think is enough to deter an 18-year old to walk into her class with a loaded semi-automatic rifle and a gym bag full of ammunition. The teacher would be the first one killed. Teachers would also start to be targeted by gangs as a means to get more weapons. It would just make schools more dangerous.
An AR15 is not at all a "high-powered weapon," it's just an intermediate-caliber semi-automatic rifle. Again, firearms fitting this general description have been on the civilian market for over 100 years, and long before the AR15 became affordable, other rifles filled that same niche. So why indeed have school shootings become prevalent? It's not the availability of rifles, no matter how much you imagine that to be the root cause.
The funny thing about firearms is that they create an equality of sorts between overweight, middle-aged women and young aggressive males. And I am not saying teachers should be required to carry, only not forbidden from carrying. This doesn't make them a guaranteed source of anything except risk to would-be wrongdoers. School shootings seem to be the domain of one or two aggressors, not gangs. And it is precisely the victim of gang violence who benefits from the higher magazine capacity and faster firearm operation which seems to scare you about semi-autos.
You present scenarios based on fear and ignorance combined with blind faith in legislative solutions handed down from on high. I argue based on the principles of self-ownership, personal responsibility, and individual rights. Again, I ask you: if I decline to obey an edict, yet harm no one else, why should I be deemed a "criminal?" Do you really advocate violence against me because I dissent and disobey?
That is misleading data, because it ignores all the mass killings committed with knives in those other countries.
BTW, I'm from Russia (though I don't currently live there), and I can tell you that the overall violent crime rate is about twice that of the US, but again, the actual numbers aren't going to be nearly as high on account of the fact that Russia has about half the population. Furthermore, what is true of school shootings in Russia is also true of school shootings in the US: nine times out of ten, the perpetrator is a dejected young man who was failed by the system but had no prior criminal record, hence no-one was watching him.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Russian state media doesn't sensationalise mass murder the way that western media does. In fact, it's so rarely reported on that you have to do a lot of digging to find out about it. According to the Russian government, we don't have half the problems that we actually do.
Feel free to show me the data where Child Deaths were caused more by knives than with firearms in the United States...
Source
It's very unlikely a bad guy with a knife is going to do nearly the same kind of damage as someone armed with an AR-15. To me it makes sense to try and tackle the actual problem causing the real harm. Tackle gun regulation first... tackle knives afterwards.
Knife crime is more of an issue where guns are not easily accessible, such as in Japan or the UK. It is as @jacobtothe has been saying this whole time: people with violent intent will use whatever they can get their grubby little paws on to commit violence. The underlying cause of violence needs to be addressed, not the implements used to commit it.
Edit: also, I have seen this deliberately misleading graph before. It omits children under the age of 1, because if it didn't, firearms would no longer be the leading cause of death.
Right... but a bad guy armed with an AR-15 is likely to do way more damage to a classroom of children than a guy armed with a knife.
That's my point. It's not comparable.
The graph isn't misleading, it shows that firearms cause more death of children in the USA than knives do. If your argument that knives are just as dangerous or more dangerous than firearms then I'd love to see some data on that.
The fact that you fixate on the AR-15 and you defend this misleading information means that you aren't actually interested in protecting children. If you actually cared, you would be proposing Russian-style gun laws. What I mean by that is that roughly two thirds of all gun crime in the US (including school shootings) is committed with handguns, whereas semi-automatic rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crime. Handguns are flat-out illegal for private citizens to own in the Russian Federation, but semi-automatic rifles are not (@apnigrich can fact-check me on this). I know of four school shootings that have taken place in Russia since 2009, and in every single one, the weapon used wasn't a rifle of any kind, it was a shotgun, which is the only type of weapon that a Russian citizen may own for the first five years of holding their firearm license. Everyone I've ever spoken to agrees that the five-year smoothbore restriction is the dumbest of Russia's gun laws, primarily because a shotgun does a hell of a lot more damage than a rifle.
I'm not fixated on the AR-15.
You said that knife crime is more of an issue than guns, and I was pointing out that someone armed with a high powered weapon is more dangerous than someone with a knife... and that knives don't seem to rank too highly in the stats of children's death in the United States.
I would absolutely support regulations on handguns in the USA. 100%! Completely agree. Making handguns illegal for private citizens in the USA sounds like an incredible step forward and I think lots of lives would be improved in the world's richest country if that were to happen.
OK. I have no intention of complying with your proposed regulation. What now? Do you believe your fears really justify using violence to coerce me into compliance? How does that make you the good guy in this scenario?