Instances like this and Columbine are rare enough that there are far fewer gun related deaths than even whitewater related deaths. There were also bombs used at Columbine, I’m pretty sure those are illegal too.
I remember a study in psychology , the question was:
#1. If a disaster was approaching and you could push a guy to his death to save 5 people, would you?
And
#2. If a disaster was approaching and you could push a small button that would result in a guy’s death to save 5 people, would you?
Far more people answered yes to #2.
See my comment on a government check and balance. Overbearing governments in Europe were still an issue in this past century as far as I can tell.
But a reduction of guns would still reduce gun violence. Let’s say the probability of some public shooting event is P(kid is messed up)*P(kid has access to guns). You can change the outcome by altering either of the variables.
Data is dated, but the point is right on as far as why rural conservatives don’t see gun ownership as a problem (keeping in mind that gun ownership is higher in rural areas):
- From 1993 to 1998 the trends in violent and property crime for urban and suburban areas were similar. For both urban and suburban areas, violent and property crime trends during this period decreased at a greater rate than in rural areas.
- The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.
- Urban males experienced violent victimizations at rates 64% higher than the average combined suburban and rural male rate and 47% higher than urban females.
- Although most violent crimes in urban (60%), suburban (68%), and rural (70%) areas were committed without a weapon, firearm usage in the commission of a violent crime was higher in urban areas when compared to suburban or rural areas (12% urban versus 9% suburban and 8% rural).
I think if cities were to ban or curtail firearms (as NYC does or did), conservatives wouldn’t have nearly so much of a problem with that. It handles many of the logistics issues that rural gun owners feel make gun ownership a right.
We could pass heavy and unweildy regulation based on two or three isolated events, or we could acknowledge the bigger issue and not have kids toting their parents guns and charge parents with the gun crimes of their children.
I think people continually ignore or discount the importance of the deterrent against a potential unjust government factor in these discussions. Probably because urban people have already sacrificed such a large degree of personal freedom, privacy, and control to their local governments by necessity of living in such close quarters.
some nice graphs:
Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age** Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000**
Resized to 98% (was 533 x 183) - Click image to enlarge 
…Northern Ireland…wtf?
If the parents did not have guns themselves, kids would not have access to their parents’ guns.
Sure, for these types of instances - crazy messed up kid goes off the rails - reducing access to guns may help. But, as sad as these events are they’re a tiny portion of overall gun violence. Making guns illegal isn’t going to sway the bangers supporting the drug trade. Good luck getting their guns. Hey, while you’re at it why don’t you stop the drug trade too by just taking that away as well? I had no idea cleaning up this mess would be so easy.
And as you’re doing it, you’ll be facing outrage from lawful, good Americans that like their guns for all the reasons BS mentioned.
No, I think a more creative solution may be in order.
The government has a lot more than just guns. Why stop here then? Lets make a law that allows people to own missiles, fighter planes, tanks, nukes etc. etc. Afterall, what’s stopping the government from using these on its own people??
This line of thought would lead me think that these people think theirs is a Taliban / Saddam-style government, not a democratically elected first world government of, arguably, the most developed nation on the planet.
So if the parents didn’t have bombs themselves, the children at Columbine wouldn’t have had access to their parent’s bombs?
'Cause suburban kids have never bought anything illegal on their own before…
Pretty classless of the Europeans in this thread to comment on US laws when 50 people were shot including children. We’ll see if there is any terrorism at the Olympics next week. Whose fault will that be?
It’s worth noting that the rate of “accidental” gun deaths for the US is more than 50% of total gun deaths for any of those other countries. The rate of accidental deaths in the US is also about equal to the total death rate of countries 6-10. Incidents like Columbine or the cinema thing are isolated. However, most gun deaths are not from mass shootings.
Not sure what is up with Northern Ireland…
Well, this statement is correct, even though the premise is (presumably intentionally) implausible. It’s also besides the point. Even if kids had access to bombs and knives, reducing the number of guns would still reduce deadly incidents.
Keep in mind that we’re talking about 0.0015%of deaths in in these categories for Americans within that demographic based on the chart.
The same way making bombs illegal has kept them from using bombs?
Only 0.0001% of US people die per year of AIDS, but it would still be good to get rid of AIDS in the US.
Yes. Most people don’t make bombs. If bomb making was a national hobby, more people would have bombs.
Oh, so either there is no problem or non-Americans not allowed to notice the problem? Which ones is it, Blake?