World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Why are US mass shootings getting more deadly?
I think it is fairly obvious that the machine gun is far better for killing more people in a group than the single shot weapon. And the bigger the magazines, the harder it is to escape from a confined space. Churches are really bad places to be so caught because while there is an alternative way out, most people don't know for sure where because there is no need to note where the priest or whatever comes in, and secondly, invariably you have to cross an elevated zone with no cover. That sort of feature is bound to raise the toll.
The shooters themselves are not crazier or meaner than before, they just have more firepower available for them to acquire these days.
I think it's the generation. You take these kinds of incidents, expand outwards to encompass the "radical Muslim extremist" incidents, the car attacks, etc, and the vast majority of these mass killing events are coming from Millennials. This is the generation that puts their entire life online, seeking to "go viral" and whatnot, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that these killers are trying to outdo each other for a degree of attention. This idiot in Texas for instance, his issue was with his wife or girlfriend or whatever she was. Instead of taking out his frustration on her alone, he had to turn it into a spectacle and target a bunch of people he didn't know. Not to say he should have gone after her in the first place, but to say that he expanded his "issue" for the sake of attention.
This graph only cover major shootings in the past five years. From 1982 to 2016, the number of deaths per year also seems to be on the rise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sh...
But when you look at individual shootings, the only real increase seems to be around the Orlando and Las Vegas mass shootings. Otherwise, the trend is pretty consistent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sh...
Or, check out this graph I made based on the data. As you can see, there's a sharp rise for the years 2016-2017, but otherwise the trend is relatively steady. In the end, the data suggests that mass shootings aren't necessarily becoming more deadly, but they are becoming more common.
In any statistics, outliers are always a problem, so I suggest there is no conclusion to be drawn from those two big ones, other than they are bad. What would bother me is the frequency of them, and while the graph doesn't really show this because the base is not linear, the frequency is certainly ramping up since 2007.
Maybe we should consider the idea that as population increases, so does the number of crazy people. Also consider that background checks don't have access to mental health records. They're confidential. Should this change?
Scout wrote: "Maybe we should consider the idea that as population increases, so does the number of crazy people. Also consider that background checks don't have access to mental health records. They're confid..."
I agree with you Scout. Though even if they checked background info on mental health people, that doesn't always assume they are the ones that go on a rampage. There are lots of people that don't have the mental health issues, but they end up "snapping" and then go crazy shooting people.
The other problem I see here in the U.S. is that there are a lot of people that have guns in their homes that have had them for a very long time. These people just store them in their homes and then if those people just happen to snap then they have all that firepower in their possession which I think this is where the mass shootings come from as every time that one of them happens, the authorities find weapons galore that the person was hoarding.
With billions of people living here in the U.S. there is no way to find out what people have stored in their homes including weapons that they might have stashed somewhere, but when they go on a rampage that is when all is revealed and then everyone sees on social media just what that person had in their home, but by that time it is too late for the victims of the mass shootings.
The answer in New Zealand is you have to be licensed to own a gun (similar to having to be licensed to drive a car) and you have to show your licence to purchase ammunition. Obviously, to introduce that into the US would take time, but it is possible. I know the objection: only law-abiding people would comply, but there is the point about ammunition purchasing. Also, to have a licence, you must have an appropriate means of storing guns and ammunition. Again, I know that some won't, but just having such a rule might stop some of the school shootings, where a deranged pupil picks up father's guns and ammunition. It won't solve everything, but it might be worth it if it stopped some.Similarly, here, after the Christchurch massacre, the government prohibited things like the AR 15 and large magazines. Again, there were protests, some of the law changes, being rushed, were poor, and of course it is too early to tell whether it will do any good, but it is at least a step in the right direction.
I bought a pocket .22 a couple of weeks ago and had to fill out a form to register it and to have a background check before the purchase. If guns are bought legally here, both of those things have to happen. Of course, criminals don't go through that process. I have a concealed carry license, which, again, criminals don't bother with. There are so many loose guns in this country that you can assume that most people have them, at least in my part of the country, and I certainly don't want to be the one who doesn't when things go wrong. Recently, a man walked into a church and pulled out a gun and was brought down by armed members of the congregation before he could do any harm. That's where we are now, and gun control won't do anything to disarm the bad guys.
Hi, your friendly neighborhood gun nut here. There are a lot of numbers which get thrown around to support the positions of both sides in the US. The most politically neutral study is this one:https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
There are some bad points in there for my side of the argument. However, there are also a few argument disembowelments for the antis. Enjoy.
Interesting points include, but are not limited to:
1.) Over half of all firearms fatalities are suicides, not homicides.
2.) Handguns are the most commonly used firearms in homicides, not "assault weapons".
3.) You are far more likely to get shot in an urban area than in a rural area. I find it curious that the half of our population that lives in town is more likely to kill each other than the "hicks" are.
4.) Firearms are used in defense more often than they are used in attack.
As for gun licensing, they do that for handguns in New York City. Strangely, about the only people who legally own handguns in NYC are rich people and cops. Obviously, cops and rich people never do anything illegal, and are therefore of a higher moral class than the deplorables. Further, why would poor people ever need to defend themselves with a gun? Surely the police are all the protection that the proles... I mean people will ever need.
For non-US commentards the issue is why the US needs guns at all. Here in the UK yes criminals have them and so do some police but we seem to operate a democracy without needing our police to be armed to the teeth because the citizens are not. This does not stop crime or terrorism but it is far less likely. And yes I know we have had a bout of knife crime and yet we don't ban knives but actually we do and restrict sales.In both nations you are more likely to get killed or injured by a car which we don't ban but we do license and restrict use.
Having lived in US (Az, Ca and elsewhere) and having a daughter (NC) who is living there I do not understand the logical position and please don't start on about constitutional amendments from 18th century. We have enough of those in the UK from much earlier still claiming validity. Magna Carta was quoted by a judge only yesterday.
Philip wrote: "...Having lived in US (Az, Ca and elsewhere) and having a daughter (NC) who is living there I do not understand the logical position and please don't start on about constitutional amendments from 18th century. We have enough of those in the UK from much earlier still claiming validity. Magna Carta was quoted by a judge only yesterday."For the 100lb woman facing her 200lb would be rapist. For the rancher whose home and pastures are in the path of cartel drug runners. For the young family whose door gets kicked in by a gang. For the single mother with three small children who is menaced by a prowler in the dark. In short, for the weak, so that they may not be subjugated to the vile delights of the powerful.
It is unwise to turn your back to the words of our ancestors. Their lives knew far more personal hardship and horror than most of us modern Westerners have ever known. However, it only takes one bad day to return us all to their suffering. So have a care before you dismiss the observations of human nature made by people who have seen us at less comfortable times.
Unfortunately we also have drug runners, rapists, murderers (far more) terrorists and history of terrorism all crammed into a smaller geographic area than the USA. We do not need a population with more guns than people nor feel the need to defend every home with an assault rifle. I appreciate this is an attitudinal/cultural issue. But I believe the constitutional amendment as ratified reads but with caveat......There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions...
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
i.e. arming for a well regulated militia. This is not arming every member of the population who wants to shoot someone because they believe they may be a criminal or about to commit a criminal act ,nor to kill someone because they did carry out a criminal act which is akin to lynch mob or summary execution.
You have of course a right to defend yourself - common law to English and US Law (see basis for US Constitution) which is based on reasonable use of force.
Philip wrote: ",,,i.e. arming for a well regulated militia. This is not arming every member of the population who wants to shoot someone because they believe they may be a criminal or about to commit a criminal act ,nor to kill someone because they did carry out a criminal act which is akin to lynch mob or summary execution..."1.) At the time that 2a was drafted and ratified all able bodied men between 17 and 45 years of age were members of the militia. The call went out, and everyone came running with their guns.
2.) Nobody is calling for lynch mobs. Where did you get that from?
J. wrote: "Philip wrote: ",,,i.e. arming for a well regulated militia. This is not arming every member of the population who wants to shoot someone because they believe they may be a criminal or about to comm..."1.) Everyone did not come running and the war of independence was as much a civil war in the then 13 colonies. It was also a war of proxy between the then super powers of France and UK with the Dutch and Spain mixed in with other countries territories. See Paris peace accords of the trading that was done regarding Menorca, Gibraltar, Tobago and elsewhere plus Florida and other parts of the now USA. That is alongside what is now Canadian territory to finally finish the war which then flared up again and finally ceased after Washington in 1812. Since then the UK and USA have been friends
2) a lynch mob is where a one or more individuals arbitrarily decide someone is guilty and without a trial execute them. The comparison is with shooting of alleged criminals in multiple cases allegedly in self defence only to discover the alleged perpetrator was innocent/not armed/mistaken identity. The outcome is the same, hence the comparison - death without legal proceeding.
The relative ease of availability and willingness to use arms means that a fatal or serious injury is far more likely outcome
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsand...
US Rate 4.43 deaths per 100,000 of the population per year compared to UK 0.06 or the best at the time of the article Singapore 0.02. It seems the US is quite content with that level of deaths give the endless comments on right to bear arms whilst always missing out the well regulated militia bit.
Injury numbers are even worse but comparison of total deaths from guns including suicide and accidental can be found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
US is overall 28th worst in the world for gun deaths (excluding wars)
From the first article
...Instead, the actual U.S. rate of 4.43 deaths per 100,000 is almost 10 times as high (as Canada's). And it is 29 times as high as in Denmark, which had 0.15 deaths per 100,000
Given political approach in US this is quite acceptable to the US population - the rest of the world struggles to understand why this is considered acceptable. When I visit (and I love to visit) in June I will again be shocked when I see guns for sale in Walmart but then again armed police still shock me and always have.
"well regulated" leaves a lot of room for gun control. Tradition. Maybe it's like Scots wearing skirts :)
The issue is a bit more complicated, I feel, and depends on local culture. One issue is with a death rate of 4.43/100,00, the risk of somebody shooting at you will be seen as far greater than in the UK, or for that matter, here. Accordingly, only too many people feel they need a gun for self-protection. With so many people with guns, the rate of gun accidents increases dramatically, because too many of these have had no training, and accordingly the rate of gun deaths goes up. Positive feedback. Then, with the untrained having them, they tend to use them. This makes the police highly nervous, so . . .
Because people are becoming more isolated and deranged and they are way more hostile and violent.
Phillip,1.) I pointed out that the militia included all able bodied men to refute your assertion that the framers did not intend for everyone to be armed. Your use of my general statement about the function of the militia to pursue a tangent of 18th century geopolitics has no bearing on your original assertion or my refutation of that assertion. It is a red herring.
2.) I have repeatedly scrubbed this thread for anyone other than you equating gun ownership and/or self defense with vigilantism and/or lynching, and I have found nothing. The overwhelming number of self defense cases occur when the defendant is in immediate mortal peril. The outliers are concerning, and due close scrutiny. However, your general equating of self defense with strange fruit is poisoning the well.
Your crime stats are correct, and the number of guns in the US certainty aggravates those numbers. However, the root causes are economic disparity and insane drug policy creating a massive black market run by gangs. The bulk of those firearm related murders are gangbangers killing each other.
Why do Americans accept the problems? Because 99.999% of gun owners are law abiding citizens who do not deserve to be stripped of our rights and property because of the crimes of others.
I think one of the fundamental differences in how different people see gun control is how we see our safety.I have never felt that I require a gun for personal safety. This seems to be fundamentally different to how people in the US feel about personal safety.
I have US friends who comment that they require one when out hiking/riding for defence against pumas and bears. That I can understand. Our farmers have guns for putting down stock, and dealing with feral animals.
It just never occurs to me that someone here might want to kill me with a gun. Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't think about it. Ever.
Here in the U.S. there are lots of people that are hunters as well that go deer hunting, etc., so it is expected for them to own guns. There are also people that own guns to protect themselves here as well. The problem is from what has been stated above is crime on the rampage here in the U.S. and the criminals have easier ways of acquiring guns than regular citizens. There is a lot of underground dealing over here (black market) and it seems that with them finding ways to grab weapons so easily then that is why a lot of American citizens have guns in their homes for protection.
It use to be big cities saw a lot of crime, but in the last few years rural areas have also seen crime as well. There is no place here in the states that is untouched by some sort of crime involving guns.
Depending on where you live in the U.S. gun crimes are more prominent in certain areas. Some places are worse than others. There are strict laws for regular citizens to own guns, but the criminals don't follow laws which makes the regular citizens go out to buy guns for protection against them.
The problem with criminals is they don't obey the law. That is why they are called criminals.NZ is a bit like Australia. There are actually a lot of guns out there. Most farmers at least have a .22 for dealing with the rabbit problem, but by and large, people do not fear armed intruders. This may be an example of not seeing what is coming, I suppose because there have been two examples recently of two gangs shooting at each other regarding territory to sell drugs. This is a very bad development
Philip wrote: "Unfortunately we also have drug runners, rapists, murderers (far more) terrorists and history of terrorism all crammed into a smaller geographic area than the USA. ..."You say it right there. The UK is a more compact nation while the US is spread out across an entire continent.
Community policing often has to cover far larger areas. Law enforcement is one of those favorite areas to cut spending when revenue isn't where politicians would like it to be. What's worse is that the very idea of law enforcement has now become a political issue. In a society where it seems one side has to oppose everything the other supports, because Republicans tend to be for law and order, law enforcement is now the enemy in liberal cities. In Minneapolis for example, after cutting the police budget at the end of 2018, they feel it's still receiving too much money a year later.
http://www.citypages.com/news/minneap...
http://www.citypages.com/news/why-min...
Even around here where every community has been experiencing rapid growth for a long time now, you'd think it logical to expand police and fire to deal with the growing population, but just last year, the Durham city council rejected the Durham PD's request for more cops.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/loc...
And tragically enough, There was a spate of murders right after the vote that got a lot of attention here in NC because of that vote.
If you need a cop in an emergency, it could take too long for a response because of the size of the district, or because there are none to send out. And if you throw in drug or gang violence which can flare up and finish in an instant, it's insanity to think a citizen caught in the middle can wait for police to come from half- way across the city or a county to come save them.
As for an earlier criticism that this was a 19th century idea that's no longer relevant, you clearly haven't discovered how difficult it is to take away rights from 329 million people once you give those rights. The 2nd Amendment isn't the only one politicians have tried to chip away at over the years. Free speech is always under attack. Liberals try to chip away at freedom of religion when they disagree with longstanding religious beliefs. The 4th and 5th Amendments are always under fire from law enforcement and prosecutors who try to see what they can get away with before the courts kill their cases. Freedom of the Press is a target, not just for Trump, but for Obama as well. America and Americans have always had the don't tread on me attitude. When we're granted rights, whether it's in the Constitution or through legislation, we'll stand up and protest and fight and vote you out of office if you try to take those rights back.
And if the thought of 300 million armed Americans wasn't a scary enough prospect, all we have to do is remember how big a disaster Prohibition was when the country passed a Constitutional amendment taking away everyone's right to drink.
Hello, As I read though the introductions thread, I noticed a lot of interest in the collapse of society. That is one of my main reasons for owning a firearm. If the industrial machine stopped turning for a few months or something catastrophic happened, I’d rather be armed than not.
Another thing I often see gun advocates state is how unarmed people are invaded then subject to genocide. While I don’t think this will happen in America it does deserve some reflection.
I personally believe another civil war will happen in America. I’m currently reading Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave. The book focuses primarily on the effects of how agricultural society changed into industrial society. He even makes a connection for the first civil war correlating to this change.
We live in turbulent times.
I do not dispute the cultural and attitudinal approach in the US, I just cannot reconcile it with every other major country. On the threat of civilisation breakdown, outside of plots in books and movies I always look to history.During 2nd World War society did not break down in unoccupied countries, i.e. there were still operating police forces and courts. Crimes were still investigated, neighbours did not turn against neighbours.
Did the USA suddenly become more violent or more criminal. The UK did not. True under reporting may have been a reason.
In other societal breakdowns e.g. 1968 political protests again societal norms did not break down. Even with tear gas and machines from a minority on the streets.
I agree that loss of power, water supplies, and sewage facilities may cause a different approach but then again look at the figures for gun crime in Bangladesh and other under-developed countries - lower than USA despite the poverty and many have recent history of armed conflict i.e. weapons available.
We've just had another terrorist incident in London - the attacker had a knife only partly because guns are a lot harder to obtain. The same with the attacker in November, both attackers shot dead by armed police but in the first instance stopped by unarmed (with weapons) civilians
As with most arguments of this nature there is no further point discussing it.
Philip said: "I do not dispute the cultural and attitudinal approach in the US, I just cannot reconcile it with every other major country. On the threat of civilisation breakdown, outside of plots in books and movies I always look to history."Maybe you should consider that the history of the U.S. is different from most major countries. Think about it. We had to use weapons to fight for our freedom. It's ingrained in our culture. No one here who has any sense of history is going to surrender our weapons. Doesn't that make sense?
Scout wrote: "Philip said: "I do not dispute the cultural and attitudinal approach in the US, I just cannot reconcile it with every other major country. On the threat of civilisation breakdown, outside of plots ..."Take the point but virtually every country on earth has had some history of civil war/revolution, including the UK
Examples, if you will, of countries who, in the past 200 years, had to fight with firearms for their independence on their own soil. We are talking firearms here, not swords.
Good start. Just some big examplesBosnia
Croatia
Kosovo
Montenegro
All now relatively stable democracies without the need to carry arms all the time
Now some less stable countries with imperialistic overthrown governments
Angola - Actual most of Africa
Nicaragua
Panama
Most of South America in one revolution or another
Lets not forget Cuba
I could go on with China, Russia etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these countries didn't win a war for independence on their own terms without help from on the ground forces of other countries like we did.
Actually, the US had a lot of help from France. Also, the US war of independence needed far less technology than many of the others. The revolutions of liberation from Spain, e.g. from Simon Bolivar was arguably more effective than the US revolution, although the aftermath was nowhere near as effective. The great point of the US was that once they got independence, they created something that was seriously good
Because more and more people are becoming psychopaths.
There are a lot more psychopaths out there than you think, and most go through life without causing any problem. Many top executives are psychopaths
Philip wrote: "I do not dispute the cultural and attitudinal approach in the US, I just cannot reconcile it with every other major country. On the threat of civilisation breakdown, outside of plots in books and m..."There is one major difference between the US and other European countries, which comes to mind. The US never really had a landed aristocracy. We have had wealthy land owners, but they were not invested with some "divine right of kings" left over from feudalism. In Europe, the aristocracy owned everything, and the people were only tenants. For us, there was always the frontier. We could always go a bit further west to build our dreams. The result is a view of self reliance as the ultimate virtue. Part of self reliance is being prepared for the worst case scenario.
There is another part of it that I think is misunderstood by outsiders, the community. For rural Americans, self reliance meant and still means that marksmanship is a basic life skill, like driving stick or cooking. There is a progression from BB to .22 then on to centerfire and one's first deer through which we pass as a rite of passage to adulthood. A shared history, culture, ethos, and rites that form a community which I suspect is alien to the average European.
Perhaps without automatic & semiautomatic mass shooters won’t be able to massacre many while it’ll still be perfectly aligned with both tradition and constitution?
Well another shooting today in Wisconsin - I guess we will always see it happening and this time the gunman had handguns. No survivors either. Very sad. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/six...
J., your post said it better than I can. Self-reliance is a national characteristic, one we're proud of, and this is especially true in rural areas where we still interact with and are close to nature. There is an accepted rite of passage involving firearms, as you explained. I went through it myself, as have those in my community. Unless you're an American, you probably won't understand how ingrained the use of firearms is in our national psyche. Because of our history, the idea that we must be self-reliant and prepared to defend ourselves is an indelible one, and it's the reason any attempt to limit our access to defensive weapons feels invasive and wrong.
When was the last time the United States was invaded? Does anyone think the United States could be invaded, let alone held? History teaches two very important lessons. Those with the guns rule and those without the guns become victims at some point from those that have the guns. The very first thing a totalitarian society does is remove the guns from the populace. I wonder why that happens. I understand that many on these threads do not understand Americas love for its guns. I am going to say this, America is not the rest of the world. We see it differently. We certainly argue constantly among ourselves over the guns and it is one of those discussions that really do not have a middle value. Either you are pro-gun or anti-gun. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying there is no nuance, but the bottom line is usually one or the other with both sides demonizing the other.
Funny thing, you do not have to own a firearm. Even in America, you do not have own a firearm if you choose not. For those of you that just do not understand, do not try to figure it out. It just is with us. Our founding fathers placed gun rights into the bill of rights, one of most sacred documents, for a reason.
Interesting list Philip posted. How many of those countries on the list would have had less massacres if the massacred would have had guns to defend themselves.
How many of those countries on the list would have had less massacres if the massacred would have had guns to defend themselves.This is what most of us (non-Americans) don't understand. When I read statements like the one above, all I can think of is: 'How many more people would die in a crossfire?'
Here, our government enacted strong legislation, which has resulted in us not having another Port Arthur, for which I am incredibly thankful.
Which has most likely resulted, (very sadly), in the Christchurch massacre. The gunman was an Australian. But he would not have easily been able to source his weapons here. So he didn't. He went where it was easier, so strong was his hatred.
I think you're correct in saying that those of us who aren't Americans don't understand the US love affair with weapon owning, or the fear that so many feel that seems to drive the need to own them.
We do have crime of course, and gun related crime too, just not so many massacres.
We Australians also pride ourselves on self-reliance, but we don't have the gun culture to go along with it. We have also never had a landed aristocracy, so I tend to think that's really not a defining thing.
I have a question for those who are not US citizens.How do your countries relate to the Castle Doctrine?
For those who are unfamiliar, the story is that during the battles of Lexington and Concord a British officer demanded of a homeowner that he and his men be allowed into the house. Declining, the homeowner stated, "an Englishman's home is his castle." While probably apocryphal, the sentiment behind the story is the basis for much of the Bill of Rights.
Well, we do have a fairly famous movie. Famous in Australia, that is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cas...
It's iconic here.
Castle doctrine is fine and its variation was adopted here relatively recently. I can see advantages in owning a firearm and have nothing against a culture and law entitling people to have them. And aren't Greek army and police playing "castle" when they forcefully repel refugees and immigrants from entering from Turkey these days? In the context of the States, I wonder whether from your point of view "arms" are tantamount to any "weapon", thus entitling people to own machine guns, canons, tanks, fighter jets, ballistic missiles, etc and whether the right is absolute, meaning a minor, a dude with dangerous psychiatric diagnosis, ex-cons shall nonetheless be able to purchase firearms as they wish?
Nik wrote: "In the context of the States, I wonder whether from your point of view "arms" are tantamount to any "weapon", thus entitling people to own machine guns, canons, tanks, fighter jets, ballistic missiles, etc and whether the right is absolute, meaning a minor, a dude with dangerous psychiatric diagnosis, ex-cons shall nonetheless be able to purchase firearms as they wish? ..."You bring up a fine point, but it is a bit of a misnomer. There are plenty of regulations in the United States. It is not a free for all and never has been either. The Supreme Court has never held that there was no regulations upon guns. The Supreme Court held they need to be not arbitrary and capricious. T
Most of the argument is over the word reasonable. There are plenty that think no guns allowed is reasonable while others think that nuclear weapon ownership is legal too. So you can see the problem.
As for an absolute right, nothing exists like it in the United States. Every right has limitations. Much of the argument is over the limit of the right. I will not go into a diatribe about all the rights or the history involved. I do not have enough ink to spill and you do not have enough time. Let is be accepted there are plenty of protections in place to uphold the rights of the populace. It is not perfect, but it is very close.
As for a mentally ill person, if they are diagnosed, they cannot have guns legally. Ex-cons may own guns depending on the crime and where they live. it is not an easy burden for them to overcome.
Leonie wrote: "We do have crime of course, and gun related crime too, just not so many massacres...."How do you define a massacre? How do you define a mass shooting?
The reason I ask is that there is no accepted definition in the United States. Leaves lots of room for interpretation, which is the problem.
Most places seem to define a mass shootting as four or more.
Leonie wrote: "Most places seem to define a mass shootting as four or more."I would agree. Except, it can include gang violence, family violence, bad drug deals and even police shootings. They all can fall into this group and depending on who is counting and why, it can inflate the numbers widely. Most think of mass shootings as a madman running wildly shooting at innocent people. That is the real problem, expectation from reality.
Nik wrote: "I wonder whether from your point of view "arms" are tantamount to any "weapon", thus entitling people to own machine guns, canons, tanks, fighter jets, ballistic missiles, etc and whether the right is absolute,..."If you take a more literal view of the 2nd Amendment, then citizens should have access to military-grade weapons like this. The language of the 2nd Amendment indicates that citizens need to maintain themselves as a citizen army. The 2nd Amendment is also intended to arm citizens in case we ever have to wage war against our own government, and certainly we're prevented from that exercise if we're not allowed to have the same weapons our government has for the professional military.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing that this should go into practice though. In all these gun debates, I never hear anyone claiming they want to buy an ICBM or a military drone, and I think even people who are pro 2nd Amendment would agree that they don't need or want anything more powerful than an automatic/assault weapon.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
A Republic, If You Can Keep It (other topics)The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956 (other topics)
The Diary of Anne Frank (other topics)
Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung: Mao’s Little Red Book Original Version (other topics)
This well-researched article says that the reasons are very simple.