Another mass shooting in the US, this time at an elementary school in Texas, has resulted in 21 people, including 19 children, dying. The governor of Texas Greg Abbott has reportedly called the shooting ‘incomprehensible’. It is only so to those who refuse to see the glaringly obvious, that if you allow powerful weapons to be obtained much more easily than a driver’s license and vast numbers of people have them, then someone will, for various reasons, inevitably end up killing huge numbers of people. It has happened time and time again, so anyone who expresses surprise is being utterly disingenuous.
Abbott continued to mouth the tired platitudes that people like him do after such tragedies.
Abbott said: “The bottom line is this, that when parents drop their kids off to school they have every expectation to know that they’re going to be able to pick their child when that school day ends. And families who are in mourning right now, the state of Texas is in mourning with them for the reality that these parents are not going to be able to pick up their children.”
The Republican continued: “Our job is … first, to make sure we address exactly what happened in this crime scene. And second to make sure we take that information and do everything that is necessary to ensure that crime scenes like this are not going to be repeated in the future. And then we’re going to be able to ensure the safety and security of our schools.”
He is going to “do everything that is necessary to ensure that crime scenes like this are not going to be repeated in the future”? Yeah, right. He will do everything other than what needs to be done and that is supporting meaningful gun reform. He and his fellow Republicans will talk about beefing up school security and about mental health and shed crocodile tears.
One advocate for gun control reform says the problem is obvious.
Online, Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a group which campaigns for gun control reform, wrote: “Fervently lifting Uvalde up in prayer while refusing to do a goddamned thing to stop gun violence is why this keeps happening, especially in Texas.”
This article has seven charts about gun ownership and gun-related deaths across the world and it should come as no surprise that the US is the clear leader in both.
In 2020, 43% of the deaths – amounting to 19,384 people – were homicides, according to data from the CDC. The figure represents a 34% increase from 2019, and a 75% increase over the course of the previous decade.
Nearly 53 people are killed each day by a firearm in the US, according to the data.
The data also shows that the vast majority of murders, 79%, were carried out with guns.
That’s a significantly larger proportion of homicides than is the case in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, and many other countries.
Texas governor Abbott has been one of the leaders who as made gun access absurdly easy.
A number of states have also gone as far as to largely eliminate restrictions on who can carry a gun. In June 2021, for example, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a “permitless carry bill” that allows the state’s residents to carry handguns without a license or training.
So Abbott should spare us the speeches about doing everything to ensure that this kind of thing is not going to be repeated. He is in fact doing everything to make sure that it will be repeated even more frequently.
Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut where the Sandy Hook massacre took place, was blunt;
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told colleagues, “This isn’t inevitable. These kids weren’t unlucky. This only happens in this country and nowhere else, nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day.”
“Spare me the bullshit of mental illness,” he said. “We’re not an outlier on mental illness. We’re an outlier on firearms.”
Congressperson Ruben Gallego tore into Ted Cruz.
Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Az.) excoriated Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Tuesday after Cruz accused people of “politicizing” the mass shooting at a Texas school by calling for gun reform.
“Fuck you @tedcruz you care about a fetus but you will let our children get slaughtered,” Gallego tweeted, referring to Cruz’s support for overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects the right to abortion in the United States. “Just get your ass to Cancun. You are useless.”
As Charles P. Pierce adds:
It is too damn easy to get guns in this country. It is too damn easy to get guns in Texas. It is too damn easy to get guns in Uvalde County. It is too damn easy to get guns in the city of Uvalde. And, on Tuesday, it was too damn easy to get guns on Old Carrizo Rd in Uvalde, Texas. And, on Tuesday, it was too damn easy to get guns at 715 Old Carrizo Rd in Uvalde, Texas. And, on Tuesday, it was too damn easy to get guns in the Robb Elementary School at 715 Old Carrizo Road in the city of Uvalde, in the county of Uvalde, in the state of Texas, in the United States of America, where it is too damn easy to get guns.
Goddamn this country and its politicians and their adverbs. Goddamn them all to hell.
I too am just sick of it, sick of seeing the loved ones of the victims grieving inconsolably over them, when it did not have to be this way. There are so many causes of deaths that cannot be prevented. To actively create the conditions under which violent deaths will increase is unconscionable. But that is exactly what politicians who refuse to take action on limiting access to guns, and indeed increasing that access, are doing.
When I see news stories like this I’m not surprised and I’m not as horrified as I probably should be anymore. It’s just too common and my state isn’t one of the ones with a lot of terrible ideas about guns going around.
What I think when I see the crocodile tears and the thoughts and prayers is more along the lines of “How do they know this problem isn’t going to bite them?”
Greg Abbott did not win the governorship in Texas for his powers of comprehension, except his grasp of manipulating fools.
To adapt Upton Sinclair:
Say, aren’t these the same people who call themselves pro-life, and vote against baby formula legislation?
“This only happens in this country and nowhere else”
Not true.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/19/woman-seriously-wounded-in-german-school-shooting-say-police-bremerhaven
France had one in 2017, near Nice.
Dunblane, Scotland back in 1996.
Norway had Anders Breivik.
Sweden at Trollhättan, 2017 and Malmö, 2022 (the third in a unconnected series within a year). These were done with sword, knife and/or axe.
Congratulations, USA. Today you managed, finally and after much trying, to make me see a headline about the violent homicide of a room full of children, and think “meh”. It disgusts me that that was my first thought.
Another thing that disgusts me is that in a country where guns are so very, very easily available, and where there is no shortage of people prepared to talk about how guns must be controlled, not a single one of those gun control advocates has had the initiative and self-sacrificing nature to pick up a gun and shoot some motherfucker like Abbott, and keep shooting him and people like him until they get the message. It is clearly the only language they understand. Seriously, why has it never occurred to even a single one of the gun control lobby that an effective way to shut down these “good guy with a gun is the only answer” arseholes is to shoot them and their families in the fucking face?
@mnb0, 4:
Which are you -- massively ignorant, or massively disingenuous? Mentioning Dunblane as an example can only be one or the other. To be absolutely fair, you do admit that you have to go back 28 years to find an example from the UK. What you either ignorantly or disingenously fail to mention is that that was the FIRST AND LAST school shooting in the UK, after which access to firearms, and in particular handguns, was massively curtailed, to the point that some fuckwits were bleating about the fact that our Olympic shooters had to go abroad to train, boo fucking hoo.
Dunblane is actually an excellent example of the very opposite of “this” -- where “this” is ANOTHER school shooting. Let’s be honest -- if this was the first school shooting in US history, we’d all be very sad and sympathetic and shit but we might not be so goddamn jaded. “This”, you might (but shouldn’t) be surprised to know isn’t just not the first school shooting in US history, it’s not even the first school shooting this MONTH. It’s not even the SECOND school shooting this month. It’s the NINETEENTH this year. It’s only even made the news because of the bodycount. Seven other people have been killed in school shootings this year alone in the US and I haven’t heard a dickybird about any of them.
“This” is not a school shooting like Dunblane, an isolated, one-off, dreadful incident that spurs a nation into sweeping reform to bring in common sense laws. “This” is fucking background noise at this point. Slightly louder background noise, but nevertheless -- business as usual. Move along. Nothing new to see here.
Someone PLEASE start shooting politicians.
USA 2020: 137 gun deaths per million.
Germany 2018: 9.8 gun deaths per million.
So its not okay to shoot children, but it is okay to shoot politicians? Hey big mouth, why dont you get off your ass and go out and do your own damn dirty work? I agree that its a damned crime and a shame that these children or anyone for that matter are dying in these mass shootings. Do I agree that the political nature of the republicans needs to change or gtfo? Absolutely I do. But saying we can stop the killings by committing other killings is stupid and I can never look at you the same. We need to do something to try and stem the tide of deaths. It was once thought that the only way to stop violent crimes and the people who commit them was to sentence them to death and then kill them (after 20 or 30 years). We know that isnt the answer because it still isnt stopping anyone. I dont know the answer, but killing more people isnt the answer.
Mano,
Isn’t it time to ban sonofrojblake?
Seriously, why has it never occurred to even a single one of the gun control lobby that an effective way to shut down these “good guy with a gun is the only answer” arseholes is to shoot them and their families in the fucking face?
Maybe because they aren’t cold-blooded murderers?
#4 mnb0
The full sentence was “This only happens in this country and nowhere else, nowhere else do little kids go to school thinking that they might be shot that day.” Notice the bit you ignored. It shows that the ‘this’ he was referring to was little kids going to school thinking they might be shot that day.
Why the fuck are you nitpicking a partial statement when you know full well USA is the only nation in the world to have a school shooting epidemic?
#5 sonof
Don’t be dumb.
I see that StonedRanger @7 beat me to the proper answer to sonofrojblake @5. I gather that the latter doesn’t have a problem with mass shootings in general, just ones that harm folks he doesn’t dislike.
And I agree with Mano’s title: the shooting was “not at all ‘incomprehensible’;” indeed, it was totally predictable.
And neither Republicans nor Democrats will likely do anything at all that has any actual effect. Democrats will make impassioned speeches and propose laws that will have no chance of being passed. The Republican version of doing nothing will be to offer thoughts and prayers. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t expect to be.
Here’s an interesting stat I found which really drives home the point that school shootings are an epidemic in USA: number of school shootings by nation, since 2009/01/01. Bronze medal goes to South Africa with six, silver to Mexico with eight, and gold is of course completely uncontested: USA with 288. Given that this article was released halfway through 2018, that puts the rate at about 30 per year or slightly more than one per fortnight. If we extrapolate that trend to today, the count is probably at about 409 school shootings.
You know, it’s kind of strange how we always talk about this as if it were just a domestic issue. But other countries have to see us as a hopelessly dysfunctional empire, which also happens to be the largest weapons exporter in the world (not to mention all of the WMDs we’ve got).
So where the hell has the international community been? Other countries could severely weaken our arms industry and our military-industrial complex, which would be great for people here and for people around the world. So why not an embargo, sanctions, etc.? The UN is not the way to go, since we have too much control over it, but some other organization/agreement is certainly doable. Just start treating us like the rogue state governed by violent fanatics that we are, instead of your kindly uncle who visits every Christmas and gives you big presents.
@sonofrojblake #5:
Moral arguments have been made so I’ll skip those and just go straight to the practical: It doesn’t work.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-virginia-shooter-profile-20170614-story.html
Imagine the outcome in the story I linked had been different for a moment. The sort of people the gunman was trying to hit freak out and have a persecution complex over Disney mildly disagreeing with their rabid transphobia or the people that print Dr. Seuss books deciding to retire a few obscure titles for kids because parts of them look pretty racist now and that actually stands out. Now think about the most likely outcome if one or more of them and/or their families gets shot. They’re not going to react the way you think. Instead they’re giong to tell their base that people are getting shot because they have political views. They’ll talk to their base like any of them might get shot for having unpopular views as well. It’d be some serious “they hate us for our freedoms” level BS.
For once, the near-constant wailing about how they’re under attack? It would be right.
I’m not sure what path will get us there but gun control will happen when republican voters stop looking at tragedies and thinking any attempt at limiting how many we have in the future inevitably leads to those voters no longer having access to guns.
Simple answer: I live in a civilised country. I can’t just get off my ass and go and buy a gun, even were I motivated to try.
Also: I apologise for my intemperate response to the murder of a classful of children.
@springa 73: not even ONE of them? Hard to credit.
@consciousness razor, 13:
That would be an excellent idea if it weren’t for the fact that the USA can bomb and invade any country in the world with impunity, and indeed has a stated policy that they’ll do that to their own allies if it ever looks like one of their citizens might be e.g. tried for war crimes.
Believe me: the rest of the world does not see the US as “your kindly uncle who visits every Christmas and gives you big presents.” We see the US as our violent, racist, alcoholic uncle who beats his wife, slaps his kids around and brings his loaded handgun to the Christmas dinner table even when he’s not been invited to the house. We’re shit scared of him but can’t do anything about him for fear of ending up on his long, long list of people he hates.
I do have to say, though, that “why the hell isn’t the rest of the world doing anything about the US school shooting problem?” is a novel take on the issue. Well done, I thought I’d heard it all.
@lanir, 14: you are right, of course.
sonofrojblake ^ beat me to it. I agree. I too cannot see how the international community can do anything when the USA is a petulant bully that holds grudges against any country that stands up to it. Think Cuba and Iran.
As a sentiment empty of sincerity, perhaps Trump was right with the idea of building a big beautiful wall, but for the wrong reasons.
We’re not going to bomb or invade all of our trade partners, since we need them for nearly everything this country consumes. Collectively, you have more than enough power, if your leaders were interested in forcing the issue. End the deals, cut us off, and we would be begging for mercy, because first and foremost we are addicts. None of this means war. Our friends need to stage an intervention, because we’re incapable of doing these things ourselves.
Most people think that, sure. I believe it. But I don’t think the ruling elites see us that way at all. They are not like you or me.
I was talking about the general problem of guns (and related violence), not just school shootings. And yes, it is a problem around the world, not just here. And please note that this isn’t about trying to shift responsibility away or to soften my criticism of the US somehow. The point is that we’re talking about serious, worldwide problems here, and those do trace back to the US. So, it’s not like we’re the only ones have to worry about it, nor are we the only ones who should have a say in the matter.
Incomprehensible? It’s inconceivable!
@sonofroj My thoughts and prayers are with you. s/
So you live in a civilized country do you? A civilized country where you cant buy a gun but you beg others to murder on your behalf, that sounds really really civilized there. Yes, begging others to murder at your behest is intemperate at best. The balls on you.
How would more murdered people help ANYTHING!?
This is not the fricking Wild West, and violent MEN gunning people down is the problem.
More violence is not the solution, but I am thrilled Beto O’Roark took his anger straight to the scum ball who is in fact responsible for the lack of any gun laws in the state of Texas.
Governor Abbot and the equally scumtastic Ken Starr, and the other white male supremacists that currently call themselves Republicans and control Texas.
I doubt that more gun laws will have any effect. The unfortunate reality is that killers are obviously not impressed with laws.
Being generous with the numbers, there are close to 400 million firearms in the US. And there are about 40,000 gun-related deaths annually, to include suicides, homicides and accidents. This means that about .01% of the guns are involved (and 99.99% are not). Trying to eliminate, or even significantly reduce, that 1/100th of 1 percent is probably a fool’s errand.
We definitely have a problem, but bans (and buy-back notions) are not realistic. I don’t see a lot of workable options.
@consciousness razor, 17:
Ah, but that’s the beauty of the US system, isn’t it? You don’t NEED to bomb or invade anywhere, because we know you definitely can and very likely will bomb and/or invade ONE, pour encourager les autres. And nobody wants to be the example, like the one you made of Iraq. “Trade partners”, ho ho.
In response to all the people still saying “more violence” is not the problem, I have two observations:
1. I already apologised for intemperate response.
2. I already agreed that lanir’s right and that even if someone did it it probably wouldn’t work.
However: one other thing did occur to me. You’ll likely be familiar with the adage that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well: the gun control lobby’s response to frequent mass shooting atrocities is, every single time, ineffectual bleating. Same thing, every time. So how’s that working out for you? (Hint: I’ll ask again next time there’s a school shooting. It won’t be long.)
How long before someone, anyone, decides it’s time to try a different response? I’m not necessarily advocating a violent response, but anything other than the same fucking platitudes every time a mass shooting gets big enough to make the news surely has to be considered?
I’m interested to know what anyone things an appropriate response would be. I’ve offered my own obviously inappropriate one. It at least has the benefit of being something different, and at least possibly, eventually, motivating those in charge to do something about easy access to guns. Even if it probably wouldn’t work, it has the advantage over the current approach in that that definitely isn’t working, provably. If I lived in the US, I’d take a slight chance of change over definitely no chance. (Actually, the truth is that if I lived in the US I’d be doing whatever I could to fix that, i.e. attempting to emigrate to somewhere else as soon as possible. I’m honestly baffled why anyone would want to visit, much less live there, and this is very much one of the reasons.)
txpiper @21, hm. Let’s see…:
Understating it, but close enough.
But then:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
So.
You wrote: “This means that about .01% of the guns are involved”
Taking you at your word, “This means that about .01% of the guns are involved”.
But, unless you dispute Pew, that also means that “about .01% of the guns” are result in 79% of all (yes, all) murders and suicides. Huh.
Your numeracy is suspect. Since “that 1/100th of 1 percent” accounts for 8/10ths of all murders — leaving aside accidental deaths — it follows that preventing the use of one half of that one hundredth of one percent will result in a 50% reduction in the murder rate.
How you don’t think that’s significant is not clear to me, but I have my suspicions.
sonofrojblake, that’s only part of it.
Here in Oz, we ask “how high?” when the USA asks us to jump.
Nuclear umbrella and backbone of our military, it is.
(Ah well)
#21 txpiper
Why don’t we look at what happened when USA actually managed to pass heavier regulations on firearms? Here are four studies for your perusal, examining the statistics of firearms crime during and after the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban.
Defeatists like you don’t realise that they don’t need to work instantly to be effective in the long run. Baby steps are still steps.
What needs to change is the cultural attitude to guns and gun violence. That can’t be done overnight, but the examples of changing attitudes to things like smoking and car safety show that it can be done. It will take a long time, require constant pressure, and be subject to endless pushback, but it is possible, and it begins with taking one step, no matter how tiny and inconsequential, in the right direction. Unfortunately, all of the actual movement is currently in the wrong direction…
I certainly do not condone it, but the “shooting Republican legislators” idea WAS tried. The outcome was not good. I guess it is not surprising that, like all the other shootings in the USA, people soon forget (or maybe it simply gets pushed out of the brain, being replaced by the latest tragedy du jour).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
I doubt that more gun laws will have any effect. The unfortunate reality is that killers are obviously not impressed with laws.
Same old lazy droning defeatism the gun lobby have been spouting for decades.
First, you’re ignoring the obvious fact that NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS THIS PROBLEM TO ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME DEGREE AS THE U.S.A. HAS IT. This has been well known to everyone for decades now, and dumbasses like you still refuse to acknowledge this fact and maybe have a look at how all those other countries might be avoiding this horrific recurring living nightmare.
And second, you also refuse to acknowledge the other painfully-obvious fact that many of these shooters aren’t career criminals who live their entire lives in total disregard of the law — they’re troubled or deranged people (many of them made so by REPUBLICAN anti-government and white-supremacist rhetoric and policies) who were easily able to get guns LEGALLY.
Seriously, boy, if you don’t even care enough to say anything other than the same tired old long-discredited blither-points we’ve been hearing since the 1970s, then maybe you should just shut up and let the grownups do the talking. You’re just another idiot who has nothing worthwhile to say, and you don’t belong here.
Morales @23: Taking you at your word, “This means that about .01% of the guns are involved”.
That kind of implies that the other 99.99% of guns owned in America are…TOTALLY USELESS.
John Morales @23,
“it follows that preventing the use of one half of that one hundredth of one percent will result in a 50% reduction in the murder rate.”
So, what would the policy be to get that result?
===
Holms @25,
“what happened when USA actually managed to pass heavier regulations on firearms?”
If the focus is on long guns, not a lot. A percentage of a small number is yet a small number.
===
Dunc @26,
“What needs to change is the cultural attitude to guns and gun violence.”
Perhaps a change in attitude towards human life is in order as well. Things have not always been the way they are now.
So, what would the policy be to get that result?
Gee, I dunno, have you ever had a serious look at other countries’ gun laws? Or do you just reflexively ignore everyone who mentions them, as you did my comment?
The two major changes to current law that are CLEARLY necessary are 1. A federal ban on the paramilitary weapons favored by murderers of schoolchildren. No civilian needs them, but standard exceptions and licensure requirements for military collectors can be used as they apply to things like machine guns.
2. Rescind the law that prevents the victims families from litigating the ass off the manufacturer’s of these dangerous weapons, and the fools in Texas who made it legal for anyone to walk in a store and purchase such a deadly weapon.
We can ban original coke, lawn darts, Hazardous vehicles, and GI Joe dolls, but somehow banning AK-47s is not an option for the deranged patriarchs from Texas who have created the problem with their gun fetish.
Tethys,
“A federal ban on the paramilitary weapons…”
Not realistic.There are an estimated 20 million privately-owned AR-style rifles. A match-grade gun can cost thousands of dollars. The people who own them are not going to just give them up because a handful of actual criminals used them to commit crimes.
.
“No civilian needs them”
This will never be the basis for a major change in policy.
==
“litigating the ass off the manufacturer’s of these dangerous weapons”
By that metric, pressure cooker manufacturers should be sued since the Boston Marathon bombers used them to kill or wound dozens of people.
==
“banning AK-47s”
An AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon. If you are talking about semi-automatic variants, how many times have these been used in the commission of a crime?
.
I’m not actually arguing with your ideas. I’m just telling you why I don’t think they will ever become law.
@33: So you’re admitting our ideas are good ones, and then just hiding behind “they’ll never happen” as your excuse not to actually support meaningful policy changes. Got it. You may go now.
#30 txpiper
I provided a link to four statistical examinations of what happened when USA passed a federal ban on full auto long guns. Did you look at any of them? Did you look at the landing page, which gave a brief overview? Did you even click the link?
It was legal for civilians to own machine guns until Al Capone and various other prohibition era gangsters regularly outgunned the police.
Laws were passed to prevent civilians from owning or being able to purchase any firearms or armaments beyond what a typical civilian may need for hunting or sharpshooting hobbies. Claiming that we can’t outlaw the murderers weapons of choice is the actual problem txpiper. History and every other country worldwide proves otherwise.
Holms,
Yes, I read the links, excepting the WaPo, which I could not access. Here is the problem, from the 2019 study:
” In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period”
.
The percentile is impressive, the actual number is not when you’re talking about criminalizing millions of people.
Holms,
“what happened when USA passed a federal ban on full auto long guns.”
.
The ban only involved semi-automatic rifles.
Ah, chalk that one up to the imprecision of the term ‘assault rifle’. Anyway, your complaint is that a reduction in mass shootings is a drop in the ocean relative to the total number of deaths to firearms from all causes. But what about the 2017 and 2004 studies, which showed a reduction of ‘assault weapons’ used in any crime? And the broader point, that progress has small beginnings?
You’re assuming those millions of gun owners would opt to be criminals. I’ve been informed by many of them that nearly all of them are good, law-abiding citizens and that there are only a tiny number of bad apples.
Holms,
“your complaint is that a reduction in mass shootings is a drop in the ocean relative to the total number of deaths to firearms from all causes.”
No, my complaint is about the total number of firearm deaths being a drop in the ocean relative to the number of privately owned firearms.
.
“But what about the 2017 and 2004 studies, which showed a reduction of ‘assault weapons’ used in any crime?”
I don’t think the ban can honestly be correlated with the reduction. The 2004 paper actually spells out why:
“The AW ban is not a prohibition on all semiautomatics. Rather, it is directed at semiautomatics having features that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self defense. Examples of such features include pistol grips on rifles, flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, threaded barrels for attaching silencers, and the ability to accept ammunition magazines holding large numbers of bullets.”
The ban was a juvenile reaction that focused on color and cosmetics. The people who passed it wouldn’t know a flash suppressor or a silencer from a fire hydrant.
==
consciousness razor,
“You’re assuming those millions of gun owners would opt to be criminals.”
No, my comment is about criminalizing gun ownership.
Banning a class of guns is not criminalizing all gun ownership. The vast majority of gun owners don’t own paramilitary grade weaponry that is useless for any purpose besides killing lots of people very quickly.
Most of that garbage is owned by a tiny fraction of Americans. I’m not going to privilege a mere 3% of the country over their supposed right to own murder tools.
But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms
Then those millions of people would not be criminalized as you had claimed they would be, only the ownership of guns.
Who fucking cares?
Do you want to have fun going out to the shooting range, or whatever it is you’re supposed to do with that shit other than murdering people?
Too bad.
There are school shootings more than once a week and mass shootings more than once a day.
So just get a different fucking hobby.
#41 txpiper
…Yes, the reduction of firearms deaths was small because the class of gun that was regulated accounts for a small portion of the total number of firearms and deaths deaths caused by firearms. Yet the four studies show that the regulations were effective within that subset, strongly implying that if they were expanded to more popular firearms, the results would repeat but on a much larger scale.
I don’t think the ban can honestly be correlated with the reduction. The 2004 paper actually spells out why…
Actually, the bit you quoted does no such thing. This is grownup stuff, please try to keep up.
The only conclusion I can come to from txpiper’s contributions to this thread is that they are in favour of schoolchildren being slaughtered in mass shootings.
Shootings aren’t a sign America is ‘broken’. It’s working exactly as intended -- Ryan Busse
As the linked article points out, mass shootings are, so far as the gun industry is concerned, good for business: fear and extremism sell more guns. Much the same applies to their allies in the media, politics and churches, and to the “prepper” business.
Violent crime in the USA is actually markedly down since 1990 (pretty near flat since 2010). It is mass shootings, and gun deaths more widely, that have increased. Perhaps you might like to pay attention to the facts occasionally? Just a suggestion.