I said "for the most part." Columbine was chosen because that is where they attended, same with VTech, same with Ft Hood and so on. So yes, i believe in the vast majority of these cases, it is coincidental, not causal.
Originally Posted by loki520
And NYC also has very strict gun laws and their murder rate is much lower, so if your argument is that tough gun laws dont lead to lower gun violence, then you should base that argument on more then just a single city, there are many other major metro cities with tough gun laws and low homicide rates, so perhaps the problem in Chicago or New Orleans is not caused by gun laws but by other factors? Or maybe a combination of both. Its a complex question, and as such has a multitude of factors to consider when making any assertion, something you are oblivious too by using chicago as a lone example to bolster your argument.
And if any of this bullshit was about the other murders that occur, outside of the mass murder scenario, you would be able to point to the success of gun-limiting regulations in Chicago, NY, etc... You can't. It doesn't exist. Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the land, and it's not working out very well for them at all... is it? What is it.... 60 dead and more than 460 wounded children in 2012? You can tell how effective this shit is as the AWB was in effect for five years BEFORE Columbine, and yet... there we are. There is nothing government can legislate or regulate that will stop this shit. The best thing they can do is PROTECT people, or allow people to protect themselves.
Its the latter...im all for a complete gun ban. But, im a realist and i know this will never happen, so i accept that fact. Just voicing my opinion on the matter. Fact is, if we are just discussing homicides done by actual criminals (not crimes of passion incidents), then to start with...the majority of them are drug related. So that right there is an option to address...our drug problem. Legalizing drugs would reduce gun homicides dramatically (they would still happen, but not nearly at the levels we have now). Many other crimes are robbery, which aare typically done out of desperation, so if we addressed the socio-economic problems of this country, this also would reduce robbery and assault homicides (as well as suicides). So yes, there are other non-gun related laws and legislation that can be used to address the problem of gun violence in this country, and it IS a problem.
Secondly, if this isn't about "disarming", why even bring up those non-mass-murder cases since those cases are... more than 98% of the time... done with weapons OTHER than "assault rifles". These crimes aren't committed with anything under any proposed ban, but plain vanilla shotguns, long guns, pistols, etc... Why even MENTION those in the pursuit of regulation entirely unrelated to their function if the goal is NOT to eventually try and disarm?
You are either trying to attempt an emotional response to achieve a political agenda (lets talk about ALL gun murders while we try to end availability of assault weapons), or you are trying to set this up as the first step towards more extreme gun regulation (not enforcement, which is lacking) than we already have.
No, i trust the government to do absolutely nothing. Which is exactly what will be done: nothing. Right now, its all talk and debate, but nothing will come of it, as usual. And its damn ironic, considering the gun lobbyists like the NRA feed off this paranoia of "theyre gonna take your guns!!" even though the government has been doing the exact opposite for 20 years now, but hey, get people scared, they buy more guns, and that funds the NRA. Cant raise funds if you preach the truth and have rational discussions with your members.
But... we will have to agree to disagree on these specifics. You trust the government to do the right thing. I trust them to do the exact opposite, just like they always do. We'll end up with more regulation that fucking achieves NOTHING, but makes you feel better. I would rather have something effective at the schools my grandkids attend (doors that lock from the inside, armed principle or staff on grounds, doors that are hardened, etc.) than anything currently in place. The "style-over-substance" regulation against anything has never been effective.