I still say opportunistic. The time for political debate is in the halls of Congress and among our pundits. It is not during scheduled memorials of innocents who were gunned down mere days ago. I do appreciate our President's stance on not participating in the rhetoric from both sides while at that event, but I find it in poor taste that others saw fit to print political propoganda, wear political tshirts, and have organized debate on the grounds.
It may be in poor taste, but to those who believe that the hate speech being spewed would eventually lead to violence this
seems like strong evidence.
I'd suggest you check some of the figures for illegal vs legal gun crimes. In 1997 the ACLU reported (
From Words to Weapons)that 25% of LA Highschool students could obtain a gun illegally for less than 50$.
A Survey of State Prison Inmates released also in 1997 reported that among those committing a crime with a firearm, the source of of the gun from "family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source" was 80%. Even if the gun started out as legal, the second it was loaned, borrowed, stolen, or bought without regulatory practices it is illegal. The same report shows only 12% purchased from a "retail setting or pawnshop". (source:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml)
Here is a link with a ton of statistics. It is a bit dated, but I see your 25% number on there so it seems like a good comparison.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html
The "family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source" to me is very misleading because it throws far too many instances into one big pile. If guns were more regulated, then less people in the general public would have them. Which would mean less opportunities for criminals to obtain them.
If the argument is that weapons are entering illegally from Mexico, then that would seem to be a separate issue and one that could be addressed in a different manner. Most of the articles that I read regarding gun violence seem to be someone got the gun from a friend, who stole it from a neighbor, their father, etc. Most of them don't seem to be guns that were initially bought on the blackmarket.
You're also using an unproven generalization which you accuse me of. You haven't had a firearm on you at all times, thus you really dont know how you would have behaved. If you have truly been angry enough to take someone's life, you probably would have been angry enough to punch them in the face, or pick up a pipe and hit them, has this also happened?
Of course, I can not prove it, but I think it very likely. I have punched someone in the face before (and been punched in the face). I have never hit someone with a pipe (but I have hit someone with a baseball bat). I think many people, when attacked, go through a ton of emotions. They are not in the right mindframe to realize that guns often are a permanent solution.
Its the fight or flight situation. When in danger, your mind makes a split second decision to fight or flight. If the decision is to fight, and a gun were on hand, I think there'd be a lot more people dead by gunfire.
It's the same basic assumption of saying that people with guns will use them. You always have your fists with you, they are always capable of assault, but do you assault those who anger you often?
I think there's a clear difference between someone angering you and someone doing something "horrible" to you that causes you to enter a "rage". If someone angers you and you assault them, that's generally evidence of an overly aggressive person who will likely end up in prison. But if you're attacked, and you defend yourself, that's a different story.
The difference between a baseball bat injury and a gunshot injury is huge. Both will likely stop the person from attacking you, but the baseball bat injury is not permanent.
The earlier link of the 16 year old mugger who was killed is a good example. The kid may have been a thug, may have been rotten to the core. He may have been a troublemaker for the rest of his life. But then again, maybe if he had gotten a broken leg, or a broken jaw, or some other non-fatal injury, he would have learned.
That said, I really dont think it's all that hard for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. If I wanted to, I could get one within two weeks and wouldn't be all that bothered by it. so in this case I dont think that you're going to experience all that many more of these type of incidents as they seem to occur pretty regular as is, and people who want guns right now generally have them. This would probably fall into the category of people being irresponsible with firearms, which if someone is willing to be irresponsible around things that can potentially kill, maim, or injure their children--it becomes an issue of are people responsible enough to be a parent (which i'm not convinced everyone is).
I don't think it is all that hard to obtain one right now either. I'm confused by your "so in this case" sentence. I was saying if more people had guns, there'd be an increase in accidents. For more people to have guns, there'd have to be the desire to obtain a gun.
You seem to have taken that statement and answered it such as if I had said "I don't think gun control should be made weaker" and then used the same reasons I had. And while I can see how the two are related, it wasn't really what I was saying.
Also, I am utterly convinced that many people are not responsible enough to be parents.
