Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Customer shoots bank robber in Warren [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)but the causes and implications are far different than crime or accidents.
For instance, it demonstrates that the rates of violence in the USA are something endemic to America other than guns. If that wasn't the case, our suicide rate would be SIGNIFICANTLY higher, yet it's not.
Your comment is also quite puzzling.
I'm surprised how readily you're willing to sacrifice "the old, small, weak, disabled victims are assaulted by multiple armed assailants" in you quest for gun control. I would be shocked by such a social Darwinist position on a liberal, Democratic forum if the issue being discussed wasn't guns. Let me rephrase your question, how many of these people need to lawfully defend themselves with a firearm before you would consider it relevant?
The issue about police is even more odd. I read thread after thread on DU correcting the purported misconception that law enforcement is even dangerous, no less routinely deadly. I'm also routinely advised that civilian ownership of guns is unnecessary because we have trained, and generally armed, law enforcement. Nevertheless, when trying to justify gun control, police seem to be totally unable to ever retain their weapons and the streets are flowing with red from the boys in blue. The hypocrisy is astounding and the concern disingenuous. An occasional anecdote, no matter how tragic and terrible concerning the murder of a police offer, also does not constitute statistically significant date.
Lastly, define the simple "regulation" of firearms you would suggest if you weren't constrained by federal and state constitutional law and an ever increasingly opposed electorate? Kindly dispense with the euphemisms like "common sense" and "reasonable," and discuss actual, specific policies. Also describe how such regulation is really only limited, and not just a nice word for a near or total civilian firearm ban?