Re: 0 Days Since Last Shooting: Keep The Calendar At Zero
The pervasiveness of the tobacco culture of the 60s and 70s is similar to that of guns today. The industry is fighting facts in a similar manner. The only difference is that there is a voting block that is looking to obstruct progress. Getting over the tobacco addiction took changes in places where it was used. Once indoor places said 'no thanks', society did as well. Hence retracting C&C, a major factor behind the gun culture, is a significant start.
The broader point is ending the tobacco and slavery addictions took massive changes. The same holds for the gun addiction. We can do it. But as with other societal calamities, limiting purchase of guns for a segment or adding a few more background checks will do nothing.
Maybe I am older than you but I can distinctly recall this being an issue in local elections at least. Tobacco was pervasive. It wasn't just the users and it was much more complex than people deciding not to let folks smoke inside. The industry had convinced the medical establishment that tobacco was OK. It was intertwined in culture and in the economics- tobacco tax, $$ in bars, in convenience stores, liquor stores.... There were a lot of people that argued if it was banned it would cause too much financial distress.
How do you count something that didn’t happen? People can believe whatever they want, but I think if guns were greatly reduced/banned average people would face significantly more crime.
This reminds me of dealing with my smoking patients/alcoholics who would tell me all day long that no matter how many objective things I showed them to prove to them their drug was harming them, they had a deep belief that their gut feeling had to be right. They wanted to believe what they knew to be true (even if it wasn't) because they had believed it for a long time.
Past feeling alarmist, look at it logically.
The stats of having guns increases risk. One could extrapolate from the facts- if we remove or decrease the exposure to the risk, the morbidity and mortality would decrease. I know they sell the goods about how bad and scary the world is but the stats for actual encounters with someone you need to defend yourself from are minuscule. Not only that, but people who attempt to use the gun in self defense statistically usually don't end up well. So the risk v benefit for protection is not statistically born out.
If you argue that the threat of a gun will stop people~ Consequence as a deterrent doesn't really work well. This is something they have done psych research on for yrs. Threatening people they will get the death penalty doesn't stop the person one bit. Telling people they could die if they drive drunk- nope. Telling people to not smoke or they will get medical issues- nope. 3 strikes and you go to jail- Nope. Telling people they might run into a homeowner with a gun- nope again. If they have decided to act then they will tell you all the reasons it isn't a threat to them because they are too smart, etc.
The vast majority of the country living in cities and towns have managed to live for centuries without packing a weapon in the civilized parts. (wild west doesn't count) The crime stats have shown decreased violent crime ~trending down for some time. At the same time people's perceptions are that the rate is increasing (hmmmm, I wonder why that is....)
I am curious if you think our country is so depraved that the only reason we aren't killing each other is because someone will shoot us if we try. Personally I don't believe that. The guns really haven't been shown to provide any benefit except giving people a false sense of security (in medicine- placebo affect). More guns has not been a good idea. The stats are worse.
we are one really effed up country. When did we figure that we should shoot anything that moved?