Perhaps so. But such was the case even prior to the Port Arthur incident, when firearms ownership was far more widespread, and subject to far less restrictions.
I always find it interesting when gun control advocates point to lower homicide rates; ignoring situations like when - for instance - the period when the UK actually had less restrictive firearms laws than even the United States and had homicide rates that were a fraction of ours even then. Now, they ban guns and have far higher overall violent crime rates per capita than the United States, but they point frantically at how their admittedly low homicide rates mean things are still superior there, so we should adopt gun control. The fact their admittedly low homicide rates are actually triple now what they were back then is ignored.
There is much "Let's pretend" with those that favor more restrictive gun regulations, they know they can't control criminals, the British treat their subjects as potential criminals, so they heavily restricted law abiding citizen's access to firearms having them locked up in a gun club vault, no ready access, bans on concealable handguns, and no provision for a law abiding person to carry one for personal defense and that is also mostly illegal as any object is termed an offensive weapon. That is my main objection to gun control, it only serves to regulate and restrict law abiding people and the criminals still do what they want, and are not prosecuted for those offenses.
Of course - the harder it is to exercise the right to arms, the fewer people will do so. For people who want the state to have a monopoly on force, this is ideal.
One cannot have any meaningful conversation regarding american society without bringing in race given the nature and structure of the society.
Pfffffffffffffffffffft, I've been hearing that the-sky-is-falling nonsense for half a century. The power structure merely wanted you people anxious and incoherent, and it worked among some. Still is. My guns and carry permit were never at risk, neither were yours.
When the sky falls it happens all at once. The restriction of gun rights by anti gunners is much more incremental and is already happening at the state level.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. You're being played, been hearing this nonsense for half a century, mine and my permit are fine, thanks. Speaking of incremental, ya know how folks don't give a phuck as a whole about cops murdering unarmed black folk? Yeah well, here's ya some all at once: found not guilty of second-degree murder and reckless manslaughter by a Maricopa County jury on Thursday, the Arizona Republic reports. It was posted online by the attorney for Shaver’s wife, Laney Sweet, who is suing the Mesa Police Department for $75 million and had been fighting for the release of the video. You can watch the video below. The shooting occurs just after the 16-minute mark of the video. I add the first part is hardly worth watching -- Start at 6:30ish on video. http://heavy.com/news/2017/12/danie...sford-mesa-police-shooting-video-full/?b2np=d
Ever try to get a handgun permit in New York City? Should those in California have to give up their inalienable right of self defense because they have a medical condition and they have a medical marijuana card? Ever try to buy a standard capacity magazine in California that the rest of the country gets when they buy a Glock? Should you have to register your AR 15 just because you live in certain states? In Washington State do you think it's right that they have a de facto gun registration for handguns, even though it's illegal federally to keep gun purchase records? If you are going through a divorce in California should you have to surrender all your guns because the judge issued the standard protective order even in the most amicable of divorces? In NYC can you own a rifle capable of holding more than five rounds? If you live in Seattle should you have to pay an extra tax on guns and ammo purchases because the city doesn't like your kind? Incremental restrictions are happening wherever the anti gun legislators can get away with it.
No it might well be that only a certain percentage want this Certainly reading posts in this forum suggests it has a basis in white fear rather than a desire for "freedom"
Yea, only libs can take a story about brainwashing children into believing lawful ownership of guns is bad, and make it about race.
No, it reeks of tardism. Most of my best LE partners were Black. Not some, most, the rest were Hispanic, one Jewish member. The White Detectives were often times too scared, and I was really afraid of them doing something estupid, like shoost someone that didn't need shoosting ! You can't arrest a dead guy, but you sure can try ! Author Vincent Mattera, N.Y.P.D. Highway Patrol, Ret., Rest in Peace Brother..... Happened once before and I was filling out reports and filing supplemental reports for a long long time...
At one time, a phone call, and I could completely shut down any traffic point, major bridges and roads, highways etc.... My phone call had lots O'Power !!!! More than a Gun really......
Not an anonymous 911 call, an Official request through communications verified with ident codes, and lots of trouble if it was not 100% legitimate.
Just trying to help. If you want to be wrong to fit in with the pro-gunner brigade that's your business. Naff all to do with cognitive dissonance. That refers to control over information in order to justify choices. You're looking for vocab to justify exaggerated reaction to a toy scheme. Could it be more akin to a Dunning-Kruger effect?
