no,not a new thing just "seems" to be happening more often. if more research was taking place maybe it'd be easier to work out's what changed(?)
The "random shootings" we're referring to, aren't new, but they have increased along with that theme. Since we know it isn't the invention of guns, however, it could only leave one thing: us. We've changed. Some way, some how, we've failed to see to ourselves and our mindset.
First thing that comes to my mind, then, is economy. If money is the most-agreed upon "ruler" of our society, if money "changes everything", if money's void is seen as the primary obstacle in life worth living: then I must say economy is the first suspect.
no. they are paid by the public to "police" it would be very difficult to police a heavily armed population without being armed. civilians are not paid to police and in the vast majority of cases i would imagine lack the training to do so.
But you don't disagree that a civilian has every bit the desire to live as does someone wearing a uniform. So how do you reassure the person it's "worth" it to surrender his/her only peace against criminals with guns? Your best sales pitch, please, with respect to your stand.
you have a representative democracy (like most of developed world). so you don't get to vote on every issue, you vote for the party that's policies most represent you. but for very contentious issues where there is very strong public opinion, you could hold a referendum. like in the UK with brexit.
You understand "contentious" is related to what "seems" to be fact, and what "seems" to be fact comes from one source: MSM. That's the power it holds as our primary source of information. Since we cannot be everywhere at once, to investigate all things, we must rely on a source.
Tmk, for instance, random shootings have increased. I believe it to be true from what I've seen beyond MSM. So, that MSM proceeds to treat the matter as though a brand new invention has come about, called guns, and now we're to focus our attention on that, and only that: should tell us everything we need to know about the source.
Beware the battle you choose, or you'll be fighting yourself.
the data i quoted showed that those with guns (and those living in high gun areas) die violently, more frequently than non gun owners and people in low gun areas. explain from that how you conclude this must mean that criminals are happening upon only those without arms in those locations.
as you have completely lost me there with your "logic".
You mentioned "areas with high prevalance of legal guns", meaning law-conscious and defense-oriented communities. Interactions between strangers which might (otherwise) provide offense statistics, are more likely to remain as incidental occurrences. Not the best place for those who'd hope to successfully offend.
Other statistics (such as suicides, accidents and the others you mention) may appear higher against statistics of criminal offenses, if it's as you say.
i would just tell them the facts (as i've said several times) .anecdotally guns are great for protection. in reality the statistics show that gun owners are more at risk of harm. and that fact does not change even if you personally have used a gun 10 times successfully in self defence.
But the person who's done that ten times can't be told his/her life wasn't worth it, preservation of his/her family wasn't worth it. You're only saying it's not worth it to you -- which (I hope) you don't mean.
the statistics do say that. i think you are confused with how statistics are used in this context.
what these studies have done (simply speaking) is track different sample groups eg. gun owners and non gun owners ,then record how many from each group die of a certain type of death or whatever. when these studies are done using the proper methods and controls, the findings(statistics) can be used to assess (usually quite accurately) certain future risks. i.e the health risks of gun ownership. bear in mind the studies i cited were peer reviewed and published in medical journals and there are lots of these studies that have come up with similar findings.
Then it may provide a lesson in carelessness, which never hurts to give. An attempt to use it as anything but that, however, is dishonest.
