This is a response to a similarly titled diary on the recent diary list, in which the diarist stated that there were certain people to whom he would not respond under any circumstances. So in case, I should figure on that list, I will draft my response here.
As with any traumatic event involving guns, like Norway, Gabby Giffords, Columbine, Virginia Tech, there are many people shouting out their views on how guns either contributed , or alternatively did not contribute to the event. Quite simply, trying to make laws on the basis of, and in the shadow of, exceptional events will lead to bad laws. Worse still, it polarises debate and hinders rather than helps conversation.
Over the squiggle is a my response to some of the issues raised.
First of all, the events in Norway are exceptional and they may be occupying the headlines, but they should not serve as the basis of either arguments about guncontro, or as an excuse to do nothing. There were over 9300 firearm homicides in the US in 2009, or approximately 25 per day. Since Anders Breviek went berserk last Friday, more people have died by firearm in the US at the hands of another than died in Norway. And this is just normal business.
If you want to address the issue of gun violence in the US, it is on the basis of the 25 to 35 people who get murdered every single day, which is equivalent to one 911 every quarter.
So what were some of the points raised in the other diary.
1) We need to keep our 2nd Amendment rights so we can rise up against a tyrannical government.
Seriously, this was advanced on a left wing blog. Apart from the raving paranoia demonstrated, the diarist is actually convinced that his personal weapons stash is equal to an Apache helicopter etc.
For those who say that there's no way to fight the military with the amount/type of civilian arms in the country, well, here's a diary explaining that.
2) Norway has gun control and it didn't help them
Yes Norway has gun control, and any determined terrorist will find a way to get arounds the restrictions and controls. As the diarist points out, Breivik even bought a farm in order to get ammonium nitrate.
But leaving this aside, how effective is gun control in Norway? Well you have to have a licence and a permit to have a gun for hunting or for sport. You are vetted by the police, and limited in the number of guns you may own. But this couldn't stop Breivik.
However, instead of looking at his exceptional circumstance, let usw look at the usual situation in Norway. The homicide rate in Norway is 0.6 per 100,000 population, and for the US it is 5.0 per 100,000, almost ten times the rate. Gun ownership in Norway is relatively high for Europe with about over 30 guns per 100 population, but last year there were only 5 firearm homicides.
With a population of 4.9 million, this would equate to around 310 in the US compared with 9000 plus actual events.
3) Only liberals/progressives would obey the laws.
Again this is based on the precept that any form of gun control would involve wholesale banning and confiscation of weapons or groups of weapons. No intermediate steps are considered or discussed, and it is assumed that all the right wingers would disobey the law. The diarist, who professes to be leftwing, then goes on to say how he would bury his cache in the garden. This sentiment has often been echoed by the Daily Kos RKBA group who on the one hand claim to be responsible law abiding citizens, but who willingly admit to the intention of breaking the law if the laws changed in a way they don't like.
The warped logic is head exploding.
4) Registration leads to confiscation
A familiar meme, and when asked for examples, someone this week quoted the Canada experience - 65 years after requireing gun registration, the Canadian parliament outlawed a class of weapons, and based on the register, required people to submit those weapons.
65 years - now that is long term thinking.
Of course the issue is not the registration, it would be the new law banning a class of weapon. The desire to avoid registration is more to preserve the opportunity to disobey a future law with less risk of being caught. Responsible, law abiding gun owners my ass.
5) Restrict the discussion to armed right wing extremists
Quite frankly, I've spent most of my time discussing armed right wing extremists. I've not even hit upon normal armed criminals who would also not register or turn in their firearms, leaving yet another issue to deal with
This is a sneaky trick to avoid discussing the real issues. Armed right wing extremists are responsible for a miniscule number of gun deaths each year. More kids under 5 have been accidentally shot this month than all the right wing extremists victims in the US since Barack Obama was elected.
Gun control is not about terrorists, it is about your average neighbourhood criminal, your thwarted ex lover, your negligent parent, your average gun lover, who are doing the real carnage out there.
And I will answer all questions if they are respectfully put and relate to the discussion.
Updated for maths error - 310 vs 9300 in comparative firearm homicides.