Americans will not surrender their means to self protection.
Firstly. Lets just clarify your first statement, which is actually incorrect. Gun homicides are not always carried out wilfully with the intent to murder. Take cases of manslaughter, suicide and self defence as examples. The premise of this is bad people are not just the ones carrying out firearm illegalities.
Secondly. To an extent, it doesn't harm anyone. Lets look at this from another perspective. What about the thousands who have been mentally scared or experienced trauma relating to firearms, what about the individuals who have lost family members to a firearm?? The fact is it is this "properly secured" firearm that is continuing to kill and injure over 100,000 people per year. When does the line get drawn??
Thirdly. It is sometimes the sacrifices that individuals have to make. What do you consider an acceptable number of firearm deaths?? Quite frankly just because you have a right (an outdated one at that) doesn't mean you need to exercise or use this right, sometimes guilt by association is a construct of life. We are talking about the greater good of society, not just satisfying 1/4 of Americans desires.
Fourthly. Painkillers don't have the primary purpose of inflicting harm or causing death. Rather a firearm does. Painkillers for many are essential in hospitals, daily life and various other areas. They are a daily element of life in all societies, rather guns are not.
To your fifth point. This is one article you have found (which is at the top of the search bar), without any foundational research. I will explain the misleading nature of your statement and gun violence stats in general.....
1) The gun rates per 100,000 people are misleading. Here is why......
In 1993 the rate was 7 per 100,000.....this is reflecting the population of 259.9 million
In 2010 the rate was 3.6 per 100,000......this is reflecting a population of 309.9 million
(We see an increase of over 50 million, which is not reflected is this ratio creating a substantially lower number)
2) Your statement in the general sense is true......but you need to examine each year to understand the trend line. In your case it is like doing a maths equation with a number line 1-10 and only looking at 1 and 10.
- From 1991 there was an increase up until 1993 where numbers began to decline
- Since 2004 the numbers have been on the steep incline from 29,569 in 2004 to 36,252 in 2015. How is your blanket statement reflective of gun crime in a broader sense?? I suppose its a good way to manipulate you figures for your own premise.
To your next point. "We now have" I disagree mass shootings and any sort of action of that size has attracted attention (which is not necessarily morally or ethically right) for decades all the way back to University of Texas tower shooting in 1966. It is not a relatively new notion.
To your next point. Schools should not have to be protected, because quite simply the gun violence is not limited to schools, nor should protection of schools become a normality. If we are protecting those affected by gun violence, the whole Las Vegas strip must be protected, each and very university must be protected and each and every night club. It is impracticable and absurd that an education facility becomes an area of defence, at what point people started accepting this?? Why is this just limited primarily to USA.....why is this not happening every where else (with some exceptions) on a regular basis?
To your final point. The premise of gun legislation has not changed from country to country, why the USA is an exception I am unsure. Legislation can be adapted and altered to match the construct of a country. Well if you would like a country more "geographically suitable" or "demographically suitable" what about the UK's success with firearm legislation, Japans success or India's success??
Your statement of "Australia basically disarmed its citizens, something that could never be attempted here without lots of bloodshed". This is completely and utterly untrue. The vast vast vast majority of the population supported it, in fact over 700,000 guns were handed in (I will repeat "handed in") under the buy back scheme. With an additional 500,000 being handed in under the 2003 and recent 2017 buy back scheme. No one was forced, no one was coerced. EVERYONE DID WHAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF SOCIETY. WHAT WAS RIGHT. WHAT WAS JUST. Just for your information.....between 1999 and 2010 for everyone 1 justified homicide (self defence) there were 246 criminal homicides. The fact is over 9% of Americans were found to not lock their front doors at night, just use common sense and properly secure your firearm (over 237,000 are stolen every year). Once that is cleaned up and statistics change dramatically and their is a general consensus in support of self defence , just maybe self defence might have some form of validity to it.
