|Car accidents caused by teens in too powerful vehicles will kill more kids (or direct relatives) before they graduate than died in the shooting by a factor of ten. Yet there is no discussion of "car control".|
|Re: Hey! I have no love for the Baltimore Sun. Liberal rag isn't even good enough to like a bird cage with. -- robertb||Post Reply||Top of thread||Forum|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
That statistic is not an exaggeration. In the next four years, the estimate of the number of people or their direct relatives who will be killed by car accidents will be about 20.
See, the population of the school is about 3000, and the rate of population per-3000 which will be killed in car accidents in California on average will be about 0.2 % annually (two out of 1000) per year.
That means out of a population of 3000, either 20 students themselves or a direct relative (mother, father, brother sister) will die in auto accidents over the course of four years.
In that same time, roughly the same number of the same group will legally use a firearm to avoid being victimized by violent crime (murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, sexual assault).
So from a purely rational perspective, the assertion by the author of that above notion of some tangible reduction in death is completely unsupported by facts.
The key element making the notions he holds invalid, is that there is no zero sum "solution" in any measure which significantly reduces the availability of firearms to normal law-abiding people.
Criminals by definition do not follow guns laws, so enacting more restrictive gun laws doesn't reduce violent crime (no net reductions in violent crime rates EVER occurs), it reduces the ability of normal people to fight violent crime.
Murder rates consistently rise whenever and wherever the availability of legal firearms is reduced in any area.
Last but not least, there is no indication that the kid who shot those other kids got the .45 he used legally. It was not registered to anyone in his family (past or present) so he likely purchased it off the black market or stole it - both of those methods demonstrate that he had crossed the line into an especially high-risk group of people who become committed to a homicidal course of action.
Such people have been demonstrated by law enforcement study after study to be inclined to ALWAYS defer to a secondary (or tertiary) method of murder whenever the primary one was denied. IOW, if he had not been able to get a .45 pistol, he would have used a car to mow them down, a fire-bomb to burn them alive or some other equally horribly effective means to accomplish his goal of murder.
Modified by LateForLunch at Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 04:19:37
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Where am I? Original Top of thread||Previous | Next | Current page|
|Replies to this message|