As I see yet another unarmed, innocent human being shot and killed by the police, I question why they reach for what should be a last resort tool. How did we get here? If I look at statistics from around the globe, it’s not even close. In 2018 US police officers killed 1011 people. In the same year, Canadian police killed 36, Austrian politzei… 18, Great Britain... 6. Beyond that, Australia... 2 and Japan had zero. When you examine gun laws in each of those countries, you find some of the most comprehensive gun laws in the world, except the US, where it’s the most lax.
So why are US cops killing people at such an egregious rate? Did this behavior begin because of the abundance of guns on the streets? Or is there another reason for 36 times the number of police-related murders?
I tend to believe that with the surplus of guns in our streets, cops have been trained to expect a gun, which leaves them to always anticipate a gun, thus, a violent encounter.
I know this won't matter at all, but here it goes. Guns do kill people, that's what they are made to do. They kill people purposefully and accidentally. In the last 100 years or so, guns that can kill a lot of people at one time have been made available to the general public. In all of the most recent mass shootings, the guns were legally purchased, so, the "black market will never go away" argument doesn't hold water. As well, the idea that more people need guns doesn't stand up. In America, there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens. Clearly, there are enough guns around, if that were the solution.
In the UK, there are 50-60 gun deaths per year or about 1 gun death per 1 million in population. In contrast, the US has 160 times that rate, or 8,100 gun deaths per year (2014), even though the US population is only 6 times that of the UK.
No one in favor of gun laws is suggesting that enacting tougher laws will completely eliminate gun deaths. Only those opposed to gun laws seem to see that at the end goal, which, since it is unattainable, shouldn't even be attempted. Seat belt/car seat laws did not eliminate accident deaths, but they significantly curtailed them. Likewise, drunk driving laws did not eliminate drunk driving deaths, but they have decreased them by 51% since 1982. Since it didn't get rid of drunk driving deaths, should we go back to having no laws against drunk driving?
As someone without a background in law, I try to understand historical context, the development and adaptation of laws, and the analysis of historical facts. The Second Amendment was not written for an AR-15. Period. People living in the late 18th century could not fathom such a weapon any more than they could imagine rocketing to the moon and back. There is no practical reason for a person to own a weapon of mass destruction. None. An individual arsenal (or even a combined arsenal of like-minded people) would have zero chance of defeating the government/military, if it decided to become totalitarian.
So, I ask you, why continue to sell these killers of children and other innocents? I don't mean guns/rifles generally, but semi-auto, high capacity rifles, bump stocks, etc. No one is suggesting that you're automatically bad person for owning them. At some point, though, an individual's desire to do/have something (AR-15s, drunk drive, not seatbelt their children) is outweighed by the damage to society.
Please just think about this. Rather than immediately responding and calling me a liberal snowflake who doesn't know anything, just think about the stats. Think about all those kids, and the adults who died trying to save them. There has to be a solution.
