OK, you’ve come in with this very professionally written response (you’ve even included a graph!), you’ve mentioned DGUs, fatality rates. You then go on to point out that even though the US pop. is lower, some parts of the US have higher density, (I wasn’t always sure which points of mine you were countering, I’ll be honest) and that actually, you know, there really are a lot of varmints that need to held off.
Then you go on to say ‘hey you only acknowledge when guns have had a bad effect. What about when they have helped people defend themselves and their property, often without even having to use the firearm?’ (OK) Then you go on to mention, that gun ownership is in the Bill of Rights; (As mentioned in the article, written over 200 years ago) gun ownership statistics; (your point????) and then, you state that it’s a mistake that GRAs hide behind the 2nd Amendmant to oppose gun ownership restriction ‘measures’ because they should oppose these measures based on the fact that “it should be based on real-world experience that tells us these measures not only won’t deliver the promised improvements in public safety, they can’t make good on those promises.”
That is quite a statement. Really??? What is that based on? Because I have a feeling that once the logic to the conclusions made from it was analysed, it might be found wanting and not watertight enough to warrant that statement.
Your graph then illustrates the point that there seems to be no correlation between homicide rates and periods of gun ownership regulation in the past, which is fair enough, but hardly conclusive.
You make a few other points that, overall exhibit an admiral descriptive knowledge of the topic, with your facts and figures. (Good stuff!)
However I feel that instead of using the word ‘irrelevant’ at the end, perhaps you should have used ‘abstract’ because it would’ve helped explain why most of the main ideas explored in the article didn’t seem to show up on your radar.
I know that I wasn’t necessarily explicit about this in the article but what I tried to basically say is ‘Shooting sprees are fixated on in the media and politics partly because the spectacularly horrendous but also because they also make the West ask on some level conscious or subconscious, what is wrong with society that produces these frequent events?
Also, a the point I didn’t cover in the article is that regardless of the truth, the media coverage has ballooned whatever conclusions societies have made about what shooting sprees betray is wrong with society and made these conclusions fact by consensus of opinion (the consensus being that something is wrong with society even if we can’t agree what it is). Also, even more important is that this media coverage is making Americans ask that are not just themselves but are their societies safer environments with guns? And that, if so, would it not be better to at least heavily restrict guns if America itself wants to feel more civilised and healthy?
So, I ask you, if not your own community, then do many communities around the US feel less safe with Armalites rifles available to own in their community? And, in spite of any research that might prove more lives are saved with guns, would it not be better to abolish or restrict gun ownership if your environment per se felt safer and that the community members with who you share your life with and whose fortunes and misfortunes you are also influence your fortunes, felt they lived in a more harmonious environment, and less prone to the particular type of whimsical death firearms cause? That is the big Q, how safe does US society feel their societies are with in them? And do shooting sprees make citizens ask questions about how well functioning it is which they would rather not answer?