Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The New Arms Race

Huffington Post

As for "carrying," it's now legal in every state in America and allowed in ever more situations as well. In the last year, for instance, Idaho, where that mother died, became the seventh state to green-light the carrying of concealed guns on college campuses. To put all this in perspective, less than two decades ago, fewer than a million concealed weapons were being legally carried in the U.S.; now, more than one million people are permitted to carry such weapons in Florida alone. In 21st-century America, the "right to bear arms" has been extended in every direction, while there has also been a "sharp rise" in mass killings.
Meanwhile -- since what's an arms race without a second party? -- the police,mainlining into the Pentagon, have been up-armoring at a staggering pace. It's no longer an oddity for American police officers to be armed with assault rifles and grenade launchers as if in a foreign war zone or to arrive on the scene with a mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle previously used in our distant wars. And by the way, while much anger has been displayed, by the police in particular, over the recent murders of two patrolmen in Brooklyn by a disturbed man carrying a Taurus semiautomatic handgun, that anger seems not to extend to his ability to arm himself or to the pawnshop filled with weaponry that originally sold the gun (but not to him).

18 comments:

  1. To put all this in perspective, less than two decades ago, fewer than a million concealed weapons were being legally carried in the U.S.; now, more than one million people are permitted to carry such weapons in Florida alone.

    Funny--where have I been hearing that more and more Americans are rejecting guns?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "To put all this in perspective, less than two decades ago, fewer than a million concealed weapons were being legally carried in the U.S.; now, more than one million people are permitted to carry such weapons in Florida alone. In 21st-century America, the "right to bear arms" has been extended in every direction, while there has also been a "sharp rise" in mass killings."

    And firearm homicides in the last two decades have gone from 18,253 in 1993 to 8,454 in 2013. More guns means.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really want to say that decline is ALL due to more guns SS?

      Delete
    2. Of course not Sandra, not all. Though if the expansion of Second Amendment rights is going to be blamed for the increase in mass shootings, then it seems only fair to give it the credit for the decrease in homicides.

      Delete
    3. It sure sounded like you were saying that.

      Delete
    4. "Of course not"
      Then stop saying it.

      Delete
    5. Mike, my assertion is just as valid as the author of the article. The author wants to bring up an increase in mass shootings and suggest that it's caused by the expansion of Second Amendment rights.
      I brought up that homicides also greatly declined during that period. If you believe that the author's claim is valid, how is my claim not?

      Delete
    6. Well, because the first creates greater gun accessibility to criminals. The second is mainly due to improved emergency care.

      Delete
    7. You might be able to make that argument if homicides were down with no change or an increase in aggravated assault. However, both have been declining, at least as recently as the 2013 FBI reports. Perhaps the 2014 report will validate your assertion, but I'm thinking that it wont.

      Delete
    8. That's a good point. I'll have to think about that.

      Delete
  3. In 21st-century America, the "right to bear arms" has been extended in every direction, while there has also been a "sharp rise" in mass killings.

    Really? And these mass killings are being done by concealed carry people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some. Yes. And we'll never know how many irresponsible permit holders let their guns flow into the criminal world and in that way contribute to mass shootings.

      Delete
    2. Some. Yes. And we'll never know how many irresponsible permit holders let their guns flow into the criminal world and in that way contribute to mass shootings.

      But we apparently do know that they would not "let their guns flow into the criminal world," if concealed carry permits were more difficult to obtain?

      Besides, about that "flow into the criminal world and in that way contribute to mass shootings," don't you like to harp on how many mass shootings are perpetrated by people with no criminal history that would disqualify them from gun ownership?

      What, in other words, does "flow into the criminal world" have to do with mass shootings?

      Delete
    3. Which mass shooters were permit holders? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

      Delete
    4. Well, Loughner was enjoying Constitutional Carry. Does that count?

      Delete
    5. Well, Loughner was enjoying Constitutional Carry. Does that count?

      I suppose that anyone who believes that he would have been deterred by laws prohibiting his carrying a firearm would think so. Sensible people? Not so much.

      Delete
    6. Arizona still issues permits, and he did not have one. I would also be he never constitutionally carried before that shooting. He only owned a gun for a month. He doesn't seem like a strong gun rights/self-defense kind of guy.

      Delete