From the Economist....

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/charleston-and-public-policy?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

only two quotes matter in what is essentially an apologist piece about "hey, sorry, no gun control".

There is also a painful dilemma that honest advocates of gun control must address. It is not clear that limited gun control, of the sort that might be politically possible in America, would actually make gun massacres much rarer, or even stop the country from topping rich-world lists for gun deaths by a mile. For once guns are reasonably common in a society, it is easy to see why some people will feel safer arming themselves. The sort of gun control that has had dramatic results in other countries, such as Britain or Japan, essentially involves no guns, or making it essentially impossible for private citizens to own handguns. This is not about to happen in America.

this is all true.  the guns are already here, and while i'd dispute the idea that gun control "works" in Britain or Japan (Britain has essentially followed their 10 year cycle of mass shootings regardless of their gun laws like clockwork, their violent crime continues to rise, while Japan has never culturally been about guns, ever. ), even if it DID work, it cant happen at this stage.


and this.

Here is one last reason why gun laws are so hard to change: America is becoming an increasingly polarised society.

is both fortunately why its hard to lose existing rights, but also why its hard to make gains. 


oh, and also.

The America that believes that guns make the country more dangerous—urban, educated, Democratic America

despite the fact that it's true that college grads are likelier to support gun control, fuck you for the obvious subtext there, Economist.

The statement   "The sort of gun control that has had dramatic results in other countries, such as Britain or Japan, essentially involves no guns, or making it essentially impossible for private citizens to own handguns"  is misleading at best as in both of those countries only criminals have guns.  Britain's police are increasingly being armed to counter criminals who are themselves armed and of course the Yakuza in Japan carry more than a rape whistle.

It was an interesting article from a viewpoint of how other countries view America and thought worth sharing.

Another very real factor to consider is the media in America.

No other country publicizes all their crime for the world to see.

Only the most heinous of crimes are shown on television in places like Japan, England, etc...

In America, the media and their flair for the over dramatic, and ratings, show every single crime that occurs anywhere.

Other countries have crime too. They just don't blare it all over CNN.

Well that's what sucks about the media, they tend to emphasize "negative" type firearms stories.  I rarely see a story on the news about "the good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun."  It seems like I only hear or read about these stories on various firearms blogs, forums and youtube channels.

Well that's what sucks about the media, they tend to emphasize "negative" type firearms stories.  I rarely see a story on the news about "the good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun."  It seems like I only hear or read about these stories on various firearms blogs, forums and youtube channels.

If we lived in, say, Texas, those "feel good" gun stories would be on the local news more often.  Only the local stations tend to carry those.  The national news agencies only get involved if it supports their agenda or has some sort of national interest (like the Deedy trials).

On FB, I see all kinds of links to "good guy with a gun protects self and family".  The links always take you to a local news story and video if available.

"If it bleeds, it leads" is the journalism creed.  Someone holding a criminal at gunpoint while the Cops arrive involves no death and no "bad gun" aspect, so there is nothing there for the vultures to parade on the news.