It's not a theory. The evidence is that you can never provide any evidence.
Would your version of ... .
I have generalised previously in this thread about the type of regulation I prefer.
Mass shooting has emotional connotations to it, that people use for political agendas, yes.
In Australia, other than the Domestic Mass Shooting I mentioned, I can't recall another such domestic incident like it, perhaps the Singh Murders where a jilted boyfriend murders his girlfriend and her siblings in Brisbane (unknown weapon if any - he boiled the bodies in a spa).
Nor are mass shootings common - they are extremely rare. It is not really an issue in this country. So my use of it doesn't carry the US use of it. For me, I see it as very apt.
The guy wasn't going to run over the parties that were in their business (unless it was very open), nor the others in their house. It's unlikely he knew how to make a bomb. Why then use them as comparison. Seriously?
Even so, I had also previously mentioned both bombs, and cars as a method of mass murder, and I would have no hesitation discussing the means in either of those two scenarios. So why make an exemption for firearms? Because that is what it would be...an avoidance.
Most crimes aren't murder.
No, the media almost always nominates the weapon when they know a weapon was used. Most people talk about the weapon when the weapon was used. There is nothing unusual about this at all.
That's the problem with assumptions. I like guns. Used them from about the age of 12, with air rifles, onto .22's when didn't need to be licensed, and still go down to the firing range from time to time. A large percentage of Australians like guns, and I'm all for that. The difference in our approach is the regulation of guns.
An emotional political response is the only reason for using the term, it serves no other purpose and actually keeps the actual events from being talked about.
An emotional political response is the only reason for using the term
it serves no other purpose and actually keeps the actual events from being talked about
I just provided you a link to a story talking about 3 different family murders taking place in as many months. You don't know about them because they didn't involve a gun. Ignorant of events in your own country?
As I noted above, the only weapon that gets mass coverage is a gun. If that gun was a handgun, it's a smaller story, when it's an AR type weapon that becomes to story.
You avoid like the plague saying you're actually interested in discussing regulation.
But Baldimo has already talked to you about vilifying the gun instead of the user. Most of the anti-gun folks do the same.
- plane hijacking into the twin towers
The issue seems to be, that you don't like gun being directly associated with killings using guns.
All of these are mass murders, and all nominate the method of mass murder. This is common practice, and well accepted.
Just a recognition that they have the capacity to cause a lot more damage in the hands of a lunatic.
They are complicit, they're every bit as guilty as the ordinary Germans who turned a blind eye to the Nazi death camps at the end of the street.
You can rationalise it away as much as you like, but America's ultra high homicide rate is a result of its ridiculously lax gun laws.
The fact remains that you feel your need to strut around with a gun feeling important
America's ultra high homicide rate is a result of its ridiculously lax gun laws.