Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They continuously harp on "Gun Violence" as if the gun causes the crime, and not the individual. Homicides are committed using other means than a gun in the U.S. and other countries. It is also committed with guns in countries that have gun bans, and heavy restrictions on guns. Harming the law abiding is not the answer. These people just hate we are able to legally, and responsibly own guns.
Not the same old "guns don't kill, people do" routine! Again? Really?
Listen. No one believes that a gun without a person at the trigger is the problem! Please have mercy!
No doubt I have yet to meet a gun who thinks like a person, but sometimes I meet people who can't seem to think any better than a gun...
If we must continue this sort of argument, consider that cars don't kill people, the people driving them do, of course. Yet, we thought maybe requiring seat belts when driving might help, and of course they do. You might call that a "car control measure" if you will. We came up with speed limits too. Even places where you can't drive at all, for pedestrians only. "Car free zones." Drive a car, you need to be a certain minimum age and pass a driving test. Car is registered and it is illegal to drive a car that is not registered or without insurance.
Now too as commented before, we see barriers on busy sidewalks that are intended from preventing some yahoo behind the wheel of a car from plowing into pedestrians as some yahoos are also starting to think about. This is to prevent PEOPLE from USING cars to kill people. No one thinks a car will drive onto those sidewalks all on there own.
You live in a country that has regulated BB guns and is attempting to ban pointy kitchen knives. Nobody here is taking you seriously when it comes to the topic of gun control.
His country had 26 firearm deaths last year and 0 mass shootings.
Our country had 11,000 firearm deaths last year and 345 mass shootings.
You arguments are futile in the face of cold hard facts.
Drive a car, you need to be a certain minimum age and pass a driving test. Car is registered and it is illegal to drive a car that is not registered or without insurance.
Right?!?
And yet, people drive without insurance and a license every day. Making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.
To what extent we CAN control gun violence is the issue at hand, the subject of this thread...
...The question is what gun control might help prevent mass shootings, for example, and also be constitutional.
I think your heart is in the right place but perhaps your intention is mis-directed.
Constitutionally, we have the right to bear arms (own firearms et al.) That is a keystone right that protects the other rights along with the First Amendment (i.e. having the right to speak out against tyranny or express your wish to pursue happiness and the route to which you wish to pursue.)
Mass shootings are a very minuscule portion of what is being considered gun violence in America. It does not mean that those lives are unimportant. Statistically though, you are much more likely to die at the hands of your doctor than you are at the hands of a mass murderer.
What measures can be taken to reduce this minuscule chance of being mass murdered?
We already have laws against murder (tool independent of outcome.) Passing laws against AR-15s will only net you a .3% change (3 out of every 1000 firearm homicides.) That seems significantly insignificant. However, it's 3 less people per 1000 deaths. Then again, you will probably end up with more handgun deaths (that's the big one.) The tool of choice is insignificant to the desire to murder.
Mental health checks? Everyone is "OK" until they aren't anymore. If they have firearms when they aren't, they already have the firearms. Then we get into that whole argument about what is "sane." I have run into doctors who believe the desire to own firearms is a qualification for not being sane.
If you want to save people, harden the targets. It's why politicians and celebrities have armed and trained guards. That's why the White House has barriers and gates. It's why people domesticated the dog centuries ago. Harden the target, make it more difficult to commit the crime. A law will not stop them, murder is already illegal.
The final thing I would add to "What can we do?" Stop making these people (in)famous. They want attention. They want notoriety. They want to be noticed. Stop making a media frenzy over these acts. Identify it, catalog it, and study it to figure out what causes it but don't blast it over the media.
And yet, people drive without insurance and a license every day. Making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.
Are you advocating we should not have these laws then? Or that they don't have at least some intended affect?
Here too, let's not be ridiculous. No one believes any law keeps everyone from breaking that law, anymore than anyone believes a gun can kill without someone pulling the trigger. We do believe, however, in "a government of laws and not of men." Or do you want to argue this with John Adams and the rest too?
Comparing just gun crime before and after a gun ban/confiscation is missing the whole picture. You need to compare all violent crime (independent of the tools used.) As has been shown in other threads, the small percentage of the reduction in violent crime in Australia post firearm ban could not be attributed directly to the removal of firearms. The trend was already trending down and it made no significant difference in the trend.
The majority of US firearm deaths are suicides (two-thirds of firearm deaths.) Taking away the tool does not take away the wish to commit suicide. In order to reduce our "Gun Violence" perhaps we should explore opening euthanasia centers.
The second largest category of US firearm deaths can be attributed to inner city crime. Once again, criminals do not follow laws and most do not legally own their firearms. A gun ban/confiscation would not pull these firearms off the street.
Comparing one country's statistics to another is not apples to apples. Reporting standards can be different along with the criteria. Each country has different contributing factors (i.e. Australia being an island nation and the US Attorney General selling guns to criminal elements in the next country south that were used to kill US citizens.)
I would agree with the others that you cannot meaningfully compare UK, US, and AU.
Don't know how many times the focus can be diverted like this, but if we're talking about Australia's gun ban that immediately followed a mass shooting, the response was to stop and/or at least lessen mass shootings. This too is the focus of much on the minds of Americans today. Not so much gun crime, which we have long been living with, but mass shootings!
Accordingly, comparing the number of mass shootings in Australia before and after the gun ban is relevant, at least worthy of note, even if not the "whole picture" that includes all other manner of gun violence. Right?
Again, mass shootings is one problem, suicides by a gun is another, gang gun violence still another, drugs, etc., all that require strategies that may be similar in some respects, different in others, perhaps overlapping, but all demanding whatever best efforts to prevent or reduce however we can.
You don't need to compare "apples to apples" to decide whether a fruit is not edible...
I think your heart is in the right place but perhaps your intention is mis-directed.
Constitutionally, we have the right to bear arms (own firearms et al.) That is a keystone right that protects the other rights along with the First Amendment (i.e. having the right to speak out against tyranny or express your wish to pursue happiness and the route to which you wish to pursue.)
Mass shootings are a very minuscule portion of what is being considered gun violence in America. It does not mean that those lives are unimportant. Statistically though, you are much more likely to die at the hands of your doctor than you are at the hands of a mass murderer.
What measures can be taken to reduce this minuscule chance of being mass murdered?
We already have laws against murder (tool independent of outcome.) Passing laws against AR-15s will only net you a .3% change (3 out of every 1000 firearm homicides.) That seems significantly insignificant. However, it's 3 less people per 1000 deaths. Then again, you will probably end up with more handgun deaths (that's the big one.) The tool of choice is insignificant to the desire to murder.
Mental health checks? Everyone is "OK" until they aren't anymore. If they have firearms when they aren't, they already have the firearms. Then we get into that whole argument about what is "sane." I have run into doctors who believe the desire to own firearms is a qualification for not being sane.
If you want to save people, harden the targets. It's why politicians and celebrities have armed and trained guards. That's why the White House has barriers and gates. It's why people domesticated the dog centuries ago. Harden the target, make it more difficult to commit the crime. A law will not stop them, murder is already illegal.
The final thing I would add to "What can we do?" Stop making these people (in)famous. They want attention. They want notoriety. They want to be noticed. Stop making a media frenzy over these acts. Identify it, catalog it, and study it to figure out what causes it but don't blast it over the media.
If I were arguing "from the heart" and not trying to objectively use my brain instead, my comments would be very different, and I wouldn't agree with most of your comment as I do...
My intention is simply to point out the folly in any argument, pro or against gun control, that is weak if not BS, and there is plenty of that on both sides to keep me busy at that. Quote me, verbatim, with respect to anything I comment otherwise, and I'm interested to know where or how I'm off base.
Also for example, though I agree with you about the statistical relevance of mass shooting kill counts, there is other relevance that also seemed compelling for Australians when they acted to stop the mass shootings there. What they did has seemed to put an end to those mass shootings there. Again I can't help but consider why, and I certainly don't accept all these ridiculous reasons why we shouldn't consider that question. Constitution or not. Right?
If I were arguing "from the heart" and not trying to objectively use my brain instead, my comments would be very different, and I wouldn't agree with most of your comment as I do...
My intention is simply to point out the folly in any argument, pro or against gun control, that is weak if not BS, and there is plenty of that on both sides to keep me busy at that. Quote me, verbatim, with respect to anything I comment otherwise, and I'm interested to know where or how I'm off base.
Also for example, though I agree with you about the statistical relevance of mass shooting kill counts, there is other relevance that also seemed compelling for Australians when they acted to stop the mass shootings there. What they did has seemed to put an end to those mass shootings there. Again I can't help but consider why, and I certainly don't accept all these ridiculous reasons why we shouldn't. Right?
Germany had 3 mass shootings in the mid 2000's and they responded by tightened up its gun control polices in response. Since 2010 they have only had 1 mass shooting. We can argue the effectiveness of the laws put in place but what is important was that the German government and people acted on the problem in order to protect its people.
America has 300+ mass shootings year after year after year and does nothing to stop it. Americans either don't really care about the lives of their fellow citizens or are so mentally fixated on guns they are willing to accept the unwilling sacrifice of many innocent people, children included.
The fact that we had 28 children mass murdered in their school and we didn't do one thing in response to ensure it doesn't happen again speaks volumes.
The final thing I would add to "What can we do?" Stop making these people (in)famous. They want attention. They want notoriety. They want to be noticed. Stop making a media frenzy over these acts. Identify it, catalog it, and study it to figure out what causes it but don't blast it over the media.
Another way to accomplish what you recommend and/or additionally is to stop giving copy cat yahoos more acts to copy...
Also to be fair, just what are you suggesting we do with regard to the media covering these mass shootings. You and others like to call it "media frenzy," but how is the media supposed to deal with incidents of school shootings, or something like the Route 99 concert shooting? We're not supposed to hear about this sort of thing? People affected (I had friends who were at that concert) are not supposed to tune in and expect all the news that can be had about these tragedies?
I always get a kick about how quickly we raise the point about our rights with respect to owning guns, not to be infringed upon, but all sorts of interesting notions about how we can and should control the media. Not sure I get that one either...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
