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.
You brought up Germany. You made them part of the discussion.
And there are plenty of points being made - the point that liberals really don't give a **** about human life since liberals are the ones who support importing Islam (an ideology that throws gays off rooftops and stones adulterers), assisted SUICIDE and ABORTION.
I brought up Germany and its governmental reaction to mass shootings because it offers a comparison to our problem with mass shootings. Which is what the topic of this thread is about America's Unique Gun Violence.
You are using Germany's immigration problems, assisted suicides, and abortion as a red herring to redirect the topic of conversation.
If you want to ramble and foam at the mouth about Muslims, abortion and suicide, start another thread.
The UK has a Constitution. Educate yourself before posting.
It does not have a constitution in the same manner as the US. It's not a written constitution, but commonly agreed upon by parliament, and therefore is mutable by will of Parliament alone.
The UK does uphold the ECHR but that's not a constitution per se, but a statement of intent, even that is mutable by will of the EU and post BREXIT parliament.
I brought up Germany and its governmental reaction to mass shootings because it offers a comparison to our problem with mass shootings. Which is what the topic of this thread is about America's Unique Gun Violence.
You are using Germany's immigration problems, assisted suicides, and abortion as a red herring to redirect the topic of conversation.
If you want to ramble and foam at the mouth about Muslims, abortion and suicide, start another thread.
Your side keeps bringing up gun deaths. Either knowingly or unknowingly, you do not omit SUICIDES in your inflated and manipulated "stats" to try to back up your side.
Then - if and when you do acknowledge suicides and argue that guns should be taken away to stop/reduce suicides, you open yourself to the critique I applied to you using the assisted suicides and abortion.
some interesting stats and graphs regarding gun violence in America vs other places.
IMO we need stricter gun laws. What we have right now isn't working and the amount of gun deaths is staggering.
take out all the suicides which accounts for 60%+ of those firearm violence and the numbers shall fall. suicide is not part of gun violence, because if someone truly wants to commit suicide, then whether there is a firearm available or not, they will kill themselves.
also, take out all self defense shootings, all LEO's shooting and firearm accidents, and then recalculate your numbers, and then you should find that we as a country have lower firearm murder rates than many countries with very few firearms.
if you also take out the top 5 democrat cities, whom also have the most gun control, then we as a country would have a firearm murder rate at the bottom 10% of the planet.
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?
Why are you solving the problem for a subset of a bigger problem?
If we control violent crime and work to reduce it. Won't that by its action reduce gun crime?
However if we work to reduce gun crime alone by a simple method of eliminating classifications of or guns entirely, there is no guarantee that violence will be reduced.
Example is murder and violent crime in the UK. Stats from 1990-1997 are lower than stats 1997-2004. 1997 being the year of the 1997 Firearm (amendment) acts. Violent crime did not fall, murder did not fall. Sure in comparison to the US the UK'S murder rate is low, but the ban did not reduce murders in the UK and I'm not even sure it reduced gun murders.
Problem with Aus. mass shooting claims is that by Aus. standards there are 3-4 mass shootings per year in the US, 5 dead not including the perp, but the 345 mass shootings claims made about the US are 3 people shot (not necessarily killed). Further it ignores the mass homicides by motor vehicle and fire that have happened in Australia since Port Arthur.
take out all the suicides which accounts for 60%+ of those firearm violence and the numbers shall fall. suicide is not part of gun violence, because if someone truly wants to commit suicide, then whether there is a firearm available or not, they will kill themselves.
also, take out all self defense shootings, all LEO's shooting and firearm accidents, and then recalculate your numbers, and then you should find that we as a country have lower firearm murder rates than many countries with very few firearms.
if you also take out the top 5 democrat cities, whom also have the most gun control, then we as a country would have a firearm murder rate at the bottom 10% of the planet.
But this is what they do - habitual liars. Then they wonder why we conservatives will never listen to a word that comes out of their mouths. SMH
The UK has a Constitution. Educate yourself before posting.
The UK does not have the same sort of Constitution that the United States does. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Not wrong. Though the constitution is the basis for all our laws, the constitution and all our laws are not necessarily the best when it comes to addressing gun related violence. To what extent we CAN control gun violence is the issue at hand, the subject of this thread.
Though of course we have our legal parameters to consider in this country, gun control has been deemed constitutional. People in Australia can own guns too. The question is what gun control might help prevent mass shootings, for example, and also be constitutional.
Also of course, the more radical consideration is amending the constitution to allow even more strict gun control more like Australia and England has adopted. This too is doable just like our constitution was amended to change the voting power of blacks from 3/5ths a white man to equal.
Though radical, if mass shootings and gun violence continue to be order-of-magnitude more prevalent in this country and order-of-magnitude more unacceptable to Americans, the more radical possibility of amending the constitution becomes more likely.
ALL that can and should be considered even if the ultimate determination and/or conclusion doesn't sit well with gun control advocates and/or gun enthusiasts. Right?
Was a time, to use another example, that ending segregation was also "off the table" in terms of consideration, but time, circumstances and problems getting out of hand tends to make the unthinkable more thinkable, right or wrong. Lots of examples of correcting wrongs that were once considered "off the table" by many gives me reason to think, at least, that nothing should really be "off the table" when it comes to objective consideration about what is right and what is wrong, what might work better or maybe not...
The only point at which gun control should even be considered is when all other options have been considered, tried, and exhausted. As of now, not one ban or restriction that has been encouraged and/or passed by the anti-gun crowd has even slowed down mass shootings. The track record is abysmal on gun control measures, especially as it relates to mass shootings. Now you want to double down on the idiocy? Sorry, but I'd prefer to look for solutions that actually work rather than solutions that have already been proven to fail. There have been numerous ideas floated by the pro-2nd Amendment crowd, all of which have been lambasted by the anti-gun crowd without any reason other than that they don't ban guns. For every country which you say is an example of gun control working, I can show you two countries where gun control is definitely not working. Until you're willing to consider ideas that don't infringe on the 2nd Amendment, you can't claim to be looking for actual solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
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.
His country has none of the issues that we face in the United States. Look at where the majority of violence takes place, then step back and logically try to form an argument that any amount of gun control would put a dent in that 11,000 number. Even a full gun ban wouldn't see any sort of result until Generations X's children's children were old enough to run for POTUS. Unless, of course, there was confiscation to go along with it - which would mean that it isn't a gun ban, merely a restriction on citizens which places more power in the hands of the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
I brought up Germany and its governmental reaction to mass shootings because it offers a comparison to our problem with mass shootings. Which is what the topic of this thread is about America's Unique Gun Violence.
You are using Germany's immigration problems, assisted suicides, and abortion as a red herring to redirect the topic of conversation.
If you want to ramble and foam at the mouth about Muslims, abortion and suicide, start another thread.
Again, you are comparing the United States to a country that would fit in a small corner of our own and attempting to claim that their solutions would work here. There is no evidence that this would be true.
Your side keeps bringing up gun deaths. Either knowingly or unknowingly, you do not omit SUICIDES in your inflated and manipulated "stats" to try to back up your side.
Then - if and when you do acknowledge suicides and argue that guns should be taken away to stop/reduce suicides, you open yourself to the critique I applied to you using the assisted suicides and abortion.
It's all relevant.
Your response it poorly reasoned for several factors:
1.) You assume because I think gun control is a good idea I must therefore be pro suicide and pro abortion, of which I have never stated my opinion on either.
2.) The 11,000 gun deaths figure only accounts for homicides. It omits the additional 20,000 additional suicide deaths by firearm each year.
3.) Are suicides a problem here in the US? Absolutely, gun suicides are particularly problematic because the self harm can be committed easily with little chance of revival and because its by far the most common method for suicide. Accounting for 60% of all suicides. What makes it so bad is that the most common method of suicide is also the most fatal.
I wonder how many lost souls would have been saved if they didn't use a firearm to commit suicide. Just adds another reason why sensible gun control is needed.
The UK does not have the same sort of Constitution that the United States does. Not even close.
The only point at which gun control should even be considered is when all other options have been considered, tried, and exhausted. As of now, not one ban or restriction that has been encouraged and/or passed by the anti-gun crowd has even slowed down mass shootings. The track record is abysmal on gun control measures, especially as it relates to mass shootings. Now you want to double down on the idiocy? Sorry, but I'd prefer to look for solutions that actually work rather than solutions that have already been proven to fail. There have been numerous ideas floated by the pro-2nd Amendment crowd, all of which have been lambasted by the anti-gun crowd without any reason other than that they don't ban guns. For every country which you say is an example of gun control working, I can show you two countries where gun control is definitely not working. Until you're willing to consider ideas that don't infringe on the 2nd Amendment, you can't claim to be looking for actual solutions.
His country has none of the issues that we face in the United States. Look at where the majority of violence takes place, then step back and logically try to form an argument that any amount of gun control would put a dent in that 11,000 number. Even a full gun ban wouldn't see any sort of result until Generations X's children's children were old enough to run for POTUS. Unless, of course, there was confiscation to go along with it - which would mean that it isn't a gun ban, merely a restriction on citizens which places more power in the hands of the government.
Again, you are comparing the United States to a country that would fit in a small corner of our own and attempting to claim that their solutions would work here. There is no evidence that this would be true.
What does country's area have to do with anything?
Your response it poorly reasoned for several factors:
1.) You assume because I think gun control is a good idea I must therefore be pro suicide and pro abortion, of which I have never stated my opinion on either.
No assuming. It's a matter of fact. Most of the people screaming about "gun control/gun confiscation/gun bans" are of the liberal persuasion. (And I don't consider Bret Stephens or Justice Stevens "conservative" nor will I ever, so please save your typing on it..)
Most people arguing for assisted suicide and abortion are also of the liberal persuasion.
THEREFORE: a reasonable person can reasonably conclude that the arguments about being concerned about suicide(death) are a load of lies.
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.
