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.
There are 11,000 gun murders in America each year. There are 45,000 auto deaths each year in America. There are 1,000,000 abortion murders in America each year.
Although any number of deaths by any means is not good, it is not entirely avoidable in, and are the costs of, a free society. I accept that it happens.
Although any number of deaths by any means is not good, it is not entirely avoidable in, and are the costs of, a free society. I accept that it happens.
[it is what it is]
I'm thinking bowel-movement bans could do a lot of good for a number of folks.....and therefore, society.
150 million people were murdered by their governments in the past century. We've gone 200 years without dictators. I think I'll keep the second amendment.
What I want to do is ban any weapon that allows many rounds of munition to be fired quickly. Short of that, I want every registered gun owner to pay (through a high annual tax of some kind, perhaps property tax) to kick in to their municipality to pay for armed police in every school. How would that work on a campus of many buildings spread out over acres, or at a mall? It wouldn't. Back to Square One. What now. All I know is that this is TERRORISM. Whatever happened to HOMELAND SECURITY???
Well lets dissect your argument really quickly.
How many people are killed each year from mass shootings, and how many are killed one by one?
In the last decade, there have been about 26 people killed per year by mass shootings. In the last decade, we have averaged about 15,500 murders a year. That means mass shootings account for .167% of all murders a year. Thus, if putting restrictions on guns accounts for even a .167% increase in murders a year, then you have actually done more harm than good.
Lets go beyond that. The UK is often held up as a model of safety that America should emulate. And while the UK has a much lower murder rate than the United States. Its violent crime rate is much higher than ours. And has become progressively worse after they put heavier and heavier restrictions on guns. In fact, the violent crime rate in much of Europe is far higher than in the United States.
Lets address your tax scenario. What would happen if every gun owner had to pay a high tax on guns to pay for armed guards at schools? It would need to constantly be adjusted by the number of people who owned guns legally. The tax would need to be highly punitive, being that the cost of armed guards would be very expensive. So the result of the tax would probably be to reduce the number of people who owned guns. Each year you would need to raise the tax on gun owners even more to make up for less people paying the tax. Eventually, the tax would have to become so high, that the vast majority of people wouldn't even be able to afford to own a gun. And at that point, the only guns in this country, would be guns which were illegal.
And as in my previous statement, the most probable outcome of getting rid of guns, would be to increase violent crime rates.
Moreover, lets look at how this tax works. It is a tax levied on gun-owners, supposedly because they place a heavy burden on law-enforcement and society by their act of owning a gun. But, being that mass shootings are .167% of all murders, and the probability is that without guns that crime rates would go up. If it is true that guns lower crime, that means that gun-owners actually deter crime, and thus help to reduce the economic burden for law enforcement. Thus, a much stronger argument could be made that people who don't own guns should be taxed rather than people who do own guns.
The one mildly logical argument you had was for "clip size" or "magazine-size". I think its hard to find anyone who can argue that a gun needs to have a clip with 100 rounds. Or even 50 rounds, or even 30 rounds for that matter. The question though is, how effective would a law that reduced clip size actually be? And how many rounds would you allow?
The clips for most handguns range from around 10 to 15 rounds. How many do you think is necessary? What do you do about the hundreds of millions of large-capacity clips already in circulation. And how difficult would it be to fabricate a high-capacity clip, if you were a machinist of some sort?
really? goverments murdered 200 million people during the 20th century. did the brady bunch forget to tell you about all those people murdered by goverments?
guess so, of course what do you expect from a group that loves to lie to make their point.
Let's not do NOTHING by stymying any meaningful change by harping on arguments around apples and oranges. There are murders of all kind all over the world every day. If you want to work against abortion or unjust wars or child hunger/death due to big powerful ag with your legislators, that would be commendable. Gun control is a separate issue.
it isnt a seperate issue, both are legal and are considered rights. both can be considered kiling by the same means you dictated.
That is an interesting stat, more people killed by guns than all wars combined.
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.
