No way to prevent gun violence. (Maryland, Illinois, South Dakota, gun law)
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.
Which just proves that point that doing "something" (even though liberals never quite know what that something is) about gun violence will probably result in deaths still happening.
This is pretty much the most ridiculous argument among the pro-gun movement: If a law doesn't solve all crime, then eliminate the law. Heck, why make murder illegal since people just kill anyway? (Hint: it has something to do with the fact that less murders occur because murder is illegal).
Besides, no one can tell me how Gun Registration saves lives anyway. I could go buy a gun, and shoot a dozen people with that registered gun, then take it home and put it away. End of Story. Where did "Registration" help?
Canada had a gun registration program for a decade. They spent over 1 BILLION dollars on it. It was used to solve exactly 1 crime.
In the meantime we're going to have crime and violent crime. We're also going to have over one hundred million illegal / unregistered guns in existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoriBee62
Which brings us all back to the original, "Meh, stuff happens" response to mass murders in our schools.
Oh? You've figured out a way to prevent crime and violent crime? You've figured out a way to eliminate one hundred million illegal guns?
I think we should disallow gun sales that don't include background checks, such as those at public gun shows. But as we've already talked about, you will not be able to prevent private sales. Also as we've already talked about, none of the rules someone proposed early in this thread would stop me from doing a massacre in Q1 2016.
What rule do you propose that will End The Violence? What can government do to save us (given that we ALL know forced confiscation would be a Hollywood horror movie)?
I'm not opposed to rules and new rules. I think they're destined to be ineffective in really stopping the problem. But sure let's do them. Violent crime and massacres are here to stay (until the post-scarcity or annihilation). I suggest you may want to move to another country. Or stay here, the overwhelming likelihood is you won't be shot and killed in a massacre.
Oh? You've figured out a way to prevent crime and violent crime? You've figured out a way to eliminate one hundred million illegal guns?
I think we should disallow gun sales that don't include background checks, such as those at public gun shows. But as we've already talked about, you will not be able to prevent private sales. Also as we've already talked about, none of the rules someone proposed early in this thread would stop me from doing a massacre in Q1 2016.
What rule do you propose that will End The Violence? What can government do to save us (given that we ALL know forced confiscation would be a Hollywood horror movie)?
I'm not opposed to rules and new rules. I think they're destined to be ineffective in really stopping the problem. But sure let's do them. Violent crime and massacres are here to stay (until the post-scarcity or annihilation). I suggest you may want to move to another country. Or stay here, the overwhelming likelihood is you won't be shot and killed in a massacre.
Reasonable people know you can't End The Violence. But many reasonable people want something done to Reduce The Violence, in a way that doesn't involve everyone carrying around a gun.
The article you linked to is an editorial which contains no actual facts or citations, only a link to the study's abstract. It's basically a press release, with no journalism or fact checking behind it.
Even if Lott's rebuttal is completely false and the authors of the study made zero errors in their data collection or analysis, the actual conclusion of the study linked by the article you posted was that there is no empirical evidence that says that the spread of Right to Carry laws have led to a reduction in crime. Notice that is vastly different than "more guns equals more crime," the misleading headline trumpeted by WaPo, HuffPo, et al. Refer back to my post 261 from this thread: //www.city-data.com/forum/41477552-post261.html
So yes, cited verifiable statistics > WaPo blather.
Reasonable people know you can't End The Violence. But many reasonable people want something done to Reduce The Violence, in a way that doesn't involve everyone carrying around a gun.
Reasonable people know that adding more gun laws doesn't help, since the gun murder rate in Arizona is the same as California.
Reasonable people know you can't End The Violence. But many reasonable people want something done to Reduce The Violence, in a way that doesn't involve everyone carrying around a gun.
Okay, then I'll rephrase if you'll answer the question.
What rule do you propose that will Reduce The Violence? What can government do (given that we know forced confiscation would be a Hollywood horror movie, and would leave most illegal guns still out there)?
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.
