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.
Sorry, your analogies don't work. Guns have one purpose....to kill. Those you mentioned don't.
I said it before and I'll say it again, murder has been around ever since the beginning of time, long before firearms came about, so what do you suppose people throughout history used to kill others before guns were invented?
FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!
Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.
Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
Of course they do not realize this. We all wish we had the answer to the gun violence problems, but Obama using executive order will do nothing.
FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!
Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.
Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
I've seen a lot of "facts" associated with this subject, all that always seem highly selective and subject to a fair degree of questionable analysis regarding cause/effect. The truth not so easy to come by, but here are some more "facts" for those collecting them:
Since the enactment of the Brady law on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2012, background checks blocked more than 2.4 million prohibited purchasers like domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals from purchasing a firearm or receiving a permit to purchase or carry a firearm.
In 2012 alone, background checks blocked 192,043 prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms, including 82,000 felons or roughly 225 felons every day.
Statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence confirm that background checks work and have had a significant positive impact on national crime rates. Before the Brady law was enacted, America’s gun homicide rate was on a dramatic rise, increasing by 55 percent from 1984 to 1993 even as non-gun homicides were falling over this period. After Brady background checks were required, however, gun murders began to steadily decline and ultimately fell by 32 percent from 1993 to 2006. The rate of robberies and aggravated assaults committed with firearms also decreased by 42 percent over this period.
However, the Brady law only requires background checks by federally licensed firearms dealers. Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults. States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and a 31 percent lower overall suicide rate than states without these laws. This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity. After controlling for these variables, universal background checks were associated with 22% fewer suicides and 35% fewer firearm suicides per capita.
As for what liberals or conservatives do or don't understand, I surely have to wonder sometimes, but for me personally, I understand there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns per capita in a country and the incidents of gun violence. Background checks may inconvenience law-abiding gun enthusiasts, but they don't keep them from having their gun fun, so it seems to me the pros out weigh the cons.
I've seen a lot of "facts" associated with this subject, all that always seem highly selective and subject to a fair degree of questionable analysis regarding cause/effect. The truth not so easy to come by, but here are some more "facts" for those collecting them:
Since the enactment of the Brady law on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2012, background checks blocked more than 2.4 million prohibited purchasers like domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals from purchasing a firearm or receiving a permit to purchase or carry a firearm.
In 2012 alone, background checks blocked 192,043 prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms, including 82,000 felons or roughly 225 felons every day.
Statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence confirm that background checks work and have had a significant positive impact on national crime rates. Before the Brady law was enacted, America’s gun homicide rate was on a dramatic rise, increasing by 55 percent from 1984 to 1993 even as non-gun homicides were falling over this period. After Brady background checks were required, however, gun murders began to steadily decline and ultimately fell by 32 percent from 1993 to 2006. The rate of robberies and aggravated assaults committed with firearms also decreased by 42 percent over this period.
However, the Brady law only requires background checks by federally licensed firearms dealers. Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults. States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and a 31 percent lower overall suicide rate than states without these laws. This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity. After controlling for these variables, universal background checks were associated with 22% fewer suicides and 35% fewer firearm suicides per capita.
As for what liberals or conservatives do or don't understand, I surely have to wonder sometimes, but for me personally, I understand there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns per capita in a country and the incidents of gun violence. Background checks may inconvenience law-abiding gun enthusiasts, but they don't keep them from having their gun fun, so it seems to me the pros out weigh the cons.
With all due respect to the NRA of course...
And after this long diatribe, you still fail to recognize that not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by Barack's executive actions.
Where is the disconnect? I think it's pretty simple to understand.
Further, you can't prove that any of those who were stopped by a background check were actually hell-bent on causing anyone harm. The mere action of attempting to purchase a gun is not evidence of evil intent. I assume you don't understand that as well?
Lastly, it is a complete farce for you to cite Brady statistics that begin in 1993. Why? What happened in the 90's? An economic boom - which is directly correlated to a decrease in crime. Yet you cite the Brady Law as the cause. Your intellectual dishonesty is quite impressive.
And after this long diatribe, you still fail to recognize that not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by Barack's executive actions.
Where is the disconnect? I think it's pretty simple to understand.
Further, you can't prove that any of those who were stopped by a background check were actually hell-bent on causing anyone harm. The mere action of attempting to purchase a gun is not evidence of evil intent. I assume you don't understand that as well?
Lastly, it is a complete farce for you to cite Brady statistics that begin in 1993. Why? What happened in the 90's? An economic boom - which is directly correlated to a decrease in crime. Yet you cite the Brady Law as the cause. Your intellectual dishonesty is quite impressive.
If that was a long "diatribe" for you (mostly just providing the facts as represented by that source), then no wonder you so quickly summarily dismiss those facts. Do you need small words too?
Also, if siting Brady statistics is intellectually dishonest..., well I'm not even sure what that could mean, but there is nothing dishonest about doing so.
I think you missed the first part of my comment, just as you seem intent on doing when it comes to most of this subject in general.
I've seen a lot of "facts" associated with this subject, all that always seem highly selective and subject to a fair degree of questionable analysis regarding cause/effect. The truth not so easy to come by, but here are some more "facts" for those collecting them:
Since the enactment of the Brady law on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2012, background checks blocked more than 2.4 million prohibited purchasers like domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals from purchasing a firearm or receiving a permit to purchase or carry a firearm.
In 2012 alone, background checks blocked 192,043 prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms, including 82,000 felons or roughly 225 felons every day.
Statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence confirm that background checks work and have had a significant positive impact on national crime rates. Before the Brady law was enacted, America’s gun homicide rate was on a dramatic rise, increasing by 55 percent from 1984 to 1993 even as non-gun homicides were falling over this period. After Brady background checks were required, however, gun murders began to steadily decline and ultimately fell by 32 percent from 1993 to 2006. The rate of robberies and aggravated assaults committed with firearms also decreased by 42 percent over this period.
However, the Brady law only requires background checks by federally licensed firearms dealers. Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults. States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and a 31 percent lower overall suicide rate than states without these laws. This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity. After controlling for these variables, universal background checks were associated with 22% fewer suicides and 35% fewer firearm suicides per capita.
As for what liberals or conservatives do or don't understand, I surely have to wonder sometimes, but for me personally, I understand there is a very strong correlation between the number of guns per capita in a country and the incidents of gun violence. Background checks may inconvenience law-abiding gun enthusiasts, but they don't keep them from having their gun fun, so it seems to me the pros out weigh the cons.
With all due respect to the NRA of course...
You need to find a less biased organization if you want any credibility.
FACT: Not one single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by a background check or expanded background check. In fact, all guns used in recent attacks were purchased legally. With one notable exception of course: The FBI failed to stop the Charleston shooter through the background check process already in place. THE FBI!
Now, Barack is poised to expand background checks to higher volume gun dealers, which will be 100% meaningless. Obviously.
Do liberals and Democrats understand this? If not, why not?
No they don't and the POTUS must have garlic on his fingers to cry like he is so sorry.
If he really was sorry he would sit down with all parties to show how serious he is and he would show up in Chicago and do something about car accidents and drunk drivers who kill more than shootings in the way he makes it sound.
In Europe many countries have NO guns allowed at all and there are shooting on a daily base!
How many legal gun owners with clear minds have killed anyone...it has only be mentally ill people and criminals/terrorists!
I'm all for background checks but not by executive order.
While I agree that some people with mental illness shouldn't have access to a gun, one huge problem is that the politicians who will write the laws are doing so with the goal of incrementally disarming the citizenry that will likely oppose them in their march toward totalitarian control. They are NOT trying to prevent shootings, since they are protected by armed guards and only get more power when future shootings occur.
Prohibit the mentally ill from owning guns? Psychology & psychiatry are NOT sciences; different psychiatrists interviewing known criminals rarely come up with the same diagnosis, and there is no way to predict which people will become violent (99 percent won't ever become violent). Diagnosis is based on what the patient tells the psychiatrist, and how he acts--but a patient may feel and act very different on different days. And most people aren't 100 percent honest when talking to a psychiatrist, even aside from wanting or not wanting to be labelled mentally ill.
regardless, total homicides are currently lower than they were when australia had guns.
"Total homicides are currently lower" here, too.
And we have lotsa guns.
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.
Understanding facts...
