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 have to go back to 1941? Imagine if the Las Vegas shooter threw knives from his hotel window instead of using high powered firearms.
What if he used a bomb like Timothy McVeigh, or airplanes like the 9/11 terrorists, or gasoline like the night club bomber. What if he just bought firearms illegally, or stole them?
You are comparing apples and oranges when you try to statistically apply death reductions from other countries to the US. None of those countries have the population or the number of firearms or the right to own them. When the reductions don't happen, what then? Or are you seeking full confiscation from the start?
I don't know of any empirical evidence that would suggest the US is less capable of implementing laws than other first world countries. You're purely speculating.
I don't know of any empirical evidence that would suggest the US is less capable of implementing laws than other first world countries. You're purely speculating.
You didn't answer the questions. I am fully aware of the capability of criminals to avoid or disregard laws.
Your question presupposes a hypothetical result that is not at all supported by what we've seen happen in other first-world countries, nor does it explain with any objective basis why the result in the US would be different. Why would you expect an answer to such a question?
Your question presupposes a hypothetical result that is not at all supported by what we've seen happen in other first-world countries, nor does it explain with any objective basis why the result in the US would be different. Why would you expect an answer to such a question?
And you are comparing the US to other first world countries who do not possess the unique aspects I laid out. I also edited my original post to add this - I am fully aware of the capability of criminals to avoid or disregard laws.
Our constitution presents a barrier to implementing any such laws... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", that isn't empirical at all. It's a well thought out barrier to prevent implementation of limiting the right to bear arms.
And you are comparing the US to other first world countries who do not possess the unique aspects I laid out. I also edited my original post to add this - I am fully aware of the capability of criminals to avoid or disregard laws.
If you are going to claim that the legislative path virtually every single other first world country has successfully taken to limit gun violence cannot be taken here, you are going to provide a better basis for that claim than just saying "we have more people" or "we have more guns." I have never seen any empirical data that would suggest the US is less capable of implementing and enforcing laws than other countries simply because of its population or the ubiquity of the contraband in question. If you have such data, I'll look at it, but otherwise you are offering nothing more than subjective speculation.
Our constitution presents a barrier to implementing any such laws... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", that isn't empirical at all. It's a well thought out barrier to prevent implementation of limiting the right to bear arms.
I figured it was fairly self-evident that, in the context of this discussion, any legislation being implemented would come concomitantly with a Constitutional amendment allowing for such legislation.
The very headline is wrong in the article and this thread. Walmart said to not "...openly carry guns into its 4,700 US stores, or its Sam's Club stores, in states that allow open carry." Has nothing to do with allowing guns in the stores. Conceal carry is still permitted.
I figured it was fairly self-evident that, in the context of this discussion, any legislation being implemented would come concomitantly with a Constitutional amendment allowing for such legislation.
Which is where your argument becomes equally subjective speculation as it requires an amendment you are fully aware will not happen. But get to it if you wish as there is a process fully laid out in the Constitution. Otherwise we are talking speculation all around.
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.
