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.
If we had everything you've in bolded for firearms, how would that have stopped this incident ? Please explain.
Two of them are already laws. Not to mention, murder is illegal. Didn't do a damn thing here did it.
When are you going to actually place the blame on the people that are commuting these crimes ?
In this recent officer involved shooting, was it the gun or the cops fault for Daunte Wrights death ?
I never said insurance, minimum age, registration, and license would be enough. You completely missed my point. I said even with a necessary tool like cars, we still imposed a lot of restrictions because we recognize the danger they post. It makes no sense that guns, a more portable and common weapon than cars; that is unnecessary to our economy, somehow has less restrictions than cars.
I 100% blame the people. Not only that, my point is - we have lots of crazy F up people walking around this country, why do you want to put guns in these people's hands???????!!!
Why don’t we have mandatory gun safety class here? Because people like you would freak out.
Taking away guns does nothing to remedy the root cause, the social and cultural problems. You seem to think that those problems would magically disappear. Lax attitudes towards guns isn’t the problem. Lac attitudes towards the value of human lives is the problem.
Again, no one is arguing taking away guns would solve the root cause. You keep debating a point that no one has made, likely, because you can't debate the actual point that was made.
Taking guns away from us is like taking matches away from a pre-schooler - the point is not to solve the kid's feeble mind at that age, the point is to make sure he won't burn the house down.
Huh, race has nothing to do with it. Mauritius is an island country with a kaleidascope of racial groups and religions as well as a low homicide rates while being a developing country (2.9 per 100,000). Being diverse doesn't mean your society is violent.
The two most diverse counties in America. Queens and Fort Bend (I live in Fort Bend), have low homicide rates. In fact this year Queens is the borough with the lowest homicide rate in NYC (beating Manhattan and Staten Island). Fort Bend is also low, less than 2 per 100,000.
Point was that there are many factors that go into rates of violence outside of gun ownership. One can pick and choose which variables they wish to focus on.
What's interesting is that you're two examples (UK, Japan) have gun homicide rates significantly lower than even Queens.
Also interesting is that while Queens has the same gun laws as the rest of NYC, it's rate is quite low, which would seem to further the argument that gun laws in and of themselves are not the primary factor in reducing violence.
It's because every able young men in Switzerland go through extensive gun training by mandatory military services and they have very strict gun control.
They're all expert in gun safety, they all passed very extensive background checks, and they track every gun sale. We have none of it here. Their gun laws are very strict. Ours are very lax.
You're almost there. You realize we have a cultural and societal problems.... yeah no crap. The problem is our lax attitude towards guns.
.
So, you are saying that because of background checks (which we have for new sales), firearms safety training (something we used to have in our schools, but don't any longer) and a registry (handguns are registered with the MSP in Michigan) that people will no longer kill one another ?
Laughable. You've been in post after post blaming the guns, then when it is shown that your logic is flawed you move the goal posts. Typical.
If guns were the problem, like you've stated, over and over and over again...there would be violence where ever guns are. You're almost there.....
Again, no one is arguing taking away guns would solve the root cause. You keep debating a point that no one has made, likely, because you can't debate the actual point that was made.
Taking guns away from us is like taking matches away from a pre-schooler - the point is not to solve the kid's feeble mind at that age, the point is to make sure he won't burn the house down.
.
That point was made pages ago.
The government is not our parent and we are not children.l who cannot think for ourselves.
We already have laws about background checks. They do not work more often than not.
Somalia is 99%, Somali one of the few ethnostates in Africa and it's a mess.
Lesotho is less of a mess but is 97% Sotho and has a high homicide rate. The second highest on the continent after South Africa.
Ghana, Kenya and Zambia are uber-ethnically diverse, their homicide rate is rock bottom for the third world, with Ghana being around 3 per 100,000, Kenya being just under 5 per 100,000 and Zambia being just above 5 per 100,000.
Huh, race has nothing to do with it. Mauritius is an island country with a kaleidascope of racial groups and religions as well as a low homicide rates while being a developing country (2.9 per 100,000). Being diverse doesn't mean your society is violent.
The two most diverse counties in America. Queens and Fort Bend (I live in Fort Bend), have low homicide rates. In fact this year Queens is the borough with the lowest homicide rate in NYC (beating Manhattan and Staten Island). Fort Bend is also low, less than 2 per 100,000.
Only Americans say things like diversity causes homicides/gang violence and think it's a logical fallacy. Diversity may cause war and terrorism, but peacetime countries that are diverse don't necessarily have problems with gang violence or everyday violence.
London is safer than virtually every British city in the industrial heartland, London is 60% White, and 40% English. these industrial cities are 90% white and 80% English, and their all putting up 2-3 times the amount of violence as London. London is wealthy and their hollowed out.
Glasgow even with the massive improvements is still the most dangerous city in the U.K and it's 85-90% Scottish.
I see you've expanded your reply. Again, I _was_not_ saying that racial predominance played a factor. The first part of my response explicitly said "the logical fallacy of comparing non equivalent population", homogeneousness of race was simply an example of cherry picking variables to bolster a thesis.
In other words, bringing up countries like Japan to compare homicides or gun homicides vs gun laws is simply not logically relevant, just as my example of racial homogeneousness that you've aptly demonstrated.
So, you are saying that because of background checks (which we have for new sales), firearms safety training (something we used to have in our schools, but don't any longer) and a registry (handguns are registered with the MSP in Michigan) that people will no longer kill one another ?
Laughable. You've been in post after post blaming the guns, then when it is shown that your logic is flawed you move the goal posts. Typical.
If guns were the problem, like you've stated, over and over and over again...there would be violence where ever guns are. You're almost there.....
I have already said guns are not in and of itself the problem.
The problem is Americans are crazy, violent, and F up.
My whole point is we absolutely should not put guns in the hands of Americans. The point of my post that you cited is that Americans are not like Swiss. You can put guns in the hands of Swiss and expect few problems, you cannot do that to Americans and not expect a whole lot of problems.
Putting guns in the hands of Americans is like putting a keg in an AA meeting. You're just asking for it.
Now, if Americans are willing to go through similar requirement that the Swiss did. It will certainly improve the situation by a lot. Is it the best solution? No. But it'd be an improvement.
.
I never said insurance, minimum age, registration, and license would be enough. You completely missed my point. I said even with a necessary tool like cars, we still imposed a lot of restrictions because we recognize the danger they post. It makes no sense that guns, a more portable and common weapon than cars; that is unnecessary to our economy, somehow has less restrictions than cars.
I 100% blame the people. Not only that, my point is - we have lots of crazy F up people walking around this country, why do you want to put guns in these people's hands???????!!!
.
Please show where I stated this ? I absolutely do not want this and that is why we need to address these individuals, search every post I've made and I've clearly stated we need to address mental health, and why people have violent tendencies. I have zero problems with background checks, although they really do nothing. I do believe any kind of mental health issues should be flagged on the NICS check, and believe violent felons should lose their 2A rights forever.
I just am logical and rational enough to realize guns aren't our problem, and eliminating them and all knowledge of them is impossible and in the end won't stop people from killing each other.
Problem solving 101 :
(1) understand the current situation; (2) identify the root cause of the problem; (3) develop an effective action plan; and (4) execute until the problem is solved, making modifications as necessary.
Point was that there are many factors that go into rates of violence outside of gun ownership. One can pick and choose which variables they wish to focus on.
What's interesting is that you're two examples (UK, Japan) have gun homicide rates significantly lower than even Queens.
Also interesting is that while Queens has the same gun laws as the rest of NYC, it's rate is quite low, which would seem to further the argument that gun laws in and of themselves are not the primary factor in reducing violence.
Rich areas, and prosperous areas in gun-heavy countries will have low homicide rates, but that's not because of guns but because of the people. As Bebop says, removing guns doesn't solve the root problem. Violent people are still going to be violent.
But it's a proven fact that if the majority of criminals in America used knives, the homicide rate in America would drop to somewhere around 2-3 per 100,000 if not lower. The violent people would still be there, and need to be address, but it's significantly harder to kill people with a knife than a gun. Now you can commit Arson, to kill a lot of people, but that is extremely situational.
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.
