It would seem one of the causes would already be being addressed.
We are not yet clear on the "Real" causes...and so we must begin with the obvious, while figuring out the complexity of this problem.
It would seem one of the causes would already be being addressed.
We are not yet clear on the "Real" causes...and so we must begin with the obvious, while figuring out the complexity of this problem.
Actually, a lot of the 'other' causes need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Over/under medication, depression due to the economy (monitary or job, or a blend of both) and constant friction through out the country.
Agreed...yet these and many others will take a concerted effort to address in detail.
There are likely many things we need to do, and will never stop it completely.
Still...we need to try.
Oh it is the approach being taken. The government isn't clear......you're obviously not clear.....society not really sure what is the root or real causes......but thinks it has an "obvious" one to address.
What fools. And who is the flag bearer way up front.....Joe Biden.
Who couldn't manage a bowel movement bt himself.
Things aren't always what they seem. It "seems" you have a kneejerk reaction(perhaps too used to debating on this forum) and assume too often. Debate tactics and style vary, everyone isn't like you. But sitting back and watching and bowing to this position or that may suit you best, good luck.
But it might help. That is the starting point of the discussion- MIGHT. To deny that in discussion is to deny fact especially considering it has helped in other countries.
It MIGHT help though lets look. With enough knowledge. Even without enough knowledge though a internet connection one can make any rifle semi automatic. Again banning them solves nothing. People will obtain them by other mean whether they make them themselves, or buy them illegal. There are a lot of if's in life if one followed those if's we may never leave the house.
This argument doesn't work because people in the UK can presumably build them too yet after their guns bans, their gun crime rates have gone down. Bans can work. No one is saying it will work perfectly, but it in the realm of possibility that it has a net positive effect. The discussion should be focused on the data and why you don't think that will be the case in the US- not a universal untrue statement like people will just build guns or whatnot.
GB has the reputation for being among the most violent nations in Europe. Their gun crime went down and all other major, serious crimes went up. Only now the victims are injured more often than the criminals.
How many people have their lives and limbs saved by the presence of guns every day?
something to consider:
"With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison.
The key facts are:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean."
We may have a lower death total...but it is still too high in my opinion.
What's wrong with a logical approach to lowering it?
"With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison.
The key facts are:
• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean."
We may have a lower death total...but it is still too high in my opinion.
What's wrong with a logical approach to lowering it?
I am all for a logical approach. are you suggesting banning all guns or just guns that are referred to as "assault weapons"?
First, the term assault weapon is redundant, all weapons are meant to assault. if you want to ban high capacity magazines and black simi auto magazine fed rifles out doesn't seem logical in the least to me, most gun crime is committed using a pistol.
It just seems odd to me that we are talking about banning a particular fire arm that is involved in a tiny, almost non existent amount of crime. It really is a rash decision to ban a gun because of one isolated incident. Yes it was a tragedy, yes it was a very disturbing thingto hear about, yes it did get me angry.
I think it is a bigger tragedy to revoke liberties from 300 million people over a statistically non existent threat.
Lets talk about logical ways to reduce crime involving guns, but banning a particular fire arm that is not really involved in a significant number of gun crimes because it was the one that the killer used in sandy hook shooting, that seems irrational to me.
But I am willing to discuss ways to effect crime rates, even the assault weapons ban.
In reality again you may take away the means by banning the guns but other means will be found. Whether it is to purchase firearms illegally, or to modify an existing rifle to fit the means you want it too.
It may be to high though it could be far worse then what it is.
The violent crime rate in the UK could be an extraneous variable if you are looking at the effect of the gun ban- you need to show that it is a result of the gun ban if you want to make this claim.
My whole point here is in questioning the reasoning and conclusions that you draw from said reasoning on this issue. I don't think your methods are rigorous enough to come to the conclusion you are coming to- that a ban would not work. I am not actually making a pro-ban argument because I don't know what it would mean although I would personally be okay with an assault rifle ban because I don't see why anyone would want them anyway and I don't think even for protection/concealed carry anyone law-abiding citizen actually carries those around (or that we would want them to).
Similar threads
