So basically we are just evil. We need to ban people.
Just some interesting comparisons of Crime rates in US vs UK
I am as well. That doesn’t mean banning all guns for my part.
The most important bit of data left out about other countries is the number of non gun attacks by people with Mental health issues.
The UK has seen incredible spikes of Stabbings due to individuals with mental health.
The US has a homicide rate 5 times of that of the UK. I’m sure we’re well ahead of them in most categories of homicide based on weapons, motivation, etc.
The article also shows what should be obvious–guns are more lethal than knives, and mass attacks with guns are more lethal than mass attacks with knives. As we can see recently, mass attacks with powerful automatic weapons are yet more lethal. That’s what I’d like to see addressed in terms of gun control, personally.
The article is suggesting mental health isn’t the issue between gun deaths since the US has the most gun related deaths.
No, it references a study that shows that mental health isn’t a very important factor either comparatively between the US and other nations, or in the US itself.
Well of course if these people with mental issues don’t have guns they’ll turn to something else in their country. These people who are doing mass killings either by Gun, Knife, Bomb or Car either have mental health issues, an ideology or a religious agenda.
Easily available, high-powered automatic weapons just make things a lot easier. It’s a no-brainer to control them.
If you ban people, people will just use avatars.
I do not think there is any serious, mainstream idea to physically and literally ban all guns. Tight restrictions on certain kinds, but not an outright ban.
The idea is to control who can get them. Currently, that is only convicted felons and those convicted of violent crimes. For now. I am sure there are proponents to get that restriction lifted. The John Birch folks have taught an entire generation that the 2nd amendment is absolute and ownership of arms cannot be restricted. This is absolute fallacy. If arms ownership cannot be restricted, then why can’t private citizens freely own nuclear arms?
Anyway, that is not to say they cannot legally obtain them. Although, doing so would be illegal. The so-called “gun show loophole” that the right and NRA swear does not exist. You can legally buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer, and they are not required to run a check. Efforts to close this have been met with fierce restrictions.
Of course not. The Democrats aren’t that stupid. Considering the vast public support for gun ownership, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot.
Generally agree, we need stricter control and regulation of who can own what types of fire arms. For example the Bump Stock isn’t needed. Also people with mental health issues shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. Need regulation on gun shows selling anonymously in certain states.
Anyhow, ultimately it won’t significantly dent the murder rate in the US since most homicides are committed by hand guns and knives/blunt instruments and are single homicides not mass shootings. Hopefully it will curb the mass shooting but these crazy and terrorist will kill by other means such as a car or car bomb etc., but yes for more gun control…though ultimately it doesn’t address any underlying issues of the desire to kill in mass.
But, unfortunately there are those on the extreme right who believe this and are spreading this sentiment. How many “Just try and take my guns” or “From my cold dead hand” memes have you seen?
I remember those from the 80s!
The shooter who shot up the church passed a background check and bought them legally. The air force didn’t report him for domestic abuse and court martial to the agency that manages the database used in background checks. That should have disqualified him from buying guns.
It should also disqualify the air force from a lot of stuff. Why didn’t they report him? “OPS, forgot! Sorry!” ?
Something very very wrong with this statement…anybody? anybody?
He apparently escaped from a mental facility in 2012. Pretty sure that would have disqualified him, unless the law that 45 revoked changed that? Not sure the details and usually stay out of political “conversations”.
Is this a trick question? JB is an English teaching professional, so his grammar is obviously correct.
Control who can’t get them, who can’t. His statement says only felines and violent femmes should be allowed to carry guns.
That’s just semantics, man. What are you? A lawyer?
We’ve been over this before. I’m a fucking bear.
In that case, you really need a new avatar…
My hubby is retired military. During one point in his career, he was tasked to qualify Navy soldiers on the use of a 45. I worked in a gun and archery shop owned by my family. Most buyers were hunters looking to buy long guns. Others buy pistols for protection. I’ve personally turned away distressed looking gun buyers. I don’t think this is unique with established business owners. I also ask questions about how they expect to learn how to use it, and how to safely store it. Gun unloaded and locked in one place, and ammunition locked in another place. I guess that makes me a gun enthusiast. My hubby and I were talking about terrible tragedy and both of us feel the Air Force passed the buck on this guy. I’d like to see people who threaten others with violence lose their right to own a weapon. It would be interesting to see how our govt databases line up and how the background checks really work. This is the form that people complete. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download There was a 3 day waiting period in Florida at the time. During this time, the ATF is supposed to be running a detailed background check. At least those were the rules when I was doing this over 30 years ago. I understand that the gun dealers still complete the paperwork at gun shows but the loopholes happen when guns are sold by individuals to other individuals. The transaction is probably more common outside of a gun show.