From the article you shared about rape prevention: "Not all of these statistics are fully documented, but they are interesting nonetheless."
But don't change the reality.
Come on, don't cite the same made-up statistics multiple times to support your argument and then claim that it doesn't matter whether or not they're true. That's just silly.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
Gun control will simple NEVER work. The best way to prevent a massacre is using private security and an educational reform. Before the NFA how many massacres happened in USA? Almost no one.
And the "gun death statistics" ignore that : - Suicides are the most common cause of death with firearms - The states with more strict gun laws have more gun violence - Count suicide as "gun violence" - Don't separate legal and illegal guns (...)
From the article you shared about rape prevention: "Not all of these statistics are fully documented, but they are interesting nonetheless."
The rape statistic is supposedly based on a study conducted in the 1990s. There is no link to any study conducted in the 1990s, either in the article or the article linked from the article.
It's not a citation if it doesn't lead anywhere. They didn't even post the year the study was supposedly published; they just said it was somewhere in a ten-year period. Nor does it say who conducted the study or where it was published.
Yes "terrorist" will find loopholes and ways to do as much destruction as possible. But why make it easier for them by not having gun laws? As I said, laws are a deterrent for these types of acts. It makes it harder for people to commit crimes, but it won't prevent it 100% of the time, nothing ever will. Using arguments of other forms of attacks, let it be knives or trucks, or someone's own fists doesn't change this fact.
Gun laws will not make "hard" for then. Will simple make anyone that follows the law be unable to defend themselves. Massacres will simple become more frequent and kill more people if the shooters know that will be nobody to defend or prevent his massacre. They know that will need 10-20 minutes to police come.
USA cities with more strict gun laws are more violent because if by an example i an a criminal. I rather commit a crime against someone who can't defend. Is more easy to "kill sheeps" than is to "kill lions"
Ya no. Look at the Las Vegas shooting. How did having lenient gun laws allow those victims to protect themselves from sniper rifles, high caliber bullets and bump stocks.
At most, a person looking to protect themselves will carry around a concealed handgun. Fine. Allow those, semiautomatic rifles for hunting and sport and you're good to go. Everything else is extreme and doesn't fit the "protect oneself" argument.
Not entirely. The rise of the movement (and circumstances immediately preceding it) brought a problem to my attention that I never held much stock in. Its an almost direct cause of my current stance on law enforcement and how they should conduct themselves/be held accountable for their actions. As well as being VERY vocal about it. Which, with the large number of family members, friends , and aquantences that are IN law enforcement, this is a very hard stance to support. And I surely cannot be the only one.
Individual results may vary.
At least more people are willing--and able--to use their mobile devices to capture video of police interactions; sometimes this documents abuses while other times it actually prevents it.
Yes "terrorist" will find loopholes and ways to do as much destruction as possible. But why make it easier for them by not having gun laws? As I said, laws are a deterrent for these types of acts. It makes it harder for people to commit crimes, but it won't prevent it 100% of the time, nothing ever will. Using arguments of other forms of attacks, let it be knives or trucks, or someone's own fists doesn't change this fact.
Gun laws will not make "hard" for then. Will simple make anyone that follows the law be unable to defend themselves. Massacres will simple become more frequent and kill more people if the shooters know that will be nobody to defend or prevent his massacre. They know that will need 10-20 minutes to police come.
USA cities with more strict gun laws are more violent because if by an example i an a criminal. I rather commit a crime against someone who can't defend. Is more easy to "kill sheeps" than is to "kill lions"
Ya no. Look at the Las Vegas shooting. How did having lenient gun laws allow those victims to protect themselves from sniper rifles, high caliber bullets and bump stocks.
At most, a person looking to protect themselves will carry around a concealed handgun. Fine. Allow those, semiautomatic rifles for hunting and sport and you're good to go. Everything else is extreme and doesn't fit the "protect oneself" argument.
He was using a gun in a hotel that is illegal to have guns, so laws din't prevented anything. Also, if the hotel have armed security, is possible to them to prevent the massacre. There are almost no crime made using "large caliber" guns.
He was using a gun in a hotel that is illegal to have guns, so laws din't prevented anything. Also, if the hotel have armed security, is possible to them to prevent the massacre. There are almost no crime made using "large caliber" guns.
I don't think either gun control or gun-toting citizens will prevent suicidal gun massacres. To my knowledge, every time one of these massacres ends, it's because the police, and not any private citizen, arrived and shot them down or arrested the shooter.
The good guys with guns are police officers. Whether we have gun control or whether we don't have gun control, police officers are the people who are actually bringing these massacres to an end.
@SorcererV1ct0r it's not just whether guns are illegal that would help prevent massacres. The ease of access to them will be an issue, though as you point out that will never be a complete answer. More important is how the gun is viewed. At present guns are widely portrayed in the US as a source of personal power and therefore it's hardly surprising that people who feel they've been ignored or looked down on by others turn to guns to 'show them'. That cultural view of guns is not the same in most countries and as I stated at the start of this post social attitudes can change over time. While such a change wouldn't necessarily reduce the use of guns in relation to wider crime, e.g. in arguments over drugs, it would certainly have a huge impact on the number of mass shootings in schools, churches etc. Even countries such as Brazil with high rates of gun use don't see those types of events.
No, there are tons of terrorists attacks in European countries with insane strict gun control laws with illegal weapons and with trucks. Nobody that is determined to do a suicide attack will stop because he needs to buy a illegal weapon. I never understood that logic "he is determined to trow his life away or be imprisoned forever committing a massacre BUT he will not purchase a gun if have a gun is illegal". What is the next? Expect that professional assassins will not have guns if guns become illegal? That is ridiculous.
You're referring to two different situations. I agree that it's very difficult to stop a suicide attack (though an attacker with guns is still likely to do significantly more damage than one without). However, very few of the mass shootings in the US are suicide attacks. As I mentioned earlier they are instead mainly about individuals wanting to demonstrate they have power.
You're right to point out the very high rate of gun suicides, but this is just another way of people demonstrating they have power - in the case of suicides power over themselves rather than other people. If someone is determined to commit suicide they will do so irrespective of whether they have a gun or not, but currently about 50% of suicides in the US use guns. If guns were less easily available and less culturally significant it's likely that quite a few of those would not suicide by other means.
I think suicide by firearms is relevant for the purposes of discussing gun control. Preventing suicides is just as important as preventing homicides. In both cases, we're trying to keep people alive.
I don't think either gun control or gun-toting citizens will prevent suicidal gun massacres. To my knowledge, every time one of these massacres ends, it's because the police, and not any private citizen, arrived and shot them down or arrested the shooter.
The good guys with guns are police officers. Whether we have gun control or whether we don't have gun control, police officers are the people who are actually bringing these massacres to an end.
Yes. Let's say during the concert massacre John Public was able to bring his gun inside and decided to whip out his gun and start firing away at where he thinks the shooting is coming from. How do you think that would have worked out for everybody? You'd have worse pandemonium and he'd probably end up shot by police as well.
The problem is not gun restrictions or lack there of. Its that there are too many guns. People with military assault rifles are going to use them. You can restrict them and say "hey don't shoot 50 people!" but the main problem is the guy having access to the weapon to begin with.
If Kim Jong Un doesn't have a nuclear weapon we don't have to worry about being nuked. If a active shooter doesn't have a weapon of war, we don't have to worry about him killing hundreds of people. - > No assault weapons, no assault weapon massacres.
He was using a gun in a hotel that is illegal to have guns, so laws din't prevented anything. Also, if the hotel have armed security, is possible to them to prevent the massacre. There are almost no crime made using "large caliber" guns.
The hotel had armed security.
So, remove the armed security will increases the chance of stopping the massacre or increase?
I think suicide by firearms is relevant for the purposes of discussing gun control. Preventing suicides is just as important as preventing homicides. In both cases, we're trying to keep people alive.
People can use tons of other methods to do suicides. If you wanna prevent suicide, gun control will simple not work.
I don't think either gun control or gun-toting citizens will prevent suicidal gun massacres. To my knowledge, every time one of these massacres ends, it's because the police, and not any private citizen, arrived and shot them down or arrested the shooter.
The good guys with guns are police officers. Whether we have gun control or whether we don't have gun control, police officers are the people who are actually bringing these massacres to an end.
You are right that police ends the majority of massacres BUT they took many minutes to arrive. Even if 'civilians' stop massacres in 1 of 10 times, still a lot of saved lives.
The problem is not gun restrictions or lack there of. Its that there are too many guns. People with military assault rifles are going to use them. You can restrict them and say "hey don't shoot 50 people!" but the main problem is the guy having access to the weapon to begin with.
No assault weapons, no assault weapon massacres.
As i've said. No law in world will prevent a criminal from obtaining a illegal weapon. Look to this Polish with a full auto homemade SMG
I agree about the importance of suicides @semiticgod. I think I referred to the 2016 study into the impact of gun control in Australia when discussing gun control a few days ago, but I'm not sure I posted the source - here it is.
The headline grabber from the report is that Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to gun control and none in the 18 years after gun control. However, the report also found that gun control resulted in a statistically significant reduction in gun suicides and that this reduction was not replaced by suicide using other methods.
I agree about the importance of suicides @semiticgod. I think I referred to the 2016 study into the impact of gun control in Australia when discussing gun control a few days ago, but I'm not sure I posted the source - here it is.
The headline grabber from the report is that Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to gun control and none in the 18 years after gun control. However, the report also found that gun control resulted in a statistically significant reduction in gun suicides and that this reduction was not replaced by suicide using other methods.
People can use tons of other methods to do suicides. If you wanna prevent suicide, gun control will simple not work.
Not necessarily. One of the main reasons why suicide rates are so much higher for men than for women is because men tend to use firearms.
Suicide by bullet is much more likely to be successful than other methods of suicide. It only takes a few seconds to shoot yourself in the head. The event itself takes a single muscle.
Drugging yourself to commit suicide, however, takes entire minutes, which gives you a lot of time to reconsider and call 911 to get your stomach pumped (and the wrong dosage or the wrong chemical might not even kill you). Carbon monoxide also gives you lots of time to reconsider. Jumping off a building also tends to invite a lot of attention and the police will arrive to try to talk you out of it. Cutting your wrists is painful and therefore harder to do, and you also have a fair amount of time to change your mind and stop the bleeding. As for hanging yourself, it's easy to do it wrong. Other methods also tend to be very slow or painful.
If somebody's going to attempt suicide, I'd prefer they use a method that's less likely to be lethal and gives them more time to reconsider.
I agree about the importance of suicides @semiticgod. I think I referred to the 2016 study into the impact of gun control in Australia when discussing gun control a few days ago, but I'm not sure I posted the source - here it is.
The headline grabber from the report is that Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to gun control and none in the 18 years after gun control. However, the report also found that gun control resulted in a statistically significant reduction in gun suicides and that this reduction was not replaced by suicide using other methods.
I think you're still confusing 2 issues @SorcererV1ct0r. No-one is saying that gun control would eliminate all guns or that criminals would not be able to get hold of guns. Gun control would be likely to help, but it wouldn't be by any means a total answer.
In relation to mass shootings, however, these are rarely carried out by career criminals. Instead they're the result of people getting pissed off and wanting to take out their frustrations on others. You're not going to be able to prevent people getting pissed off in future, but you can prevent the results of that being so terrible. As has been suggested a few times in this thread just eliminating assault weapons would make a big difference.
You are right that police ends the majority of massacres BUT they took many minutes to arrive. Even if 'civilians' stop massacres in 1 of 10 times, still a lot of saved lives.
There's an irony in you using this argument - in that this is the exact argument used by the majority of people who favor some form of gun control.
Everyone on here who thinks gun control is a good idea (myself being one of them) already understand that simply banning guns all together (which no one is seriously proposing) wouldnt stop 100% of gun related deaths in this country. However, if we enact stricter gun law, and maybe 10% or 25% of gun related deaths are stopped... that's INCREDIBLY valuable.
As a side note - suggesting that there's a simple correlation between stricter gun laws in some states/cities and the number of gun related deaths ignores an absolute plethora of additional contextual information relating to the socio-economic status of people in that area. There are an untold number of mitigating circumstances that may be at play. If you dont account for them, then no one can reasonably conclude gun control laws are responsible.
You are right that police ends the majority of massacres BUT they took many minutes to arrive. Even if 'civilians' stop massacres in 1 of 10 times, still a lot of saved lives.
There's an irony in you using this argument - in that this is the exact argument used by the majority of people who favor some form of gun control.
Everyone on here who thinks gun control is a good idea (myself being one of them) already understand that simply banning guns all together (which no one is seriously proposing) wouldnt stop 100% of gun related deaths in this country. However, if we enact stricter gun law, and maybe 10% or 25% of gun related deaths are stopped... that's INCREDIBLY valuable.
As a side note - suggesting that there's a simple correlation between stricter gun laws in some states/cities and the number of gun related deaths ignores an absolute plethora of additional contextual information relating to the socio-economic status of people in that area. There are an untold number of mitigating circumstances that may be at play. If you dont account for them, then no one can reasonably conclude gun control laws are responsible.
Do you really think that gun crime will not grow with gun control?
Compare the cities criminality before and after the gun control. Show me one city that managed to reduce violence with gun control. Simple there are success example in municipal level. So if it failed in municipal level, will fail in federal level ( https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada ), few people in world have the privilege to live in a descentralized government. If you like gun control, you can move to a city with strict gun control.
@SorcererV1ct0r: The fatalistic view of prevention that you're applying to gun violence is absurd.
"If a child really wants cigarettes, they're going to get them. So why bother checking anyone's ID? We're just inconveniencing law-abiding citizens."
"If someone really wants to steal from this store, they're going to succeed. So let's dispense with cashiers and use the honor system."
"If someone really wants to burn my house down, they'll find a way. Therefore smoke detectors are pointless."
Do you see how little sense this makes? Barriers to criminality and danger make a difference even when they're not 100% effective.
No, all of your examples, are crime with victims. The majority of gun owners don't commit any massacre or murder. Gun control is not a barrier to do a massacre. Is a barrier to stop the massacre. It is just silly... Next time you will suggest a ban on TOR because a minority of his users used to do illegal things.
If Charlie Hebdo was in USA, they can at least have some private security. So they will have a chance to defend themselves.
@SorcererV1ct0r: The fatalistic view of prevention that you're applying to gun violence is absurd.
"If a child really wants cigarettes, they're going to get them. So why bother checking anyone's ID? We're just inconveniencing law-abiding citizens."
"If someone really wants to steal from this store, they're going to succeed. So let's dispense with cashiers and use the honor system."
"If someone really wants to burn my house down, they'll find a way. Therefore smoke detectors are pointless."
Do you see how little sense this makes? Barriers to criminality and danger make a difference even when they're not 100% effective.
These arguments are ONLY ever applied to firearms, and literally nothing else.
Steal, burn... Have victims. Have a firearm have NO victim. And as i've said. Gun control never worked as a "barrier" to criminals get guns. Is only a barrier to defend against criminals. Show me one city that managed to reduce violence trough gun control. JUST ONE CITY. Gun control works so well against gun violence as a gasoline works to stop fire.
If i will commit a crime, i rather commit with a illegal gun. Will be much harder to police to do a proper investigation. Also, commit crimes against disarmed people is much easier.
Imagine that you are working in Charlie Hebdo during the "day of attack", you rather have : A ) Armed security and a personal firearm(legally) B ) A law that prevent you from having security and a firearm and don't prevent the "attacker" from having AK 47
Gun control din't worked as a "barrier" in Charlie Hebdo. Worked as a barrier to Charlie Hebdo defend themselves. That analogy makes no sense.
Compare the cities criminality before and after the gun control. Show me one city that managed to reduce violence with gun control. Simple there are success example in municipal level. So if it failed in municipal level, will fail in federal level ( https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada ), few people in world have the privilege to live in a descentralized government. If you like gun control, you can move to a city with strict gun control.
You've cherry picked two graphs and referenced an article by a guy who writes for a libertarian website. Dont be surprised when we arent all immediately convinced. That article, and those graphs actually underscore my point.
Why are there all those little increases and decreases? Are those because of gun control? What about the ones before either of the "start" dates. Why are those values different?
There isnt a clear answer provided here. Until you can effectively demonstrate the causal relationship between gun control and gun related deaths that also explains those other details, you arent making a cohesive argument. You're making an arbitrary one (Arbitrary in that you get to decide what factors are important and which ones we can completely disregard).
In truth, the same thing can be said for the gun-control people. The difference is that they get to look at the data from other countries that have different gun control laws and indicate that those countries have far fewer gun-related deaths. This is also missing from your graphs... presumably because it doesnt help your argument. In that same article, they include the American homicide per 100,000 population graph too. Notice how much higher it is than any of the UK, Canada or Ireland's? That's important, contextual evidence. I wonder if we had a chart for # of guns per 100,000 people, if we'd start to notice a relationship? Or maybe gun deaths per 100,000 people.
Compare the cities criminality before and after the gun control. Show me one city that managed to reduce violence with gun control. Simple there are success example in municipal level. So if it failed in municipal level, will fail in federal level ( https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada ), few people in world have the privilege to live in a descentralized government. If you like gun control, you can move to a city with strict gun control.
You've cherry picked two graphs and referenced an article by a guy who writes for a libertarian website. Dont be surprised when we arent all immediately convinced. That article, and those graphs actually underscore my point.
Why are there all those little increases and decreases? Are those because of gun control? What about the ones before either of the "start" dates. Why are those values different?
There isnt a clear answer provided here. Until you can effectively demonstrate the causal relationship between gun control and gun related deaths that also explains those other details, you arent making a cohesive argument. You're making an arbitrary one (Arbitrary in that you get to decide what factors are important and which ones we can completely disregard).
In truth, the same thing can be said for the gun-control people. The difference is that they get to look at the data from other countries that have different gun control laws and indicate that those countries have far fewer gun-related deaths. This is also missing from your graphs... presumably because it doesnt help your argument. In that same article, they include the American homicide per 100,000 population graph too. Notice how much higher it is than any of the UK, Canada or Ireland's? That's important, contextual evidence. I wonder if we had a chart for # of guns per 100,000 people, if we'd start to notice a relationship? Or maybe gun deaths per 100,000 people.
Reality in Americas is different than reality in European country. You have a smaller and more culturally "homogenous" country and a smaller territory. If you wanna see a success of something, you should look before and after, not compare 2 entire different realities. Yes, USA is more violent than European countries BUT gun control will not make USA be safer as EU countries.
In fact will make USA violent as Chicago/Detroit. Also, how you wanna take over 300 million guns? And why compare only "gun related crimes", i don't see any difference between a knife homicide than a gun homicide except that knifes tends to inflict more pain. The best and safest European country to live is Switzerland and the best and safest cities to live in USA are the cities with less gun control.
I think if you examined your preconceived notions in an intellectually honest way instead of relying on fake news opinion websites like federalist and breitbart you'd realize guns are the problem.
America has by far the most guns in the world and the most shootings and mass shootings by far. If you take away guns would some people still be violent? Of course. But they wouldn't have the means to kill hundreds of people by cowardly squeezing one finger from a distance.
The issue today is assault weapons - regular people don't need them. Some regular people can own them without an issue but overall it's been proven repeatedly to be a disaster to trust everyone with these weapons. In countries where they don't have the ease of access to these weapons you don't have mass shootings.
Chicago isn't a great example. Guns flow in from outside the city, which local gun control measures can't control. National gun control would be able to constrict that flow of firearms.
Chicago isn't a great example. Guns flow in from outside the city, which local gun control measures can't control. National gun control would be able to constrict that flow of firearms.
Guns will come from Mexico or any other country. The sate can't prevent drugs, weapons and cellphones in prisons, this will simple not work.... Also, homemade guns.
America has by far the most guns in the world and the most shootings and mass shootings by far. If you take away guns would some people still be violent? Of course. But they wouldn't have the means to kill hundreds of people by cowardly squeezing one finger from a distance.
Gun control will not take away his guns. In fact will take away guns for good people and private security. And look to charlie Hebdo chase. Gun control only disarmed the victims.
Whether his graphs are cherry picked or not is another question, but I appreciate the use of actual evidence in debate rather than pure rhetoric. And I don't think use of a right wing source is inherently suspicious anymore than the use of a left wing source (almost all domestic political media) is. Is there a reliable link between per capita firearm ownership and gun deaths that can't be explained by other factors? Actually yes, but that lies mostly in the realm of suicides which are the majority of gun related deaths. So take away the gun. You will have less suicide deaths, but not any less depressed people wanting to kill themselves. Try to solve depression, you've solved a large part of gun deaths and made people's lives better.
Comments
It's not a citation if it doesn't lead anywhere. They didn't even post the year the study was supposedly published; they just said it was somewhere in a ten-year period. Nor does it say who conducted the study or where it was published.
USA cities with more strict gun laws are more violent because if by an example i an a criminal. I rather commit a crime against someone who can't defend. Is more easy to "kill sheeps" than is to "kill lions"
Ya no. Look at the Las Vegas shooting. How did having lenient gun laws allow those victims to protect themselves from sniper rifles, high caliber bullets and bump stocks.
At most, a person looking to protect themselves will carry around a concealed handgun. Fine. Allow those, semiautomatic rifles for hunting and sport and you're good to go. Everything else is extreme and doesn't fit the "protect oneself" argument.
At least more people are willing--and able--to use their mobile devices to capture video of police interactions; sometimes this documents abuses while other times it actually prevents it.
At most, a person looking to protect themselves will carry around a concealed handgun. Fine. Allow those, semiautomatic rifles for hunting and sport and you're good to go. Everything else is extreme and doesn't fit the "protect oneself" argument.
He was using a gun in a hotel that is illegal to have guns, so laws din't prevented anything. Also, if the hotel have armed security, is possible to them to prevent the massacre. There are almost no crime made using "large caliber" guns.
The good guys with guns are police officers. Whether we have gun control or whether we don't have gun control, police officers are the people who are actually bringing these massacres to an end.
You're right to point out the very high rate of gun suicides, but this is just another way of people demonstrating they have power - in the case of suicides power over themselves rather than other people. If someone is determined to commit suicide they will do so irrespective of whether they have a gun or not, but currently about 50% of suicides in the US use guns. If guns were less easily available and less culturally significant it's likely that quite a few of those would not suicide by other means.
The problem is not gun restrictions or lack there of. Its that there are too many guns. People with military assault rifles are going to use them. You can restrict them and say "hey don't shoot 50 people!" but the main problem is the guy having access to the weapon to begin with.
If Kim Jong Un doesn't have a nuclear weapon we don't have to worry about being nuked. If a active shooter doesn't have a weapon of war, we don't have to worry about him killing hundreds of people. - > No assault weapons, no assault weapon massacres.
You are right that police ends the majority of massacres BUT they took many minutes to arrive. Even if 'civilians' stop massacres in 1 of 10 times, still a lot of saved lives. As i've said. No law in world will prevent a criminal from obtaining a illegal weapon. Look to this Polish with a full auto homemade SMG
Also, pistols kill far more civilians than "assault weapons" in USA and a lot of jobs depends on rifles.
The headline grabber from the report is that Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to gun control and none in the 18 years after gun control. However, the report also found that gun control resulted in a statistically significant reduction in gun suicides and that this reduction was not replaced by suicide using other methods.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/22/fail-gun-controlled-australia-admits-criminals-still-armed-launches-amnesty/
Suicide by bullet is much more likely to be successful than other methods of suicide. It only takes a few seconds to shoot yourself in the head. The event itself takes a single muscle.
Drugging yourself to commit suicide, however, takes entire minutes, which gives you a lot of time to reconsider and call 911 to get your stomach pumped (and the wrong dosage or the wrong chemical might not even kill you). Carbon monoxide also gives you lots of time to reconsider. Jumping off a building also tends to invite a lot of attention and the police will arrive to try to talk you out of it. Cutting your wrists is painful and therefore harder to do, and you also have a fair amount of time to change your mind and stop the bleeding. As for hanging yourself, it's easy to do it wrong. Other methods also tend to be very slow or painful.
If somebody's going to attempt suicide, I'd prefer they use a method that's less likely to be lethal and gives them more time to reconsider.
In relation to mass shootings, however, these are rarely carried out by career criminals. Instead they're the result of people getting pissed off and wanting to take out their frustrations on others. You're not going to be able to prevent people getting pissed off in future, but you can prevent the results of that being so terrible. As has been suggested a few times in this thread just eliminating assault weapons would make a big difference.
Everyone on here who thinks gun control is a good idea (myself being one of them) already understand that simply banning guns all together (which no one is seriously proposing) wouldnt stop 100% of gun related deaths in this country. However, if we enact stricter gun law, and maybe 10% or 25% of gun related deaths are stopped... that's INCREDIBLY valuable.
As a side note - suggesting that there's a simple correlation between stricter gun laws in some states/cities and the number of gun related deaths ignores an absolute plethora of additional contextual information relating to the socio-economic status of people in that area. There are an untold number of mitigating circumstances that may be at play. If you dont account for them, then no one can reasonably conclude gun control laws are responsible.
"If a child really wants cigarettes, they're going to get them. So why bother checking anyone's ID? We're just inconveniencing law-abiding citizens."
"If someone really wants to steal from this store, they're going to succeed. So let's dispense with cashiers and use the honor system."
"If someone really wants to burn my house down, they'll find a way. Therefore smoke detectors are pointless."
Do you see how little sense this makes? Barriers to criminality and danger make a difference even when they're not 100% effective.
https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada
Compare the cities criminality before and after the gun control. Show me one city that managed to reduce violence with gun control. Simple there are success example in municipal level. So if it failed in municipal level, will fail in federal level ( https://mises.org/blog/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada ), few people in world have the privilege to live in a descentralized government. If you like gun control, you can move to a city with strict gun control. No, all of your examples, are crime with victims. The majority of gun owners don't commit any massacre or murder. Gun control is not a barrier to do a massacre. Is a barrier to stop the massacre. It is just silly... Next time you will suggest a ban on TOR because a minority of his users used to do illegal things.
If Charlie Hebdo was in USA, they can at least have some private security. So they will have a chance to defend themselves.
If i will commit a crime, i rather commit with a illegal gun. Will be much harder to police to do a proper investigation. Also, commit crimes against disarmed people is much easier.
Imagine that you are working in Charlie Hebdo during the "day of attack", you rather have :
A ) Armed security and a personal firearm(legally)
B ) A law that prevent you from having security and a firearm and don't prevent the "attacker" from having AK 47
Gun control din't worked as a "barrier" in Charlie Hebdo. Worked as a barrier to Charlie Hebdo defend themselves. That analogy makes no sense.
EVERY CITY IN AUSTRALIA.
Also, see this video
and read this article http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
You've cherry picked two graphs and referenced an article by a guy who writes for a libertarian website. Dont be surprised when we arent all immediately convinced. That article, and those graphs actually underscore my point.
Why are there all those little increases and decreases? Are those because of gun control? What about the ones before either of the "start" dates. Why are those values different?
There isnt a clear answer provided here. Until you can effectively demonstrate the causal relationship between gun control and gun related deaths that also explains those other details, you arent making a cohesive argument. You're making an arbitrary one (Arbitrary in that you get to decide what factors are important and which ones we can completely disregard).
In truth, the same thing can be said for the gun-control people. The difference is that they get to look at the data from other countries that have different gun control laws and indicate that those countries have far fewer gun-related deaths. This is also missing from your graphs... presumably because it doesnt help your argument. In that same article, they include the American homicide per 100,000 population graph too. Notice how much higher it is than any of the UK, Canada or Ireland's? That's important, contextual evidence. I wonder if we had a chart for # of guns per 100,000 people, if we'd start to notice a relationship? Or maybe gun deaths per 100,000 people.
You've now used Breitbart, A Libertarian site, and The Federalist to argue your point.
Is it too much to ask for you to use websites that arent obviously going to be biased to your argument? It's the echo chamber at work.
In fact will make USA violent as Chicago/Detroit. Also, how you wanna take over 300 million guns? And why compare only "gun related crimes", i don't see any difference between a knife homicide than a gun homicide except that knifes tends to inflict more pain. The best and safest European country to live is Switzerland and the best and safest cities to live in USA are the cities with less gun control.
America has by far the most guns in the world and the most shootings and mass shootings by far. If you take away guns would some people still be violent? Of course. But they wouldn't have the means to kill hundreds of people by cowardly squeezing one finger from a distance.
The issue today is assault weapons - regular people don't need them. Some regular people can own them without an issue but overall it's been proven repeatedly to be a disaster to trust everyone with these weapons. In countries where they don't have the ease of access to these weapons you don't have mass shootings.
Other question. How do you plan to take 300 million private guns in civilian hands? The government will pass a law and a magic will happens? Gun control will not take away his guns. In fact will take away guns for good people and private security. And look to charlie Hebdo chase. Gun control only disarmed the victims.