Grond0, why only look to firearms homicide? In your opinion if the number of firearms homicides goes down by "X" but the number of homicides with knifes, poison, fire, etc goes up by "N*X" (with N > 1 obviously), the gun control is a success?
That only confirms what i think. Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem. They just hate firearms. And guess what, before firearms, the world was much more violent and the violence was mostly those with access to firearms VS those without it(colonies mostly). What happens if only the government and criminals have access to firearms and an prostitute who owns an revolver to defend himself from an potential violent drunk costumer will be treated as an criminal by owning an firearm? Even if she lives in a place where his activity is legal? Not everybody lives in a gated community with private security and high income area where the police can arrive in few minutes. Some people has risky jobs, some lives in remote places with dangerous animals, an federal law will affect from Florida do Alaska.
This is why the media barely talks about the arson attack on Kyoto animation. Was an attack killed far more than most massacres with """"assault rifles"""" on US, and was made in a country where even illegal firearms are hard to obtain due geographical reasons.
For the question as you posed it, i.e. would I prefer to have fewer people killed with guns or more without guns, I would prefer the former. However, that doesn't seem to be a sensible question to me. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that reducing homicides by firearms will increase overall homicides and there's little evidence of any substitution at all. Here's the graph of overall homicides from the same report you quoted before as supporting your case.
You can see the 95% confidence intervals are diverging, unlike in the graph for firearms homicides - that reflects that a regression analysis of past total homicides is a poor predictor of future homicides (the correlation is much stronger just in relation to firearms homicides). However, it seems clear to me the data do not suggest that the reduction in firearms homicides has been replaced by other forms of homicide - and that view is stated in the report as well ("The results do not support the possibility of displacement to the use of other weapons in relation to homicide (non-firearm) post-NFA.").
I fail to see how my views support your conclusion that "Gun control advocates doesn't wanna solve any problem." I think the evidence is beyond argument that the US has an unusually high level of mass shootings. In numbers of deaths you can make the case that's not a great problem, but these types of attacks have an impact on people's perceptions far greater than the real level of danger (in the same way as terrorism - and there's obviously some cross-over between those categories). I don't hate firearms, but I do think certain categories of firearms are unnecessary for the general population and restricting those (as part of a wider change intended to make them socially unacceptable) would help with the mass shooting problem.
In relation to perception of danger it's perhaps worth making the point that someone carrying a gun is more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by a gun. A prostitute carrying a gun may well feel safer, but in reality she is not safer. In recent years there's been a similar sort of problem in the UK with young people carrying knives. The evidence is clear that carrying a knife increases, not reduces, the danger of the young person being injured by a knife. However, that's often not their perception. Education, particularly by those with "street-cred", such as ex-gang members, is one way to tackle this issue.
As for other forms of attacks, no-one is suggesting that guns are the only way to hurt other people. The fact though remains that the US is out of line with similar countries in relation to gun violence, not in relation to wider forms of violence. In that context I think it makes sense to consider what is causing that discrepancy and try and tackle that.
Nice graphs. It would be nice if it wasn't 15 year old data. I mean, it's only a 25 year spread on the graphs anyways, so by now they would be more than half fill-in-the-blank if they were to be projected to now.
I can say that it FELT like that there was a decreasing trend to violent crime and homicides through the 90s into the 2000s, which would be supported by the graphs, but now I would say it FEELS like it has gone back up. I would like hard numbers to back up my feelings though, because I'm a scientist, yo.
I wouldn't even object to data just 5 years old, but I would really love to see data since 2016's election year.
Edit-Nevermind, going to the original paper I see that it refers to Australia, not U.S. data.
Nice graphs. It would be nice if it wasn't 15 year old data. I mean, it's only a 25 year spread on the graphs anyways, so by now they would be more than half fill-in-the-blank if they were to be projected to now.
I can say that it FELT like that there was a decreasing trend to violent crime and homicides through the 90s into the 2000s, which would be supported by the graphs, but now I would say it FEELS like it has gone back up. I would like hard numbers to back up my feelings though, because I'm a scientist, yo.
I wouldn't even object to data just 5 years old, but I would really love to see data since 2016's election year.
Edit-Nevermind, going to the original paper I see that it refers to Australia, not U.S. data.
Here's a graph of US violent crime up to 2017 (2018 equivalent data is likely to be published in the next month or two). That supports your contention of generally decreasing crime since 1990. Since 2014 crime rates have risen a bit, though it's too early to say whether that's the same sort of blip seen before in a decreasing trend, or a change to an increasing trend.
This site includes a bit of detail about unrecorded as well as recorded crime (the latter is the basis for the FBI data in the above graph) - unrecorded violent crime has reduced by even more, consistent with the idea that general US society has become significantly less violent in the last generation (mass shootings of course are an exception to this trend).
Well, violence overall may be going down, but mass shootings aren't. If people don't feel safe, then that's a problem. The panic in Times Square is a perfect example of what can happen when people are on edge. Barring the news networks not giving these assholes 24/7 coverage, it might be time to get assault weapons off the streets. I'm not sure what the right way to do it is, but not selling them to the general populace would be a good start. I'm only addressing mass-shootings since overall homicide rates likely won't be affected all that much (far and away hand-guns are the culprits in most murders). I'll argue with my dad again how an SKS or AR-15 won't allow him and his buddies to hold off a Russian assault or a UN paramilitary operation if that's what it takes. Enough is enough, I'm done trying to justify any civilian needing these weapons. A hunter does not want his meat to be Swiss cheese so don't give me that crap...
Well, violence overall may be going down, but mass shootings aren't. If people don't feel safe, then that's a problem. The panic in Times Square is a perfect example of what can happen when people are on edge. Barring the news networks not giving these assholes 24/7 coverage, it might be time to get assault weapons off the streets. I'm not sure what the right way to do it is, but not selling them to the general populace would be a good start. I'm only addressing mass-shootings since overall homicide rates likely won't be affected all that much (far and away hand-guns are the culprits in most murders). I'll argue with my dad again how an SKS or AR-15 won't allow him and his buddies to hold off a Russian assault or a UN paramilitary operation if that's what it takes. Enough is enough, I'm done trying to justify any civilian needing these weapons. A hunter does not want his meat to be Swiss cheese so don't give me that crap...
ISTR a comedian saying "If you need 30 rounds to kill a deer, maybe it's time you found another hobby."
I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that reducing homicides by firearms will increase overall homicides and there's little evidence of any substitution at all. Here's the graph of overall homicides from the same report you quoted before as supporting your case.
[
I just mentioned evidences showing that the non gun related homicides proof that the gun control din't changed anything and you confirm what was thinking. But if i need to choose how i wanna die, an shot in the heart looks much less painful than die carbonized and yes, recently an guy did an Arson attack on Kyoto annimation killing far more than most mass shootings on US.
I don't hate firearms, but I do think certain categories of firearms are unnecessary for the general population and restricting those (as part of a wider change intended to make them socially unacceptable) would help with the mass shooting problem.
[
Translation : I think that only the state and the criminals should have access to certain firearms.and innocent people who refuses to give this weapons should be send to prison regardless of the family who depends upon him.
A prostitute carrying a gun may well feel safer, but in reality she is not safer. In recent years there's been a similar sort of problem in the UK with young people carrying knives. The evidence is clear that carrying a knife increases, not reduces, the danger of the young person being injured by a knife
[
Even if it increases the chance of being hurt. Is a decisions to the "guy" do, not to the state.
The fact though remains that the US is out of line with similar countries in relation to gun violence
[
And who evidence you have that is guns the problem? US always had guns; The mass shootings is an relative recent problem. US government could't prevent 30 mi illegals from entering US. Could't even prevent an high profile pedophile from committing suicide inside an prison....
Most people, most liberals, would be perfectly happy dealing with the SPECIFIC weapons being used in nearly every one of these shootings. These never take place with a handgun, shotgun, or rifle (you'd have to go back to the DC Sniper to find something that meticulous). No one wants to take away your ability to hunt in November or your handgun you may or may not keep in your bedroom. At the very least, no one is seriously suggesting it. We are simply talking about what are nothing but instruments of wanton carnage that serve no other tangible or useful purpose to society. Maybe mass killers will move onto something else to kill as many random people as possible as quickly as possible if they don't have access to them, but the reason they are using assault rifles is because it is the EASIEST way to do so. We can deal with the next one when it comes up. These specific types of guns are the problem we are dealing with NOW, and the one that is the common link in all mass shootings.
Hint: It's in the very first line of "background".
Yes, i have read. But consider gang violence and massacres on schools or public places the same thing makes no sense. And guess what. the NFA din't solved gang violence and the dry law made the gangsters far more powerful.
Gang violence is an entirely separate issue. If we want to talk about that we can talk about it. What is happening MULTIPLE times a year in the United States now for decades is that almost exclusively young (though some middle-aged ones as well) men are walking into public places armed with assault rifles and killing indiscriminately. They are able to do this because these specific weapons allow them to simply aim and pull the trigger. They kill dozens of people who had absolutely no connection to them whatsoever. MOST homicides are going to occur as either a domestic dispute of some sort or in relation to gang wars over drug territory. This is not that. What we have in mass shootings in the US is simply a slight variation on suicide bombings. If these WERE bombs, you can bet your ass we WOULD be doing something about it.
Forget about banning them for the moment. We can't even get to the starting line on more stringent background checks that over 90% of the public supports. And this is pretty much solely because of the Republican Party being beholden to the NRA. What's interesting at this juncture is that the NRA is SEVERELY weakened from a financial and ethical/moral standpoint at this point in time. The Parkland students may not have changed anything in regards to our gun laws, but what they DID do is succeed in making the NRA a pariah among most of the public. Which is why the Republican's refusal to stand up to them in any way even at their weakest is so telling.
Hint: It's in the very first line of "background".
Yes, i have read. But consider gang violence and massacres on schools or public places the same thing makes no sense. And guess what. the NFA din't solved gang violence and the dry law made the gangsters far more powerful.
I really hate to argue with you because we think somewhat alike, but I'm sorry, a shotgun is more than enough firepower to guard your home. I'd argue that 99.99% of burglars are going to hurt themselves trying to get out of my house fast enough after they hear me pump-arm my shotgun (I don't keep it fully loaded just so that I can get that sound-effect - since I played Doom 30 years ago and saw a combat shotgun in action in the movie Aliens, I think that nearly everybody knows what that sound means). If you're really paranoid when you're driving and want a gun in your glove-box or you want something in your purse or strapped to your person, a handgun is much better for defense. Unless you're under attack by a squad of military special-forces or a SWAT team you have NO need for an assault rifle with 100 rounds.
If you're afraid of getting SWAT'ed you're better off training yourself to lay down on the ground with your arms extended. You will not get shot no matter your skin color if you do that. Don't try to run and don't try to defend yourself. It's as simple as that. You will not win.
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against.
The only chance the conspiracy-theorists have is if the military refuses to kill civilians for a tyrannical US government. How many soldiers did we lose in actual combat in Iraq? It was laughably negligible. I'm sick of hearing how civilians 'need' weapons like assault rifles to 'defend' ourselves. You know what? The movie Red Dawn was barely believable back in the 1980's. It's terribly obsolete now with infra-red, GPS, smart-missiles, night-vision and drones.
What's even stranger is that, for the most part, it is the right who will generally come to the defense of law enforcement. We know for a fact that law enforcement want these type of weapons off the streets. Though it would only be one small factor in doing so, maybe having less guns floating around in this society will cut down on their need to feel like their life is in danger every second of every encounter with civilians.
What's even stranger is that, for the most part, it is the right who will generally come to the defense of law enforcement. We know for a fact that law enforcement want these type of weapons off the streets. Though it would only be one small factor in doing so, maybe having less guns floating around in this society will cut down on their need to feel like their life is in danger every second of every encounter with civilians.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's assault weapons that makes law-enforcement the most nervous. It's the more easily concealable hand-guns that they need to worry more about. I'm really not on-board for any kind of hand-gun ban at the moment but I would have an open-mind depending on how the assault-gun ban plays out (I really think we're on the verge of passing this soon). A hand-gun ban really would take guns out of the hands of people who might need them for self-defense.
What's even stranger is that, for the most part, it is the right who will generally come to the defense of law enforcement. We know for a fact that law enforcement want these type of weapons off the streets. Though it would only be one small factor in doing so, maybe having less guns floating around in this society will cut down on their need to feel like their life is in danger every second of every encounter with civilians.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's assault weapons that makes law-enforcement the most nervous. It's the more easily concealable hand-guns that they need to worry more about. I'm really not on-board for any kind of hand-gun ban at the moment but I would have an open-mind depending on how the assault-gun ban plays out (I really think we're on the verge of passing this soon). A hand-gun ban really would take guns out of the hands of people who might need them for self-defense.
I wouldn't even support a hand-gun ban. But what we need to do is AT LEAST regulate the buying and ownership of a gun to the same level we do automobiles. It doesn't surprise me that you would be open to an assault weapons ban, mostly because I know you send you daughter to school like every other parent does, and though I'm not one myself, I doubt there are many parents who haven't THOUGHT about it happening at their child's school.
What's even stranger is that, for the most part, it is the right who will generally come to the defense of law enforcement. We know for a fact that law enforcement want these type of weapons off the streets. Though it would only be one small factor in doing so, maybe having less guns floating around in this society will cut down on their need to feel like their life is in danger every second of every encounter with civilians.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's assault weapons that makes law-enforcement the most nervous. It's the more easily concealable hand-guns that they need to worry more about. I'm really not on-board for any kind of hand-gun ban at the moment but I would have an open-mind depending on how the assault-gun ban plays out (I really think we're on the verge of passing this soon). A hand-gun ban really would take guns out of the hands of people who might need them for self-defense.
I wouldn't even support a hand-gun ban. But what we need to do is AT LEAST regulate the buying and ownership of a gun to the same level we do automobiles. It doesn't surprise me that you would be open to an assault weapons ban, mostly because I know you send you daughter to school like every other parent does, and though I'm not one myself, I doubt there are many parents who haven't THOUGHT about it happening at their child's school.
Yeah, my usual 'Law of the Mackerel' theory doesn't apply when I think of my daughter at school with no defense. I know the odds of it happening are remote (like the odds of being the one mackerel in the school taken by a barracuda) but it's not 'me' that I'm worried about in this case. They had a scare last year at the middle-school she's going into. It turned out just to be a doofus writing a threat on a desk, but it makes you think regardless...
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
edit : an civilian with an 14.5x114mm semi automatic rifle and good aim CAN take out an officer inside an armored vehicle but for some people here, only the government and criminals should have this powerful weapon.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
I just learned today that Warren used to be a conservative. That's interesting to me. Not sure if I'd vote for her. Biden is less to the left and Bernie has more charisma. She might be in a tough spot between those two...
Edit: I'll admit that Biden is the perfect protest vote for me because he's likely going to be a one-termer due to age.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
My personal favorite is Tulsi Gabbard but I know she has no realistic path to winning.
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Look, is someone is determined to commit an massacre, do you REALLY think that he will not ilegally modify the weapon cartridge to an more effective cartridge? Or cut the barrel to make more easy to conceal? Or purchase illegal weapons?
Sorry, but i can't buy that criminals will respect the gun laws and that the state who failed to prevent 30 mi illegal from entering and staying in the country, who failed to prevent an pedophile from suicide inside an max security prison can prevent an criminal from owning illegal firearms. And take out the rights of the majority due an fault of an tinny minority is unjust.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
I just learned today that Warren used to be a conservative. That's interesting to me. Not sure if I'd vote for her. Biden is less to the left and Bernie has more charisma. She might be in a tough spot between those two...
Edit: I'll admit that Biden is the perfect protest vote for me because he's likely going to be a one-termer due to age.
Here's the thing about Biden. Even though the biggest strikes against him are his support of the 90s crime bill and working across the aisle with some pretty terrible people back in the day, it is mostly white liberals who have a problem with him. Older black voters are still backing him overwhelmingly compared to other candidates. You can tie some of this to his partnership with Obama, but that isn't the main thing going on here. African-American voters of a certain age are incredibly pragmatic. For most of their life, they haven't had the luxury of voting for idealism. Idealism ended up getting slaughtered by Nixon and Reagan. That was a long-time ago, and I personally believe it's high time to actually put one of those idealists into office (as Clinton and Obama were both incredibly centrist). But I'm also not a person of color who lived through the 1960s.
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
Harris is a waste as a VP. California is in the bag already. What about O'Rourke and a grab at Texas? Thinking strategically now for a party I don't even like much. I can't help it, I love statistics!
I'm going to blow everybody's minds here. I was no fan of Kavanaugh but since he makes the SCOTUS safely conservative for a while, I'm seriously considering 'not' voting for many Republicans in 2020. With the court as a check on too rapid change, I don't feel like the current Republicans represent my views much anymore. It's a safe time for me to show my disgust at how things are going. I'm going to vote for Debbie Dingell (Michigan US Representative) despite my belief that she rode her husband's coattails into office (her hubby was John Dingell who I voted for most of the time). I don't care anymore. I've heard her speak on the radio quite often the last few years and I like her now. I'm very likely to vote for Biden or Bernie (if one of them wins the nomination) and I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Trump (unless Harris is his opponent, I can't stand her). There's no way in Hell I'm voting for Stabenow though (Michigan US Senator). I've despised her for a long time and that's not going to change. I've never voted for a Democratic president (even choked down a vote for Dole in '96) but it's on the table now for sure. I've had enough of this bullshit!
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
Harris is a waste as a VP. California is in the bag already. What about O'Rourke and a grab at Texas? Thinking strategically now for a party I don't even like much. I can't help it, I love statistics!
Beto should be running for Senate against John Cornyn and it's pissing alot of people off that he isn't. This is despite his very humanizing response to what happened in El Paso.
@Balrog99: I recommend this article about a book Warren wrote that, among other things, partly explains her transition from conservative to liberal.
Warren’s central argument in the book is that this rise in household income was almost entirely driven by the increase in the number of two-earner families. And adding income by adding a second worker, she argues, has very different economic implications than rising pay for a single worker. In practice, the book says, the increasing ubiquity of two-earner households leaves families in more precarious financial circumstances with more brittle budgets that were more prone to tip over into insolvency if a problem cropped up.
Basically, she saw that the world has changed in a way that leaves middle class families more vulnerable. And instead of dismissing that as a mass failure of personal responsibility, she took an analytical approach to see what policy interventions could compensate for the change. I actually think you'd like a lot of what she has to say if you were to dig into it.
Criminalty on UK, an country with scritct gun laws
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Look, is someone is determined to commit an massacre, do you REALLY think that he will not ilegally modify the weapon cartridge to an more effective cartridge? Or cut the barrel to make more easy to conceal? Or purchase illegal weapons?
Sorry, but i can't buy that criminals will respect the gun laws and that the state who failed to prevent 30 mi illegal from entering and staying in the country, who failed to prevent an pedophile from suicide inside an max security prison can prevent an criminal from owning illegal firearms. And take out the rights of the majority due an fault of an tinny minority is unjust.
Look, you can't prove that they would have broken the law because they DIDN'T HAVE TOO! There is no law! If it happens AFTER there is a law then you have an argument. You may be right, but guess what? You may be wrong. My 11 year-old daughter has to go to school and I'd like to think we at least did SOMETHING to make sure she's safe while she's busy learning reading/writing/arithmetics...
The state already killed hundreds times more than the black death. What the state needs to do in order to people stop treating the state like an deity? I mean, why people for eg accept easily state enforced conscription, but if an company like Black water tries to do the same, will be an outrage? Probably the state can kill 90% of the human population, enslave 9% and people still will defend this institution...
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against. .
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
Look, is someone is determined to commit an massacre, do you REALLY think that he will not ilegally modify the weapon cartridge to an more effective cartridge? Or cut the barrel to make more easy to conceal? Or purchase illegal weapons?
Sorry, but i can't buy that criminals will respect the gun laws and that the state who failed to prevent 30 mi illegal from entering and staying in the country, who failed to prevent an pedophile from suicide inside an max security prison can prevent an criminal from owning illegal firearms. And take out the rights of the majority due an fault of an tinny minority is unjust.
Look, you can't prove that they would have broken the law because they DIDN'T HAVE TOO! There is no law! If it happens AFTER there is a law then you have an argument. You may be right, but guess what? You may be wrong. My 11 year-old daughter has to go to school and I'd like to think we at least did SOMETHING to make sure she's safe while she's busy learning reading/writing/arithmetics...
This is rather the point. Yeah, people CAN buy guns illegally. But almost none of the mass shooters have actually done so. Buying a gun illegally requires far more effort and knowledge of how to do so than walking into a Wal-Mart or Cabela's. Let's say even HALF of them could have been prevented with something like a mandatory 1-week waiting period and liability insurance. How many of them might have lost their nerve or had second thoughts if these obstacles were put into place?? Impossible to say, but I bet anything at LEAST one or two of them, if not many more. By using an assault rifle, they are basically signalling that they are going down the path of least resistance to commit their murders. It is the easiest way to do so. Placing obstacles in the way makes it NOT the path of least resistance. It makes it harder. In the case of liability insurance, it may in fact make it impossible for them to obtain the weapon, either because they couldn't meet the standards or they would be priced out of the market.
Comments
I can say that it FELT like that there was a decreasing trend to violent crime and homicides through the 90s into the 2000s, which would be supported by the graphs, but now I would say it FEELS like it has gone back up. I would like hard numbers to back up my feelings though, because I'm a scientist, yo.
I wouldn't even object to data just 5 years old, but I would really love to see data since 2016's election year.
Edit-Nevermind, going to the original paper I see that it refers to Australia, not U.S. data.
Here's a graph of US violent crime up to 2017 (2018 equivalent data is likely to be published in the next month or two). That supports your contention of generally decreasing crime since 1990. Since 2014 crime rates have risen a bit, though it's too early to say whether that's the same sort of blip seen before in a decreasing trend, or a change to an increasing trend.
This site includes a bit of detail about unrecorded as well as recorded crime (the latter is the basis for the FBI data in the above graph) - unrecorded violent crime has reduced by even more, consistent with the idea that general US society has become significantly less violent in the last generation (mass shootings of course are an exception to this trend).
ISTR a comedian saying "If you need 30 rounds to kill a deer, maybe it's time you found another hobby."
enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
I just mentioned evidences showing that the non gun related homicides proof that the gun control din't changed anything and you confirm what was thinking. But if i need to choose how i wanna die, an shot in the heart looks much less painful than die carbonized and yes, recently an guy did an Arson attack on Kyoto annimation killing far more than most mass shootings on US.
Translation : I think that only the state and the criminals should have access to certain firearms.and innocent people who refuses to give this weapons should be send to prison regardless of the family who depends upon him.
Even if it increases the chance of being hurt. Is a decisions to the "guy" do, not to the state.
And who evidence you have that is guns the problem? US always had guns; The mass shootings is an relative recent problem. US government could't prevent 30 mi illegals from entering US. Could't even prevent an high profile pedophile from committing suicide inside an prison....
I SAID:
"WHY do you think the NFA of 1934 EVEN EXISTS?"
WHAT do you think happened to cause it to exist?
Read the page you linked.
Hint: It's in the very first line of "background".
Yes, i have read. But consider gang violence and massacres on schools or public places the same thing makes no sense. And guess what. the NFA din't solved gang violence and the dry law made the gangsters far more powerful.
Forget about banning them for the moment. We can't even get to the starting line on more stringent background checks that over 90% of the public supports. And this is pretty much solely because of the Republican Party being beholden to the NRA. What's interesting at this juncture is that the NRA is SEVERELY weakened from a financial and ethical/moral standpoint at this point in time. The Parkland students may not have changed anything in regards to our gun laws, but what they DID do is succeed in making the NRA a pariah among most of the public. Which is why the Republican's refusal to stand up to them in any way even at their weakest is so telling.
I really hate to argue with you because we think somewhat alike, but I'm sorry, a shotgun is more than enough firepower to guard your home. I'd argue that 99.99% of burglars are going to hurt themselves trying to get out of my house fast enough after they hear me pump-arm my shotgun (I don't keep it fully loaded just so that I can get that sound-effect - since I played Doom 30 years ago and saw a combat shotgun in action in the movie Aliens, I think that nearly everybody knows what that sound means). If you're really paranoid when you're driving and want a gun in your glove-box or you want something in your purse or strapped to your person, a handgun is much better for defense. Unless you're under attack by a squad of military special-forces or a SWAT team you have NO need for an assault rifle with 100 rounds.
If you're afraid of getting SWAT'ed you're better off training yourself to lay down on the ground with your arms extended. You will not get shot no matter your skin color if you do that. Don't try to run and don't try to defend yourself. It's as simple as that. You will not win.
Even worse are your chances against real soldiers. An assault rifle will be about as good as a pea-shooter against fully trained military personnel. Sorry, it's the truth. They have access to technology that the average civilian has 'NO' defense against.
The only chance the conspiracy-theorists have is if the military refuses to kill civilians for a tyrannical US government. How many soldiers did we lose in actual combat in Iraq? It was laughably negligible. I'm sick of hearing how civilians 'need' weapons like assault rifles to 'defend' ourselves. You know what? The movie Red Dawn was barely believable back in the 1980's. It's terribly obsolete now with infra-red, GPS, smart-missiles, night-vision and drones.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's assault weapons that makes law-enforcement the most nervous. It's the more easily concealable hand-guns that they need to worry more about. I'm really not on-board for any kind of hand-gun ban at the moment but I would have an open-mind depending on how the assault-gun ban plays out (I really think we're on the verge of passing this soon). A hand-gun ban really would take guns out of the hands of people who might need them for self-defense.
I wouldn't even support a hand-gun ban. But what we need to do is AT LEAST regulate the buying and ownership of a gun to the same level we do automobiles. It doesn't surprise me that you would be open to an assault weapons ban, mostly because I know you send you daughter to school like every other parent does, and though I'm not one myself, I doubt there are many parents who haven't THOUGHT about it happening at their child's school.
Yeah, my usual 'Law of the Mackerel' theory doesn't apply when I think of my daughter at school with no defense. I know the odds of it happening are remote (like the odds of being the one mackerel in the school taken by a barracuda) but it's not 'me' that I'm worried about in this case. They had a scare last year at the middle-school she's going into. It turned out just to be a doofus writing a threat on a desk, but it makes you think regardless...
See the Vietnam war. Anyway, according to some people here, the French resistance should't have even tried to liberate their country for German occupation in WW2. They should be just enslaved by an bigger force...
And Iraq war Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study says > https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
How much from public deficit US could pay with this ginormous debt?
And do you guys know what is an """"assault rifle""""???? An assault rifle needs to be fully automatic with selective fire. Massacres happened using legal firearms, illegal firearms, fire, gas, trucks, cars, knifes...
edit : an civilian with an 14.5x114mm semi automatic rifle and good aim CAN take out an officer inside an armored vehicle but for some people here, only the government and criminals should have this powerful weapon.
Dayton shooter - 41 shots in 30 seconds. I'm sorry but fully automatic isn't even required if you can get that rate of fire in semi-auto mode. Sorry, I'm not changing my mind back on this. I've fired a 0.22 and it was not much harder to fire than a BB-gun. 0.223 calibre AR-15 must not even have enough kick to affect your accuracy. It's ludicrous that a young-adult can get a weapon like that without even a background check! I've got a 12 gauge shotgun and a 0.30-6 hunting rifle. Both of them would turn your shoulder into hamburger if you tried to fire them half that fast. Let alone try to hit something! Sorry, I don't buy that your average citizen needs something that fires low power rounds at that high a rate of fire.
I think Harris is now a Vice Presidential choice at this point. Biden has remained viable longer than I thought because there is a VERY real dynamic among Democratic primary voters right now that they don't necessarily think Biden is the best choice, but that they think OTHER people will be ok with him. I'm still not sold on picking a nominee that way, but he appears like he's in this for the long haul. People just generally like Joe Biden. Regardless, it now seems like a 3-way race to me. Biden, Sanders and Warren. I personally believe Warren has worked the hardest, and deserves it the most, and she and Sanders are almost indistinguishable on economic policy. Sanders did himself alot of favors by going on Joe Rogan's podcast. My prediction at this point is that Warren wins Iowa, Sanders wins New Hampshire, and Biden wins South Carolina. Then it's off to the races.
The numbers don't have a ton of room to move. The people who are dropping out and/or are going to drop out soon don't have enough support to actually be moved in anyone's direction or column. The only people who have a chunk to give the top-3 that could move the needle are Harris and Buttigieg. But Iowa and New Hampshire always fundamentally changed the narrative. Once someone wins something tangible is when things really swing. And since those two have a solar-system sized impact on the NARRATIVE of how the race is going, winning one of the two is an absolute necessity for the non-Biden candidates.
I just learned today that Warren used to be a conservative. That's interesting to me. Not sure if I'd vote for her. Biden is less to the left and Bernie has more charisma. She might be in a tough spot between those two...
Edit: I'll admit that Biden is the perfect protest vote for me because he's likely going to be a one-termer due to age.
My personal favorite is Tulsi Gabbard but I know she has no realistic path to winning.
Look, is someone is determined to commit an massacre, do you REALLY think that he will not ilegally modify the weapon cartridge to an more effective cartridge? Or cut the barrel to make more easy to conceal? Or purchase illegal weapons?
Sorry, but i can't buy that criminals will respect the gun laws and that the state who failed to prevent 30 mi illegal from entering and staying in the country, who failed to prevent an pedophile from suicide inside an max security prison can prevent an criminal from owning illegal firearms. And take out the rights of the majority due an fault of an tinny minority is unjust.
Here's the thing about Biden. Even though the biggest strikes against him are his support of the 90s crime bill and working across the aisle with some pretty terrible people back in the day, it is mostly white liberals who have a problem with him. Older black voters are still backing him overwhelmingly compared to other candidates. You can tie some of this to his partnership with Obama, but that isn't the main thing going on here. African-American voters of a certain age are incredibly pragmatic. For most of their life, they haven't had the luxury of voting for idealism. Idealism ended up getting slaughtered by Nixon and Reagan. That was a long-time ago, and I personally believe it's high time to actually put one of those idealists into office (as Clinton and Obama were both incredibly centrist). But I'm also not a person of color who lived through the 1960s.
Harris is a waste as a VP. California is in the bag already. What about O'Rourke and a grab at Texas? Thinking strategically now for a party I don't even like much. I can't help it, I love statistics!
Beto should be running for Senate against John Cornyn and it's pissing alot of people off that he isn't. This is despite his very humanizing response to what happened in El Paso.
"The first significant modern gun control law in the UK was the Firearms Act of 1920. The Act abolished what had been up until then an assumed right to carry arms. The Act was likely introduced as an anti-Irish and anti-communist measure, as there was no evidence (then or now) of rising crime at the time. The 1920 act was followed by increasingly restrictive gun control laws in 1937, 1968, and 1988. From the 1950s into the early 2000's however, the homicide rate grew steadily."
https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates
So yes, killers don't care about gun laws. This is supposed to be an obvious statement but is an "radical libertarian statement"...
Look, you can't prove that they would have broken the law because they DIDN'T HAVE TOO! There is no law! If it happens AFTER there is a law then you have an argument. You may be right, but guess what? You may be wrong. My 11 year-old daughter has to go to school and I'd like to think we at least did SOMETHING to make sure she's safe while she's busy learning reading/writing/arithmetics...
This is rather the point. Yeah, people CAN buy guns illegally. But almost none of the mass shooters have actually done so. Buying a gun illegally requires far more effort and knowledge of how to do so than walking into a Wal-Mart or Cabela's. Let's say even HALF of them could have been prevented with something like a mandatory 1-week waiting period and liability insurance. How many of them might have lost their nerve or had second thoughts if these obstacles were put into place?? Impossible to say, but I bet anything at LEAST one or two of them, if not many more. By using an assault rifle, they are basically signalling that they are going down the path of least resistance to commit their murders. It is the easiest way to do so. Placing obstacles in the way makes it NOT the path of least resistance. It makes it harder. In the case of liability insurance, it may in fact make it impossible for them to obtain the weapon, either because they couldn't meet the standards or they would be priced out of the market.