Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!

Post Reply New Topic

However, as I’ve pointed out, studies have shown that people are more likely to do it and succeed if they have a gun.

It should not be left out of the equation because it is an important issue that strongly relates to this particular topic.

People are more likely to successfully kill themselves and others with objects whose sole purpose is to kill stuff.

You are missing my point.
There may be fewer suicides if a gun isn't handy, but there will still be suicides, as you pointed out.
It is misleading data in the context of this discussion.

It is not misleading data in this context. It’s another reason why “guns must be banned.”

Gun ownership dramatically increases the risk of suicide, and as I just noted, it demonstrates the main issue regarding guns: they are lethal and easy to use.

From a viewpoint of deaths caused by firearms and possible reasons therefore to ban them, it looks pretty relevant to me.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-the-u-s/


More generally, there's also this -

I wonder if the Founding Fathers (i.e., those who formulated the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights) would have believed that everybody had the right to own assault weapons that fire more than 10 rounds at a time before reloading. Of course, this is purely speculation because, in 1790, there were no such thing as guns which could fire even multiple rounds at a time. But I would hazard a guess that they wouldn't have been happy with a general populace who owned such weapons.

The "Right to Bear Arms" (the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights) was something that was essential in 1790, but is really not so essential nowadays. Context of the Times.

I'm certainly not advocating taking away ALL guns from people----I'm advocating banning guns which have the capability to fire more than 10 rounds at a time before reloading.

Obviously, the availability of a gun makes attempts at suicide more likely to be "successful."

We don't need graphs to know what's going on.

Explain why this is a problem now and was not 30 years ago when all the same guns were around, and why in your opinion there is no other factor involved, and how attacks with cars on crowds is a separate problem from guns.

Sorry, but I don't see statistics as a quality post if there is no explanation of change over time

Gun violence has always been a problem. It’s not a recent phenomenon.

As far as mass shootings go, I think it was bound to happen at some point. Then once they are in people’s consciousness, they are more likely to occur again - a domino effect.

People do despicable things all the time, and some get a sadistic pleasure in hurting others (serial killers, for instance, or those who torture animals or abuse children). This particular act of cruelty is not surprising.

The graph explains itself; further information is available on the linked page. Isn't it enough that this is a problem now, and that occurrences are increasing, or do you want to present another whataboutery rabbit hole?
Huh? Attacks with cars on crowds is a separate problem because guns were not involved as a weapon?

No, not enough. It offers no explanation of what changed about the society for the shootings to become a problem it is today. Guns have been around as long as our country has.

You've been asked before demonstrate a constructive proposition on how a ban can be implemented. You have not produced anything.

I'm saying you're wasting your time with these posts. The guns are here to stay, that's the harsh reality of it.
Mental health initiatives on the other hand have fewer obstacles, and have much wider public support.

Mental health initiatives! Obvious!

This isn’t an either/or scenario.

Most who want stricter gun control would not be against more programs to help people.

There’s a trend of oversimplifying or downright misrepresenting an opponent’s argument which I think I’m seeing here.

In any case, I think that we will continue to see stricter laws in the coming years to keep up with the changing needs of society. That doesn’t mean that other societal needs will continue to be neglected, though. This is a complex issue without a single cure. However, putting various measures in place would certainly help.

Sure, some control is good, and proved to be very effective, NFA for example.

What exactly are you proposing now? Because semantics do matter a lot in this case?

Keep in mind, you can't ask for pink elephants, there are limits to what can realistically be done, and every new law grandfathers everything that is already in possession by citizens. Do you understand what that means? That means new regulations barely put a scratch on the number of items already in circulation in the public. This is the reason why I say this isn't the way to stop mass shootings we are seeing now.

What I think could pass in the foreseeable future:
- Magazine capacity limit to 10 rounds for future sales
- Additional longer wait times from purchase to taking possession (days). (background checks are already mandatory)
Both items will do diddly squat to stop mass shootings. Meaning it's a waste of time, hope, and breath to even talk about it.

We have to do SOMETHING.....don't you think?

So you'd feel good knowing you did SOMETHING, even though you could have done SOMETHING else, and better?

You're not focusing on the root of the problem -- people.

Well, people who have too easy access to military style weapons.

Yep.....PEOPLE are the problem; obviously, you can't blame the gun....guns are carried by PEOPLE.