Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread
- Status
blue4eva77
Yarmolenko ? Yes please
Don't be embarrassed mate. Just differing opinions.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
You have to start somewhere, like any law it takes time to adjust and maybe it won't have an effect on anyone over 16 now as it's already ingrained, but future generations might not grow up surrounded by guns and gun culture. Harsh sentences would have to be passed on anyone disobeying the law to reinforce it.
Doing nothing is not the right answer and won't change squat.
blue4eva77
Yarmolenko ? Yes please
You don't need an assault rifle to carry out mass shootings. I'm fairly confident of that.
The binman chronicles
Player Valuation: £80m
True, but it makes it quicker and easier though. It also hinders others who may be armed to help stop the gunman. Put it this way who would you rather face someone with a 6 shooter or someone with an automatic assault rifle?
Fedlingen
Player Valuation: £20m
True, but a weapon with a high fire rate drastically increases the possible number of casualties and makes it much harder for the police to stop the shooter.
It will definately reduce the number of purchases, to think it will 100% prevent it is naiive. Banning firearms will mean a lower production is needed which will result in less weapons in circulation.
Most mass shootings are done with legal weaponry as someone posted earlier, as are domestic killings. The deaths caused by illegal firearms are often gang crimes and the likes.
Then ban everything but bolt-action rifles for hunting and keep all sporting guns locked up at locations where they are used.
Blues Harp
Player Valuation: £60m
Get rid of all your guns and start being humans you NRA turds...ffs !!!
Reducing/Eliminating guns on the street, both legal and illegal, will eventually reduce gun crimes/gun deaths. But yes, there will always be a few hell-bent on finding a gun and killing someone. We call these people psychopaths. However, a large number of gun-deaths are accidents, or deaths-in-the-process of committing a lesser crime (theft leading to felony murder), or emotional/poor-judgment crimes of passion/rage. It is these latter deaths that are more preventable (which is different from 100% preventable) by making guns harder to come by and the deterrents for committing such crimes more severe. There are easily confirmed comparative data, looking across countries, to support the idea that fewer access to guns = fewer gun deaths. But ultimately and unfortunately American culture is religious about gun ownership, to the point that even with huge government gun-reduction programs (mass buy-backs, tax penalities for owning guns), it would be difficult to get Americans to turn in their guns.
Last edited:
dead_soft
Player Valuation: £35m
It will stop more people from obtaining firearms than not.
Got to be honest, you're really bad at putting forward any logical arguments or following a strand of argument.
Suicide is one particular area where reduction in gun ownership would likely lead to a significant drop in deaths.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/suicide-in-wyoming/
Reducing access to lethal means is one of the few tactics that has been shown to prevent suicide at a population level, either by making it more difficult to get a hold of a highly lethal method or by making that method less lethal. For example, particularly lethal pesticides were restricted in Southeast Asia, and the quantity of carbon monoxide in residential gas was reduced in the United Kingdom. But reducing the risk in that way isn’t always straightforward. In a state such as Wyoming, where firearms were involved in the largest share of deaths but are widely owned and used, it is a particularly complicated topic.
There is a well-established relationship between individual firearm ownership and suicide by firearm. More guns per household at the state level was also a strong predictor of suicide rates for both men and women, according to a May study from Boston University that looked at data from 1981 to 2013. Gun rights advocates have made the case that people will find an alternative method if a firearm isn’t available. And a 2008 survey commissioned by the state of Wyoming found that three-quarters of residents didn’t believe that reducing access to firearms can impact the state’s high suicide rate.
While the research on the subject is mixed and very limited, it appears likely that suicide attempts are impulsive acts that can be prevented sometimes if the means of a planned attempt are taken away. And because other means are less lethal, not having access to a firearm can still be lifesaving, even if an attempt does take place. About 70 percent of survivors won’t go on to attempt suicide again, and 90 percent won’t die by suicide, according to a Harvard review of studies on survivors. That applies not only to firearms but to other methods, as well.
“We know [that] when people are in crisis, they use the method that is available to them,” said Terresa Humphries-Wadsworth, director of suicide prevention programs for the Prevention Management Organization of Wyoming, which manages all community suicide prevention efforts for the state. “If you remove one of those methods, whether that’s the pills or whatever, then they are less likely to go out and seek an alternative method, because they aren’t very good at problem-solving in that crisis moment.”
blue4eva77
Yarmolenko ? Yes please
Banning guns in the United States is virtually impossible anyway. Zero chance of this happening and for many reasons. It's laughable to even lazily suggest 'Merika should just ban firearms '.
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment of their constitution. So now you face civil war.
....... Any law to ban guns would be ignored by millions of people anyway, which means taking them by force all across the nation. Who will be conducting these raids on the millions of households ? Law enforcement? The military? The very same people who have sworn to uphold the law and defend the constitution. Oh
In short, and I don't need to use big words and long paragraphs to get my point across, banning firearms in the United States will never happen.
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment of their constitution. So now you face civil war.
....... Any law to ban guns would be ignored by millions of people anyway, which means taking them by force all across the nation. Who will be conducting these raids on the millions of households ? Law enforcement? The military? The very same people who have sworn to uphold the law and defend the constitution. Oh
In short, and I don't need to use big words and long paragraphs to get my point across, banning firearms in the United States will never happen.
blue4eva77
Yarmolenko ? Yes please
See above.
I really can't be arsed on this subject anymore to be honest. It's a dead subject.
Agree with this but do find it a touch odd that you have spent so much time taking about how people would circumvent a complete ban when you don't think it would happen.
However, despite the existence of some guns in the US for the foreseeable future, there are restrictions on certain types/ammunition and legal requirements for background checks before purchase/training/storage/license that can be implemented. There already are substantial differences on a state by state basis and I expect those to continue.
- Status