These kind of debates are pointless. Very few mass shootings are the results of illegal guns. What we must accept is that mass killings will continue to happen. Guns, bombs, vehicles ... there will be creative ways to kill people. Our population is growing and events are getting bigger and bigger. This stuff is inevitable. The question is how do we reduce them. Yes, we can compare other nations who do not have these problems, but centering around the method of killing is less important than why. One can hate guns all they want, but until they can find a way to magically make all of the guns disappear, its a moot conversation.
I care about taking common sense measures that can reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings. It doesn't follow that I don't care about gun violence affecting other people, unless you think addressing mass shootings somehow makes other instances of gun violence more frequent.
Let's be serious, you care about pushing for legislation to erode civil rights no matter if it helps or not. We already have data that shows that assault weapons bans didn't really help when it was tried already.....but actually helping was never a priority.
Why do you suppose I care about eroding your civil rights just for the heck of it? If you have convincing data that shows gun control has zero effect on mass shootings, I'm willing to change my mind.
Well, some people are just anti-civil rights, it is what it is. Again, we had an assault weapons ban for a decade and it did basically nothing other than make those who passed it think that they did something and make them happy that they were able to take something from the people. You'll always find people who seek to take from the people, and those people need to be shut down. The "we have to do something" mentality is how we got prohibition.
There doesn't seem to be any correlation whatsoever. The ban years were 1994-2004. Turns out the ban had no effect whatsoever....but that doesn't stop people from suggesting that going back with the ban will fix everything.
Your graph curiously leaves off the last several years. I don't look at that and conclude it had no effect. The spike due to Columbine demonstrates the limits of such a ban, for sure, but not that it has zero impact.
Looks like the different charts are using different standards of what constitutes a mass shooting given the lower numbers in this chart compared to the one I posted....I wonder why they'd do that.
Isn't that the point of owning a gun? To protect your home. Making it known you own a fire arm would be like one of those security system signs.
Jokes aside. I hate the argument that you need a gun for home protection. Unless you're dealing drugs, or ****ed a dudes wife, no one is just randomly kicking down your door guns blazing. Robbers scope out easy targets. A decent sized dog will make them choose another house.
YES. A thousand times yes. Then get some actual firearms regulation and see what happens.... The NRA, Wayne LaPierre types would honestly rather let people get murdered than "surrender" some tiny modicum of a right in the way of regulation or registration. They're sick in the head.
