This thread is locked
PLEASE NOTE: This thread has been locked by the moderators. You cannot reply to it.
I actually agree with Canoas that it's our fault for not enforcing anti gun laws :V
But that's not going to stop homicide rates, from what I've seen people would probably just get a knife/illegally get a gun/homemade explosives and do the same thing.
But that's not going to stop homicide rates, from what I've seen people would probably just get a knife/illegally get a gun/homemade explosives and do the same thing.
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
Considering the number of people who already own guns illegally in the US, I don't think a law, as good as it sounds would remedy this issue.
But that's my opinion from actually living here.
Well if you'd had stricter laws; that would mean that less people would own guns legally so it would also be harder to obtain them illegally. Enforcement is also a big part of the law. There's no point in having laws if you don't enforce them.
I know that the gun laws here are very strict and that there is very little violence even involving a firearm.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
tehAsian wrote:
But that's not going to stop homicide rates, from what I've seen people would probably just get a knife/illegally get a gun/homemade explosives and do the same thing.
Do you know where to get illegal guns? I sure as hell don't.
Also, in Australia they also have knives and homemade explosives and the fire-arm homicide rate still dropped with no increase in the non-firearm homicide rate.
How do you get a one-armed black man down from a tree?
Cut the rope.
What's the difference between a disaster and an accident?
An accident is when a buss stuffed with "insert culturally disliked group" crash into a harbor.
A disaster is, if they can swim.
Why do ******s have such large *****es?
There was a big distance between the cages.
OT: I heard that people like shooting stuff up in 'murica, so let's just let them. 70% of their population can't be wrong, can it now?
Cut the rope.
What's the difference between a disaster and an accident?
An accident is when a buss stuffed with "insert culturally disliked group" crash into a harbor.
A disaster is, if they can swim.
Why do ******s have such large *****es?
There was a big distance between the cages.
OT: I heard that people like shooting stuff up in 'murica, so let's just let them. 70% of their population can't be wrong, can it now?
Ty MM and Blood for the sigs :3 | Rammus is comming back - heard it here first!
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
I don't think "stricter" gun laws are necessary, it's the fact that our current gun laws need to be more heavily enforced.
It's easy to say that "stricter laws would make a difference" when you weren't born here. We have the 2nd Amendment because we (including myself) believe we have the right to defend ourselves. I'm an average person, I'm not some sort of crazy gun nut, but I do believe in the 2nd Amendment. So while I agree there is an obvious issue created by the number of fire arms already in existence within the US, it's an issue not simply fixed by telling people "well hey we want them back".
It's easy to say that "stricter laws would make a difference" when you weren't born here. We have the 2nd Amendment because we (including myself) believe we have the right to defend ourselves. I'm an average person, I'm not some sort of crazy gun nut, but I do believe in the 2nd Amendment. So while I agree there is an obvious issue created by the number of fire arms already in existence within the US, it's an issue not simply fixed by telling people "well hey we want them back".
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
I don't think "stricter" gun laws are necessary, it's the fact that our current gun laws need to be more heavily enforced.
75% of the guns used in mass murders were legal. It doesn't matter how strict your current laws are, they still allow for mass murders to occur. Even if you were able to completely erradicate illegal guns most likely the other 25% would just get legal ones. Sure, mass murders wouldn't be as cool with no automatic rifles, but legal semi-automatic ones still kill as easily.
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
It's easy to say that "stricter laws would make a difference" when you weren't born here.
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
So while I agree there is an obvious issue created by the number of fire arms already in existence within the US, it's an issue not simply fixed by telling people "well hey we want them back".
Canoas wrote:
It's amazing how I got 90% of my rep by being mean to other people. The system works!
Nah, I've given you 10 rep for funny comments, most of which did not include anything hurtful toward others.
"If someone is ****, you point at them and declare "****!". Because this is the internet." - Serpentiferous
"The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and little girls are the FBI." - ???
"The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and little girls are the FBI." - ???
Some time ago California instituted a program in which people could sell back their guns. I can't recall the exact numbers but the guns sold back over ~10 or so years of the program being instituted resulted in less then ~5% of the total fire arms sold/purchased in California. It's not a question of time, it's a question of will power. Our country is not one to give up the things we "hold dear".
There's evidence that creating laws actually doesn't make people follow them. So I'll say it again "it's easy to say stricter laws would help", but in reality the ability to enforce those laws is non-existent. Consider (for example) the period in American history when alcohol was illegal. People (lots of them) were still drinking, alcohol was being made and sold, people were killed over alcohol. Making laws and an agency to enforce the law didn't work. Granted the number of people working for that Agency was like ~300 people (to enforce the law across the country). But there are more people than ever here now, what do you think would happen? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am attempting to explain why the process would be pretty damn difficult (even if we had 100 years) to actually make it considered "successful". In all possibility it would cause more difficulties than it would solve.
There's evidence that creating laws actually doesn't make people follow them. So I'll say it again "it's easy to say stricter laws would help", but in reality the ability to enforce those laws is non-existent. Consider (for example) the period in American history when alcohol was illegal. People (lots of them) were still drinking, alcohol was being made and sold, people were killed over alcohol. Making laws and an agency to enforce the law didn't work. Granted the number of people working for that Agency was like ~300 people (to enforce the law across the country). But there are more people than ever here now, what do you think would happen? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am attempting to explain why the process would be pretty damn difficult (even if we had 100 years) to actually make it considered "successful". In all possibility it would cause more difficulties than it would solve.
Gun laws won't protect people from being shot.
Nor do they protect people from purchasing weapons legally then making illegal modifications.
Nor do they prevent people from purchasing illegal fire arms.
What they do accomplish is telling people what is most likely going to happen to them if they get caught.
Australia had one mass murder and that was enough for them to change the gun laws. Their "firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides." All they needed was one ****ing law.
Such a law would drastically decrease the homicide and suicide rate, which is all that matters.