Evidence to support this?
Is this enough evidence?
This is not telling the whole picture.
It does not break down the use of guns.
Does it include shootings by police?
Suicides are not taken into consideration.
Are any of the gun deaths the death of criminals in the act of hurting someone? To put that on the same moral plain as an accidental shooting is bordering on criminal (morality wise) in my mind.
In some respects breaking down by state is not enough. With most states having a large diversity of rural and urban populations and some cities having further restrictions than the state overall it really needs to be broken down more to see where the actual problem areas are. I can guarantee that Chicago is much more violent than the rest of Illinois, and NYC versus NYS.
Yes, there can be more firearm education. Put rifle teams back into schools as a school sport. Improve our public education system through competition. Allow parents to decide where their children go to school.
What I am saying is that banning or controlling a tool that is used in statistically rare cases does next to nothing to solve the problem. The biggest problems are social issues: family break down, economic, and education. All these take time to fix. Allowing people the ability and tools to defend themselves is logical.
Why are people so unwilling to discuss gun violence in context of violent crime? I suppose because they believe it more moral to allow other violent crime to rise dramatically if guns are taken away.
They come in from other states, where they are purchased (maybe legally or illegally), then they break the law (criminals do not care about the law), by bringing them into New York, where they again, use them illegally. Most criminals use cheap, small, handguns that are easily concealed. Contrary to what is flowing in the media now, so far undefined, "assault weapons", are used extremely rarely in crime. Tell me how banning them will drastically save lives.
Music to my ears; that's exactly right - they are coming out of state. The efforts of any singular state are undermined by the fact the nation doesn't play by the same set of rules and that allows states with far more lenient gun legislation, say Texas, to provide the weapons to shoot at New York's finest. Same for the drug cartels in Mexico that get to enjoy the lenient gun legislation in said states to buy a lot of guns to kill people in Mexico.
You're putting words in my mouth when you say "drastically" save lives. I think it is fairly obvious that banning weapons that serve no other purpose than to killing multiple people with ease would only serve to lower the loss of life. Can't hurt to take off assault rifles from drug cartel's options at least.
Also, contrary to popular portrayal in the media, gun enthusiasts are not fearful, paranoid fringes of society. Even most of the outspoken ones are not as the media usually portrays them. People who take the time and effort to legally carry concealed are some of the most honest responsible members of society. They carry because they know evil exists in the world, and people who want to hurt others are real, not comic book villains. They carry because they know they are not adequately prepared to fight in hand to hand combat with an attacker.
I'm well aware the media as the awful habit of putting on the more insane voices in the crowd a platform to speak nationally. But at least I can sleep soundly they are prepared to gun down evil wherever it lurks. Perhaps it is that young lad walking home from the store?"
Honestly your post is mostly fluff after this point.
The AR-15 is 50 year old technology. It could be purchased for 200 dollars in the 1960's. Where was all the assault weapon violence committed then? Society has changed. The problem will not be solved with capacity limits, registries, bans, etc. Society changed when the welfare state increased in size. It affects poor areas worse than others. If your logic is correct there should be more gun crime in areas with looser restrictions, and less in stricter areas. Even accounting for the transporting of guns from one area to another. If your logic is correct I should be able to confront an armed attacker without a gun and survive.
You mean more than 30,000,000 guns ago? Society has certainly changed, thank god for modern medicine saving more than half the people shot annually. My "logic" allows people to dodge bullets? (assuming the armed attacker can aim the gun with any precision and doesn't decide to melee me with it)
I would state that you have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you have no education, training, or experience in the security/law enforcement world. You have no expertise in armed confrontation beyond what you learn from Hollywood and comic books. You have no answer to protect the innocent victims of crime. Your solution would be to call 911 after the fact and let the police take reports.
Say it loud and say it proud as I always say. More fluff.
You issac_clarke have constantly refused to define "assault weapon". You have no replies to more than a few points I have made. You are unwilling to objectively look at the facts. You only consider "gun violence" while ignoring the much higher violent crime rates in the UK in comparison to the US and since gun bans there. I would state that you hate the weaker members of society by refusing to allow for them to protect themselves. A woman raped should just grin and bear it. A child should just accept his own murder. Yes, roughly 30,000 gun deaths occur in the US yearly. Break the number down. About 1,100 are accidental, between 9,000 and 11,000 are suicides. Suicides can be ignored from a statistical standpoint and all but a few find another way to kill themselves. What you have no answer for is that since the end of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 violent crime as well as gun related crime has dropped significantly. Some areas have seen a 54% drop. You have no reply as to the difference in gun violence and violent crime rates between strict areas, and not so strict areas. You are unwilling to discuss these because you are not mentally equipped to do so. It is remarkably similar to the way I see you showing up to a gun fight, unarmed.
"Anything that can spray bullets into multiple people with ease and serves no purpose outside killing a lot of people. We're talking about gun control, not crime rates in the UK or rape, feel free to make an appropriate thread to tell everyone how guns will stop rape or any victimization for that matter in any society.
I'm glad you broke the numbers down though, out of those 70,000+ thousand getting shot a year, the 30,000 that die yearly in the United States are for multiple reasons; from accidental to suicide - in particular as of late after gunning down a school filled with kids or their family. Cherry picking aren't we now? When in doubt, add more fluff."
I am willing to have a honest non political discussion concerning what should be done. I have stated several times here a multi-prong approach to address the root causes. You have no reply. You are more interested in hurling accusations about sore election losers. I will state it now, I do not like what Barrack Obama has done as president. I do not like his economic, healthcare, foreign, or domestic policies. You can accuse me of racism for policy disagreements, but that is pure ignorance, and deflection from the topic on your part. I do not like the way he handled the attack on our embassy in Libya. I do not like the manner in which the healthcare bill was passed. I do not like the way he treats our strongest allies. I do not like the way he treats police officers. But those are other issues that are not part of the discussion at hand.
"I question your motives. It could be the ridiculous argument of how gun ownership stops victimization or the default avatar (weapon of choice for trolling) or the massive amount of fluff in your post that serves no real purpose outside being fluff. But yes I'm certainly interesting in calling MKF30 out for going thread to thread to complain about Romney losing by bashing the 65 million Americans who voted for him."
Most of the guns provided to the Mexican drug cartel came from Fast and the Furious and other programs by the US Government. Are there straw purchases going on? Yes. Here is a clue, they are already illegal. They do not account for the sheer number of actual assault weapons in Mexico. The US Government has been sending real military weapons to the Mexican military and police forces for many years. These organizations are so heavily infiltrated by the cartels that we might as well send them the weapons directly.
You question how gun ownership stops victimization.
And for more recent accounts.
As far as AR 15's go. They are not military weapons. They (by definition) are not capable of select fire or automatic fire. By definition they are also not assault weapons. Assault weapons must be capable of select or automatic fire. AR 15' are not. They are no more powerful or deadly than hunting rifles. In fact the .223 or 5.56 round (the most popular caliber) is considered to be an intermediate range caliber. A hunting rifle in the .30 caliber (.308, 30-06, etc) range has significantly more range and power. What makes the AR so attractive to people is the modularity, and low recoil. The low recoil is very popular among female and smaller shooters. It also used to be fairly inexpensive to shoot.
I am not advocating that everyone should be armed anymore than I advocate everyone needs to go to college. Carrying concealed is a big responsibility that only an individual can make for themselves. Having that option for concealed carry or to keep a gun in the home, is in my belief morally right. Even if it is what the media refer to as an "assault weapon".
Society has changed, and not for the better in many respects. Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause.
To talk about gun violence separate from overall violent crime is missing out on half the story. It all needs to be discussed. The fact is that when guns are banned or severely limited from honest private ownership, overall violent crime skyrockets. The UK can be seen as an example. Chicago can be seen as an example. To postulate that banning "assault rifles" will make things safer is wrong. Having gun free zones does not stop gun violence. It only assures the offenders of having an easy target.
Am I advocating turning schools into the often mention armed camps or concentration camps that is mentioned by the media? No. Just allow parents who already are lawfully allowed to CCW carry in schools when picking up or dropping off their children, or having other legitimate purpose on school . Allow trained teachers, janitors, principals to carry concealed. Make them meet a qualification standard. Install passive security measures as well. Security glass, reinforced doors, central alarms and procedures, and access control. But, for heaven's sake, do not do this through a national central plan. All that will do is create another inefficient bureaucracy that determines it needs more money, while solving nothing. Allow individual districts to determine their own methods, and policies according to their own needs.
I am not cherry picking data when breaking down statistics. Not doing so shows an unwillingness to understand the whole picture. Suicides can be statistically discounted as all but a few find another way. If we consider the whole number 30,000, it does not tell us the majority is criminal on criminal, or how many were killed in the defense of life. Yes, it is possible to kill to preserve life. It is even legal. To treat the last to as morally equivalent is in error. It is not cherry picking to acknowledge that areas with stricter gun control laws have an overall higher crime rate. Honest people have been disarmed.
As far as my using avatar, I have no desire at the moment to change it. Avatars are not important.
Tell me how banning the AR-15 will take assault weapons from drug cartels. AR-15 do not fit the internationally accepted definition of assault weapons.
Fully automatic weapons have been banned for many years. As a result large numbers are not for sale in gun shops. Also as a result they are very expensive and take literally months to get the proper background checks to purchase.
While some do come from the US, the vast majority do not.
Whoa! This is by FAR the most rational, well thought out, best cited, thing I've read on this subject on this thread (I have to admit I've only skimmed and only thoroughly read this last page). The proponents of NEITHER side are doing that good a job of making their case (even from the side I tend to agree with)...generally spouting buzz words, platitudes, and either A. Citing the founding fathers (with IS important btw folks) sometimes out of context B. Actually referring to the Founding Fathers as...get this...irellevant centuries old dead white men. Just damn.
I also notice that none of the people that he's responded to in this post have attempted to assail his logic, proof, or ideas. There are things I MIGHT have added but he beat me almost completely to the punch. Good freaking job here deepdown.