I hope you’re not referring to that notorious forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
As for guns, who benefits whenever there’s a mass shooting? Since gun sales always go up, it’s the gun companies who benefit. If you want a conspiracy, follow the money. It’s not difficult.
Not only that, but every time there’s a mass shooting, the gun lobby makes highly publicized calls for MORE guns in schools and homes as a solution to the problem.
The gun debate in America is overstated and over argued.
I feel the biggest cause of gun violence in America is the pockets of extreme poverty that exist there, the institutional racism and elitism of the country, and the high levels of drug addiction that exists in certain areas. And people already have guns. There are too many of them in play to consider removing all of them.
On the other hand, guns provide minimal, if any, protection from the government. America isn’t the wild west, with Sheriffs armed with handguns who will come to take you away. The American government can trace your every move, if they want to, and if they wanted to ‘come after you’ they can probably do so in a way that a handgun, or even an assault rifle, is unlikely to help you with.
OK, occasionally a teenager gets hold of a gun and shoots a load of people, this would probably happen less if there were more gun control. But are these mass shootings America’s biggest problem right now? Are they even in the top 100 of problems?
Let Americans have their guns. It gives people a false sense of security, which they seem to need. And gives them something to talk about so they don’t have to think about any of the real issues they may be facing.
This is dead wrong. There are substantial amounts of children in middle-upper class families shooting themselves or other children with poorly secured guns. There are also substantial amounts of domestic assaults and homicides with guns in middle-upper class families with guns. So, it is hardly just a extreme lower class problem. Also, almost nobody is talking about removing all guns, so don’t throw out that distracting red herring.
Have you been reading the news in the last 20 years? Mass shootings are a huge problem. They don’t have to be our biggest problem to be so. Schools with small children are now being shot up and you don’t think it’s a problem? What exactly are your priorities? We need to make it as difficult as possible for mentally ill people and people with violent histories to get guns…end of story.
This is just ridiculous. A false sense of security and something to talk about so people don’t have to worry about their problems is not worth all the deaths caused by easily attained and poorly secured guns every year. We have to implement tougher gun laws to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and the violent; we have to make gun safety courses mandatory for all gun purchasers; and we have to change a culture that glorifies guns and gun ownership. Too many Americans are killed by guns each year. We need to do all we can to change that.
Are you sure there are ‘substantial amounts’ and ‘huge problems’ here? Could there just be small numbers which are over-reported in the media because of the contribution they make to the ever raging ‘gun debate’, and a general media bias towards reporting things that happen to middle class white people?
Big difference between ‘just’ and ‘mainly’, though.
Yes, I’m sure. How many would there have to be for you for there to be substantial amounts or huge problems? When colleges, high schools, and pre-schools are being shot up and kids being killed, that is a huge problem. The fact you don’t think so doesn’t speak well of you or your concerns. And what exactly constitutes "over-reporting? Please be specific.
Ok, I will rephrase. It is hardly mainly an extreme lower class problem. Of course you are free to provide the numbers to prove otherwise. And at least we can agree we need better laws and restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent, mandatory safety courses for new gun buyers, and a change in our culture glorifying guns and gun ownership.
With guns, without guns we will find ways to kill. Getting rid of the tool does not stop or change human minds. People want to kill. A kid does not need guns to kill classmates, I can think of several different ways that can do the same as any gun or worse. Until you get people to stop wanting to kill or commit crimes or provide me the meat from hunting, you ain’t touching my guns, unless you kill me .
297 people have died in school shootings since 1980. That’s 0.0000007% of Americas population in 45 years. I don’t call that a ‘huge’ problem. I’d say that met pretty much every definition of a small problem there could possibly be.
slate.com/articles/news_and_ … 0_map.html
Unsuprisingly, finding statistics to prove that firearms deaths are far higher in poorer communities is pretty easy.
Here’s a study of quote from a study in California which looks into whether age or poverty is the main factor in gun deaths:
“It is the very high gun homicide level (and to a much lesser extent, the higher non-gun homicide level) in the poorest brackets occupied heavily by young people that create the traditional “age–risk” curve. That is, adolescent risks are artefacts of the reality that the overwhelming majority of serious adolescent crimes, including homicide, and other risk outcomes are concentrated in the poorest demographics—those with poverty rates of 20% to 25% and higher—in which middle-aged and older adults are seldom found.”
“One only need consider the fact that homicide rates are 18 times higher among the poorest than the wealthiest teenagers…”
That’s a specious, irrelevant argument. We’re not talking about stopping people from killing. We’re talking about reducing those deaths and making killing people less easy to do. Also, nobody’s talking about taking away guns. I said we need regulations making them more difficult for the mentally ill or violent to get and mandatory safety courses for first time gun buyers. Do you have problems with those? If you do, you have real problems.
This is ridiculous. Guns, particularly automatic guns, make it much easier for a kid to kill 50+ of his classmates instead of 3 or 4 at most. If you don’t see that difference, you are a fool. And nobody said anything about taking away hunting guns or taking your guns. So, calm down and stay on topic.
Yes, 297 children killed in numerous school shootings, who wouldn’t have died if the guns killing them weren’t so easy to acquire. The fact you don’t consider that a huge problem just shows how callous you are.
And you gave statistics from an individual un-sanctioned, un-official study. That isn’t sufficient evidence for anything. And even if gun deaths were higher in poorer communities, that doesn’t mean there aren’t a significant amount of homicides and accidental gun deaths in middle class, upper middle class, and upper class families. There are. It isn’t mainly a lower class problem.
Who would have died in an even worse way if and when the population is totally individually defenseless (never mind that those include the false flag slayings). The fact that you don’t consider that a huge problem just shows how inept you are.
What do you think happens to your body when no individual cell can defend itself against any other or an invader?
You Die.
The only inept one here is you Saint with your ridiculous, irrelevant “point.” Please prove how these children would have died worse if there were tighter gun laws and mandatory safety course for first time buyers. Your ridiculous, offensive argument claims those children are better off having died the way they did. And I never said anything about taking away all guns. So, you’re even more inept, kid.
What do you think happens to a brain that can’t read people’s posts correctly and then asks ludicrous irrelevant questions? It goes into James S Saint’s head and proceeds to horrifically malfunction.
Ok make tighter gun laws but, don’t try to change the killing or criminal reasons/reasoning. Its ok to kill and commit crimes as long as there are no guns involved. Oh yea, forgot, just automatic guns. Because an automatic gun is the only gun that holds more than 3 or 4 bullets… yea… makes tons of sense.
It’s from a peer reviewed academic journal, written by an academic in the field, and the tables are based on numbers from the FBI crime reports. It shows that gun crime is mainly a problem for people in poorer economic social situations*.I know you don’t want it to show that. But it does.
Are you arguing that the limited gun control measures you are suggesting would have prevented every single high school shooting in the last 45 years? Come on now!
1.4 million children die a year from lack of access to clean water. So no, I don’t care much about the 297 children killed over 45 years in America from school shootings. YOU only care so much because the media whips these things into a frenzy and overstates them, playing on the fear factor to make them seem like a bigger threat than they are, and you’ve bought into this. Don’t bullshit me with your ‘I care about children and you don’t’ crap. Your reasons for caring so much about a handful of deaths are purely self-interest and fear.
This whole gun debate is just a distraction from the real issues your country is facing.
*edited from ‘from people from poorer social economic backgrounds’, for accuracy.
First of all, it’s only one article that establishes nothing. Secondly, where does it say it’s peer reviewed? Thirdly, it does not establish that gun crime is “mainly a problem for people in poorer economic social situations.” I know you want it to show that, but it doesn’t.
Spare me the baroque platitudes. I never said it would prevent every single one with the proposed gun restriction, although they’re all not dying in those shootings could have been possible with certain, even better, restrictions. Regardless, increased gun control measures would have definitely prevented some shootings in their entirety and/or their scope, as well as many of their deaths. If you’re saying restrictions wouldn’t have prevented a significant number of those deaths, you need to say “come on now” to yourself.
Don’t bullshit me with your bullshit, son. And grow up and talk like a grown-up. Just because I’m debunking your arguments doesn’t mean you have to act like a child. And your “clean water” red herring is definite crap. Just because a greater social ill is occurring doesn’t mean we don’t address those of lesser scopes. I care about those kids because I’m a compassionate father of two, and 297 dead children from easily attained guns is 297 too many. The only reason you don’t care is because of obtuseness, your self-interest, and callous selfishness. So, don’t bullshit me with your water crap.
No, it’s not. It’s a real issue our country is facing, an issue you are clearly clueless about. You are also too clueless to see we can address many real issues at once. So, don’t bullshit me with your “real issues” crap.
I have no idea what you are rambling about here. Try to make an argument if you can.
Try reading the whole post and believe that I was being sarcastic because you would prefer to change gun laws and not change the real problems.
I did read the whole post, all two asinine lines of it. And changing gun laws to reduce gun problems is a real problem. If you don’t think reducing deaths from school shootings, accidental shootings, domestic shootings, and all shootings by the mentally ill is a problem, then you’re a problem yourself. You’ve already shown your terrible knowledge of the law and how it works on another thread; you now show a poor grasp of cultural awareness in this one. What exactly is your education?..I’m betting it isn’t that impressive.
OK.
U.S.: 88 guns per 100 residents.
U.K.: 6 guns per 100 residents.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of … by_country
The actual murder rate difference between the U.S. and the U.K is nowhere near 4000% percent, so what you’re describing is “In countries where more people own guns, more of the murders that happen are with guns”. Well no shit. That was James’ point about the aboriginals. They don’t get run over by cars because they don’t have cars. That doesn’t make their lack of cars admirable. I bet more people drown in the U.K. than in Wyoming.
Seriously, is that the kind of statistic that people let you get away with as being ‘compelling’ in other places you go?
Actually, that’s exactly what you said. You said that if guns were more difficult to acquire, they wouldn’t have died. I know it was a ridiculous thing to say, but its still what you said.
I do doubt that restrictions would have had any significant impact. I also doubt you have any evidence to counter my skepticism.
I didn’t say I didn’t care. I just said that the amount you care is out of proportion with the size of the issue. You think the issue is huge when in fact, it is not. 0.0000007% of people is not very many. The control laws you are suggesting would only have saved a handful of those, yet would takes years to get through all the relevant legislators and courts and take up a huge amount of your government’s time and money. These are limited resources and prioritisation of issues is sensible and necessary.
In the conclusion it states: “That is, adolescent risks are artefacts of the reality that the overwhelming majority of serious adolescent crimes, including homicide, and other risk outcomes are concentrated in the poorest demographics”. If you look at the corresponding data, it shows that the rate of gun-related homicides in areas where less than 10% of people live in poverty (wealthy neighbourhoods, basically), is 2 per 100,000 . However, in areas where poverty rates are 25% or over, the rate is 27.9 . So yes, it does indeed establish that "it does not establish that gun crime is “mainly a problem for people in poorer economic social situations”, as unsurprisingly, poor people tend to live in poor neighbourhoods where they vast majority of gun related homicides are occurring. And Sage Open is a peer reviewed journal, look it up.