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.
I know this isn’t overly relevant to anything, but I seriously doubt it is that high, even including airguns. I’d say even 6 per 1000 would be optimistic. Most people here have never even seen a gun.
The problem here brevel, as with all restrictions proposed by hyper-concerned leftists, is that they place no value on the thing they want to restrict. They hate guns. If there were zero guns anywhere, that would be just fun with them. So taking away guns from millions of people in order to reduce the homicide rate by a tiny amount is still a net gain to them, and if you disagree you are a murder-apologist. Same thing with government tax dollars. You can't argue against something on the grounds that 'it would cost a huge amount of tax dollars' with these folks, because to them tax dollars are ultimately just money taken from rich people who gained their wealth through exploitation and thus THAT doesn't have any value either.
Besides all that, authoritarian leftists aren’t economists, they don’t have to actually deal with the costs of anything they propose. They can come up with any sort of pie in the sky scheme for very little gain, and if you disagree on the grounds of cost, you are ‘putting money ahead of lives/equality/justice/art’ or whatever the cause of the day is.
It makes me wonder if the statistic is including military/law enforcement equipment and not just civilian ownership. 88 guns per 100 people in the U.S. sounds high to me if you don’t.
No it’s not exactly what I said. However, it wouldn’t have been a ridiculous thing to say. Almost all of the shooters were mentally ill or significantly troubled. So, it would have been much more difficult for them to access the guns, much less automatic weapons. So, those children all could have feasibly been saved by tighter restrictions.
You don’t have any evidence to support your skepticism. So, you kind of need to shut up about evidentiary requirements. I’m making a logical prediction that can’t be supported by laws that don’t already exist. However, it is common sense that the more difficult it is for mentally ill people to access guns, particularly automatic ones, the more difficult it will be for them to shoot up schools. It is also common sense that people who have taken gun safety courses will be less likely to leave their guns unsecured for children to pick up and shoot themselves and other children. If you have a problem with that, try to back up your hollow skepticism with actual reasoning.
So, you say you care, then you turn around and dismiss the issue by first saying the laws would only save a “handful” (as if that’s bad), then saying we shouldn’t spend resources on only a small percentage of the people and should, in essence, just let the school shootings happen as is. As far as caring goes, that’s not caring at all… First of all, you have no idea how many people could have been saved by those laws. Again, you talk about evidence, then you give none for your dubious claims. Secondly, the problem is not just the school shootings that have happened; it’s the ones that can still happen: the ones you think we shouldn’t be working to stop. Finally, it doesn’t take great resources to make laws to reduce gun violence and gun deaths. We’re a country spending billions on defense; we can afford it.
Firstly, so what? As I mentioned above, this is just one study. A peer-reviewed study alone isn’t enough evidence for a claim about gun violence. Secondly, SageOpen is a non-disciplined, open-acess journal that is not specifically peer-reviewed by members of the same field. It’s a light-weight journal with no academic standing and isn’t even close to indexed. But, as I said, it doesn’t matter, since one journal article alone is insufficient evidence. Finally, its findings do not, indeed, show that gun violence is mainly a lower-class problem or even that the “vast majority” of gun homicides happen in poor countries. It merely show that they occur in lower class families in a higher rate.
So, the article is only one article, it isn’t from an indexed discipline-peer-reviewed article, and it doesn’t even make the claim you say it does. Try again.
Yes, that’s actually the whole point. Because the UK is not awash with guns, it’s much harder to kill people here. Americans are 40 times, i.e. 4000%, more likely to be shot and killed than British people. If Americans are proud of that fact, then so be it.
Europeans averagely see guns all 70 or 80 years - when the rulers bring their war to Europe.
I was told - many years ago - that two cities in the US with almost the same number of inhabitants had very different criminal statistics because they had different gun laws: one city had a very high crime rate and a very strict / tight gun law, while the other city had a low crime rate and a lax / slack gun law. I have never been to the U.S., so I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country.
Firstly, you shouldn’t pretend to be an un-biased neutral, and then provide a biased hypothetical favoring one side of the argument. There are plenty of cities and states where stricter gun laws correspond to lower crime rates. Secondly, it’s not primarily about crime rates per se. It’s about minimizing all gun deaths, including domestic and accidental ones. There’s no reason anybody should be against gun laws making it more difficult for the mentally ill, proven violent, or criminal to legally access guns. There is also no reason why people should be against gun restrictions on automatic weapons, particularly automatic rifles that can take down a playground in minutes. Those restrictions are not a threat to legal gun owners, and nobody needs such automatic killing machines for protection or hunting.
At this point of your text a respond to my request would have been good.
According to my request it is primarily about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country:
Perhaps you did not read this last sentence of my last post in this thread. First of all I want to know some facts about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country. Afterwards it is easier to say what can be done and what should not be done. Please take into account that the most people in Europe have no experiences with guns, except in the time of war, as I already said.
I didn’t care about your request and still don’t. The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns, not crime rates. You are, however, free to start another thread.
Again, I don’t care what your request was primarily about. We were discussing gun deaths and gun laws, not crime rates. So, again, feel free to start another thread.
Perhaps you didn’t read my response well. If you want to know some facts about crime rates, which weren’t the topic of discussion, google them. You non-Americans can do that can’t you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don’t automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans. So, go google those facts you want. And after you can do, you can politely and relevantly enter the conversation that was already happening. And, no, you do not have to know crime rates to know what has to be done about gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent. We also don’t need to know crime rates to know we need mandatory safety classes for first time buyers. Crime rates have no bearing on that.
I am referring to the topic of this thread and especially talking about gun laws and crimnal rates in the US and in several states and cities of the US; in addition: crimal rates include gun violence and also your “deaths caused by guns”. So what is your problem?
I read your “response” very well.
I pleased the US ILP members, not Google, the false god of many ILP members. So again:
Is there any US ILP member who can sreiously tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country?
Why are you so petulant then? Are you a “non-American”?
That is more disinformation than information. … Thank you!
Okay, you are again merely interested in trolling and ad hominems. So try to read this and this.
It is funny that you are so much interested in driving all other ILP members against yourself. Is this already typical for English professors in your country? It is unbelievable that you claim to be an English professor. Or did you not mean “English professor” but “Englsih pupil”.
How many ILP members are on your ignore list? 90% or even 99%? However. 100% must be your goal, pupil.
I’ve been watching you in other parts of the forums, your behavior isn’t going to fly in mine. If stuff like this continues to be your primary contribution in SG&E, you’re going to rack up warnings and bans pretty quick.
