In the end people are still able to buy guns and they’re using them to shoot at each other. So ban guns. Regular people don’t need to have killing machines, we’re better without them.
I’m guessing police don’t fall into your definition of “regular people”. Like I said, police-involved shootings count as “mass shootings”.
If a cop shoots and hits two bad guys, that counts as a mass shooting. If a bad guy wounds a cop and his partner kills the bad guy, that counts as a mass shooting. If two people attempt to mug an old lady and she shoots them both, that’s a mass shooting.
I think most people would agree, those three scenarios aren’t what comes to mind when the phrase “mass shooting” is used, and I think most people would agree, these aren’t the scenarios we want to be putting a stop to.
Compare the numbers to European countries with strict gun laws. We’re safer here without guns and many police officers don’t even carry one, because they don’t need it.
European countries also do more to address the root causes of violence, poverty, drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness.
I think the differences in the way these societal factors are addressed more than explains the observed difference in levels of violence.
I believe a much more effective means of addressing violence in a country involves addressing the root causes of that violence, as opposed to banning the means of violence.
Banning the means only prevents violence when no means exist; addressing the root causes prevents violence, despite whatever means may exist.
It sounds like you and I are in agreement, we’d like to see fewer gun deaths and less gun violence in the US. At the end of the day, I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that sentiment.
It sounds like we also agree, whatever measures are passed, we’d like them to be effective at taking guns out of the hands of those who would do harm with them.
The reason I oppose a ban is, bans disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US abide by the law and commit no crimes with their guns. Bans overwhelmingly succeed at disarming responsible owners who had no bad intentions in the first place, and overwhelmingly fail at disarming the criminals at whom the bans are targeted.
Additionally, there are about 5-6 guns per US gun-owner. The logistics of safely locating, safely confiscating, and safely disposing of all of those guns in a way that doesn’t end up with them on the black market, is not a problem I think anyone has a good way to solve currently. I assert, the logistics of addressing societal factors that contribute to violence are much simpler, better understood, and more achievable.
In the end people are still able to buy guns and they’re using them to shoot at each other. So ban guns. Regular people don’t need to have killing machines, we’re better without them.
I’m guessing police don’t fall into your definition of “regular people”. Like I said, police-involved shootings count as “mass shootings”.
If a cop shoots and hits two bad guys, that counts as a mass shooting. If a bad guy wounds a cop and his partner kills the bad guy, that counts as a mass shooting. If two people attempt to mug an old lady and she shoots them both, that’s a mass shooting.
I think most people would agree, those three scenarios aren’t what comes to mind when the phrase “mass shooting” is used, and I think most people would agree, these aren’t the scenarios we want to be putting a stop to.
Compare the numbers to European countries with strict gun laws. We’re safer here without guns and many police officers don’t even carry one, because they don’t need it.
European countries also do more to address the root causes of violence, poverty, drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness.
I think the differences in the way these societal factors are addressed more than explains the observed difference in levels of violence.
I believe a much more effective means of addressing violence in a country involves addressing the root causes of that violence, as opposed to banning the means of violence.
Banning the means only prevents violence when no means exist; addressing the root causes prevents violence, despite whatever means may exist.
I agree, banning guns is not going to solve all issues by itself. It’s just a no-brainer.
It sounds like you and I are in agreement, we’d like to see fewer gun deaths and less gun violence in the US. At the end of the day, I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that sentiment.
It sounds like we also agree, whatever measures are passed, we’d like them to be effective at taking guns out of the hands of those who would do harm with them.
The reason I oppose a ban is, bans disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, and the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US abide by the law and commit no crimes with their guns. Bans overwhelmingly succeed at disarming responsible owners who had no bad intentions in the first place, and overwhelmingly fail at disarming the criminals at whom the bans are targeted.
Additionally, there are about 5-6 guns per US gun-owner. The logistics of safely locating, safely confiscating, and safely disposing of all of those guns in a way that doesn’t end up with them on the black market, is not a problem I think anyone has a good way to solve currently. I assert, the logistics of addressing societal factors that contribute to violence are much simpler, better understood, and more achievable.
Ban people, humans are 100% optional.