Gun Control, Mental healthcare, big brother... thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
magnifier661 said:
EldfH1VJdbrwY.gif
Click to expand...
protest.jpg
 
magnifier661 said:
Looks like boy's parents should be more responsible. The guns should be locked up properly, which supports my theory that there needs to be education on safety.

Sly should run a "register the children" campaign
Click to expand...
soapbox.jpg
 
magnifier661 said:
How many school shootings are from those without mental illness? Just curious...
Click to expand...

I don't know, do you?

Also, are school shootings the only shootings that matter? They account for an incredibly small portion of gun related deaths in this country.

Using mental health issues to dodge gun control is ridiculous.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
I don't know, do you?

Also, are school shootings the only shootings that matter? They account for an incredibly small portion of gun related deaths in this country.

Using mental health issues to dodge gun control is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The majority of shootings are from suicides. Remember that mass shootings are any shooting that involves 2 or more people. I would guess a ton of "criminal mass shootings" involve gangs.

And from what I've read, all school shootings involve someone with mental illness. I think those that use guns with tragedy is ridiculous.

A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons; 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not.

People with serious mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, do have a slightly higher risk of committing violence than members of the general population. Yet most violence is not attributable to mental illness. Can you walk us through the numbers?

People with serious mental illness are three to four times more likely to be violent than those who aren't. But the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and never will be.

Most violence in society is caused by other things.

Even if we had a perfect mental health care system, that is not going to solve our gun violence problem. If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent.

Federal law prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning guns. Is that targeting the right people?
 
magnifier661 said:
The majority of shootings are from suicides. Remember that mass shootings are any shooting that involves 2 or more people. I would guess a ton of "criminal mass shootings" involve gangs.

And from what I've read, all school shootings involve someone with mental illness. I think those that use guns with tragedy is ridiculous.

A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons; 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not.

People with serious mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, do have a slightly higher risk of committing violence than members of the general population. Yet most violence is not attributable to mental illness. Can you walk us through the numbers?

People with serious mental illness are three to four times more likely to be violent than those who aren't. But the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and never will be.

Most violence in society is caused by other things.

Even if we had a perfect mental health care system, that is not going to solve our gun violence problem. If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent.

Federal law prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning guns. Is that targeting the right people?
Click to expand...


I would put a huge wager on people not being documented with mental illness.
 
magnifier661 said:
The majority of shootings are from suicides. Remember that mass shootings are any shooting that involves 2 or more people. I would guess a ton of "criminal mass shootings" involve gangs.

And from what I've read, all school shootings involve someone with mental illness. I think those that use guns with tragedy is ridiculous.

A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons; 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not.

People with serious mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, do have a slightly higher risk of committing violence than members of the general population. Yet most violence is not attributable to mental illness. Can you walk us through the numbers?

People with serious mental illness are three to four times more likely to be violent than those who aren't. But the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and never will be.

Most violence in society is caused by other things.

Even if we had a perfect mental health care system, that is not going to solve our gun violence problem. If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent.

Federal law prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning guns. Is that targeting the right people?
Click to expand...

That seems to back up what I'm saying, mental illness can not be considered a main cause of violence. Specifically: "Even if we had a perfect mental health care system, that is not going to solve our gun violence problem. If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent." That is pretty much my exact sentiment.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
That seems to back up what I'm saying, mental illness can not be considered a main cause of violence. Specifically: "Even if we had a perfect mental health care system, that is not going to solve our gun violence problem. If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent." That is pretty much my exact sentiment.
Click to expand...
It definitely agrees with a lot of what you posted, but left out some very telling signs. 70% of their test were loners. 61% had substance abuse, 43% were bullied. Also, that study said that mental illness is 3 times more likely with "SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS", which has been what is being discussed here.

It's a start because regulating guns aren't working, I.E. Chicago, Detroit and many other very violent cities that have the strictest gun laws.

When you can educate society on mental health issues.
 
magnifier661 said:
It definitely agrees with a lot of what you posted, but left out some very telling signs. 70% of their test were loners. 61% had substance abuse, 43% were bullied. Also, that study said that mental illness is 3 times more likely with "SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS", which has been what is being discussed here.

It's a start because regulating guns aren't working, I.E. Chicago, Detroit and many other very violent cities that have the strictest gun laws.

When you can educate society on mental health issues.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion that gun regulation isn't working because so many Americans are against it. I've said before that I don't really want anyone to have guns. If guns are pretty much illegal for ordinary citizens to have, fewer guns will be sold, fewer people will have guns, and fewer people will die. The logic seems very simple to me.. But people would have to accept it, and unfortunately it doesn't seem likely because so many Americans have hard-ons for guns. Before someone tries to equate what I said with the war on drugs... Guns are not drugs, and the fact that so many pro gun people compare the two is very telling to me. It's just not an apt comparison. And I don't think places like Chicago and Detroit are more violent than most cities because they have the most strict gun laws. I know it's kind of a bitch move but I'm probably not going to argue more about this, I just wanted to get my opinion out.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
It's my opinion that gun regulation isn't working because so many Americans are against it. I've said before that I don't really want anyone to have guns. If guns are pretty much illegal for ordinary citizens to have, fewer guns will be sold, fewer people will have guns, and fewer people will die. The logic seems very simple to me.. But people would have to accept it, and unfortunately it doesn't seem likely because so many Americans have hard-ons for guns. Before someone tries to equate what I said with the war on drugs... Guns are not drugs, and the fact that so many pro gun people compare the two is very telling to me. It's just not an apt comparison. And I don't think places like Chicago and Detroit are more violent than most cities because they have the most strict gun laws. I know it's kind of a bitch move but I'm probably not going to argue more about this, I just wanted to get my opinion out.
Click to expand...
There is a 100% ban on guns in the UK and here is what's happening now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ar--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...insist-crime-rates-falling.html#ixzz3noqnWbmY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
magnifier661 said:
There is a 100% ban on guns in the UK and here is what's happening now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ar--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html

A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...insist-crime-rates-falling.html#ixzz3noqnWbmY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

Everything in that article seems much better than what we have here though..

Ministers were keen to point out that the Survey showed a 9 per cent drop across all categories of crime last year.

They claimed the recent steady downward trend was the most impressive in modern times - including a 12 per cent fall in violent crime.

Domestic burglary and theft from the person showed no change, according to the BCS, but there were falls in vehicle thefts (11 per cent) and criminal damage (10 per cent).

Overall there were 2,164,000 violent assaults last year according to the BCS, of which around 6 per cent involved knives.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you were trying to prove by posting that. Also, not a big deal but that article is 7 years old.

The most important stat to me is that the murder rate there is less than a quarter of what it is here.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
It's my opinion that gun regulation isn't working because so many Americans are against it. I've said before that I don't really want anyone to have guns. If guns are pretty much illegal for ordinary citizens to have, fewer guns will be sold, fewer people will have guns, and fewer people will die. The logic seems very simple to me.. But people would have to accept it, and unfortunately it doesn't seem likely because so many Americans have hard-ons for guns. Before someone tries to equate what I said with the war on drugs... Guns are not drugs, and the fact that so many pro gun people compare the two is very telling to me. It's just not an apt comparison. And I don't think places like Chicago and Detroit are more violent than most cities because they have the most strict gun laws. I know it's kind of a bitch move but I'm probably not going to argue more about this, I just wanted to get my opinion out.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that if there were fewer guns out in the world that there would be fewer deaths? I think the statistics would just shift, from guns to whatever else a crazy person can get their hands on to hurt people.

I also am not in favor of creating more laws that infringe on the bill of rights, or infringe on the premise of this country.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
That seems to back up what I'm saying, mental illness can not be considered a main cause of violence. Specifically: "Even if we had a perfect mental health care system, that is not going to solve our gun violence problem. If we were able to magically cure schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, that would be wonderful, but overall violence would go down by only about four percent." That is pretty much my exact sentiment.
Click to expand...
I think it's a valid point..is rage a mental illness or an emotional illness? Emotionally fragile people aren't usually classified as mentally ill.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Everything in that article seems much better than what we have here though..



I don't really understand what you were trying to prove by posting that. Also, not a big deal but that article is 7 years old.

The most important stat to me is that the murder rate there is less than a quarter of what it is here.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, this graph says otherwise.

Violent-Crime-Hybrid3.jpg

With gun restrictions making it harder to obtain private weapons in the UK, violent crimes involving guns have greatly decreased. The number of total violent crimes, however, is almost double that of the US. Of those crimes, only 19% even involve a weapon, and only 5% of those involve a firearm. That means that of you’re roughly 1/100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in Britain and Wales in any given year, you have roughly a 1/10,000 chance of being in a violent crime involving a gun.
 
Violent-Crime-Hybrid2.jpg


And the top 5 most violent cities in the United States, are in states with strict gun control and usually dominated by the Democrats
 
magnifier661 said:
Hmmm, this graph says otherwise.

Violent-Crime-Hybrid3.jpg

With gun restrictions making it harder to obtain private weapons in the UK, violent crimes involving guns have greatly decreased. The number of total violent crimes, however, is almost double that of the US. Of those crimes, only 19% even involve a weapon, and only 5% of those involve a firearm. That means that of you’re roughly 1/100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in Britain and Wales in any given year, you have roughly a 1/10,000 chance of being in a violent crime involving a gun.
Click to expand...

Where are those violent crimes per 100,000 numbers from? Even if those are accurate, which I doubt, I would still think it's better that they rarely involve guns in the UK.
 
blue32 said:
Do you honestly think that if there were fewer guns out in the world that there would be fewer deaths? I think the statistics would just shift, from guns to whatever else a crazy person can get their hands on to hurt people.

I also am not in favor of creating more laws that infringe on the bill of rights, or infringe on the premise of this country.
Click to expand...

Guns are far easier and more likely to kill people than most weapons, so yeah I honestly do.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
Guns are far easier and more likely to kill people than most weapons, so yeah I honestly do.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but I respect your view too, I just think that if guns, then what? Knives, swords, pressure cookers, chemicals, gunpowder, etc?

Ultimately, infringing on peoples rights, and trying to exert more control over the population is not favorable imo.

I do agree however that owning firearms should come with an assumed responsibility, and people accepting those responsibilities should be vetted so they qualify. I also think that people/family that help the criminal (like the shooter) should be held partially responsible in the crime.
 
magnifier661 said:
Hmmm, this graph says otherwise.

Violent-Crime-Hybrid3.jpg

With gun restrictions making it harder to obtain private weapons in the UK, violent crimes involving guns have greatly decreased. The number of total violent crimes, however, is almost double that of the US. Of those crimes, only 19% even involve a weapon, and only 5% of those involve a firearm. That means that of you’re roughly 1/100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in Britain and Wales in any given year, you have roughly a 1/10,000 chance of being in a violent crime involving a gun.
Click to expand...


United Kingdom:

“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)

United States:

“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)

We can clearly see here there is quite a large difference in how both countries report and assess what qualifies as “violent crime”. The UK’s approach seems to be a lot more encompassing in scope and adds to its definition of “violent crime” offences which are not matched by its US counterpart. This raises the obvious question of whether UK violent crime rates can be said to be higher simply because things considered “violent crime” in the UK are not so in the US. One example is “assault”, all forms of which are considered “violent” in the UK, whereas in the US only “aggravated” is considered violent. A further example revolves around sexual offences, only “forcible” rape featuring in the US definition, while the UK definition includes rape and any and all forms of sexual assault.

Therefore, it becomes practically impossible to draw any objective comparison between the two, unless one trawls through the various definitions of crimes that can be said to be the same in definition and execution in the UK and the US. I’ve actually done this, and by going through the PRC and FBI – CUS it is possible, I believe, to find a number of crimes which I think are fairly indicative of the prevalence of “violence” in either country. To this end, I have isolated robbery, burglary, homicide / murder, knife crime, fatal shootings, rape of a female, grievous bodily harm / aggravated assault and theft of a vehicle in order to give us a fair idea of which country is more “violent.” The relevant definitions and rates for each crime will be presented below in their own sections.

...



You are thus 4.03x (4.6 / 1.14) more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 1.27x (58.3 / 45.8) more likely to be knifed in the UK than in the US.



You are thus 35.2x (3.17 / 0.09) more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 1.02x (26.7 / 26) more likely to be raped as a female in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 6.9x (241.05 / 34.7) more likely to suffer aggravated assault in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 1.29x (229.5 / 176.9) more likely to suffer theft of a vehicle in the US than in the UK.


While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter:
“The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.” (FBI – UCS – Violent Crime)

What does this tell us? Well, maybe it is easier to say what this DOESN’T tell us. For starters, it DOESN’T tell us the UK is a more violent country than the US, and not even close. It DOES tell us that in fact, the United States is a lot more violent a country when it comes to serious offenses likely to result in serious injury, shootings or murder.It also tells us journalists, media outlets, bloggers, armchair political scientists and opinionated posters don’t actually bother to go through the numbers and verify the facts for themselves. Taking any information provided, by whichever source, at face value and without any attempt at critical thinking or even a small dose of scepticism is dangerous and seriously out of touch with reality. Never let your prejudices, emotions, political views or bias get in the way of yourfaculties and your critical thinking.
In sum, it becomes clear that an objective comparison between any two countries types of offenses is a difficult and time consuming endeavour. In order for it to be done properly, matching definitions need to be found, and umbrella terms that group large numbers of what one country may class as offenses and the other not, must be avoided. Statistics must be broken down to their bare bones and compared accurately and objectively if any meaningful parallels are to be found. I hope that above, I have shown not only the truth, but also nothing may ever be taken at face value. I would welcome any others who decided to base their comments and views on similar grounds, rather than the vitriolic and groundless drivel I will no doubt be expecting.


https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/



 
blue32 said:
I disagree, but I respect your view too, I just think that if guns, then what? Knives, swords, pressure cookers, chemicals, gunpowder, etc?

Ultimately, infringing on peoples rights, and trying to exert more control over the population is not favorable imo.

I do agree however that owning firearms should come with an assumed responsibility, and people accepting those responsibilities should be vetted so they qualify. I also think that people/family that help the criminal (like the shooter) should be held partially responsible in the crime.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't think having guns should be an inalienable human right.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
United Kingdom:

“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)

United States:

“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)

We can clearly see here there is quite a large difference in how both countries report and assess what qualifies as “violent crime”. The UK’s approach seems to be a lot more encompassing in scope and adds to its definition of “violent crime” offences which are not matched by its US counterpart. This raises the obvious question of whether UK violent crime rates can be said to be higher simply because things considered “violent crime” in the UK are not so in the US. One example is “assault”, all forms of which are considered “violent” in the UK, whereas in the US only “aggravated” is considered violent. A further example revolves around sexual offences, only “forcible” rape featuring in the US definition, while the UK definition includes rape and any and all forms of sexual assault.

Therefore, it becomes practically impossible to draw any objective comparison between the two, unless one trawls through the various definitions of crimes that can be said to be the same in definition and execution in the UK and the US. I’ve actually done this, and by going through the PRC and FBI – CUS it is possible, I believe, to find a number of crimes which I think are fairly indicative of the prevalence of “violence” in either country. To this end, I have isolated robbery, burglary, homicide / murder, knife crime, fatal shootings, rape of a female, grievous bodily harm / aggravated assault and theft of a vehicle in order to give us a fair idea of which country is more “violent.” The relevant definitions and rates for each crime will be presented below in their own sections.

...



You are thus 4.03x (4.6 / 1.14) more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 1.27x (58.3 / 45.8) more likely to be knifed in the UK than in the US.



You are thus 35.2x (3.17 / 0.09) more likely to be shot dead in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 1.02x (26.7 / 26) more likely to be raped as a female in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 6.9x (241.05 / 34.7) more likely to suffer aggravated assault in the US than in the UK.



You are thus 1.29x (229.5 / 176.9) more likely to suffer theft of a vehicle in the US than in the UK.


While it becomes clear that certain types of offenses are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. Rape of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. Before anybody asks, no, these do not take into account justifiable homicide and other “acceptable shootings”, nor do murders for that matter:
“The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.” (FBI – UCS – Violent Crime)

What does this tell us? Well, maybe it is easier to say what this DOESN’T tell us. For starters, it DOESN’T tell us the UK is a more violent country than the US, and not even close. It DOES tell us that in fact, the United States is a lot more violent a country when it comes to serious offenses likely to result in serious injury, shootings or murder.It also tells us journalists, media outlets, bloggers, armchair political scientists and opinionated posters don’t actually bother to go through the numbers and verify the facts for themselves. Taking any information provided, by whichever source, at face value and without any attempt at critical thinking or even a small dose of scepticism is dangerous and seriously out of touch with reality. Never let your prejudices, emotions, political views or bias get in the way of yourfaculties and your critical thinking.
In sum, it becomes clear that an objective comparison between any two countries types of offenses is a difficult and time consuming endeavour. In order for it to be done properly, matching definitions need to be found, and umbrella terms that group large numbers of what one country may class as offenses and the other not, must be avoided. Statistics must be broken down to their bare bones and compared accurately and objectively if any meaningful parallels are to be found. I hope that above, I have shown not only the truth, but also nothing may ever be taken at face value. I would welcome any others who decided to base their comments and views on similar grounds, rather than the vitriolic and groundless drivel I will no doubt be expecting.


https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/
Click to expand...
First and foremost, I want to say this isn’t a statement about American’s right to bear arms, or about what I think about that. This is not the argument at stake here, and I’m not even going to go there.

Do I disagree with the rights of civilians (not just American ones) to arm themselves? Yes, yes I do. But that is my opinion, everybody has one, they all stink, and opinions are not based on palpable, objective facts, but on subjective thoughts, emotions and prejudices and bias. Which is why I’m not even going to debate that.

But there is something I will debate, and fight, and argue against. The notion that the US is somehow, a safer country than the UK. On the 14th of December 2012, armed gunman Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 children in a sad and deplorable shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the United States. A notable consequence of this disaster was an episode of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight show where the British journalist and television host made statements to the effect Britain is a safer country than the US because Britain has strict gun control laws vis-a-vis the United States. From these statements, a barrage of claims have been advanced by pro-gun advocates in particular (but not exclusively) quoting reports, surveys and statistics indicating that the United Kingdom has anywhere from 4 to five to 10 times more “violent crime”than the US does. One particular example is a segment of Fox’s WXIX affiliate in Cincinnati entitled “Reality Check” where presenter Ben Swann makes a series of statements and cites a number of “statistics” of the type mentioned above, indicating these prove the UK is not only five times more “violent” than the US, but also Europe’s second most violent country overall.

LOOKS MORE LIKE AN ACTIVIST PAGE.
 
VanillaGorilla said:
My previous post explains why it's not reasonable to compare those statistics straight across the board.

And yes, I've said before that I think the end goal should be banning guns for ordinary citizens.
Click to expand...
Your previous post is from an activist. Again, click the link of the actual government census and the real numbers pop out.

Banning "ALL GUNS" would be the only way you can stop the gun violence. But that will absolutely never happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

donkiez
Politics Gun Control
Replies
1
Views
306
blue32
blue32
donkiez
Gun owners are angry!
Replies
6
Views
846
donkiez
donkiez
B
Healthcare Reform
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
HailBlazers
Politics Oregon Democrats’ anti-democratic power play
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Lanny
Lanny
ABM
Politics OK, Look......I'll Listen (Trump-Related)
5 6 7
Replies
192
Views
10K
ABM
ABM

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top