The primary population responsible for committing gun violence has also been on the decrease over the last 20 years, which has no relation to the explosion of gun ownership.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
The primary population responsible for committing gun violence has also been on the decrease over the last 20 years, which has no relation to the explosion of gun ownership.
So if it is already decreasing and taking care of itself why the need to take rights away?
Whether or not the two are directly related is completely irrelevant.
Gun violence has decreased while gun ownership has increased. Conclusion: Guns aren't the problem.
Because "regular people" don't deserve that kind of power.
We don't care if carrying increases our threat of assault. We care that owning weapons gives us more of a fighting chance against tramatic violence.
If you want to take your chances against something like the wifi murders then be my guest. My family won't as long as I'm alive.
Every unnecessary death is a tragedy. Demographic factors can reverse themselves. The right is just as well preserved by 6 bullets as 60, so it's not in danger. Etc.
The individual facts? Sure, why not? It's highly selective and misleading, but who cares about that?
What makes you think there is only one problem?
Oh go cry a river.
I disagree. That is exceedingly easy to get around has been talked about in this very thread extensively. It does not promote or prevent anything. Just another measure of control that we do not need.
Really, it's a problem of arms control.
The guns aren't the problem, and the people really aren't the problem - it's their arms that cause the trouble.
We need to figure this out
The NIH study didn't look at an increase in the threat of assault, it looked at the results of actual assaults (in that every member of both groups had been assaulted). The finding was that carrying gun correlated to the assault being worse for the person carrying the gun. So, there is "more of a fighting chance" of suffering a serious injury.
As I said before, this study is just one data point, and I'm not pretending its a last or definitive word. But you should not pretend it says something other than what it does say. For the population in Philadelphia that were victims of a crime, possession of a gun was correlated to having more serious injuries.
You mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders
Wow, you're quaking in fear over a crime that happened 40 years ago? Do you really think that if any particular victim in that crime had had a gun, the crime would have been prevented?
Maybe the Philadelphia generalizes, maybe it doesn't. I'm not going to let my fear of twice-in-a-century crimes scare me into taking risks that make things more dangerous for me or my family.