Here are some helpful drunk driving facts, too: • One person is killed every half-hour due to drunk driving • Each year approximately 16,000 are killed in alcohol related crashes • Alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic fatalities • Every other minute a person is seriously injured in an alcohol related crash I'm sure none of the deaths or injuries were children, though. I can't seem to find the PSA from actors demanding congress act to ban selling beer in 12 packs (I mean, really, who needs more than 2?!) or cars that go faster than 25 mph (seriously, is it THAT important that you drive 65?)
Yes guys, drunk driving is a big issue for developed countries around the world, and needs to be seriously addressed. Very astute. You know what isn't a big issue for developed countries around the world and doesn't need to be addressed? 30+ gun deaths every fucking day. Oh, well except for one of those countries.
If a person is going to kill another person, they don't need a fucking gun to do it. You can walk into your kitchen and find a murder weapon. If a person wants to end their own life, they can just as easily turn a car's ignition as they can pull a trigger. You can die by slipping in a shower or getting hit by a bus. I think it's fair to say that gun deaths would all fall under those three categories. I would also say that if the Sandy Hook killer used a sledgehammer instead of a gun, that would have been infinitely more horrifying than the fact that he used a handgun. The problem isn't that he used a gun. The problem was that he was fucking unhinged.
The flaw in this line of reasoning being, of course, that it's a lot harder. Killing that many people with a sledgehammer would be damn near impossible. And killing yourself successfully becomes easier when you have access to a gun. And all else equal, when killing yourself and others is easier, one can expect more of it.
http://now.msn.com/dennys-tells-police-officers-they-cannot-have-guns-inside-restaurant Its bad when cops aren't even welcome in a store while armed.
Weird how your "unhinged" seem to do these things more frequently. Weird how your country has more accidental gun deaths than any other. Weird how more domestic disputes, drunken arguments and even road rages end in shootings in good 'ol 'Merica than anywhere else. Weird how you've killed each other with guns more times since Newtown than almost all of the developed Western world will in a year combined. But no, guns are most definitely not the problem. Like I said in a rep point, this thread is just more proof that absolutely nothing will change/stop/prevent Americans from shooting other Americans, basically every hour on the hour. Though I will say it's still entertaining watching you all wax philosophical about the intricacies and nuances of this issue, pretending to rack your brains for a solution to this intractable problem, when literally every country that isn't you has already figured it out (I'll give you a hint: "more guns" isn't the answer). Carry on...
This. This, right here. I actually agree with most of superfantastic's sentiments...the problem is that presently the country is flooded with guns. Untraceable, untrackable guns. How do you begin to clean up THAT mess? Also, a note about laws. Laws tend to be the most successful when they're drafted to reflect the mood of the people and the practices of what already tends to happen in the land. Given the vast amount of people who do not WANT any kind of gun control in the U.S., I'm hard pressed to think of a legal solution that will actually be effective. I'm all for small government and safe streets, but I can't stand drafting a stupid law just so that someone can feel (falsely) like "something has been done about the problem." So, with regards to the US, I'm at an impasse. The core problem is that the society itself is so violent...not the accessibility of guns.
Well for starters you have to be willing to get rid of the guns your country -- en masse. A massive buy back could help with that. And some kind of ban would also have to be in place -- I'd start with the guns that were designed to kill people efficiently in war (maybe send them to countries where the people actually have to overthrow their government?). And I've never heard a reasonable reason why someone would need to carry a gun (of any kind) outside of their home -- so why not ban that too (everywhere, not just those hysterical "gun free" zones)? This is on top of the obvious stuff like quit making it so fucking easy to get a gun in the first place. I was also serious when I quoted Chris Rock's bit about making bullets way more expensive and having ammo limits. Now I don't think those few suggestions are going to just up and solve the problem. Obviously a multi-faceted solution is needed, and it would probably take a generation or two to really see the results. But unfortunately, everything I just wrote sounds like blasphemy to a lot of you. And that might be the biggest thing that needs to change -- your collective attitude. If you seriously want to stop these hourly gun deaths (I'm not even talking about deranged mass shooters at this point, since they are rare and a determined psycho could make a bomb, though not as easily as he could get a gun, at this point), you are going to have to act a bit more like all the other civilized countries, at least regarding this one issue. (I know, I know -- socialism and all the rest. Trust me, it's not as bad as FOX says, and it comes with fewer innocent people filled with bullet holes!). Every other country has some of the above (plus more), and every other country shoots themselves less. You're gonna have to pull back on the American pride just a wee bit, and, for starters, admit that on this issue, you are literally dead wrong. I've never heard of a study that definitively proves Americans are more inherently violent than any other nation, but we all know they have more guns (most of the guns, in fact), and get them way easier than anyone else. So even if they were more inherently violent, don't you think the sheer number/easy access of guns would help turn that violence into death (via gun)?
The problem with such things as "gun buy backs", etc., isn't that they don't already happen, they do. It's the fact that I'd bet the majority of guns in most shootings were either obtained illegally, or wielded by someone that it was illegal to carry the gun in the first place. All the buy backs, etc., so is take weapons out of those that are legally allowed to carry them and leave them in the hands of those that it is illegal to do so. In Illinois, in order to purchase a gun (or ammo), you must have a valid Firearm Owner's Identification card (FOID), which is run through the state, has your picture on it, etc. Chicago is proof that trying do to things the "lawful" way DOES NOT WORK. 500 murders in Chicago with gun ban in place I have a FOID, and multiple guns. Do I carry one? No. But I don't live in Chicago. Am I willing to stop hunting, target shooting, clay shooting, etc., just because you don't think I should? No. And no one is going to tell me different.
Let's take a look at your actual specific points rather than "You guys need to be less stupid in the head." Given your first sentence, I suppose it has occurred to you that many (most?) American gun owners would be inherently unwilling to participate in any voluntary buybacks, let alone reasonably priced ones. And that someone who is criminally inclined is probably very unlikely to wish to do so. That leaves us with involuntary buybacks. Which those same gun owners will likely be even more displeased with, and which would never pass at the federal legislative level (and probably not at the state level anywhere). That sounds awfully fuzzy as far as criteria go. What exactly is "a gun designed to kill people efficiently in war"? Can you name them? What features do they have? What? People don't get robbed, subjected to violence, or witness others being subjected to violence outside of their own home? That is such a bizarrely hyperbolic statement that it can't be taken serious. If you believe that a "reasonable" cause for guns is self-protection, there is no logical basis for saying that self-protection is only relevant at home. I agree that no one truly NEEDS to hunt, or shoot recreationally. But if there is any basis for needing a gun inside the home, that basis also applies elsewhere. I say this not as a gun nut. I don't own any guns, never have, and don't plan to. It's been over a decade since I actually shot one. My father hasn't owned a gun since he lived on a Saskatchewan farm in the 1950s, and to the best of my knowledge, no one in my mother's family does. I merely say these things as someone who would like to see realistic, actionable proposals for fewer gun deaths. Your suggestions do not really fall into that category.
Ill just leave this here. The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/200 ... uyback.pdf</a> TL/DR: Now we had massive popular support for the compulsory buyback (something i cannot ever see happening in America), and a significantly smaller number of legal and illegal firearms in Australia at the time. What does this tell you about a buyback, either compulsory or voluntary, in America?
Exactly. Those that follow the laws in place aren't the issue. Those who are already breaking the law already are the problem.
I can come up with quotes about the gun buyback program in Australia with the opposite spin. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html</a>
Per rep... Illinois FOID card owners are run through the State police database. You can be denied for any number of reasons. Most crucial =