Interesting, but that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that someone can steal a gun and murder someone.
Quote: This isn't about mass shootings per se, just any shooting in hospitals.
Shootings in hospitals don't occur regularly, and hospitals are well guarded (For the most part.).
Quote: Your concern with intention has nothing to do with the ultimate toll guns take on the population, intended or not. If people get into a heated argument, it's far better to have no gun present than to have guns present.
Yes, it very much does. Cops misuse their guns (Not the majority.), but cops still need guns. If people do get into a heated argument, it IS better not to have a gun present, but that's not where the majority of gun violence or shootings come from.
Quote: You think a shooting that happens when someone unarmed takes a weapon off someone who is armed has to happen most of the time in order for that to be a serious consideration when arming people in the first place?>
|
Yes, because this relates to armed guards and cops and the like. They were trained for this, and you're talking about STEALING weapons. People steal and hot wire cars too, but that shouldn't have anything to do with car regulations, no one is trying to restrict OTHER people from driving because that stuff happens.
That's baloney. Your point is that more guns make more people safer. I'm saying that even when taking into account when guns deter violence, when you take accidents, suicides, etc. into account, statistically overall the presence of guns make people less safe. In other words, the likelihood of your own gun killing you or someone else in your family for ANY reason is much greater than the likelihood of you using that gun in self defense in a way that would have saved you or a family member. >
|
I didn't say that more guns make us safer, I'm saying that MOST gun owners are responsible and don't use their guns to commit violence or engage in criminal actions. And there is a BIG difference when factoring in self-defense, justifiable homicides and shootings (Some of them by cops.) and suicides. Suicide is a bad thing (In most cases.), but it's not a crime and it's a persons choice. Many times people can be driven away from suicide, sometimes they can not. I'm not judging any suicide victim at all, but you have to take them into account when talking about how guns are bad and evil.
Quote: Because guns cause the most death! They are far more lethal. For homicides, guns cause nearly 8 times as many deaths as knives. That means guns should be a priority if you want to reduce homicides, not knives.
|
I was thinking more about cars (Which have also been used to commit mass murder.). It's not the guns themselves though, it's the PEOPLE who are doing this who get a hold of guns. MOST of them have obtained them illegally.
Quote: You keep saying things that are just wrong. Since the mid-90s, the homicide rate has been dropping drastically in D.C.
Not quite, and this is relating to the handgun ban. Also, eliminating the ban did NOT cause an increase in crime. AT THE TIME when the gun ban was passed, murder and violence went up.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/report-eliminating-dcs-handgun-ban-had-no-effect-homicides-20265
Quote:
Quote: Bans aren't removed because they are ineffective but because Republicans are doing the bidding of the NRA. Again, I'm not calling for a ban on all guns, just much heavier regulation like the rest of the industrialized world.
Ah, I was wondering when someone was going to blame this on the Republicans. Thanks for jumping the gun. First of all, there are DEMOCRATS who are members of The NRA. There are also a fair number of Democrats who have voted against gun control laws and regulations, and even a few that voted against The Brady Bill (Which was proposed by Reagan, not a Democrat.). And yes, the Assault Weapons ban didn't have much of an effect. It might have had a SLIGHT reduction, but Assault Weapons are very rarely used anyway. It's worth noting that Columbine still happened even when the ban was in effect.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
And the Washington DC Handgun ban was ruled Unconstitutional, and so were a few other gun bans.
Quote: You didn't answer my question. Right now, automatic weapons are banned. Are you in favor of overturning that ban? If not, why not?
There are certain weapons that are banned (Like Machine guns and Military weapons.) that should stay banned. Assault weapons aren't used that often, and the ban that they HAD didn't show much of an effect. Assault weapons are different from automatic weapons, though. Many are just used for hunting, rifles aren't used often in crimes.
Quote: Guns are minimally regulated and the NRA fights even the most sensible regulations. So tell me, why can every other industrialized country on average have one twentieth of the rate of gun deaths as the United States? What are they doing that we aren't?
Again, guns are not minimally regulated. Yes, there can be some more regulations (Notably with raising the age to purchase.) , but not just anyone can purchase one. Now, people CAN (And do.) get them illegally, but that's true of anything (ESPECIALLY street drugs! And minors can still be given underage alcohol or cigarettes through their parents or other people, also illegal.), and there can be accessory there. Yes, the NRA are a problem (Maybe a big one.), but it goes beyond them. Another problem is misinformation, distortions, lies and propaganda that we get from all sides about guns. And look, if you want a gun ban, that's fine, but just come out and say it.
|
|
|
