Nation's murderous psychopaths undecided on whether they will follow "New Gun Laws"
I can use that buyback money to buy more guns just as lethal... but through the black market, of course.
I can buy uranium and mustard gas through the black market, so therefore we should just sell these things to everybody.
Oh no. My bad. You're just an idiot trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Guns cannot be accused of murder. It is the individual behind the trigger that is charged with murder.
The individual can't pull the trigger if he doesn't have a gun you moron. You are so outrageously stupid Outlaw. It's embarrassing watching you ignore the purpose of guns and spit out retarded banalities like "guns can't be charged with murder". Neither can the Bubonic plague. Is that a good idea too you backward imbecile?
countries that have bans on guns suffer significantly fewer murders than the USA. The EU suffers murders on average about 6 times less, actually.
Stands to reason. Owning a gun makes it significantly easier to kill other people, since that's the reason they were invented in the first place. In fact, the statistics show that just owning a gun makes you more likely to get shot.
The arguments against gun control are really nonsensical:
Claim 1: Gun control is the first step to a police state
Reality: In every developed country where guns have strict limitations or outright bans, the levels of oppression via police are all significantly lower than in the US, a country whose police force is already highly militarized despite civilian gun ownership. In actual fact, sociological analyses show that by simple virtue of civilians owning guns, police then must also be armed, and more police are required in order to maintain law and order, which has the knock-on-effect of very fast initiation of police officers, whose training is almost entirely firearms focused. To put this in perspective, the average training time for an armed police officer in the USA is 21 weeks, and almost entirely firearm/self-defence focused: standards for intelligence and empathetic disposition are also extremely low. In the UK, the training regime for an armed police officer can take years, and includes psychological testing and profiling of applicants, extremely stringent criminal background checks, advanced firearms, explosives, chemical weapons and biological weapons training, proportional force training, and what they call "common sense and temperament" analysis.
This is largely why in the UK, a country with a population of almost 70 million, there was only one fatal shooting by a police officer in 2018. By contrast, the USA, with a population of almost 330 million, had 998. That means, adjusted for population sizes, the USA had 211 times as many fatal shootings by police officers.
TWO HUNDRED AND ELEVEN TIMES AS MANY.
Claim 2: If law abiding citizens can't get guns, they won't be able to protect themselves from murderers or violent criminals (including mass shooters) who have guns.
Reality: people with guns have not, in any significant numbers (I can't actually find any cases), stopped mass shooters. Even police generally don't enter a building until the shooter has run out of ammo. Seriously. Cops' first priority in these cases seems to be their own safety. Likewise, the number of self-defence/home invasion cases is extremely low. A Harvard University analysis showed that people defended themselves from crimes with guns in less than 0.9% of cases of crime: home invasions account for a minuscule amount of these, while between 80 and 90% of US homicides are committed with a gun.
By contrast, armed police in the UK and in EU countries in general are trained in military tactics to "storm and clear" areas where armed individuals are present.
Claim 3: Taking guns is denying the US citizen the right to bear arms to stand against a tyrannical government
Reality: The Constitution provides only for the armament of its citizens in order to form a well-regulated militia for the defence of the union and the constitution and its liberties. A well-regulated militia, must, however, by definition, be regulated. If the purpose of this armed civilian militia is for the protection of the American constitution and the American people, then allowing those who pose a clear threat to the American constitution and the American people to be armed is in direct contradiction to the purposes of the amendment and is in violation of the qualifier that such a militia be well-regulated.
Claim 4: Guns don't kill people, people kill people
Reality: This is only half true. It is the bullet which ultimately kills the human being who has been shot. The killer is the individual who fired the bullet. What is entirely clear, however, is that guns make murdering people significantly easier than it would be with many other weapons. Guns almost instantaneously fire a projectile at roughly 1,800 miles per hour, over relatively vast distances. The projectiles also cause significant trauma upon impact.
This is why such a high proportion of murders in the US are committed via firearm. They are easy to access, easy to use, and highly, highly lethal.
...... 4b: But, but, but, cars are just as lethal and yet we don't ban them
Cars require regulations, permits, licenses, tests, examinations, have qualifiers for use such as quality of eyesight, relevant medical conditions, and have stringent laws in place to limit their lethality, and cars were not designed to kill. Guns were specifically designed as weaponry, and yet have virtually none of these safeguards.
I really can't understand how anybody doesn't get the mathematics of it. As a British comedian put it (sarcastically):
"I think the solution to the shooting problem is definitely more guns. I worry, that if we take the guns away, the shootings might escalate".
absolutely moronic. There are laws against drunk driving in most places. People who buy cars do background checks, have to own a license, have to obey common sense rules regarding speed, have to have their vehicles properly serviced and maintained, are required to pay taxation to keep roads in good condition, must inform relevant licensing bodies of relevant medical conditions, have to undergo safety training etc etc.
We already to an awful lot, as a society, to limit the danger of cars. However, cars are designed for transport, not to kill. Meanwhile, guns, which are designed for killing, have virtually none of these regulations.
The goal is always to save lives.
In my country, we have the strictest alcohol laws in Europe when it comes to driving. And we have seen a drastic, significant decrease in the number of deaths by drunk driver as a result. That is something we have achieved as a country who do not want our kids to be killed by reckless drivers.
We have also banned guns, to much the same effect.
The two things can be worked upon, and that a country is not doing enough to work on one of the issues, does not mean that it therefore must not do more to work on the other.
What you are trying to do is stop people from pursuing common sense legislation on guns by attempting to conflate murder by firearm with death by dangerous driving. In actual fact, the statistics for 2019 show quite clearly that guns kill more people than cars in total.
If we account for actual "murder by car", then the numbers sway even more heavily in favour of guns being the most lethal device of the two.
Most car accidents are just that: accidents. People rarely get in a car and set out to go kill somebody. But with guns? It happens a lot.
90% of murders -- give or take -- in the USA, are committed by firearm. So the idea that people murder more people with cars than guns, is, to use the technical term: ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.