Yep, that’s what they all say. Over and over and over. 
Y’know, there ought to be something a civilized society could so about this shit. Somebody must have some ideas.
Ban guns. This will be about as effective as banning heroin and cocaine. Meanwhile, assaults and murders committed with blunt and edged weapons will soar, feminists will protest that they’ve been made defenseless against rape, and the government troops (“police”) will be even more arrogant towards the peasantry than ever before. I heartily wish you could be transported to an alternate timeline where the gun banners got their wish. Congratulations, you thought you’d get the UK and you got Mexico instead.
Dear man, what is wrong with you? Clearly, you don’t understand that the only countries that count in this discussion are countries like the UK and Japan that have both restrictive gun laws AND low murder rates. Countries like Mexico don’t count because they aren’t…I don’t know…“westernized industrial” enough or some such shit.
You seem to take it as a point of pride that there are a few other countries with a problem just as bad as ours.
It isn’t.
When you shoot at straw men, please try to pack them tight enough to stop the slugs. Or stack some bales behind them. Spackling/replacing the sheetrock all the time is getting tiresome.
You seem to be the kind of bigot who considers Mexicans, and other brown people, inferior what with your “they don’t count” dismissal of where they fit into this arument.
Any implication I might have made that you have a coherent point to make was purely unintentional.
Keep strokin’ it, boy.
My point was that if the most extreme measure conceivable- banning the non-government possession of guns- still wouldn’t be enough, how do you suppose lesser measures would help?
What, then, would you suggest? The opposite of a ban? Require everyone to carry?
If you can’t do everything, there’s no reason to do anything. Standard regressive thinking.
You’re the one that cited to it. If you want to take it back as a meaningless article then go ahead.
"The measure passed by state’s House of Representatives on Tuesday would allow children 14 or younger to handle a pistol, revolver or the ammunition under parental supervision.
Read more: Iowa approves bill to let children aged 14 and under have handguns | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"
So this bill allows kids to use handguns under parental supervision. I don’t see the outrage but YMMV.
BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING… ANYTHING… CHILDREN ARE DYING!!! AND IF YOU DON"T AGREE WITH ME THEN YOU ARE THE ONE KILLING THEM!!!
Of course there are lesser measures that would help but neither side seems to be willing to make the political compromises necessary to pursue good policy choices.
I agree that a gun ban would push us closer to Mexico than Japan but licensing and registration is likelier to push us towards Canada than Nazi Germany. Of course in order to achieve this the gun control folks would have to abandon all the other stupid shit they are clutching to their chests. The only way I can see licensing and registration passing is if they invoke supremecy over all state and local laws and repeal a good portion of the current federal laws.
Not require, no; but somewhere around the 15-20% level of any random person in public carrying, a herd immunity effect would kick in, where publicly committing crimes with guns would begin edging into suicide territory. Basically take those “shopkeeper shoots robber” headlines and multiply x100. Would this turn the US into The Wild West? Maybe some while the learning curve was being worked through; but the equation changes entirely when most people aren’t helpless against assault. Eventually even the stupidest, most desperate crack addicts would learn (perhaps by personal example) that pulling a gun is more likely to get them dead than money
No, I said let’s assume we have done everything- and to the gun Prohibitionists’ surprise, it doesn’t work. We would end up beating our heads against a brick wall forever. And lesser measures like registration and licensing would amount to gently tapping your head against a brick wall- not as painful but still useless. And all at the cost of sacrificing what positive utility guns do have, which I would hope even you concede is non-zero.
You can assume all comparative data from all other countries is simply irrelevant, yes. But you can’t hope to convince anyone but your fellow already-convinced.
You can also try quoting that gun-porn novel you stroke your barrel to, but that isn’t going to work any better than occupying a bird sanctuary. Oh, wait, you didn’t have the balls to join that movement, did you?
You can call it assuming, but it’s really just fantasizing, isn’t it? Meanwhile, people continue to get killed because of people like you.
And you still have no willingness whatsoever to do anything at all. Just keep making fun of the ongoing killing problem that you, psychotically, deny any responsibility for.
Reported for personal insults.
Reported for intractable ignorance.
I don’t think it’s meaningless at all, but the questions you (and others) pose are answerable only by the author, and I am not the author. Perhaps you should email them for clarification; it certainly appears that you need help understanding what they wrote.
Actually we have evidence that removing the means of suicide greatly reduces the commission of suicides. Cite.
So here it’s you who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.