6-year-old boy dies after being shot during road rage incident

Of course they do something about it.

They enact gun-free zones, and teach the kids 'shooter drills'.

I was 8 years old when I was taught what a gun was, how to handle it, and the damage it could cause. I understand it, and I respect it. Since apparently a large number of people no longer take the time to teach the subject, people have a lack of information that makes them think that a gun is what kills people, not the person handling it.

 

The reasons why the 2A was written 250 years ago are no longer relevant today.

Especially since at that time the musket was the most dangerous gun.

Today, a madman like Paddock can have as much firepower as a small 18th century army.

I realize that it's extremely difficult to change an amendment, but there have been so many massacres in the last 15 years that a majority of voters are demanding major changes.

Eventually, political pressure will have an effect.

 

Your solution is laughably impossible, you're not taking weapons aways from law abiding people so some criminal can use theirs freely. Plenty is done about gun violence, but pretending there is nothing done just makes you look silly.

 

When you can guarantee me the mental stability of all gun owners, I will consider your arguments.

For now, the only thing that really works and has been implemented by all the other G20 countries- except for the US - is stricter laws on gun ownership.

Simple as that.

 

If you think the 2A is no longer relevant, then you haven't truly read it, along with the rest of the Constitution.

Take those 'massacres' down to the lowest common denominator, and you will find people who are mentally unbalanced, and/or take psychotropic drugs.

 

Everything that has been done about gun violence has failed miserably for at least 40 years.

And the only solution the NRA is advocating is for more people to buy guns.

However, a country like the US, which claims to be the largest and most advanced democracy in the world, has one of the highest homicide rates.

This is embarrassing.

 

If the 2A had still been useful, we wouldn't have had a riot on Capitol Hill to overturn Biden's election.

The 2A can't do anything about a demagogue who makes people believe that democracy is rigged.

 

Some of them, maybe.

Most or all of them, no.

There are a ton of greedy, selfish, evil people in the world. But they are not dumb. IMO, most are not on drugs or crazy. They are evil because they were taught to be. By people that have the FREEDOM to be as selfish and greedy as they want, as long as they don't break laws (or if they do, they don't get caught or can buy their way out of it).

So, how do we stop them?

 

So in your eyes, that would be no one because everyone (theoretically) could drop over that edge of civility in a moment's notice? Let's disregard the millions of people who have owned a firearm for decades, and have never harmed any human with it, or allowed anyone else to do so either.

Instead of educating people on firearms, is it preferable to continue painting them as the big bad evil that could leap up and start firing all on it's own, or stop to understand what it is, and how it works?

That's a chasm that most anti-gun people will not cross. Fearing the unknown is a sad state of affairs.

 

Gun violence is down, please do some research. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-...-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Chapter 1: Overview
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011.

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

Looking back 50 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate began rising in the 1960s, surged in the 1970s, and hit peaks in 1980 and the early 1990s. (The number of homicides peaked in the early 1990s.) The plunge in homicides after that meant that firearm homicide rates in the late 2000s were equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.1 The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower decrease in the gun suicide
rate, means that gun suicides now account for six-in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981.

Trends for robberies followed a similar long-term trajectory as homicides (National Research Council, 2004), hitting a peak in the early 1990s before declining.

This report examines trends in firearm homicide, non-fatal violent gun crime victimization and non-fatal violent crime victimization overall since 1993. Its findings on firearm crime are based mainly on analysis of data from two federal agencies. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using information from death certificates, are the source of rates, counts and trends for all firearm deaths, homicide and suicide, unless otherwise specified. The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, a household survey conducted by the Census Bureau, supplies annual estimates of non-fatal crime victimization, including those where firearms are used, regardless of whether the crimes were reported to police. Where relevant, this report also quotes from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (see text box at the end of this chapter and the Methodology appendix for more discussion about data sources).

Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened.

There also is debate about the extent of gun ownership in the U.S., although no disagreement that the U.S. has more civilian firearms, both total and per capita, than other nations. Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate and higher rates of gun ownership, but not higher rates for all other crimes. (See Chapter 5 for more details.)

In the months since the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December, the public is paying close attention to the topic of firearms; according to a recent Pew Research Center survey (Pew Research Center, April 2013) no story received more public attention from mid-March to early April than the debate over gun control. Reducing crime has moved up as a priority for the public in polling this year.

2

Looking at the larger topic of firearm deaths, there were 31,672 deaths from guns in the U.S. in 2010. Most (19,392) were suicides; the gun suicide rate has been higher than the gun homicide rate since at least 1981, and the gap is wider than it was in 3 There is consensus that demographics played some role: The outsized post-World War II baby boom, which produced a large number of people in the high-crime ages of 15 to 20 in the 1960s and 1970s, helped drive crime up in those years.

A review by the National Academy of Sciences of factors driving recent crime trends (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 2008) cited a decline in rates in the early 1980s as the young boomers got older, then a flare-up by mid-decade in conjunction with a rising street market for crack cocaine, especially in big cities. It noted recruitment of a younger cohort of drug seller with greater willingness to use guns. By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

At the same time, a rising number of people ages 30 and older were incarcerated, due in part to stricter laws, which helped restrain violence among this age group. It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

Some researchers have proposed additional explanations as to why crime levels plunged so suddenly, including increased access to abortion and lessened exposure to lead. According to one hypothesis, legalization of abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision resulted in fewer unwanted births, and unwanted children have an increased risk of growing up to become criminals. Another theory links reduced crime to 1970s-era reductions in lead in gasoline; children’s exposure to lead causes brain damage that could be associated with violent behavior. The National Academy of Sciences review said it was unlikely that either played a major role, but researchers continue to explore both factors.

The plateau in national violent crime rates has raised interest in the topic of how local differences might influence crime levels and trends. Crime reductions took place across the country in the 1990s, but since 2000, patterns have varied more by metropolitan area or city.4

One focus of interest is that gun ownership varies widely by region and locality. The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level; “the causal direction of this relationship remains in dispute, however, with some researchers maintaining that firearm violence elevates rates of gun ownership, but not the reverse.”

There is substantial variation within and across regions and localities in a number of other realms, which complicates any attempt to find a single cause for national trends. Among the variations of interest to researchers are policing techniques, punishment policies, culture, economics and residential segregation.

Internationally, a decline in crime, especially property crime, has been documented in many countries since the mid-1990s. According to the authors of a 30-country study on criminal victimization (Van Dijk et al., 2007), there is no general agreement on all the reasons for this decline. They say there is a general consensus that demographic change—specifically, the shrinking proportion of adolescents across Europe—is a common factor causing decreases across Western countries. They also cite wider use of security measures in homes and businesses as a factor in reducing property crime.

 

California, the place where the 6-year-old was shot, has some of the strictest laws on gun ownership in the country. Why didn't it "really work" there?

 

Based on your stated opinion? It won't happen, because 'mass killers' are less than 1% of gun owners. The majority of the other 99% of gun owners are defenders. There is no valid reason to take firearms away from the people based on statistics like that.

 

Thank you for your figures.

Now compare your data with those of Canada, France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Australia, Japan, South Korea....

All other G20 countries are experiencing the same decreases, but they all start from much lower than the US.

Go ahead, have fun.

 

That's because the idiots who rioted at the Capital were not there to overturn the election in a physical manner. None of them carried firearms.

If you don't think that US elections aren't played behind the scenes, then perhaps you really need to do some reading.

 

Because compared to Canada, France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Australia, Japan, South Korea etc, getting a gun in California is a joke.

 

Instead of creating a position for me and arguing with yourself, you can always ask me. I made no reference to black and white gun laws. The term "mass killings" is used to mislead people. The vast majority of murder is committed one at a time and gun laws give these killers an advantage.

Speaking of being betrayed by politics, I live in Los Angeles. Being a "may issue" county, ordinary citizens are not issued CCWs. Only cops, judges, politicians, and criminals carry guns here.

Gun control is not from a position of concern for human life.

 

Not true.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-protest-cases-insight-idUSKBN29J2V8

 

Comparing figures with countries who do not have a similar culture is a waste of your time. what is your solution again?

 

Do you have any proof those DEFENDERS save more people than are killed by guns? If not, then that kind of ruins your argument.

No valid reason? I disagree.

And it's only a matter of time until stricter nationwide gun laws are passed. We just need to wait until people are angry enough at the inaction.

 

Written on January 14, 2021. What charges have been brought since then? No firearms, and a meandering bunch of idiots.

 

I expected that kind of response.

So when Americans claim to live in the best country in the world, they don't know what they are talking about?

The degradation of the social fabric in the US comes from a combination of factors, and gun violence is an important one.

No one can deny that.

So if there is so much violence in the US, it's precisely because the gun culture is omnipresent (and even valued) whereas it's fought against in all the other democracies on this planet.

 

Yeah realize they are driving a vehicle of at least a couple tons at 70 MPH plus. A much more lethal and devastating tool to a gun.

But.. let's blame the proliferation of guns and not the shooter.

 

You apparently don't understand what a 'defender' is. They don't go around looking for reasons to shoot up a 'bad guy', contrary to TV movies or other validation you seek. They are prepared to defend themselves and their families.

If you understood the argument, then you would also understand that ratification won't happen in any poster on here's life time, if ever.

 

Why would it?

Blaming the tool rather than the actions and actor is ridiculous.

 

I disagree, for some, it can be from a position to conserve life.

Stop trying to lump all gun restrictions people together for the purposes of trying to make them look like bad guys trying to take away all your freedoms.

NOTHING is absolute, not even freedom.