To liberals: How many deaths are acceptable to you?

The reality is that we won't ever get deaths to zero so all measures taken individually will only reduce deaths. That doesn't mean those deaths are acceptable.

 

So few Americans can even contemplate the killing of other humans, it is not fair to blame the entire country.

What republicans want is to blame the guilty. We will go so far as to when danger has been noticed by the authorities, have them take instant action. The least protection the authority can do is stop making shootings so public. Then when a dangerous person able to kill children is known of, then put the ankle bracelet on the person so authority can track them all the time.

If the authority sees the perp heading by the school, the authority can by radio have a cop there very much faster.

This way you target the person wanting to kill and do not punish the entire population of this country.

 

I have yet to hear any aussie tell us this. Very interesting what solid research turns up. Also to hear them, all guns were turned in. They still have annual gun drives to encourage more get turned in.

 

I’m not going to respond to a question that is based on something I never said. I refuse to allow you to change the conversation as you please by putting words in my mouth.

 

Less deaths by shooting does not mean less deaths period, however. It simply means the implement utilized changes.

 

What Republicans seem to want to do is make it as easy as possible for ANYONE to own as many guns as possible...regardless of who they are or what their history is...

 

Conservatives are anti tax. The tax break that Trump gave the corporations could well have been spent in this area. But as we know, talk is cheap and he won't back up his "law and order" stance.

 

Let me make this real simple for all you gun haters

It is not the gun, it's the culture we have allowed ourselves to grow into... Course it feels good to blame an inanimate object then to look in the mirror and face the facts...

But FEEL good and blame the gun, then car, then truck etc... It's NOT going to fix our problem...

 

The best answer to that question is to ask a NRA member/supporter

Making these weapons more available to the masses will increase the body count and the likelihood of more mass shootings. It’s not a question of how many deaths are acceptable to the liberals, but moreover how many deaths are acceptable by the NRAs standards. They’ll say none, but their agenda answers differently.

 

A Paper in 2012 Found


In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].

Similarly, Dr. David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found in 2011 that the NFA had been “incredibly successful in terms of lives saved”:

For Australia, the NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved. While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.

The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4). In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33)

Additional evidence strongly suggests that the buyback causally reduced firearm deaths. First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates.

 

Guns and mental health are equally to blame, as well as a he culture. It’s a gumball machine devised for disaster.

Yes, fact is it is the gun. But it’s also the schizophrenia and the depression. All equally to blame.

 

Then pray tell, exactly why is the other party not stepping up to the plate, and proposing anything and everything to try and remove as many of these problematic, dangerous individuals from society as possible? What is their excuse for inaction?

 

And Republicans refuse to anything about either

 

"The other side" HAS proposed numerous legislative solutions over the last 20 years and people like you and REPUBLICAN legislators that YOU support have stood in the way...time and time again

 

Explain how firearms are at fault.

 

Las Vegas brought us close to doing something about it.

But guns, oh how we need our guns to sleep with at night.

 

You are not talking reform but confiscation; a general disarming of the entire populace. That was the real end goal of leftists inside Australia and that is the real end goal of leftists inside the United States.

 

Gun's have a mind of their own now? Guess my hammer hit my thumb on purpose...

Put efforts into the disease in the society and the rest will sort itself out.

 

Cite what some of these proposed "solutions" amount to, that would remove violent and problematic individuals from the equation. Not simply what would legally prevent them from acquiring firearms through legal channels, but what would remove them from society all together.

 

Dems have not exactly been Johnny on the Spot.

 

Firearms are the deadliest choice, second being death by vehicle. It’s easy to use a firearm, equip it in the right fashion and you create a bloodbath (i.e equipping a bump stock to a semi automatic, essentially making it automatic). Firearms cannot do as much damage, as they don’t shoot at such a rapid pace as the rifles that are preferred by these killers. Could the Florida School shooter have used a car, and caused more casualties? Possibly, but it’s easier to spot a vehicle charging at you than a gun.

 

Such does not explain, how exactly are firearms at fault?

Such did not do the people in the city of Nice in the nation of France any good. Eighty six death, four hundred and thirty four injured in a span of less than five minutes. Could no one simply get out of the way? It is not exactly difficult to spot an oncoming motor vehicle.

 

The killer planned everything out. Change the access to weapon and change the plan. If the killer had not had an AR15 he could have easily carried in a couple of guns with plenty of ammo, taken a class hostage and killed just as many or more.

Gun bans are stupid.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-a-gun-ethics-of-gun-ownership.524915/page-33 See post # 655

Another gun lobbyist had a thread that all the lefty whiners ignored. Hell it was a non-issue for you:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...em-drugs-and-not-guns.525879/#post-1068665667

See this:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...that-must-mean-more-guns-right.526229/page-26 Posts 501, 505, 523, and 589

How many times do we have to invite the left to the conversation? Gun owners were looking for a solution before the left found an issue to wail about that meant nothing three months ago BEFORE and SSRI user went berserk.

 

These school shootings have all been carried out by wimps, who, probably due to their lack of proper up-bringing, have no idea what being a real man is all about.