Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
I think we have enough information based on having different laws in different places at different times to conclude that a lot of gun violence is going to remain regardless of the lesser measures. It's not a matter of trying other things first, it's a matter of what level of gun violence we are ready to accept as a nation. As your rightly point out, mass shootings are small compared to the larger picture. It's also true that in the 90s the homicide rate was almost twice what it is now.
If we say 'you know, if we could stop the upward trend in mass shootings or maybe even reduce the current amount somewhat' and we'd be happy with that, yes policies like background checks have a shot at making that happen.
If we want to get anywhere remotely close to where other major industrialized nations are around the world, we just need to have a lot fewer guns in circulation, or have a far more moral population.
|
I'm not opposed to having less guns in the population.
I was just disagreeing with your "illegal to own all guns period" statement. In retrospect, I'm not sure if you are really advocating for that or it was just a rhetorical proposal?
Nevertheless, my key point to that statement is start with the non-law abiding people first before taking away *all* guns from law abiding citizens.
Some can say the root of this problem is too many guns out there. On the face of it, I agree and okay with additional restrictions. But isn't the real root of the problem too many guns being used by criminal elements and those with mental health challenges? and not, as a whole, law abiding citizens (there are admittedly exceptions)?