Pretty much. Poor people who would have became adult violent criminals in 1993 were instead vacuumed into the ether 20 years earlier. And continued to be so going forward.
Not sure the point of this, immigrants are less violent? The added people are lowering the per capita statistics?
Yes, but what does abortion have to do with less gun violence? The sheer number of people here increased by a significant number.
Rich people could always get abortions, roe v wade made them accesable to poor people. Poor people commit more violent crimes, poor people having less children, less violent crime. Immigration has always been a part of the equation, abortion has not. It almost like you are saying immigration is a new phenomenon, and that just isn't true whatsoever. Also, using 1993 as a starting point is cherry picking to a degree, murder rates spiked substantially in the late 80s with the crack epidemic.
a couple hundred million people probably drove or were in cars today in America. How many do you think shot a gun today? The society, it's economics, it's transportation, schooling, everything is based on the automobile. Guns, not so much. There are laws requiring a license, registration, insurance and a host of other driving related qualifications. Most people aren't looking to ban guns, they are looking to add a couple restrictions (no-fly list for example) and perhaps require registration of the weapon. Your car analogy is BS from every angle. Meanwhile, as driverless cars become better and more accepted, and as the accident rate in those cars drops to near nothing, we will see legislation to ban human driven cars from many roads.
lol, thanks. I'm not even anti gun. I own several and think it's perfectly fine for most people. I just believe there are limits. I think most everyone here thinks there should be limits, and some already exist. Can't buy full auto, have a nuke or carry a gun into a courthouse. But there is a huge swath of people who ignore that we have already established that some limits are good. All we need to do adjust those limits a bit. We live in a society and with that comes some responsibilities. Granted, it's a balancing act, but right now we've teeter-tottered a bit to far resulting in too many deaths. No, these laws will not stop murders or mass killings. But they might slow the numbers down a bit. They might trigger more alerts leading to more killers being caught prior to their bad acts. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
Talking about cars as if they were the same as weapons is really misleading. There are no Constitutional rights to drive a car and the States have every right to regulate them as their populations see fit. If you want guns regulated like cars, then proffer and Amendment that you think would pass.
So there are 50M new rich people since the 1990s? Seems like 99% won't be in the 1%, if you believe in that crap
There are more guns than people. It's risk/reward. There's risk in being in a car on the highway. Some tiny chance you get killed or injured. The reward is you get from here to there in a hurry. There's risk with guns. Some even tinier chance you get killed or injured. The reward is people are free, the government isn't authoritarian.
Risk. Want to save lives or not? If not, no need to go after guns. If you do want to save lives, your time is better spent going after cars, or doing cancer research.
Wow! Just think of what might be, the lives that might be saved! If every person that wanted to restrict guns would put in the same effort doing cancer research! That would be so many souls doing good work! It would be phenominal!
There's plenty of cancer help...call 1 800 QUIT NOW...patches...lozenges..I recommend the lozenges..as to guns..I have no problem with sporting or hunting gear but we just don't need machine guns, mortars, missles, flamethrowers or cannons to make our homes safer in my view.
Doesn't matter what the overall number is, if they aren't in use, their is virtually no risk. when you consider that we travel an average of 29mi/day, or about 30+ minutes, and maybe on average we spend a few seconds shooting guns, yet guns kill about 1/3 as many people in America as cars, I think pretty ostrich-like to claim that cars are more dangerous. That's like telling someone in Texas they are more likely to be killed by a hippo than a cow, even though there are no hippos in Texas yet people get killed every year there by cows. First, there is a bigger chance of being killed or injured by gun than car based on time operating them, as discussed already. The reward you speak of for guns I don't buy. The govt already has so much more firepower, fully auto, tanks, planes, etc... There are plenty of countries that have banned guns and don't have authoritarian governments. And besides, we aren't talking about banning (which I would strongly oppose) we are talking about putting in place a few common sense measures, mainly the no-fly list gun-purchase alert, and blocking of any gun sales without a background check (mainly stopping non-retail sales). Sure, some want to go further, but most just want a couple major problems corrected. Keep your guns, keep the guberment in check, just do a couple things to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns.
I've spent a total of maybe 5 hours of my life talking about gun restrictions here, that's about it. I spent 7 years doing cancer research, have worked on charities that have raised several million dollars on the campaigns I worked on. Just cause you do one, doesn't mean you can't do the other. Cancer BAD. Mass Shootings BAD. The two are not connected. Guns are fun, but I sure would like some ways to mitigate the violence in which guns play a role.
