And how much of a change did the increased gun control have on violent crime and murder rates? Comparing rates before and after the implementation of gun control, obviously. For example, UK violent crime and murder rates have gone up slightly since the increased gun control of the 90s... Australia has dropped about as much as we have here in the US. Brazil enacted strict gun control, making it nearly impossible to legally buy guns, and their violent crime and murder rates have gone through the roof. My theory is people who become motivated to kill others tend to figure out how to be violent and at least try to kill people. So that's where the focus should be. Preventing people from wanting to do that. Which is a tough problem to solve, and will take every ounce of political capital we can muster. Trying to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens (regardless of if you agree that should have those rights or not) puts you at odds with a LOT of people. And it's incredibly hard to make these kind of changes to the constitution. There is no support in the Supreme Court and the vast majority of states are opposed. Everything is set up against these changes in the US. Wasting political capital on laws which will just be overturned is not a winning strategy. Particularly when the data is as likely to support the opposition as you. IMO, simply dropping the fight for more gun restrictions would gain democrats a lot more support.
To summarize, Killers gonna kill. Figuring out WHY they want to kill will solve much more than trying to take one option away as to HOW they want to kill.
Some of you should read who the victims were and where they were killed. These two brothers were trying to exterminate a large extended family. If they had guns they would have used them and the death toll would have been much higher.
This is speculation though. Who's to say the first shot fired wasn't potentially going to be heard and get authorities on it much sooner than what happened, thus actually preventing some of the murders that took place?
Possibly. In this instance, very possible. Are you denying that a gun going off would have alerted more people in the area than a stabbing with a knife? Or are you downplaying the very plausibility ‘just cause’ It doesn't fit the “guns are bad” narrative?
Was at a mariners game the other day sitting behind the relatively new netting alone first base line. They put it up to stop balls from hitting people. But maybe they need to get to the real root of the problem, and figure out why players are hitting the ball late or early and hitting so many foul.
Comparing apples to the moon doesn't make any sense. Do you have any valid, constructive and reasonable comments to counter with?
Oh it would have alerted people sure. And people would have what, run from the bullets? Ducked? Ran at the shooter and be a hero?
How about alert authorities about the gun fire? And yes, get out of the area? I mean wouldn't you? I need tougher questions if you are looking to stump me.
That isn't what i said. Do you watch fox news or are you just good at taking a small portion of what someone says and running with it out of context? I said in THIS instance… yes a knife is silent, a gun is loud. A gun will attract more attention and concern when used, than a knife. This isn't really debatable, but I commend your effort. Too bad you don't put such effort into tangible solutions.
It's not hard to illegally obtain a gun in Canada. These guys could have done so if they wanted. Canadians are simply less prone to violence because they have better social policies than we do, which is why they score so much higher on the gini index than we do. https://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-s...-to-buy-a-gun-in-some-toronto-neighbourhoods/ And Saskatchewan shares a border with Montana... Great info regarding their motives and objectives though.
