I don't have to sit back and come up with some ideas of my own, especially when most of the blogging about ideas are reasonable. And you have no clue as to what will and what will not work...talk about regurgitating. You, if you are a law-abiding gun owner, won't be affected much, if at all. Unless you have an ulterior motive for your status quo views. Do you? Maybe drink while shooting?
What? You think that tv drives me? Wrong. I asked for advice about a pistol, not a lifestyle. I don't need you to tell me how to live, but you need to get off your high horse. I think that the tool and the fool are intertwined, yes? You want to ignore your advice at my own peril? Wadya gonna do. Shoot me?
Are you serious that a 22% reduction per year in the criminal use of guns is something that will not work? That's 100% more than anything you have come up with yet. I guess you cannot take the time to read what the Department of Justice clearly stated in the link I provided or you don't want to know and that is pathetic.
No you have done a fine job of doing that yourself by refusing to learn and continuing to ignore indisputable facts.
Why is that, I have done my research and presented factual methods that work to reduce gun crimes, backing it up with links to the DoJ, not I stating it works, you have presented nothing. It is you who needs schooling, not I. Once again you are projecting and that's shameful, but based on the evidence posted a clear fact.
When trying to compare countries, you have to try to use a fair method as possible. With gun deaths, the fairest system would be to group high income countries and per 100,000 population. It's trying to use a comparative footing. You cannot compare Mexico to the USA on gun deaths, unless, it suites your narrative!!
Good idea, next time try not using terms like Western world and define exactly what you are referring to.
The Western world, also known as the West, refers to various nations depending on the context, most often including at least parts of Europe, Australasia, and the Americas, with the status of Latin America disputed by some. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States As you can see from the chart, gun control is effective. You're welcome to list the mass shootings per high income country over the decades. America will be light years ahead on the quantity.
And yet you continue to fail to address the points put to you with regard to what you favor. If you know you cannot soundly defend your positions, just say so.
Oh good - this must mean you can tell me why the pro-gun side should be willing to give inches and feet and yards, with nothing in return. I'm all ears.
This might be believable if they suggested something that affects criminals rather than merely restricts the law abiding The necessity for and the efficacy of which cannot be soundly demonstrated. That being the case, there's sound argument for those restrictions.
As the necessity for those ideas, and the effectiveness of those ideas, cannot be demonstrated, there's no reason attached to them at all.
The claim on the part of yourself is that firearm-related restrictions work. So the question is quite simple. Why are there countries where such is simply not the case? Why are there any countries to be found in the world where firearm-related restrictions are quite strict, yet firearm-related violence and homicide levels are still extraordinarily higher than those of the united states? How do both standards simultaneously coexist in the same location?
The definition of a mass shooting is still under debate. The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition.[118][119]Mother Jones, using their standard of a mass shooting where a lone gunman kills at least four people in a public place for motivations excluding gang violence or robbery,[120] concluded that between 1982 and 2006 there were 40 mass shootings (an average of 1.6 per year). More recently, from 2007 through May 2018, there have been 61 mass shootings (an average of 5.4 per year).[121]More broadly, the frequency of mass shootings steadily declined throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, then increased dramatically.
Then the nation of Mexico should not have their firearm-related restrictions if it does not possess the ability to actually go about enforcing such.
Mass shootings and gun deaths in the US are high, very very high. The mentality seems to be, "They have a high death rate, so why can't we".
Show precisely who is going about escalating the levels of firearm-related violence in the united states. The courts have ruled otherwise. Then define it. Explain precisely how long such a period should be.
Then they should stop supporting the release of convicted felons back into society where they are free to offend at their leisure. These individuals have already demonstrated that they both cannot, and simply will not, abide by the rules of society, so they have no place in society.
The number of deaths attributed to mass shootings are minute, bordering on being statistically insignificant. The greatest source of firearm-related homicides are in single-party incidents, where there is only one perpetrator, and only one victim. Mass shootings are nothing more than hype because they grab greater amounts of headlines than isolated murders. A reduction in mass shootings means nothing of significance.
Explain why the nation of Venezuela, which is devoid of legally owned private firearms, has more firearm-related murders than the united states.