Is there now justifiable hope of enacting sensible gun law?

Aside from the fact 2/3 of those deaths are suicide and so will not be affected by gun control...

Enforce the current laws to the fullest extent.
Until that happens, there's no need for new laws.

 

Explain, then, the 55% drop in gun-related violent crime 1993-2016 - the number of guns went up by scores of millions.

 

Post hoc fallacy.

 

That's 20,000 people who very well might not be dead were it not for that gun

 

The drug epidemic subsided. Your heard of crack ...right?

 

And how would you go about that?

 

Then actually prove otherwise.

Thus demonstrating why there can be no rational discussion pertaining to firearms between the two sides of the debate. The side that wishes to restrict firearms has no interest whatsoever, in focusing on the bad actors who utilize them for the sole purpose of victimizing others. Explain why that is. Why is the focus on the tool, rather than on those who have demonstrated that they have no interest in abiding by the rules of society?

Which has always been the case. At no point in its national history, has the nation of England ever had a level of violence that would make it comparable to the united states.

 

It was their decision to make on the matter, and their decision alone. It is not the business of yourself, or anyone else, to be telling those who wish to end their own existence that they are not free to make their own decisions. Society at large has no business, no legal justification, for forcing an individual to remain alive.

 

I t wa a decision made very easy and very final BECAUSE of the availability of a gun.

And far too often they took others with them

See Vegas. THAT was a suicide

 

So your claim is that we are a violent people? Does it make sense for a violent people to be armed to the teeth?

That's an absurd argument

 

In those cases it was a decision made over a long period of time, years to be precise. It was not a conclusion made in the span of minutes, seconds, or simply because a firearm was present and available to them. There is no evidence that an individual decides to end their own existence on the sole basis that a firearm is present. There is no evidence that suicide of a spontaneous, undetectable, irresistible impulse that comes over a person without warning. Just as there is no evidence that a lack of firearms availability will do anything to deter them from deciding to end their own existence. The only suicides that fail are by those who do not actually wish to die, and are merely seeking attention from others.

Both claims for which there is no actual evidence that would support such.

 

The united states is indeed a very violent country, filled with a very violent populace.

Which is why such is not being made, and has not been made.

Rather it is being questioned why, if these individuals are indeed known for being violent, that they are allowed to remain free in society where they can cause the most harm? What is the legitimate, logical reason for such an approach? If they are indeed so violent, why are they not instead locked up where they cannot victimize others? Can an explanation for such actually be presented?

 

If we are such an inherently violent people...logic dictates that we should do everything possible to reduce our access to lethal tools

 

Does the standard of "do everything possible" also include the approach of removing the problematic bad actors from where there is access to firearms? Would subjecting those most responsible for the majority of violent crime in the united states, to indefinite confinement on the basis of the danger they pose to society by simply being free, be warranted if it could result in a significant, even drastic drop in recorded levels of violence being recorded in the nation?

Exactly where should the line be drawn in the "do everything possible" approach to addressing the afformentioned problem? The number of firearm-related restrictions in the state of California are failing by a significant margin, and the majority of firearms recovered from criminal possession were originally acquired within the state, despite all firearms being registered, locked up, and subject to background checks for private sales. It remains to be seen just what more can be done before the state is forced to focus instead on the people, rather than on the tool.

 

According to you folks...our entire nation is a nation of violent people

 

That's 20,000 people that were victims of their own choosing, and serious enough about it to use a gun.
Your idea that a significant number of these lives would have been saved in the absence of the gun is without support.

 

And so, more guns does not mean more gun related crime. Thank you

 

Anyone serious enough to use a means of suicide as effective as a firearm is more than willing ans able to find an alternative method.

 

There's no logic in that statement at all.

 

No. That's according to you folks.

 

Stats say otherwise.

Troll on

 

That's not what your buddies said. Maybe you should go back and read the thread again. You seemed to have missed a lot.

Did I say that nicely enough?
I wouldn't want you whining to admin ...again

 

On the contrary. Nothing says otherwise.

 

If you don't like the forum rules, you can leave.

 

Oh. So you disagree - we are NOT a violent nation.
OK then. So much for your claimed need for more gun control