“Republicans don’t care how many Americans are killed by guns”

Do you have sources for any of that? Preferably primary ones, like the CDC?

 

By not keeping unlocked weapons in the house, DUH!

 

No they weren't. Everyone since middle school knew he had mental health issues. Sorry, but no guns!

Why do you want crazy people to have guns?

 

Apparently you are wrong.

 

Hate to tell you, but democrats don't "care" any more than republicans.

 

Yes the old do you have sources for that argument.

Everything for America can be found at Fbi.gov
Your going to want to look for table 20 I believe which breaks down murder weapons.

Australia is a bit more difficult.
But I would start here and expand your research from there
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

Australian homicide rate 1990: 2.2 percent
Australia homicide rate 2019: .9 percent
American homicide rate 1990: 9.8 percent
American homicide rate 2019: 5.3 percent
Australian percentage change: 41 percent decrease
American percentage change: 54 percent decrease
Australian gun ownership rate: 30 per 100
American gun ownership rate: 120 per 100.

 

Apparently you think I’m wrong more like. Apparently your opinion is irrelevant

 

Hmm, well, this table from the FBI indicates that 2/3 of murders were committed with firearms in 2017. Of those, 70% were handguns. Since most handguns are semiautomatic, that would seem to account for way more than 1% of homicides, and I doubt there was a sudden 99% drop over the last four years. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

That's why I asked for sources, because you were making some pretty interesting claims. Turns out at least the first one was very wrong. Who could have guessed?

 

Yes, they were.

And he did not own any guns. He stole them after killing his mom.

And there is no reason to punish parents and deny them their right to self defense simply because their kid turns out to have a mental problem. She took precautions and kept the guns in a safe. He just managed to break into the safe. Despite what leftists may like and want...we do not punish people for the problems of others. That is not how Justice works.

 

Interesting. So I pulled mass murders and here is what I got:
1830's 1
1840's 1
1850's 5
1860's 9
1870's 6
1880's 9
1890's 1
1900's 0
1910's 6
1920's 9
1930's 2
1940's 2
1950's 0
1960's 3
1970's 4
1980's 6
1990's 10
2000's 9
2010's 12

So it appears that despite the huge increase in population, we aren't really seeing that much more mass murder that we were in the mid 1800s.
It's also interesting to note that our numbers are different in 1930s - 1950s where I found less than you did. That's probably a classification difference on what is "Mass".
Still, it shows me that people are going to kill people. If you take away their gun, they do it with an axe. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villisca_axe_murders)

 

You read your table wrong then. 403 is all kinds of rifles which includes your daddy’s hunting rifle divide that by 15,000 murders at you get 2 percent. Now go look up how many murders were done by those scary black rifles you wanna ban and presto less than 1 percent. Turns out I was right and you just can’t do math

 

The bottom line is nothing, short of magically making all weapons disappear, will stop mass shootings. What we need to figure out is why mass shootings happen and address that.
More guns laws will not stop mass shootings.

 

Ironic post is Ironic.

 

Why do you believe banning a type of weapon saves lives? There are many other guns a criminal can use to get the job done. Or are you saying you want ALL guns banned?

 

I agree with about 99% of your post. My issue is bolded. Too many people believe that since any law regarding guns already exists, then more laws shouldn't be a problem. And what about another sensible law? Well, that didn't work, so lets try some more sensible laws.... And on from there.

Give an inch, they take the proverbial mile. And IMO, that is why the words shall not be infringed are in the 2nd Amendment.

 

It sure looks that way. When democrats defend the criminal path in our nation, it is just one more way in which they are actively trying to destroy the nation. When democrats decide that law no longer needs to be followed, (well, as long as you're one of their pet minority classes) we get to where we are today. A nation where inner city violence is the fuel that they thrive on. I does make one wonder, are they in collusion with organized crime to benefit them? When Joe Biden invites the world, is he not also enriching the drug cartels and their human trafficking? When Joe decides not to enforce the borders, is he paying back his Chinese owners so they can push their fentanyl into our nation? so many permutations of this.

 

“Republicans don’t care how many Americans are killed by guns”

This gets my fourth hyperbole of the week award. Or maybe it is just the third.

 

He had access to the safe.

 

It's a false choice to think in terms of them not being able to be stopped completely, therefore let's do nothing. The goal is to reduce the number of incidents and reduce the number of people getting shot. So a good first step is to ban the kinds of guns allowing assailants to shoot people in rapid fire. Limit magazine capacity. Things like that.

 

If they do care why are they doing nothing about it?

 

I get the idea but the Virginia Tech mass shooting proves a high number of people, I believe it was 32, can be killed even with a 9m handgun that had ten round mags. I believe non-“assault” weapons are used in the overwhelming majority of mass shootings. If AR type weapons are banned, will handguns be next? That is the fear among pro-2A crowd.

 

May I suggest replacing the word 'fear' with 'expectation'? I don't fear the constant barrage on the 2nd Amendment, I expect it. They've been at it for decades.....

 

Are you ready to limit the press regarding mass shootings, address the culture behind inner city murders, or do you just want to focus only on limiting guns?

 

I reject the notion that not every problem has a solution. You just may not like the solutions.

 

Why do those ideas have to be exclusive of each other?