1. The point I was trying to make is that according to your data 2.1 million American's alive today will be murdered. Regardless of how it happens, that number is too damn high.
2. Secondly, we can't make the mass murder rate zero
without mind control so as responsible people who care for our live and the lives of the people we love
3. (I don't know if you love anyone but work with me)
4. we need to make an effort to keep guns away from certain people.
5. Your right to own a gun will never supercede anyones right to not be killed.
6. We still have a sky high homicide rate and most are from guns.
7. The thing about owning a gun is that you have to be responsible with it.
8. Obviously, this country is chalk full of people who do not respect this responsibilty.
9. My brother and his wife were shot so maybe you have to lose someone to relize that human life is more important than guns
10. and that innocent people are dying while no one want to address either the gun access problem or the overarching issue of violence in this country.
11. It really disgusts me that this man was able to kill 50 people.
12. It disgusts me that our government couldn't pass a law to keep suspected terriorist from buying guns. I mean this is so basic.
13. even if you give a fuck about my personal story, surely we can agree on this.
1. The point I am trying to make is that you are wrong. It only holds true if the homicide rate, gun homocide rate, and "assault weapon" homicide rates remained constant for the entire lives all of currently extant 300 million americans, and no more births occured (which is a ridiculous scenario.) The fact is that the homicide rates are decreasing (including gun homicides) and the population of Americans are increasing.
2. Great, so you agree. What number of deaths means there is no problem that needs to be solved? What percentages? I would argue that it depends on the other problems which exist in society. If there are no more crucial problems and no better alternative solutions then sure, we can focus on this. But as it stands, there are much more lethal things in existence which we can put our time and resources to addressing than mass-murder - something that will happen regardless when looking at a population the size of the U.S'
3. Not sure if there was a double meaning to this besides the literal one?
4. Like whom and how? Be more specific please.
5. If I am not killing anyone, these individual rights can and do coexist.
6. "Sky high" is relative. For example, compared to the 90's our homicide rates are actually pretty nice. The main cause of gun homicides is the war on drugs. End the war on drugs, and I can be pretty sure the homicide rate will drop to Euro-levels/the levels of the least violent U.S states like New Hampshire (1-2 /100,000.) What is your solution to ending gang warfare (the primary cause of homicides in the U.S)?
7. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are. And most would not disagree with that statement.
8. Can you back that up with statistics? Define "chalk full of". Like I said, the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners do not commit violent crimes.
9. Two of my (close) family members commited suicide by gun. It doesn't affect my opinion, nor most of my family's opinions on gun rights. They would've found another means, as they both suffered from long term depression, just as a murder would have found another means. Many of my family members have also protected themselves against humans (a murderer and a thief) and animals (bears) with guns.
10. "The gun problem" is not a really the root of the problem here. But I do agree, nobody wants to address over-arching violence, because that would be too hard. Ending the drug war is not a popular political position.
11. Unfortunately that is the world we live in. The man could've bombed or burned down the club (stabbing people as they tried to flee specific exits.) He could have poisoned people. Guns are hardly the only way to kill masses of people. Plus it is false to say these things don't happen in countries with stricter gun control.
12. Mostly because the proposed bills were the wrong way of doing it. The ACLU (an organization that thinks the second amendment is a collective right to militias) agrees. While the NRA, unfortunately compromised people's rights to due process.
13. I think if they can find a way to prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them via proper channels (due process of the law) then I would support it. Otherwise, I think it is a tricky and dangerous precedent to disregard due process and have arbitrary lists determining the rights of non-criminals.