MikeRox said:
If someone wants to kill someone they will do with or without guns. Guns did not invent this, therefore controlling them will not get rid of it. However as per Video above, the places that do introduce gun controls generally tend not to have further continued massacres. Dunblane was the last UK one, this was the point when gun controls were increased and handguns banned. Of course the gangs in the streets (this is not a US exclusive thing) still go around killing each other. Yes we get incidents involving guns, because at the end of the day they still exist. However GUN RELATED incidents decrease with GUN CONTROL. It's really not rocket science. As I said, I'm not saying ban them, I'm just saying you're accepting gun massacres as the cost of the freedoms. |
Mass shootings make up something like 1% of people murdered by guns in the U.S, yearly. There needs to be a more compelling argument for gun control than mass-shootings.
Instead of gun killings though, you have bombings. Is that any better? And the UK is just one example. I still hear about three or four European shootings per year and that makes sense since we must consider that a larger population will allow for an unlikely event - such as a mass shooting - to occur more frequently. In the U.S this number is probably triple that, but that is because the country has many more internal political problems than Europe (for example the church shooting was fueled by racism.) There are two possibilities here: reducing the number of guns will translate to a decrease in gun incidents as a proportion. Or, reducing the number of guns will not show any noticeable decrease in gun incidents as a proportion of population, because the people commiting the crimes get their guns elsewhere. And then there is the question of the number who are injured and killed because there is nobody to prevent a murderer from killing dozens of people if they don't have a suitable weapon themselves, as we see with the European shootings vs. the American ones. Unless you can reduce the number of guns in all markets, you are not going to stop the majority of gun incidents.
Lastly;
Why should I care about "gun related" incidents and not the total number of homicides? Why does it matter if somebody is killed with a gun or by arsonry, chemical bombs, etc? Like you said, people will find a way to kill. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to put time and resources in reducing the motivations for killing rather than the ability to kill?
