By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas (19 Students, 2 Teachers Dead)

Chrkeller said:

Racial profiling isn't the same as gun control. With all due respect your argument non sequitur.

And we should fix both.  Using one to block the other is silly.

The pretense of most racial profiling instances is that the people being profiled are carrying illegal guns. This is precisely the issue the councilwoman was addressing. When white people were concealed carrying there was no reason for this council to pass a law, but when Black people started to conceal carry the law was passed. 

It is possible and almost always the case that multiple issues intersect. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 25 May 2022

Around the Network
sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:

You start by enforcing the laws at point of sale, manufacturing and imports.

Plus a voluntary surrender of weapons program, cash for weapons handed in.

A year later make it fully illegal to own semi automatic weapons without a special license. Hefty fines when found with an illegal weapon. If used in a crime, higher punishment.

Enforcing doesn't mean go house to house to search for weapons. But make it very clear through advertisements that you have x days left to surrender these weapons, after which hefty fines and higher sentencing come into effect when found with such a weapon.


Racist issues among the police are a different problem that needs to be addressed as well. You can't use one wrong as an excuse not to fix another wrong.

Thank you for engaging with the questions I asked. 

While the bolded works to prevent the future sales of semi-automatic weapons from licensed dealers, how does one reduce weapons already owned from circulating? There are enough guns in the U.S for almost everyone to have two, and plenty of people who have hoarded them. 

You mention that there can be hefty fines when somebody is found with a weapon without a license. But many people with these particular weapons live in Second Amendment sanctuaries.The likelihood that they would even be reported and/or there is evidence that they own the weapon (since there are no registries) is slim if they live in these counties/states. Buy-back programs would have to be very generous, especially when the price of the weapon suddenly increases if there is no new production. New York for example had a buy-back program with very low compliance. 

The discussion surrounding race isn't to make an excuse, but to bring it to the forefront that enacting even more strong gun-law criminalization will lead to more inequalities between races. It is only a separate issue if the race issue is addressed before or concurrently to the enactment of the laws. Addressing the race issue addresses many of these mass-shootings at the source anyway. Advocates of gun control as the solution, should be even stronger advocates against white-supremacy because eliminating white-supremacy is the only mechanism in which gun laws can be equitably applied. 

Having said all of that, I do support a licensing system. The sort of licensing system that is found in the Czech Republic would probably be quite an easy sell. Alternatively, one of the best ideas for a licensing system I've heard is to have multiple different classes of fire-arms based on if they are rim-fire or center-fire, concealable vs. non-concealable, etc, and to couple the license with a nationwide carry permit to act as an incentive for gun owners to become licensed so that they can carry seamlessly across states. It isn't clear to me that this really solves the problem of there being hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation though, although it does solve other problems -- like educating gun owners on safe-storage, accident prevention, theft prevention, etc. 

I did not know about second amendment sanctuaries. Americans are even crazier than I thought... Why is that a thing. Get rid of them first. If you don't agree with the law, you don't create a law free area. Why was this allowed to evolve? Wth...

You can start from the other direction, make gunpowder a controlled substance. Sure, there's tons of ammunition around and you can make your own bullets. Same for alcohol and drugs though. The extra barrier helps.

It seems to work for Czech republic, still only at half the number of guns / 100 inhabitants as Canada. But you're right, there are still far too many guns in the USA. If you look at this table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Venezuela sits at nearly 50 gun related deaths per 100,000, USA at 12.2, 18.5 guns / 100 inhabitants in Venezuela vs 120.5 / 100 in the USA. Yet there are no school shootings in Venezuela. Kids apparently don't have access to guns.

Part of the education for a licensing system is to keep guns safely locked away. So it would help. Of course if you want to keep a loaded gun under your pillow because of armed home invasion risk...

You got to start somewhere, so good idea to start with licensing and education. You would think parents would get it by now, but it just keeps happening. If your kid takes your car for a joy-ride, aren't the parents responsible for the damage caused? Do the parents get charged with accessory to murder in school shootings?

It's been tried as involuntary manslaughter
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/opinion/school-shootings-parents.html

It is not unheard-of for adults to be charged with child abuse, violation of gun laws or even involuntary manslaughter after children too young to be prosecuted accidentally shoot themselves or other children. But for the most part, adult prosecution for school shootings by children is rare:

  • Between 1999 and 2018, children committed at least 145 school shootings, according to a review from The Washington Post.

  • Children used guns taken from their own homes or from those of relatives or friends in 84 of the 105 instances where a source could be identified, or about 80 percent of the time.

  • Across those 84 cases, just four adult owners were ever convicted of a crime.

“I can’t think of a high-profile mass shooting where the parents were prosecuted,” said Allison Anderman, director of local policy at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Why? Legal experts told The Times that a major hurdle to prosecution is the absence in most states — including Michigan — of what’s known as child-access prevention, or C.A.P., laws, which require gun owners to secure their weapons when children are in the household. McDonald has tried to get around that hurdle by charging the parents with involuntary manslaughter.

And we're back to racism why it's a bad idea

“Given common negative stereotypes about Black criminality and parental irresponsibility, holding parents responsible for their children’s felonies could easily lead to still more racially disparate prosecutions,” he writes in The Washington Post. And because racial minorities are also more at risk for gang involvement, “prosecutors might target Black parents who fail to identify warning signs in advance and don’t intervene before someone gets hurt or killed.”


Get those C.A.P. laws nation wide first thing. The more I dive into this rabbit hole, the scarier the USA gets as a country...


This seems to be the last of that case (delayed)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/judge-delays-case-against-michigan-school-suspect-s-parents-1.5706275

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/judge-won-t-lower-bond-for-michigan-school-shooting-suspect-s-parents-1.5866627
That was April 19th. So I guess they are still in county jail waiting for trial.



Bullying and child neglect should be taken more seriously everywhere. We had tragic news a couple months ago. A 12 year old girl that used to live in our neighborhood and stayed at our house a couple times took her own life. She swallowed a full bottle or Tylenol and Advil. By the time they found her, her liver had sustained too much damage and she died in the hospital.

It makes you wonder if you could have done more. We called the school years ago with our concerns of how she was mostly on her own. Hanging out at the park by herself not even 10 years old. She was bullied at school because of her weight and ultimately didn't survive the move back to in school learning. I don't know if the parents could have done more, they were well aware and tried to get her more help:
https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/brantford-family-calls-for-increased-youth-mental-health-services-after-losing-12-year-old-daughter-1.5850300

The difference with the USA is, too easy to turn suicide into murder spree suicide. Yet the root cause is the same. Guns don't cause depression, but they do add collateral damage and make it a lot easier to commit suicide as well as accidental deaths.


It's not an easy problem, inequality, racism, bullying, lack of counseling, lack of supervision, class size, school size, it all plays a big part.



Chrkeller said:

Racial profiling isn't the same as gun control. With all due respect your argument non sequitur.

And we should fix both.  Using one to block the other is silly.

I don't fully agree. 

Bias in the policing system is an issue inherent to all changes in our legislation which increases interactions between civilians and police. It is not off topic to say "We should be careful about trying to solve this problem by throwing laws at individuals", it is an entirely valid concern. Now, that of course doesn't mean we should do nothing, but we should look at the many points in the chain instead of simply the final one. This is part of the reason I feel point-of-sale laws are likely to be better than possession laws. The implementation issues that come with the latter don't hit the former in the same way. Further, especially when it comes to sales by businesses, this is something that can be regulated by the Federal government, avoiding issues with sanctuary cities and police violence to a large degree.

sc94597 said:
sundin13 said:

I would personally ban Class #3, but otherwise I think that seems to be a pretty solid plan in regards to firearm legality, however I think it misses a lot of other avenues where we should be attempting to combat this crisis. Namely, universal background checks and restrictions on who can own guns. So, I would add the following:

-Every time a firearm changes possession, a background check must be conducted. No exceptions.

-Raise the age required to purchase a firearm to 21.

-Ban individuals with a history of substance abuse or non-felony domestic violence charges from firearm ownership for a period of time (Research would be necessary to determine how long this period should be). Additionally, violent felons should never get their firearm owning rights returned to them.

-All firearms must have a unique serial number.

I would also support a firearm registry in order to both improve enforcement and to help solve crimes, but this seems like more of a long term goal than a short term one. 

Additionally, we should seek to more holistically address crime by seeking to improve access to housing, improve schooling, improve wages, etc, but while I believe this is extremely important, I do think it is a bit of a different discussion. 

The logic behind allowing Class 3 is that Switzerland and the Czech Republic have similar allowances with very low criminality. This strongly hints that other social factors, like income equality and relative social integration are pretty crucial in reducing violent crime. 

I can support a 21 year old age limit for Class 2 + in so much as the military also must be limited to 21 year olds or older to join. I think allowing supervised Class 1 for people under 21 years old is fine for hunting and game shooting. 

I don't think people with substance abuse issues should necessarily be banned because that creates a disincentive to seek help for one's substance abuse problem, but agree about non-felony domestic violence.

I think there is some fundamental issue with prisons if they don't actually do what their advocates say they do -- reform criminals. If people don't exit prisons reformed there is something fundamental that needs to change about them, as that is the entire ostensible basis for their existence. See: Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure

Personally I think the overwhelming majority of crime is based on people trying to meet their material needs through illegal means. If those material needs are met, the bulk of crimes don't happen. This is what I see as the major difference between the U.S and other developed countries. 

I feel like if we get to a point where we have low crime, we can perhaps allow those Class 3 weapons then, but until that point it doesn't seem to make sense to me. 

As for substance abuse, the reason it is included is because it is a strong predictor of gun violence. This operates on largely the same level as mental health evaluations, and the same argument could be made regarding mental health (banning people who wouldn't pass a mental health screening disincentivizes seeking help). However, especially with substance abuse, this is often something that comes with legal consequences if left untreated, so disincentive effects would be less prevalent. Overall, I feel that this is a trade-off that I am more than willing to make. As previously stated, I do believe that there should be a path to being allowed to own a firearm, however I don't know what that would specifically look like. 

I agree with your point regarding prisons, however until this issue is fixed, I think this is a key reason why we should not return gun rights to felons after serving their sentence. It may be a long term goal, but it would be reckless to return these rights without first fixing the prison system. 



sc94597 said:

There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

It would be easier to: 

  1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
  2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
  3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
  4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
  5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
  6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
  7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

I saw your post and words cannot express the joy I feel that there is one person who sees the root over the symptom. 



SvennoJ said:

 



Venezuela sits at nearly 50 gun related deaths per 100,000, USA at 12.2, 18.5 guns / 100 inhabitants in Venezuela vs 120.5 / 100 in the USA. Yet there are no school shootings in Venezuela. Kids apparently don't have access to guns.

    Only the Venezuelan government has the guns. Communism and mass poverty followed gun control. The gun related deaths are the citizens being shot by military police. 



    Around the Network

    Stop selling high powered, high mag assault rifles

    Raise the age for all guns to 21

    Stop second hand sales

    The idea that ease of access isn't a contributing factor is baffling. About all I can in this thread, because too many simply care about their guns more than people.



    Pemalite said:
    sc94597 said:

    I am a POC. My family are BIPOC. I still have concerns about gun laws because of how they are used to harm people who look like me and my family, even if we are non-gun owners, such as the examples I provided. I was genuinely asking about how enforcement of a ban would work without disproportionately harming people who look like me and my family, and you respond with a very yt perspective about hunting deer with no intentions of addressing these questions.

    That's the issue. There is this "Binary" line in the sand.

    The gun control legislation itself shouldn't discriminate, here people of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds don't really suffer any more or less with or without guns... But one thing is for sure. They are certainly less likely to be shot dead.

    One of my roles as a first responder is extrication's where we assist the ambulance service... And after all these years I can count how many "incidents" involved guns. - None.

    Growing up as a kid in the 80's, guns were everywhere, even my own father had a double barrel shotgun in his garage that I often played with. (No ammo of course.)
    Fast forward to the late 90's... And every child after that is highly unlikely to ever see a gun in real life... And it doesn't matter what cultural/ethnic/minority you are, it's just safer for everyone.

    On this note, the NRA, who claim that more guns = more safety, banned guns at their event.

    sc94597 said:

    There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

    Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

    It would be easier to: 

    1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
    2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
    3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
    4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
    5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
    6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
    7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

    Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

    I just want to point out that this is very unlikely to be inherently tied to just the amount of guns in USA.
    Because if we compare USA's 1.2 gun ratio to any other developed nation, let's say England's 0.46 ratio, you'll quickly see that this isn't even comparable by statistics. It's just not a frequent problem elsewhere.

    (FYI, the image is showing school shootings between 2009 - 2018)
    School shootings in the US compared with the rest of the world - CNN

    There is obviously a correlation between more guns and more gun deaths.
    But the main difference between USA and many other developed nations on this list to me is gun accessibility and gun culture.

    It's not just a coincidence that so many Americans decide to take to guns when they want to hurt people. Or that so few do that in countries where there are many guns in circulation, but the guns are also primarily out of sight, out of mind.

    In USA, guns are very normalized. They're brought into the mainstream, and people consider them a right. They're taught how important they were hundreds of years ago when the 2nd amendment was written, but the most powerful guns at the time were muskets that required 20 seconds to reload each bullet.

    The 2nd amendment did not foresee the kind of powerful weapons we have today. But I digress.

    As an outsider, I was stunned at seeing literal war/army commercials during Superbowl, looking like Call of Duty trailers.

    Because I've lived in countries where I've never even seen a gun, they not only don't come to mind when I get pissed, but I wouldn't even know how or where to get one.
    The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre costs 32 000 on the Australian black market. It costs a measly 200 USD with home delivery shipping straight to your door in the US.

    The difference here is already apparent.
    If they don't have 32K, that can deter a would-be shooter. And even if they do have that amount of money, they risk getting set up by a cop pretending to be a black market arms dealer, etc. Because that is part of the process of getting rid of guns, which I'll get into below.

    Other countries have figured out gun accessibility.

    I don't imagine this shooter would have been able to obtain the two AR-15's he purchased legally from Daniel Defense, if they used Japan's system for example.
    (And not to go off on a tangent, but no one needs an AR-15 for defense.)

    "Friends and relatives have said that Ramos was bullied, cut his own face, fired a BB gun at random people and egged cars in the years leading up to the deadly attack."


    Regarding getting rid of guns in the country, it would be a long process, and no country is fully free from them. But the first step would be sensible gun laws.
    Which politicians constantly refuse to enact, because gun lobbyists pay them millions.

    Ban the more dangerous weapons (unless you need them for hunting or something and can prove it, etc), which will relegate them to the black market, which absolutely can deter would-be shooters.


    Now when it comes to cars/knives etc, I'll take my chances against a car or a knife any day over a gun, outside of some very specific scenarios.
    And if you want to murder a specific group of people, such as classmates, it's all the more difficult to accomplish the same results with a car or a knife.

    Last edited by Hiku - on 26 May 2022

    https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683

    “Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.

    ----

    Javier Cazares, whose fourth grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school when he heard about the shooting, arriving while police were still gathered outside the building.

    Upset that police were not moving in, he raised the idea of charging into the school with several other bystanders.

    “Let’s just rush in because the cops aren’t doing anything like they are supposed to,” he said. “More could have been done.”

    “They were unprepared,” he added.

    ----

    Carranza said the officers should have entered the school sooner.

    “There were more of them. There was just one of him,” he said.

    -----

    Also note: 40% of the municipal budget is spent on the Police Department in Uvalde. 

    What is the purpose of police again? Oh yeah to enforce property law and a decayed class/caste system. That was their purpose when the first public police departments were created in the 19th century and always will be their purpose. 



    Hiku said:

    sc94597 said:

    There is estimated to be about 400-600 million guns in the U.S. The majority of them are probably semi-automatic weapons at this point. That is a gun to person ratio of between 1.2 and 1.8. 

    Controlling the supply of guns is just not logistically possible at this point. 

    It would be easier to: 

    1. Work on reducing wealth-inequality and eliminate homelessness and poverty. 
    2. Pay to have a school psychiatrist evaluate every student and have free-at-the-point of use mental healthcare for everyone in primary and secondary school (at least, ideally for everyone.) 
    3. Reconstruct social clubs that allow people to form physical connections beyond their family and in which a person is more likely to be de-radicalized or re-adjusted to society. Historically local churches did this, but the U.S population is secularizing. Right now the problem is that young people in the U.S experience what Durkheim called Anomie. This is either because rules are too rigid and alienate them or because there is no normative structure at all. 
    4. Reconstruct the education systems so that students don't feel alienated. See: Ferrer movement and Francisco Ferrer as an ideal model. 
    5. Decriminalize all drugs and other non-violent "crimes." 
    6. Aggressively dox and put maximal social pressure on fascists and other hyper-nationalists. 
    7. #6 but for Incels and other radical misogynists. 

    Introducing every point on this list would be easier (and likely have a greater effect on shootings) than reducing the supply of guns in the U.S. Solving these problems would also solve many other social problems in the U.S as well. 

    I just want to point out that this is very unlikely to be inherently tied to just the amount of guns in USA.
    Because if we compare USA's 1.2 gun ratio to any other developed nation, let's say England's 0.46 ratio, you'll quickly see that this isn't even comparable by statistics. It's just not a frequent problem elsewhere.

    There is obviously a correlation between more guns and more gun deaths.
    But the main difference between USA and many other developed nations on this list to me is gun accessibility and gun culture.

    It's not just a coincidence that so many Americans decide to take to guns when they want to hurt people. Or that so few do that in countries where there are many guns in circulation, but the guns are also primarily out of sight, out of mind.

    In USA, guns are very normalized. They're brought into the mainstream, and people consider them a right. They're taught how important they were hundreds of years ago when the first amendment was written, but the most powerful guns at the time were muskets that required 20 seconds to reload each bullet.

    The first amendment did not foresee the kind of powerful weapons we have today. But I digress.

    As an outsider, I was stunned at seeing literal war/army commercials during Superbowl, looking like Call of Duty trailers.

    Because I've lived in countries where I've never even seen a gun, they not only don't come to mind when I get pissed, but I wouldn't even know how or where to get one.
    The gun used in the Sandy Hook massacre costs 32 000 on the Australian black market. It costs a measly 200 USD with home delivery shipping straight to your door in the US.

    The difference here is already apparent.
    If they don't have 32K, that can deter a would-be shooter. And even if they do have that amount of money, they risk getting set up by a cop pretending to be a black market arms dealer, etc. Because that is part of the process of getting rid of guns, which I'll get into below.

    Other countries have figured this out.

    I don't imagine this shooter would have been able to obtain the two AR-15's he purchased legally from Daniel Defense, if they used Japan's system for example.
    (And not to go off on a tangent, but no one needs an AR-15 for defense.)

    "Friends and relatives have said that Ramos was bullied, cut his own face, fired a BB gun at random people and egged cars in the years leading up to the deadly attack."


    Regarding getting rid of guns in the country, it would be a long process, and no country is fully free from them. But the first step would be sensible gun laws.
    Which politicians constantly refuse to enact, because gun lobbyists pay them millions.

    Ban the more dangerous weapons (unless you need them for hunting or something and can prove it, etc), which will relegate them to the black market, which absolutely can deter would-be shooters.


    Now when it comes to cars/knives etc, I'll take my chances against a car or a knife any day over a gun, outside of some very specific scenarios.
    And if you want to murder a specific group of people, such as classmates, it's all the more difficult to accomplish the same results with a car or a knife.

    My point wasn't that the amount of guns correlate with shootings proportionally. My point is that it is much harder to create a shortage of guns when there already is nearly a 2:1 ratio of gun : persons. Also the U.K's gun:person ratio is .05:1 not .5:1. So even if we stop the production and sale of all new guns there would still be a thriving black market, and it becomes much less likely that you'll see prices on the order of $32,000 in the U.S like you do in Australia. Prices are going to go up, but not that high. $32,000 is about how much a fully-automatic weapon costs right now on the non-black market, and there are only about 600,000 of those circulating. There are about 50 million AR-15 style rifles and about 300 million semi-automatic guns (including handguns) comparatively. The scale of the problem is just so much larger and requires a much more aggressive response than a few buyback programs and fines. And while mass-shooters might be deterred, most gun violence in the U.S isn't in the form of mass-shootings, but organized-crime relating shootings. Organized criminals aren't going to be deterred, and actually benefit from a thriving black market in weapons. So we might solve the 1% of gun deaths that happen in mass shootings, but make the 50% of gun deaths that happen in organized crime worse if a thriving black market is created. 

    There are also many other differences between the U.S and other developed countries besides this issue. The fact that there is no universal healthcare, the fact that many states are underfunding schools, the fact that children are more likely to deal with homelessness or other severe poverty that will traumatize them, the fact that parents are struggling with economic problems to such an extent that it is hard for them to pay attention to the needs of their children, the fact that there is severe racial hatred and a still ever-present racial caste system, the misogynistic incel movement that is present among adolescent men who are bullied, the fact that there is little trust between government and the citizens, the militarization and aggressive police forces that aren't trusted, the opioid epidemic, mass-incarceration and felonization, etc. The U.S is indeed exceptional, but quite often in bad ways that makes solving a problem like this very difficult. 

    You cite Japan. Japan had strict gun control laws before even the Meiji Restoration. These laws were pretty much extensions of their strict sword-control laws. Mass ownership of weapons never caught on in Japan because it couldn't. Pandora's box wasn't opened in Japan like it has been opened in the U.S. 

    So yes, we can try to reduce the number of weapons in the long term (say, 20+ years), but in the short to medium term are we just going to do nothing else? All of the other recommendations I provided could be implemented much more quickly and would have much of the same effect as reducing gun supply. 

    Last edited by sc94597 - on 26 May 2022

    In the US, all disputes will be solved with the best tool for killing a man which is the gun. Already in states like Texas and Ohio, anyone get a conceal carry without a license. As the saying goes, guns are not the problem people are. Guns just like any tool allows those people to deal maximum damage in a short period of time.