The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Election 2020 Issues: Gun Violence

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Leon On about 12 hours ago




San Diego, California
#1New Post! May 20, 2019 @ 13:05:19
If you were President and had a House majority and Senate supermajority on your side, how would you address gun violence in our country?

For statistics on U.S. gun violence, read below...

The rate of violent crimes, overall homicides, and gun related homicides were at a peak near the mid 1990s, each having had risen steadily since the FBI started tracking such data in the early 1960s. At the end of 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted, which mandated federal background checks on commercial firearm purchasers in the U.S. Since then, the rate of violent crimes, overall homicides, and gun related homicides have been declining steadily and are now near their early 1960s levels, returning to half the rate it was in 1993.

Overall U.S. gun ownership rates have also decreased more gradually, from an estimated 50% to 40% in the past 70 years. But the number of guns per capita has almost tripled in the same time span. There are now more guns than people in the United States although only 40% of people in the United States possess them. By comparison, only one other country in the world has more than half as many guns as people living in that country.

There appears to be very little correlation between gun numbers and homicide rates when comparing these in countries around the world. Countries that have the highest homicide rates are among the lowest in terms of guns owned, and the countries with the lowest homicide rates are among the highest in terms of guns owned, including the U.S. Even among developed nations, the U.S. has only a slightly higher homicide rate than countries with vastly smaller number of firearms per capita.

However, the rate of gun related homicides in the U.S. is a lot higher than these other developed countries. It makes up for 70% of all homicides in the U.S., a sharp rise from a few years ago. This is more pronounced in U.S. states with higher gun ownership rates and guns per capita.

There also appears to be a correlation between states with higher homicide rates and less restrictive gun control laws, similar to the FBI data after the Brady bill above. This is despite the fact that illegally possessed guns are used in 65% of gun related crimes in states with more restrictive gun control laws compared to 40% in states with less restrictive gun control laws.

Suicides and mass shootings are also on the rise in the U.S. (and, in the case of suicides, worldwide). Mass shootings are generally defined as acts of violence in which a shooter kills at least four victims, but which excludes gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts. The number of mass shootings have tripled to an average of 5.4 per year the past twelve years, from an average of 1.6 per year between 1982 and 2006. The number of fatalities from mass shootings have increased fourfold since then as well. A mass shooting occurring on school grounds has been occurring at a rate of once per year.
chaski On about 3 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#2New Post! May 20, 2019 @ 21:59:01
I would propose legislation that removes all training, education, licensing, certification, etc... requirements for just about everything from being a beautician to driving a car to being an attorney to being a truck driver to being a doctor to being an accountant, banker, fireman, policeman, to being a pilot... etc... etc...

All based on our Constitutional Rights.

If anyone challenged me I would say, "These various certifications & licenses are just designed to take away people's rights... and their cars... and their trucks... and their ability to earn a living... they all violate our Constitution."

I wouldn't win, but the Libertarians would have to vote for me.
mrmhead On about 5 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#3New Post! May 21, 2019 @ 01:24:32
In conjunction with the mandatory "civil service" mentioned as another solution, firearm training would be included and upon graduation you will be issued a firearm - type determined by one's expertise.

The gun lobbyists and manufacturers will be ecstatic!!

But seriously, mandatory training.

We won't stop crime, but we will hopefully reduce the accidental and ignorant shootings.

Like the off-duty (?) cop breaking-dancing with a loaded firearm that drops and shoots another patron in the ankle. .. Oh wait, that's stupid - can't fix that...


And as to how that might affect crime? Maybe some people will gain more of a respect for firearms and not try to be Mr HotShot with a quick trigger finger
... maybe
Because I'm sure there are some shooters that regret their actions.
Leon On about 12 hours ago




San Diego, California
#4New Post! May 21, 2019 @ 15:38:14
I think the solution is pretty clear after looking at these statistics. Since the statistics, both worldwide and in America, show that increased gun ownership rates and gun rates do not correlate to an increase in homicides, and vice versa, we do not really need to go through the effort of repealing the 2nd amendment in banning all guns. However, the statistics do show that when we put in discerning limits on who is allowed to have these guns, namely keep them out of the hands of convicted criminals, domestic abusers, and those with psychological issues, we do see a reduction in gun violence. So obviously, this is what we need to focus on. We need to update the Brady bill to eliminate loopholes in it such as the private purchase/gun show exception and add even more stringency in who we allow to possess guns. This is particularly true with those with mental health issues. Mass shootings are on the rise, because suicides are on the rise.

To sum it up, the statistics show that less guns do not limit violent crime, but less guns in the hands of criminals while not limiting it in the hands of non-criminals, does. Which makes sense, if you think about it.

However, we probably don’t need guns that unload multiple rounds in seconds that make it easier to rack up the deaths in a mass shooting. They really don’t serve any purpose for civilians. Nor is it unconstitutional to limit certain weapons like this, because we already ban other types of weapons and these bans have not been overruled by the courts.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Mon Jul 30, 2012 @ 15:31
362 11634
New posts   Politics
Mon Jun 25, 2007 @ 20:34
51 1656
New posts   Politics
Fri Dec 23, 2011 @ 12:50
120 5254
New posts   Random
Tue Jun 27, 2006 @ 07:43
19 676
New posts   Politics
Wed Apr 26, 2006 @ 13:07
4 320