Quote:
Originally Posted by sketchyt
Looking at numbers and facts, I have to disagree.
Source (Washington Post) - large image:
On average compared to other developed countries, Americans are TWENTY times likelier to be killed by a firearm. For comparison's sake, it looks like in the chart there are 3.2 firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 'Murica. It's about 0.5 in Canada. This chart doesn't include Mexico but when you start getting curious about firearm death comparisons with Mexico, I think you may be in trouble.
Under reasonable logic, some serious level of restriction to firearms would likely lower that unholy number. |
now we are talking a completely different issue which is important to delineate. You are talking about deaths by firearms as a whole, which by restricting them would obviously show a decrease because most of the shootings aren't mass shootings but individual acts by a person more in touch with reality. So in terms of general deaths per annum yeah the number would go down. We are talking about mass shootings here though, I never once said violence wouldn't go down but the issue at hand is these delusional young man that go out and kill a bunch of people then kill themselves.
Nobody is saying that access to assault rifles and what not is a good thing, in my opinion people should only be allowed hunting rifles that require bolt action so that they still can rise up against the government should it be necessary but it would make mass shooting nearly impossible because it would be too hard to pull off with a bolt action. Let people have the guns that the law was made for in the first place, creating an arsenal designed to kill other humans is obviously problematic.
If you want to lower the deaths per annum then regulate guns better, you want to restrict mass shootings start looking at the mental health problems because that one in a million that snaps doesn't need guns.