What is the real reason that our Government is making gun laws stricter and stricter?

[Brain357]

Countries with few guns don't have these kinds of problems. They are unique to the US.

Ok hold off hon.. Before you check that.

El Salvador, Brazil, Columbia, Lesotho, Phillipines, Bahamas,

Serbia is 2nd in gun ownership per capita. 171st in murder rate.
Cyprus, 4th gun ownership, 174th murder rate
Finland 6th gun ownership, 159th murder rate
Norway 9th gun ownership, 206th murder rate

You can't have these if it's proliferation of guns. You can't have countries with low guns having high murder rates and vice versa.

Sounds like Serbia is a whole lot stricter than us with guns.

Serbia
Serbia has relatively liberal weapon laws compared to the rest of Europe. Serbia ranks in 2nd place on the List of countries by gun ownership, which measures the number of guns per capita for a given country. Gun culture is strong among Serbs and especially important part of rural life.

Weapons are regulated by "Weapons and Ammunition Law" (Zakon o oružju i municiji[68]). Rifles, shotguns and handguns are all allowed to civilians. Handgun ownership is allowed, but the licensing is strict. Concealed carry permits are available to approved handgun owners, but are extremely hard to obtain - one has to prove to the police that his or her life is in imminent danger, and even then, license is far from guaranteed.

In essence, people over 18 are allowed to own guns, but must be issued a permit. People with criminal history, mental disorders, history of alcohol and illegal substance abuse, cannot be issued a permit. There is a thorough background check prior to license approval. Police have the last word on the matter, and there is no court appeal possible. When at home, the guns must be kept in a "safe place", and owner irresponsibility could lead to gun confiscation by police.

Fully automatic weapons and non-lethal self-defense devices are prohibited. Number of guns that may be owned is not limited. Every gun transaction is recorded by police. There is no rifle caliber restriction (Must be smaller than .50BMG, however). Rifle and handgun ammunition is severely restricted, there is a 60-round limit per rifle, per year, except rounds shot at ranges. Shotgun ammo is unrestricted and shell reloading is allowed, but rifle and handgun ammo reloading is not. There is growing pressure, especially from sport shooters associations, to change the law in this regard.

Serbia has its own civilian gun and ammunition industry. Zastava Arms,[69] Prvi Partizan[70] and Krušik[71] export internationally.

 

[Brain357]

Gee, wonder why El Salvador has crime problems:
A civil war tore El Salvador apart in the 1980s – and today violent drug-gang crime is tearing it down. About 40 percent of the population live in poverty while a tiny elite lives in luxury. The economy's long been in the cellar, and the country still seems as politically polarized as it did when right-wing death squads terrorized the place a generation ago.

El Salvador's New President Faces Gangs, Poverty And Instability

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[Slash]

Yeah it's coincidence that we have the most guns and the most mass shootings, most cops killed, most people shot by cops, most people shot by toddlers....

We have many problems that are unique to the US because of our guns.

Yup, kind of interesting how countries like Finland, Canada, and Norway are so high on gun ownership yet none of the mass shooting issues.

It doesn't follow. They should be up in the top spots as well, but nope, they are not even close.

That ruins the gun proliferation debate. You CAN'T have gun proliferation without violence, and violence without gun proliferation if you want to say that gun proliferation leads to violence.

You do understand this right?

And actually we aren't first in police killings per capita. South Africa is. But hey, why use facts when we can make our own up right?

Either way it doesn't follow gun ownership on that either. Finland and Norway, both top 10 in per capita gun ownership and both have times when they go entire years without a police killing.

But hey, lets just shove all this information under a rug, because it doesn't tell the tale we want it to. ANd we can have another gun ban, and again not see any decrease in violent crime again, and spend piles of taxpayer money doing the same damn thing that doesn't work and wonder why again.

 

[Brain357]

Yeah it's coincidence that we have the most guns and the most mass shootings, most cops killed, most people shot by cops, most people shot by toddlers....

We have many problems that are unique to the US because of our guns.

Yup, kind of interesting how countries like Finland, Canada, and Norway are so high on gun ownership yet none of the mass shooting issues.

It doesn't follow. They should be up in the top spots as well, but nope, they are not even close.

That ruins the gun proliferation debate. You CAN'T have gun proliferation without violence, and violence without gun proliferation if you want to say that gun proliferation leads to violence.

You do understand this right?

And actually we aren't first in police killings per capita. South Africa is. But hey, why use facts when we can make our own up right?

Either way it doesn't follow gun ownership on that either. Finland and Norway, both top 10 in per capita gun ownership and both have times when they go entire years without a police killing.

But hey, lets just shove all this information under a rug, because it doesn't tell the tale we want it to. ANd we can have another gun ban, and again not see any decrease in violent crime again, and spend piles of taxpayer money doing the same damn thing that doesn't work and wonder why again.

None of them are even close to us in gun ownership. And they also have much stricter gun laws.

 

[Slash]

We can't have Washington DC ban guns... completely unless they were disassembled or trigger locked. And watch the murders by guns nearly triple.

We can't have Great Britian implement gun restrictions and see an 89% spike in gun crimes in the 10 years after the ban.

We can't have a 3.6% decrease in police killings for every 1% increase in gun ownership.

We can't have the states that impose concealed carry bans having higher police murder rates than those that do not (a reason why nearly 90% of police are against bans on open carry).

we can't watch gun ownership increase 53% from 1993-2003 in the US and see gun violence DECREASE by 50% in that same time period.

If it's gun ban, gun ban works, proliferation increases. But time and again we see it's not working that way. So why keep throwing money at that same thing over. and over. and over. and over. And keep scratching our heads and saying "why isn't it working this time?"

 

[MaryL]

The Government already made the gun laws more strict. How much more strict can they get until they start to interfere with our constitutional rights. I mean it is the 2nd Amendment, obviously at the time the Amendments of The United States Constitution were first developed, the right to keep and bear arms must of been a pretty important belief to the Government officials responsible in creating them.

The 2nd Amendment declares;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed means that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives all citizens of the United States the irrevocable right to obtain, keep and bear arms, and this right shall NOT be infringed upon by ANYBODY. It means United States citizens have a God given right to keep and bear arms/guns.

Infringe- actively break terms of a law or agreement.

So what is the real reason behind the Government wanting to make stricter gun laws? I hope they know that its not going to stop the violence. If someone wants a gun they can get one off the streets cheaper than a gun store. Strict gun laws aren't preventing criminals or potential criminals from obtaining any firearm. All its doing is preventing innocent citizens from protecting themselves from criminals.

Also restricting places that you can carry a gun on your person isn't doing anything. The law abiding citizen will follow it when the criminal will still carry it.

All its really doing is making innocent citizens more vulnerable to be a victim or target for a criminal.
If gun laws get to strict to the point no one can carry a gun anywhere, strict where you can not purchase a gun, or a longer wait or process, or stricter requirements to legally own a firearm, its just preventing a law abiding citizen to be able to protect their life in a violent situation. It would be like opening season for fishing. Streams are fully stocked with innocent fish with no way to protect themselves from being caught by a fishermen. Criminals will know that there will be less innocent law abiding citizens that have protection on their person, so they will be an easier victim to a crime.

To me, stricter gun laws wont prevent crime it will increase crime.

That's a real head scratcher there, buckwheat. Modern gun laws are ineffective, feeble and meaningless. Its less guns we need, not more laws.

 

[Slash]

Gee, wonder why El Salvador has crime problems:
A civil war tore El Salvador apart in the 1980s – and today violent drug-gang crime is tearing it down. About 40 percent of the population live in poverty while a tiny elite lives in luxury. The economy's long been in the cellar, and the country still seems as politically polarized as it did when right-wing death squads terrorized the place a generation ago.

El Salvador's New President Faces Gangs, Poverty And Instability

But low gun ownership... and tough gun laws. And you said those things mean no armed gangs. But we have the worst in the world there. You literally picked THE deadliest country with your statement of proof. Not the 3rd deadliest. not the 2nd. Your proof fell to THE DEADLIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.


But yes I fully agree with you. It has NOTHING to do with the proliferation of guns there. It has to do with the socioeconomic issues. So why are we talking yet again about banning the proliferation of guns?

 

[Brain357]

Gee, wonder why El Salvador has crime problems:
A civil war tore El Salvador apart in the 1980s – and today violent drug-gang crime is tearing it down. About 40 percent of the population live in poverty while a tiny elite lives in luxury. The economy's long been in the cellar, and the country still seems as politically polarized as it did when right-wing death squads terrorized the place a generation ago.

El Salvador's New President Faces Gangs, Poverty And Instability

But low gun ownership... and tough gun laws. And you said those things mean no armed gangs. But we have the worst in the world there. You literally picked THE deadliest country with your statement of proof. Not the 3rd deadliest. not the 2nd. Your proof fell to THE DEADLIEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.


But yes I fully agree with you. It has NOTHING to do with the proliferation of guns there. It has to do with the socioeconomic issues. So why are we talking yet again about banning the proliferation of guns?

No enforcement of the laws. There are plenty of guns in El Salvador. It is politically and economically unstable, laws are not enforced.

 

[Brain357]

We can't have Washington DC ban guns... completely unless they were disassembled or trigger locked. And watch the murders by guns nearly triple.

We can't have Great Britian implement gun restrictions and see an 89% spike in gun crimes in the 10 years after the ban.

We can't have a 3.6% decrease in police killings for every 1% increase in gun ownership.

We can't have the states that impose concealed carry bans having higher police murder rates than those that do not (a reason why nearly 90% of police are against bans on open carry).

we can't watch gun ownership increase 53% from 1993-2003 in the US and see gun violence DECREASE by 50% in that same time period.

If it's gun ban, gun ban works, proliferation increases. But time and again we see it's not working that way. So why keep throwing money at that same thing over. and over. and over. and over. And keep scratching our heads and saying "why isn't it working this time?"

How many of your false claims do I have to shut down? You just keep bouncing all over the place making one dumb claim after another. Remember the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control? Remember how we got background checks? Yeah and crime decreased.

 

[Slash]

None of them are even close to us in gun ownership. And they also have much stricter gun laws.

Some do, some don't. And what's funny is while we may have three times the gun ownerhip of Norway, Norway has three times the gun ownership of a country with 20 times the murder rate.

Again, you are seeing over. and over. and over and over that proliferation isn't following murder rates.

Heck even here. Murder rate falling when gun ownership rate rising. THAT CAN'T BE! It's literally like trying to say that gravity makes things fly into the sky, and letting go of an apple and it hits the ground.

You see, this isn't something that needs to just be true most of the time. Gun proliferation can't be the cause for violence if we see gun proliferation rising and violence falling. It just can't. You are arguing a fallacy. You can't say, "well if you take out this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that, then finally, we can say it works, see!"

Time and again, you aren't arguing that gun proliferation leads to more violence, you are debating that socio economic issues cause it. You can't keep saying it's socio economic issues time and again, but then want gun proliferation.

 

[Brain357]

None of them are even close to us in gun ownership. And they also have much stricter gun laws.

Some do, some don't. And what's funny is while we may have three times the gun ownerhip of Norway, Norway has three times the gun ownership of a country with 20 times the murder rate.

Again, you are seeing over. and over. and over and over that proliferation isn't following murder rates.

Heck even here. Murder rate falling when gun ownership rate rising. THAT CAN'T BE! It's literally like trying to say that gravity makes things fly into the sky, and letting go of an apple and it hits the ground.

You see, this isn't something that needs to just be true most of the time. Gun proliferation can't be the cause for violence if we see gun proliferation rising and violence falling. It just can't. You are arguing a fallacy. You can't say, "well if you take out this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that, then finally, we can say it works, see!"

Time and again, you aren't arguing that gun proliferation leads to more violence, you are debating that socio economic issues cause it. You can't keep saying it's socio economic issues time and again, but then want gun proliferation.

Concealed carry up. Violent crime up.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

 

[Slash]

How many of your false claims do I have to shut down? You just keep bouncing all over the place making one dumb claim after another. Remember the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control? Remember how we got background checks? Yeah and crime decreased.

The thing is you can't say that. Remember POST assault weapon ban, gun deaths decreased dramatically. AS GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASED.

You can't debate that. they are standard FBI numbers.

I just keep poking holes in your reasoning.

And I already said I am fine and actually want more thorough checks. Remember gun ownership INCREASED after the Brady bill. It's not Proliferation.

 

[Brain357]

None of them are even close to us in gun ownership. And they also have much stricter gun laws.

Some do, some don't. And what's funny is while we may have three times the gun ownerhip of Norway, Norway has three times the gun ownership of a country with 20 times the murder rate.

Again, you are seeing over. and over. and over and over that proliferation isn't following murder rates.

Heck even here. Murder rate falling when gun ownership rate rising. THAT CAN'T BE! It's literally like trying to say that gravity makes things fly into the sky, and letting go of an apple and it hits the ground.

You see, this isn't something that needs to just be true most of the time. Gun proliferation can't be the cause for violence if we see gun proliferation rising and violence falling. It just can't. You are arguing a fallacy. You can't say, "well if you take out this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that and this and that, then finally, we can say it works, see!"

Time and again, you aren't arguing that gun proliferation leads to more violence, you are debating that socio economic issues cause it. You can't keep saying it's socio economic issues time and again, but then want gun proliferation.

We are economically and politically very stable. We should have low homicide rates like other stable countries. Instead we have much higher homicide rates, cops being killed, mass shootings....

 

[Brain357]

How many of your false claims do I have to shut down? You just keep bouncing all over the place making one dumb claim after another. Remember the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control? Remember how we got background checks? Yeah and crime decreased.

The thing is you can't say that. Remember POST assault weapon ban, gun deaths decreased dramatically. AS GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASED.

You can't debate that. they are standard FBI numbers.

I just keep poking holes in your reasoning.

And I already said I am fine and actually want more thorough checks. Remember gun ownership INCREASED after the Brady bill. It's not Proliferation.

Where do you see that gun ownership rates increased? Everything I see has rates declining.

 

[MaryL]

Do we really need guns anymore? Given all the harm they do? Do we need to trade off gun ownership for public safety? When certified maniacs get firearms in spite of laws, and do mass shootings, there is something going here that transcends "punitive gun laws". Apparently, those laws aren't enough.

 

[Slash]

Concealed carry up. Violent crime up.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

2 up... After going down while concealed carry was heading up for 8 straight years.

You can't have murder rates going up AND down as concealed carry only goes up and say it is due to concealed carry. Do you understand this?

Again and again you are picking and choosing WHEN the numbers work for you and then sticking your head in the ground and ignoring the entire picture.

That's when things don't work. When you ignore half the information, only listen to the information you want to hear, and make a decision based on that.

I'm not saying there are examples of gun laws correlating to lower murders. That happens and you've shown it. What I am not saying is you can't continue to stick your head in the sand when gun laws don't correlate to fewer murders. Because that proves that there isn't even correlation which means there's no way you can have a cause and effect.

I'm not arguing your points. But if you want to prove a cause and effect relationship, time and again you can't have the opposite coming true.

 

[Brain357]

Concealed carry up. Violent crime up.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

2 up... After going down while concealed carry was heading up for 8 straight years.

You can't have murder rates going up AND down as concealed carry only goes up and say it is due to concealed carry. Do you understand this?

Again and again you are picking and choosing WHEN the numbers work for you and then sticking your head in the ground and ignoring the entire picture.

That's when things don't work. When you ignore half the information, only listen to the information you want to hear, and make a decision based on that.

I'm not saying there are examples of gun laws correlating to lower murders. That happens and you've shown it. What I am not saying is you can't continue to stick your head in the sand when gun laws don't correlate to fewer murders. Because that proves that there isn't even correlation which means there's no way you can have a cause and effect.

I'm not arguing your points. But if you want to prove a cause and effect relationship, time and again you can't have the opposite coming true.

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

 

[Brain357]

Concealed carry up. Violent crime up.
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

2 up... After going down while concealed carry was heading up for 8 straight years.

You can't have murder rates going up AND down as concealed carry only goes up and say it is due to concealed carry. Do you understand this?

Again and again you are picking and choosing WHEN the numbers work for you and then sticking your head in the ground and ignoring the entire picture.

That's when things don't work. When you ignore half the information, only listen to the information you want to hear, and make a decision based on that.

I'm not saying there are examples of gun laws correlating to lower murders. That happens and you've shown it. What I am not saying is you can't continue to stick your head in the sand when gun laws don't correlate to fewer murders. Because that proves that there isn't even correlation which means there's no way you can have a cause and effect.

I'm not arguing your points. But if you want to prove a cause and effect relationship, time and again you can't have the opposite coming true.

Show me a country with low ownership rates and good gun control where toddlers shooting people is a problem.
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year