Do not worry though folks. The liars that lie about everything claim they do not want to ban all guns.
Like I said, the liars who lie about everything and defend their lying socialist scum sucking pig democrats claim they do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Uhh, sure some want to ban guns and some want to repeal the 2nd, also some want to keep the 2nd Amendment and institute smart regulations. Can you admit that those all exist on the Left?
What is your stance, and what would your stance accomplish?
I own guns and am supportive of law abiding citizens rights to own firearms. I’m fine with placing strong regulations on weapons or accessories that make guns more capable of mass casualties, like autos, bump stocks, and LCMs. I’m also fine with a registration, quick universal background check process, beefing up a restriction database and a waiting period to reduce impulse buys
And this accomplished what?
None of the thing slade wants does anything to stop criminals or mass shooters...not a single thing. What it does do is make it incrementally more difficult, and incrementally more legally perilous for law abiding people to own and carry guns, as not doing the things he wants will incur stiff penalties on the law abiding, while criminals do whatever they want.
And nothing he suggested will work, or is needed...we have all the laws we need right now, the problem is that the democrat party keeps letting violent gun criminals out of jail........fix that, and our already declining gun violence will go even lower...
We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--------
--
gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Exactly. The problem is, and always will be, that these regulation could, and there is enough evidence to speculate that it would, increase the overall death rate.
1. Gang members would not abide by them and it would likely embolden them. Gang members and drug dealers make up a majority of all homicides from gun deaths that are not suicide. None of the regulations that Slade brings forward would effect those numbers at all.
NET GAIN: ZERO
2. The second leading cause of death by gun is suicide. There is no evidence that someone contemplating suicide would think twice about additional regulations. And even if these additional regulations stopped then from acquiring a gun, that the net affect would be an overall saving of life. Additionally, I've yet to find any evidence that a bump stock was ever used in a suicide, nor that the number of rounds that a gun would hold, over 1, had any role in a suicide.
The fact is, that, Slade's "common sense gun regulations" might even increase the deaths caused by suicide.
I previously posted three links to news articles that provided some evidence of this. In one case, a young man without access to a gun, jumped off of a bridge, taking both his life as well as the life of the woman driving a car that he jumped onto. The second case was a man, without access to a gun, who decided his method of suicide would be to drive down the freeway in the wrong direction which resulted in not only him being killed, but taking the life of a 26 year old man in another car. The third was of a Woman, lacking a gun, deciding, again to drive the wrong way on a freeway. She lived somehow, but took the live's of Seven. Suicidal individuals are incredible creative people. Take one method away, there are dozens of others available to them, but sadly, many of those methods also include the real possibility that other life will end with theirs.
All tolled, instead of 3 live's lost, you had 11.
NET GAIN: ZERO to at least a loss of an additional 11 life's lost
3. Accidental gun related deaths: None of what Slade puts forth would effect this number, at least there isn't any data to suggest it would. I can't find any articles showing a bump stock or attachment as the cause of an accidental discharge causing a loss of life. Most of these have been by careless use, alcohol or drug use with few exception. As for training. I read an article just this morning detailing 3 accidental discharges by highly trained professionals.
The odds of being the victim of an accidental discharge is roughly 1.55 in 327,000,000 on any given day. If you put that into perspective, the odds of dying in a texting related car crash is 16 in 327,000,000 on any given day.
NET GAIN: ZERO
4. Mass killings: And lets call them what they actually are. Not all mass killing involve a gun, several have had no gun involvement, a combination of differing types of guns or a differing number of types of weapons used.
The only time Slade's recommendations might have made a difference was the Las Vegas killings where the killer employed a bump stock. What is the evidence that a man, with substantial wealth, would be deterred by these regulations? To create something that works like a bump stock can be as simple as buying a piece of string. And a man of his wealth could also purchase a bump stock illegally, or have someone simply 3D print one for him. Waiting period? Background Check?. They mean nothing to someone of wealth. But maybe more important, someone of that wealth could easily, purchase a truck and, unable to buy a gun, use the truck to mow down a crowd waiting outside of several hundred venues. The result, as we've seen before, could have been much higher than what he was able to accomplish.
This also deflects from a very real problem. Most of these mass killings have been accomplished by individuals that were on prescription SSRI antidepressants, or a combination of SSRI and other psych drugs. To say that this is a mental illness problem is simply being naive. Of all treatments for depression, it is only SSRI type antidepressant drugs that are related to Violent outburst and mass killings. SSRI treated patients are 50% more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than those, with the same mental illness, but treated in a different manner, or accept no treatment at all.
NET GAIN? ZERO
Offering solutions that accomplish nothing but might make the number of deaths increase is not a solution, it's a play for votes, and there is nothing more vile than that.
