Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And how does banning a gun stop a criminal from killing someone. They're a criminal, if they're breaking the law by doing whatever criminal act they are, are they going to care about breaking the law by owning a gun? And try to get away with their crime by using guns that aren't traced back to them anyways

Get rid of laws, says Shack.

He is a libertarian. That's kind of their thing.

"Criminals will still have guns."

By golly, you're right! Criminals will still break the laws no matter what!

Guess we should just get rid of all laws, then, since criminals will still break them, right?

Laws against things like killing and robbery are good, and act as a deterrent. Gun ownership laws, are going to deter people from owning guns legally. Which aren't the ones who are the problem.

Say a criminal is already using a gun illegally. Meaning he owns it illegally so it's not traced back to him, and he's using it for an illegal crime much worse than gun ownership, like killing. How is making it so he can't get that gun legally going to stop his crime? He literally already owns the gun illegally. Before getting to the issue of when you're committing a much bigger crime than gun ownership, you probably don't care. Bank robbers don't care about speeding tickets in their getaway car and murderers who are burning a body don't care that there's an extra law they're breaking in desecrating a corpse.

I can see the argument that gun ownership laws would prevent school shootings from kids that find guns at the house. However you can't build the whole gun law around school shootings. As terrible as they are, it's a fractional % of gun crimes. Not to mention it's not like you shut down all school killings by doing it since they might still get guns and could get creative in non-gun ways to massacre people

Many many deaths are caused by law-abiding people who get angry, pull out their gun, and kill their wives or family, or have arguments with a neighbor and shoot or get angry on the road and shoot. And many more are people who should never have guns in the first place because they have mental problems.

But in general the whole argument "They'll have guns anyway" is absolutely ridiculous. So why not make it as difficult as possible for them to get them? Why not have a law that prevents them from walking around in public with them, where you have no idea if the guy walking by you with a gun is a "good guy" or a "bad guy"?

ALL laws are there to reduce crime. They don't stop it completely. Isn't that the point? Make it as hard as possible for crime to happen?

Gun control works. States that have stronger gun control laws have less gun violence. Countries that do have less deaths. States that have made it easier to get guns have seen gun deaths rise hugely since the laws were passed. These are facts that you cannot deny.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a thing. Real evidence shows it works.

What? Obviously those people are mentally unstable.

Plus 64% of "gun related deaths" are suicide. Those would happen without guns anyway.

The Gun debate is thwarted, it's not like both parties don't want the same thing, both want it to be or feel safer. But both are so ideologistic about their way to the means of what is is better that they just don't listen to the other party. It's not even about that they really want what is better, they just don't want to lose.

Clearly. But every time someone proposes making it harder for mentally ill people to get guns, Republicans scream about rights and make it easier instead.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/02/ ... -guns.html

I bet Yemen and Syria have pretty strict gun laws. Venezuela too. Utah and Idaho have pretty lax gun laws and Maryland (Baltimore) and Illinois (Chicago) do not.

I'm sure access to guns increases gun related deaths. But is there a study as to how it impacts the overall amount of deaths.

We often don't know until they pull out their weapons and shoot people, then we begin to question their mental health.

We often don't know if people are criminals until they commit a crime and then we begin to look at the signs. I say, lock 'em all up.

We often don't know if elderly people are still capable of driving. I say, ban them all over age 50.

We often don't know if those receiving food stamps truly are hungry. I say ban them all.

We often don't know if those that vote are mentally ill. I say ban voting for all until proven sane.

Not sure where you are getting at. I was merely stating a fact.

If you are inferring about a surveillance or police state, I am with you there.

Yemen and Syria are destabilized conflict zones. Venezuela is economically and politically unstable too. Not really comparable to the US.

Utah and Idaho are two of the most scarcely populated states while Maryland and Illinois are among the most densely populated. Less face-to-face encounters likely means less argument and scuffle and ensuing violence.

What is interesting is states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island stand out among other densely populated states as they have some of the lowest gun-related or overall crime rates.

And the harshest gun restrictions.

And of course if you compare the US to Europe or Japan or Australia, all of which have much stricter gun laws, there is a huge difference.

It's a no-brainer, really. Make it harder for people to get guns, and there's less violence from guns. I mean, duh.

I don't think the state to state comparison is useful without mentioning economic status. Places like Baltimore and Chicago have more crime than old white person town, Rhode Island, because they are full of broke African Americans. The US has a problem with black men killing each other and leaving their kids in fatherless homes, and it doesn't have anything to do with black skin being inherently different than white (It's not like black women are killing anyone or not raising their kids), it's all within the context of culture or economic reasons that leads black men to think they have to be hard.

As for the US compared to other countries, liberals want to act like gun control is the difference, but the US culturally, emotionally and economically is a different place than other countries. If you gave Sweden US gun laws they're not going to start killing each other like they do in the US.

Looks like whites are almost as likely to kill whites as blacks are to kill blacks according to the FBI. Whites are more likely to kill blacks than blacks are to kill whites, though.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... r_2013.xls

That's because there are way more white people than black people. Compared to their population numbers, that FBI link supports that black crime is far higher

No, my point was that white people were likely to kill white people with a similar percentage as black people were likely to kill black people.

Obviously, there is more crime committed by whites because there are more white people. But to say that the problem with guns is a "black on black" issue isn't supported by statistics when "white on white" is about the same.

Is it not true that 52% of overall homicides are by black people while 44% are by whites people?

Huh? No. Blacks are also many times more likely to be murdered than whites.