The news shouldn't report on mass shootings and people online shouldn't discuss recent mass shootings.
I can assure you that constantly reporting on mass shootings on national news and people talking about the massacre on social media encourages more mass shootings. Many people say we shouldn't reveal the shooter's identity. Guess what? We shouldn't report the massacre on the news. Maybe very local news can report on it just for the safety of the town/city's residents, but national news shouldn't say a word about the massacre. One common motive among mass shooters is a desire to go all over the news or to cause an outrage nationwide. If nationwide news says anything about the massacre, this encourages more mass shootings. Also, we need to stop mentioning the massacre on social media and, in fact, stop mentioning gun control on social media in order to stop mass shootings. Yes, I know it's ironic I'm posting about mass shootings on here and it's ironic I mentioned the names of many mass shooters in a previous article of mine and in this article you're reading, but I have no choice but to do that and be a hypocrite in order to teach people about stopping mass shootings. If we bring up gun control on social media, that also makes mass shooters want to do mass shootings, because they know the massacre will cause an outrage online. The only news that should report on the massacre is very local news. A mass shooting in Maine won't affect people in California. A mass shooting in southern California won't affect people in Northern California. Even when the local news reports on the massacre, they shouldn't mention the shooter. They should only report on the massacre once and shouldn't report on it ever again. Just let people know on local news only once that a massacre had occurred and they'll know to be careful and stay safe. Even politicians (including the president) shouldn't mention the massacre, because then the shooting will receive attention.
We need to end our moral panic over mass shootings.
Our moral panic over mass shootings encourages more mass shootings. People need to stop worrying about being a victim of a mass shooting. According to Gallup, in August 2019, which was 2 months ago, 48% of Americans said they are either somewhat or very worried that they or someone they know will be a victim of a mass shooting. The people who worry more frequently are women (58%), adults age 18-34 (54%), Democrats/democrat-leaning independents (64%), and people who don't own any guns (58%). 46% of adults ages 35-54 worry and 44% of adults age 55 and older worry. In America, only 1 in 11,125 get killed in a mass shooting. The odds of being killed in a mass shooting are very low. It probably will never happen to you.
Our moral panic and paranoia over mass shootings has been a huge thing since Columbine and it seems to have gotten more severe in the 2010s. We need to stop getting paranoid over mass shootings and shouldn't allow mass shootings to horrify us too much. It only encourages more and more mass shootings.
We need to look out for warning signs and we need to help those with mental health problems, behavior problems, emotional problems, etc.
There are some mass shooters who have had a painful life and many of them get so frustrated to the point where they notice our moral panic over mass shootings and feel they need to do a mass shooting to release their anger and frustration to the world. When people refuse to be understanding towards this (regardless of how wrong doing a mass shooting is), mass shooters are afraid to get help and feel misunderstood and isolated, which leads to them doing something like a mass shooting as a way to release their frustration or anger to the world. When society won't be understanding towards mass shooters who were tormented, what happens is potential mass shooters are afraid to get help and feel isolated and misunderstood, which makes them start a massacre. I'm not saying this makes mass shootings acceptable and I'm not trying to call it an excuse, but we need to realize that simply hating these people and wanting them brutally murdered doesn't help and instead just increases of the odds of another mass shooting.
I know that mass shootings are crimes with no excuse. I know most mentally ill people are harmless. Nonetheless, these problems are pretty common among mass shooters. We need to learn to admit this. Having gun control doesn't turn these people into harmless people obeying the law. They could still kill one or two people with a knife. If we have gun control (which could work) and still do something about mental health, these people would kill 0 instead of 1 or 2 with a knife. 0 dead is better than 1 or 2 dead. We need to make it easier for these people to get help and we need to give more help to people with mental health problems, behavior problems, etc. in general. We also need to look out for warning signs because some mass shooters do display warning signs yet these warning signs are ignored.
We need to end our moral panic over racism and white supremacists
Although leftists believe that most mass shootings are motivated by racism, only a minority of mass shootings are motivated by racism. I always do research on mass shooters to see their motives, their background, etc. Only a minority of mass shooters I've looked up about are white supremacists or neo-Nazis, and I have looked up tons of mass shooters. Most of them don't really care about white supremacy. They do mass shootings for other reasons. Many people will also believe that if a mass shooter has racist beliefs, it automatically was their motive. Just because a mass shooter has racist beliefs, doesn't mean racism is their motive. They had a completely different motive. Only a minority of mass shooters are motivated by white supremacy or racism. Nonetheless, in order to deter massacres that are motivated by racism, we need to simply end our moral panic over racism and white supremacists. Our moral panic and paranoia over white supremacists combined with our moral panic over mass shootings just encourages white supremacists to do mass shootings. I wrote more in this article of mine about why the moral panic over racism is bad for society.
We need to change our criminal justice system.
Many people think that bringing back public executions or gruesome, disturbing torture and executions would deter mass shootings and crime in general. Well guess what? It won't deter mass shootings and crime in general. This article of mine explains. The criminal justice system more similar to Norway's would be best for the USA. Norway's criminal justice system has helped. Norway have an extremely low crime rate and the recidivism rate for criminals in Norway is very low. The United States' criminals have a very high recidivism rate and this is because all we do is punish them and put them in prison instead of rehabilitating them. This article of mine explains why a criminal justice system similar to Norway is best for the USA.
We need to stop saying "Bring back public executions" and we need to stop condoning cruel and unusual punishment for murderers or sex offenders
Read this article and go to the slippery slope section. No, the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy and I explain why the slippery is not a logical fallacy in the article.
We need to stop the importation of guns to the USA
Millions of guns get imported to the USA and this is something that the media hasn't talked about much. We do need gun control in this country but gun control won't work all by itself. Many guns in America are imported to America from other countries, including countries like Austria, Croatia and Brazil. The importation of guns to the USA is the highest it has ever been, with over 5 million imported to the USA in 2016. About 30% of guns in America come from other countries through importation. The strong American gun market and lack of gun regulation in America is strengthening these importations of guns. European countries that import these guns pretty much tolerate these importations and don't do anything about it.
We need to give gun control a chance.
What the 2nd amendment actually says
The Second Amendment does NOT simply say that we have the right to bear arms. It says "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. A well-regulated militia. Being necessary to the security of a free state. Those two phrases are things you need to focus on. First of all, gun control is regulation. Another thing I'd like to say is that the 2nd amendment is outdated. It was an amendment written specifically for its own time period. It was written in December 1791. Founding father Alexander Hamilton defined a well-regulated militia as "the most natural defense of a free country". The Americans back then wrote the 2nd amendment to create a citizens' militia, meaning citizens would be part-time soldiers only using their weapons for when war is to happen to protect America. The founding fathers of America back then opposed standing armies, which is the only military America has nowadays. They believed standing armies were an existential threat to the ideas of the revolution. In the 18th century, they believed any country with a professional army could never be truly free. The men in charge of that army could command it to harm the citizens themselves, who, unarmed and unorganized, would be unable to defend themselves and fight back. This was the reason a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state: To be secure, a society had to be able to defend itself; to be free, it could not exist only at the whim of a standing army and its generals. The only way to be both free and secure was for citizens to be armed, organized and ready to defend themselves. The choice was either a standing army or a free country. People back then were, of course, wrong when they thought standing armies would stop our freedom. With a military that hasn't harmed us, it's obvious the 2nd amendment is outdated. The 2nd amendment says we need a well-regulated militia. Citizens who own guns for gun aren't a militia. A well-regulated militia is a group of soldiers who are well trained and kept under control. It isn't a bunch of citizens using any gun they want as a hobby. The 2nd amendment says that 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. It obviously says citizens may own guns as well-trained part-time soldiers as long as it's necessary to the security of a free state. Our gun owners these days aren't part-time soldiers. Our military hasn't harmed us, and with 4,000 nuclear bombs and the most powerful army in the world, no country will ever destroy or conquer us. With our strong government system, we clearly will never elect a tyrant (No. I don't consider Trump a fascist or a tyrant). The 18th century people were wrong when they thought standing armies threatened our freedom as our country's standing army never did such a thing. This shows that the 2nd amendment is outdated and, with our military protecting us, arming citizens is no longer necessary to keep America free. Gun control won't lead to America being destroyed or conquered by an evil supervillain who does evil laugh. Now that arming citizens is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, gun control isn't going to be able to violate the 2nd amendment. Even banning guns as a whole (which I don't advocate for) wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers weren't interested or concerned about the individual or personal right to own guns. They only cared about a militia. They wanted all citizens to be armed and in the militia. If someone wasn't allowed in the military or militia, the founding fathers did not want them to bear arms. In fact, the 18th-century regulations that required citizens to be in the militia also prohibited black people and Indian people from being armed members. The founding fathers were very concerned about who should or shouldn't own a gun. 18th century laws actually prohibited some people from owning guns. Laws rarely allowed free black people to have weapons. It was even more rare for enslaved black people to be allowed to own weapons. In slave states, militias inspected slave quarters and took away weapons they found. There were even laws against selling guns to Native Americans, but these were instead more ambiguous. Anyone wanting a return to the 2nd amendment's original meaning, which meant that no one was a professional soldier but everyone is required to be in the militia, is a person with political views very different from the norm. The United States' standing army is now the strongest fighting force in history. The National Guard still exists as a citizens militia, but participation is still extremely different from the founding fathers' vision of participation of all citizens. The Second Amendment was a compromise between the Federalists (those who supported the constitution as it was ratified) and the anti-Federalists (those who supported states having more power). Having just used guns and other arms to defeat England, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government, which is a government that could never happen in today's America. One might argue that the people were the militia. The problem with this argument is that this doesn't mean the Second Amendment says a guy who owns guns as a hobby is part of the militia. Anyone who owned guns back then was supposed to be a civilian who would have the gun to protect themselves or their own nation. We don't need to arm civilians to protect our own nation in today's world.
The Second Amendment never said that any person can own as many guns as they want to use as a hobby. A lot of conservatives say that if we have gun control, we won't be able to protect ourselves from tyranny. Guess what? Tyranny is never going to take over America. We aren't going to be destroyed or conquered by another country or get conquered by tyrants. No, I don't consider Trump a tyrant or fascist. We have over 4,000 nuclear bombs and have the most powerful military in history, and you actually think that our own military cannot protect us from these things? The Second Amendment is outdated and was only written specifically for its time period. It doesn't say anyone gets to own as many guns as they want. It said that the people should have the right to own guns as a well-trained militia kept under control because its necessary to security of the free state. It isn't necessary to the security of a free state in today's world and citizens owning guns without being part-time soldiers isn't a well-regulated militia or any militia at all. This means that gun control doesn't violate the 2nd amendment and that even banning guns in general doesn't really violate the 2nd amendment. I don't think, however, that we should ban guns in general. I think we should have gun control and strict gun regulations along with a ban on weapons like AK-47s and AR-15s, but I don't want things like handguns to be banned. If the 2nd amendment actually did say anyone gets to own whatever gun they want, that still doesn't mean gun control is bad. I don't believe in appeal to authority arguments. If you blindly follow rules from over 200 years ago, you get bad consequences. Machine guns are guns. Are you seriously saying we should allow machine guns? John Paul Stevens explained the true meaning of the Second Amendment in his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment, nonetheless, was interpreted as an individual right to bear arms in the 1822 court case Bliss v. Commonwealth and the Supreme Court called the 2nd amendment an individual right to bear arms in the 1856 decision Dred Scott v. Sandford. These court cases and decisions interpreted the 2nd amendment differently from how the founding fathers seemed to have interpreted it, and these court cases and decisions appeared a few or several decades after the 2nd amendment was written. In spite of Bliss v. Commonwealth and Dred Scott v. Sandford, an 1876 Supreme Court case called U.S. v. Cruikshank said that the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the constitution. In a 1939 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been forbidden since the National Firearms Act appeared 5 years earlier. Miller said that the National Firearms Act went against their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, stating "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
The 2nd amendment, as a result, is quite ambiguous. In fact, the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. are often ambiguous. Although it's debatable what the 2nd amendment really says, it really does seem like it is saying that Americans should have the right to keep and bear arms as long as they're a well-trained citizens militia because it's necessary to the security of a free state. That's probably what the 2nd amendment says. That's how I interpret it. Regardless of what the 2nd amendment says, even if the 2nd amendment says anyone can go buy as many guns as they want, that doesn't mean gun control is bad. That's logical fallacy called appeal to authority. Some amendment written over 200 years ago isn't going to necessarily work with today's world. If conservatives are going to say that Islam needs a reformation, why is it wrong for Americans to give the constitution a reformation?
Argument: People will just find other ways to kill people, like knives and vehicles.
I'll admit that the 2014 Kunming attack killed over 30 and injured over 100 and it was a knife attack, but one example doesn't mean knife attacks are often easy to accomplish. We should also remember that the attack was done by around 8 criminals. There was even a mass stabbing in Japan that killed 19 people and that one was done by one person. Most mass shootings only involve one shooter. I instead hear more frequently about mass stabbings that only kill 1 or 2 while the rest are only injured.
I'll also admit that a vehicle attack in Nice, France that killed 86 people and injured 458 people. There was also vehicle massacres in New York and Toronto, Canada. Nonetheless, these are only few examples of vehicle or knife attacks that killed as much as an AR-15 or something. The Paris attacks of 2015, the Ariana Grande concert bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing all involved bombs but bomb attacks happen pretty rarely in America and Europe. There isn't enough evidence that knives, vehicles and bombs will replace guns in massacres. Bomb massacres are still extremely rare in the USA and Europe. Knife massacres that kill a lot of people still happen very rarely. Vehicle massacres happen extremely rarely. If vehicle massacres and knife massacres and whatnot really would've replaced mass shootings, we already would've seen vehicle massacres and knife massacres that kill many people happening very frequently in Europe, Canada or Japan. If vehicle massacres are going to replace mass shootings, why aren't there frequent vehicle attacks in Europe, Japan or Canada? What about knife attacks that actually do kill many instead of a few? Why aren't those knife attacks that kill several people happening in Europe, Canada or Japan? Why do bombings happen very rarely in those countries instead of frequently? Yes I know there was a mass shooting in a mosque in Canada, but it didn't kill as many as a lot of mass shootings in America and Canada still has a very tiny amount of massacres. One mass shooting doesn't mean Canada will have tons of other mass shootings. Yes there is a rise in knife crimes in the UK, but it didn't rise as much as you might think and the murder rate is still very low in the UK. Massacres happen less frequently in Canada, Europe and Japan.
After Australia began to have gun control in 1996, the gun violence rate there decreased. The firearm-related homicide rate in the USA is 4.46 per 100,000 while the rates per 100,000 in countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Japan are 0.75 in Canada, 0.06 in the UK, 0.18 in Australia, and 0 in Japan. The intentional homicide rate in the USA is 5.30 per 100,000 while the rates per 100,000 in countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Japan are 1.80 in Canada, 1.20 in the UK, 0.80 in Australia, and 0.20 in Japan. The intentional homicide rate in France, where a vehicle attack and an ISIS attack both happened, is 1.30 per 100,000. The firearm-related homicide rate in France is 0.21 per 100,000. The intentional homicide rate in New Zealand, where a mosque mass shooting happened, is 0.70 per 100,000. New Zealand's firearm murder rate is very low, being 0.11 per 100,000. Germany has gun control and their firearm murder rate and murder rate in general are both very, very low. Greece has gun control and their gun murder rate and murder rate in general are both very low. There's strict gun control in China and while there was a knife massacre there, the murder rate in China is still 0.60 per 100,000. South Korea has gun control. South Korea's murder rate is very low and their gun murder rate is very low. Fiji has gun control and they're only a tiny island with 900,000 people all in that tiny island. They have gun control, and the homicide rate there is very low. In some years, they'll have less than 10 homicides. I couldn't find a year where they had more than 25 homicides. This includes all homicides with or without guns. Guess how often gun homicides happen there? Never. In each year, they have ZERO gun deaths. Also, only a few people in Fiji own guns. Samoa has a decent amount of gun control. Only a very few people are murdered each year in that country, and that country has over 150,000 people all in one tiny island. In 2009, only 16 people were murdered in Samoa. In 2013, only 6 people were killed in Samoa. In 2008, only 2 people were killed in Samoa. This includes all homicides, with or without guns. Also, only a very few gun homicides happen there. Only about 10% of people in Samoa own guns. Tonga has a good amount of gun control and they have a very low murder rate. They're a tiny island with less than 110,000 people. The highest amount of homicides they ever had in a year is 8. In 2012, they had only 1 homicide. In many years, they have ZERO gun homicides. Armenia has a lot of gun control. Their homicide rate is very low and they have a very low amount of gun homicides. Only a minority of their homicides involve guns. In 2016, only 4 people with killed by a gun in Armenia. Romania has a lot of gun control. They have a low homicide rate and EXTREMELY low gun homicide rate. For example, in 2016, only 7 people in Romania were killed by gun. Less than 4% of homicides in Romania involve guns. Only a small amount of people in Romania own guns. It's obvious America is doing something wrong. I will admit that in central America and South America, the murder rate is very high and there's more restrictive gun laws there, but the murder rate there is due to the drug trade, lots of organized criminal groups, unregulated urbanization, high impunity, low-quality education and poor school retention, unemployment, income inequality, and things like that, which don't occur as much in the USA. If the USA had these issues that Latin America had, the USA's homicide rate would be extremely high. I also want to point out that approximately 120,000 guns enter Mexico from the USA every year. This means lots of guns in Mexico came from the USA. They take guns in the USA and cross the southern border into Mexico with the guns. Also, a Brazilian Federal Police report in December 2017 found that the USA was Brazil's largest supplier of illegal foreign firearms. Also, approximately 80% of weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to nearby countries. Many of these weapons are smuggled back into Brazil. Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers. Many guns from the United States are in Latin America. American-made guns are more likely to murder Mexicans than murder Americans. American-made guns are more likely to be used for murder in Mexico than to be used for murder in the USA. Several countries export weapons to Latin America. Regional imports of all arms and ammunition skyrocketed by nearly 400% between 1992 and 2012, with Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela being among the leading purchasers. More information about how Latin America has many weapons can be read about here. Americans don't acquire guns because of foreign countries bringing them to the USA. I recommend you also read this article. Jamaica have gun control and have a very high murder rate and very high gun violence rate. The reason Jamaicans still use guns to kill people a lot is because a lot of guns in Jamaica came from the United States through smuggling. 200 guns are smuggled into Jamaica from the United States every month. The high homicide rate in Jamaica has also to do with gangs, turf wars, neighborhood beefs, and the history of Jamaica. A lot of people in Jamaica agree that guns are causing a lot of murder in Jamaica. Even some gang members in Jamaica agree with this. Guns in the USA often end up in Latin America and the Caribbean islands. South Africa has a high murder rate and high gun violence rate despite having gun control. This article explains why. The USA doesn’t have the problems that places like Latin America, the Caribbean, and South Africa all have. Many gun supporters will say that Switzerland have lots of gun owners but a low gun violence rate, but that argument has been debunked in this article. People could argue that Iceland is proof gun control won't work. Iceland has lots of gun owners but a very low gun violence rate. This article and this article both explain why Iceland have a lack of gun violence. Iceland still regulates guns in the same way the USA regulates vehicles.
Many have said "but drunk driving kills people and so does texting while driving and vehicle attacks have happened. Should we have have vehicle control?" We already have vehicle control. Think about what it takes to drive a car (which we cannot ban because it's used for getting to places while guns are a thing used for killing). Here's how vehicle control works. You need a license. You have to pass a permit test and practice many hours of driving before getting a license. With a permit, you have to practice driving with someone in the car with you. You also have restrictions on what roads you're allowed on and when you can drive. You also have to pass a driving test and prove you can drive safely. These are regulations to create safer driving. In the old system, you went to the DMV, paid your money, drove around the block and you finally obtained a license to drive. With these regulations, there are less vehicle deaths nowadays in the USA than there used to be. Yes people still die, but the number is plummeting. What's funny is nobody cries "my rights and freedom are gone!" when people start regulating driving. There isn't any regulations on guns in America. There are background states in some states and you need to wait a few days to get your assault rifle, unless you get your gun at completely legal gun shows. You don't need to do half the stuff you need to get a driver's license in order to get guns. In some places, you don't need a license for guns and you don't need to prove you can use guns in a safe manner. We won't be able to ban vehicles because we need them to get to places, but our regulations on vehicles certainly helped reduce the vehicle death rate as much as we possibly can. We don't need AR-15s and AK-47s. It isn't required to defend ourselves and it isn't something we need because of the Second Amendment. Weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s don't have any benefits. Handguns can have benefits, but handguns should be regulated instead of banned, just like how vehicles are regulated instead of banned.
After Australia began to have gun control in 1996, the gun violence rate there decreased. The firearm-related homicide rate in the USA is 4.46 per 100,000 while the rates per 100,000 in countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Japan are 0.75 in Canada, 0.06 in the UK, 0.18 in Australia, and 0 in Japan. The intentional homicide rate in the USA is 5.30 per 100,000 while the rates per 100,000 in countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Japan are 1.80 in Canada, 1.20 in the UK, 0.80 in Australia, and 0.20 in Japan. The intentional homicide rate in France, where a vehicle attack and an ISIS attack both happened, is 1.30 per 100,000. The firearm-related homicide rate in France is 0.21 per 100,000. The intentional homicide rate in New Zealand, where a mosque mass shooting happened, is 0.70 per 100,000. New Zealand's firearm murder rate is very low, being 0.11 per 100,000. Germany has gun control and their firearm murder rate and murder rate in general are both very, very low. Greece has gun control and their gun murder rate and murder rate in general are both very low. There's strict gun control in China and while there was a knife massacre there, the murder rate in China is still 0.60 per 100,000. South Korea has gun control. South Korea's murder rate is very low and their gun murder rate is very low. Fiji has gun control and they're only a tiny island with 900,000 people all in that tiny island. They have gun control, and the homicide rate there is very low. In some years, they'll have less than 10 homicides. I couldn't find a year where they had more than 25 homicides. This includes all homicides with or without guns. Guess how often gun homicides happen there? Never. In each year, they have ZERO gun deaths. Also, only a few people in Fiji own guns. Samoa has a decent amount of gun control. Only a very few people are murdered each year in that country, and that country has over 150,000 people all in one tiny island. In 2009, only 16 people were murdered in Samoa. In 2013, only 6 people were killed in Samoa. In 2008, only 2 people were killed in Samoa. This includes all homicides, with or without guns. Also, only a very few gun homicides happen there. Only about 10% of people in Samoa own guns. Tonga has a good amount of gun control and they have a very low murder rate. They're a tiny island with less than 110,000 people. The highest amount of homicides they ever had in a year is 8. In 2012, they had only 1 homicide. In many years, they have ZERO gun homicides. Armenia has a lot of gun control. Their homicide rate is very low and they have a very low amount of gun homicides. Only a minority of their homicides involve guns. In 2016, only 4 people with killed by a gun in Armenia. Romania has a lot of gun control. They have a low homicide rate and EXTREMELY low gun homicide rate. For example, in 2016, only 7 people in Romania were killed by gun. Less than 4% of homicides in Romania involve guns. Only a small amount of people in Romania own guns. It's obvious America is doing something wrong. I will admit that in central America and South America, the murder rate is very high and there's more restrictive gun laws there, but the murder rate there is due to the drug trade, lots of organized criminal groups, unregulated urbanization, high impunity, low-quality education and poor school retention, unemployment, income inequality, and things like that, which don't occur as much in the USA. If the USA had these issues that Latin America had, the USA's homicide rate would be extremely high. I also want to point out that approximately 120,000 guns enter Mexico from the USA every year. This means lots of guns in Mexico came from the USA. They take guns in the USA and cross the southern border into Mexico with the guns. Also, a Brazilian Federal Police report in December 2017 found that the USA was Brazil's largest supplier of illegal foreign firearms. Also, approximately 80% of weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to nearby countries. Many of these weapons are smuggled back into Brazil. Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers. Many guns from the United States are in Latin America. American-made guns are more likely to murder Mexicans than murder Americans. American-made guns are more likely to be used for murder in Mexico than to be used for murder in the USA. Several countries export weapons to Latin America. Regional imports of all arms and ammunition skyrocketed by nearly 400% between 1992 and 2012, with Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela being among the leading purchasers. More information about how Latin America has many weapons can be read about here. Americans don't acquire guns because of foreign countries bringing them to the USA. I recommend you also read this article. Jamaica have gun control and have a very high murder rate and very high gun violence rate. The reason Jamaicans still use guns to kill people a lot is because a lot of guns in Jamaica came from the United States through smuggling. 200 guns are smuggled into Jamaica from the United States every month. The high homicide rate in Jamaica has also to do with gangs, turf wars, neighborhood beefs, and the history of Jamaica. A lot of people in Jamaica agree that guns are causing a lot of murder in Jamaica. Even some gang members in Jamaica agree with this. Guns in the USA often end up in Latin America and the Caribbean islands. South Africa has a high murder rate and high gun violence rate despite having gun control. This article explains why. The USA doesn’t have the problems that places like Latin America, the Caribbean, and South Africa all have. Many gun supporters will say that Switzerland have lots of gun owners but a low gun violence rate, but that argument has been debunked in this article. People could argue that Iceland is proof gun control won't work. Iceland has lots of gun owners but a very low gun violence rate. This article and this article both explain why Iceland have a lack of gun violence. Iceland still regulates guns in the same way the USA regulates vehicles.
Many have said "but drunk driving kills people and so does texting while driving and vehicle attacks have happened. Should we have have vehicle control?" We already have vehicle control. Think about what it takes to drive a car (which we cannot ban because it's used for getting to places while guns are a thing used for killing). Here's how vehicle control works. You need a license. You have to pass a permit test and practice many hours of driving before getting a license. With a permit, you have to practice driving with someone in the car with you. You also have restrictions on what roads you're allowed on and when you can drive. You also have to pass a driving test and prove you can drive safely. These are regulations to create safer driving. In the old system, you went to the DMV, paid your money, drove around the block and you finally obtained a license to drive. With these regulations, there are less vehicle deaths nowadays in the USA than there used to be. Yes people still die, but the number is plummeting. What's funny is nobody cries "my rights and freedom are gone!" when people start regulating driving. There isn't any regulations on guns in America. There are background states in some states and you need to wait a few days to get your assault rifle, unless you get your gun at completely legal gun shows. You don't need to do half the stuff you need to get a driver's license in order to get guns. In some places, you don't need a license for guns and you don't need to prove you can use guns in a safe manner. We won't be able to ban vehicles because we need them to get to places, but our regulations on vehicles certainly helped reduce the vehicle death rate as much as we possibly can. We don't need AR-15s and AK-47s. It isn't required to defend ourselves and it isn't something we need because of the Second Amendment. Weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s don't have any benefits. Handguns can have benefits, but handguns should be regulated instead of banned, just like how vehicles are regulated instead of banned.
Argument from pro-gun people: Look at what happened in Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia and USSR! They had gun control and then had genocidal dictators killing millions!
The Nazi gun control argument has been debunked many times already. If that gun control argument for Nazi Germany is a bad argument, I assume it's a bad argument to use for gun control in the USSR or Pol Pot's Cambodia. America is never going to have some tyrant or dictator take over and if one did, they could just make the military, who have way more weapons than citizens ever, kill all of the gun owners. Citizens with an AR-15 aren't going to stop a much more armed, well-trained military. You aren't going to be protected by an AR-15 if several soldiers with deadly guns break into your house. You'll just be one person against several highly trained, heavily-armed soldiers.
Argument: Banning drugs, weed, alcohol, prostitution and abortion didn't deter drugs, weed, prostitution, alcohol, and abortion.
Argument: More gun owners means less gun violence. Less gun owners means more gun violence.
Not necessarily. Sure, Delaware has a low amount of gun ownership but has a higher murder rate than most other states and states like Wyoming and Montana have many gun owners and less gun violence and murder, but then you have states like New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut, Nebraska, and Rhode Island which all have some of the smallest rates of gun ownership AND a very low murder and gun violence rate. Also, Alaska (a state with a lack of gun control) has the highest amount of gun ownership in the USA and they have a higher murder and gun violence rate than most states. Louisiana and South Carolina have a high amount of gun owners and they have the 2nd and 4th highest murder and gun violence rates in the USA, respectively.
Argument: Look at places like Chicago. They have strict gun control but lots of gun violence.
This argument has been debunked in this article. The article has reliable citations included. Even the Chicago Tribune also debunked the Chicago argument. These articles explain why Chicago has a high gun violence rate. What these articles tell you can also explain why California and New York have gun violence. These articles talk about how people in Chicago get guns from states with a lack of gun control (for example: Indiana). This wouldn't be a way for people in Chicago to get guns if we had nationwide gun control in the USA.
I remember a conservative online pointed out that some states with no gun control have low gun violence, but that doesn't prove that an absence of gun control stops gun violence, because then America would have a very low gun violence rate. There a low gun violence rates in some states that don't have gun control, but some states that don't have gun control instead have high gun violence rates. Missouri have a lack of gun control and they have the 3rd highest gun murder rate and 3rd highest murder rate in the United States. Louisiana has a higher gun ownership of 44.5% and a lack of gun control and they have the 2nd highest murder rate and 2nd highest gun murder rate. South Carolina has a lack of gun control and has a high gun ownership of 44.4% and they have a high murder rate and high gun violence rate. Massachusetts have gun control and a low murder rate and low gun violence rate. Hawaii have gun control, and despite having a lot of gun owners, it has a low murder rate and low gun violence rate. Although many people in Hawaii own guns, the low gun violence rate there is because of the gun control there. In Hawaii, guns the state defines as assault pistols are banned, and many extremely guns are still banned. Hawaii only allows certain guns. Hawaii also has licensing mandates, state-regulated ammunition sales, and restrictions for people with backgrounds that put them at risk. Washington state have approximately just as much gun control as Chicago and Washington state has a low gun violence rate and low murder rate. We can cherrypick data and pick states with a lack of gun control but high gun violence or states with a lack of gun control but low gun violence, but we should realize that people who kill with guns in these states often can get their guns in nearby states that don't have gun control. We also need to realize is that pro-gun control advocates believe nationwide gun control is what is needed to work. They don't believe a state will have less gun violence if it has gun control even if it is surrounded by states that lack gun control. Countries like the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia are states with nationwide gun control where gun control managed to be successful.
I remember a conservative online pointed out that some states with no gun control have low gun violence, but that doesn't prove that an absence of gun control stops gun violence, because then America would have a very low gun violence rate. There a low gun violence rates in some states that don't have gun control, but some states that don't have gun control instead have high gun violence rates. Missouri have a lack of gun control and they have the 3rd highest gun murder rate and 3rd highest murder rate in the United States. Louisiana has a higher gun ownership of 44.5% and a lack of gun control and they have the 2nd highest murder rate and 2nd highest gun murder rate. South Carolina has a lack of gun control and has a high gun ownership of 44.4% and they have a high murder rate and high gun violence rate. Massachusetts have gun control and a low murder rate and low gun violence rate. Hawaii have gun control, and despite having a lot of gun owners, it has a low murder rate and low gun violence rate. Although many people in Hawaii own guns, the low gun violence rate there is because of the gun control there. In Hawaii, guns the state defines as assault pistols are banned, and many extremely guns are still banned. Hawaii only allows certain guns. Hawaii also has licensing mandates, state-regulated ammunition sales, and restrictions for people with backgrounds that put them at risk. Washington state have approximately just as much gun control as Chicago and Washington state has a low gun violence rate and low murder rate. We can cherrypick data and pick states with a lack of gun control but high gun violence or states with a lack of gun control but low gun violence, but we should realize that people who kill with guns in these states often can get their guns in nearby states that don't have gun control. We also need to realize is that pro-gun control advocates believe nationwide gun control is what is needed to work. They don't believe a state will have less gun violence if it has gun control even if it is surrounded by states that lack gun control. Countries like the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia are states with nationwide gun control where gun control managed to be successful.
Argument: If we have gun control and ban weapons like AR-15s, how will we defend ourselves from people who attack us?
That self-defense argument doesn't seem to be an issue in countries like Japan, Canada, Australia, and the UK, where the murder rate still is very low even if you cannot get easy access to guns. I also would like to say that I don't believe we need to ban handguns or guns in general, but we do need to ban weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s and we still need to have gun control and regulate guns. We regulated vehicles but we haven't regulated guns.
You don't need an AR-15 or AK-47 to defend yourself against some home invader or some guy who tries to stab you. Using a handgun against those people is good enough. You're acting like 20 guys armed with guns are going to break into your house, and the odds of that happening are extremely low. The odds of being a mass shooting victim are much higher than the odds of 20 guys all armed with guns breaking into your house. The AR-15 isn't needed for defending yourself. It's a weapon used for killing several people, which you probably won't need to do in order to defend yourself. I also would like to point out that owning guns (including AR-15s) doesn't mean you have a zero percent chance of being successfully attacked or robbed. Nobody walks in the streets armed with an AR-15 or AK-47. A lot of people who own guns often have it hidden in their house and usually a violent criminal will break into your house when you don't expect someone to break into your house. As a result, you'll be unarmed and probably will be battered and robbed before you can run over to your gun which is locked in another room. Nobody has their gun in their hand at home waiting for someone to break in and attack their home. Sure, there are times where a gun owner successfully defends their home from invaders, but they probably used a handgun instead of an AR-15 and they certainly didn't need to use an AR-15 because a handgun would be good enough. Also, this doesn't prove that gun owners have a zero percent chance of being successfully attacked or robbed at home. What you also should know is that a majority of home invaders don't use a weapon. 60.5% of home burglars don't use a weapon. 30.1% do use a weapon and 9.3% of the time, the victim is uncertain about whether or not a weapon's used by the burglar. When intruders are armed, other weapons are much more likely to be used by them than guns. Also, most home burglaries happen when nobody is home. 72.4% of the time, nobody is at home during the burglary. Only 27.6% of the time, a person is home during the burglary. 26% of those people who are home are harmed. This means only 7.2% of burglaries result in someone being injured.
Argument: Mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. Therefore, gun control won't work. Criminals don't follow laws.
Of course criminals won't follow laws, but gun control doesn't just make it illegal to buy AR-15s or make it illegal to get guns without certain requirements. It also makes it difficult to get access to AR-15s and makes it difficult to get guns without certain requirements. Making access difficult makes it difficult for criminals to break this law. Criminals only manage to break laws that are easy to break. Also, gun free zones are places where it's illegal to walk into with a gun. Mass shootings happening at gun free zones isn't proof that gun control won't work. Mass shootings happening in gun free zones just means a person can buy a gun at a gun store and go walk into a gun free zone (for example: a school). If we had gun control, a homicidal person wouldn't be able to easily get a gun at a gun store and walk into a gun free zone to kill people. The gun free zone argument doesn't prove that gun control won't work.
Argument: A good guy with a gun (like armed security guards) will stop mass shootings.
The reason why there have been incidents where armed citizens might take out a mass shooter before they kill anyone is because the mass shooter didn't expect there to be an armed person. If we make armed guards more common, mass shooters will always expect there to be an armed guard, and they'll make sure to kill the armed guard first and then kill everyone else. They'll be able to be sneaky when they first kill the armed guard before the armed guard notices the shooter's gonna shoot.
Argument: Should we ban junk food? Obesity kills people.
I saw conservatives use this argument. Try taking a room of several people who eat too much food and are getting fat. It'll take many years, probably even decades for the junk food to kill them. A gun can kill them immediately. I could take an AR-15 and kill all of them in just a short amount of time. I could take even a handgun and kill at least a few of them in just a short amount of time. Bullets don't take years to kill you. They can kill you immediately.
Argument: Gun control goes against our freedom and rights.
Conservatives like to say that gun control takes away our freedom and we won't have any freedom unless we have extremely easy access to guns. Let's take a look at countries where gun control happens. In Japan, guns are pretty much banned. Nonetheless, in Japan, you have free elections, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, etc. You just don't get to own guns. I bet people there still feel like they have freedom. Canadians feel very free. In Canada, you have freedom of speech, freedom of choice and the right to vote. eat whatever you want, do whatever you want, have sex with whoever you want as long as it's consensual and they are over the age of consent, etc. Sounds like plenty of freedom to me and people there seem to feel very free. The only thing you cannot do in Canada is go to the gun store, ask for a gun, pay money, and walk out with a brand new gun. I think most Canadians are okay with that. If we didn't have a Second Amendment and tons of Americans who worship guns, we'd realize that gun regulation doesn't take away your freedom, and we'd realize that you don't need weapons like AR-15s to be safe, free, or happy. If we ban AR-15s, you're just going to have give up your AR-15 and tough it out. You aren't going to suddenly have miserable life without freedom and you aren't going to have a big chance of being murdered.
Argument: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
You’re right when you say people kill people. People do kill people... by using guns.
Argument: Remember the Oklahoma City bombing from 1995? The Boston Marathon bombing? The November 2015 Paris attacks? 9/11? That's all proof that gun control won't work.
I remember conservatives were saying that Timothy McVeigh used fertilizers, racing fuel, and a box truck, all things you can access. They said that Hitler used cyanide gas. They say Al-Qaeda used airplanes. They say that other people used bombs. You're right that bombings have happened and have killed lots of people even though bombs are illegal, but bombings happen very rarely. Mass shootings and gun violence in general happen very often. Also, you're right Al-Qaeda did use airplanes to kill nearly 3,000 people, but after 9/11 happened, security in America completely improved, including airport security. They did this because it would make it more difficult for tragedies like 9/11 to happen. In the post-9/11 world, hijacking an airplane or crashing a plane into a building would be much more difficult. I know we didn't ban airplanes. We cannot ban them because we do need them to travel, but our improved airport security can prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again. Hitler used cyanide gas, but he was the leader of a country who had the power to do anything he wants. If President Trump (or any other American president in history) had the power to do what they want, they would have the ability to nuke their own country, killing many Americans. That doesn't mean that nuclear bombs (or cyanide gas) are gonna replace mass shootings. Timothy McVeigh did use fertilizers, racing fuel and a box truck, and according to conservatives, you can access all those things. Nonetheless, McVeigh's plans were extremely elaborate and certainly way more elaborate than planning a generic mass shooting. McVeigh had to do many extremely difficult things to plan his massacre. It took more than just getting fertilizer, racing fuel and a truck bomb. I don't think doing what McVeigh did would be as easy you think it is. Bombings happen very rarely. Mass shootings in America happen extremely often. If we allowed bombs, I bet bombs would be easy to obtain and there'd be more bombings happening.
Argument: If we have gun control and ban weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s, we don't be able to protect ourselves from tyranny and annihilation.
We have the strongest military in history and we have 4,000 nuclear bombs, and you actually think that military cannot save us from tyranny and annihilation? You think that a bunch of Americans with AR-15s are more powerful than our military? Also, our government isn't going to get the military to kill all the Americans. That will never happen. The American government or military won't be killing all the Americans. That will never happen. That's the most paranoid idea I've ever heard. It's just as paranoid as thinking that Trump will start World War III. Also, if the United States military really did actually kill a bunch of Americans, your AR-15 would not be able to protect you. Think about it. You're a gun owner with an AR-15. You're in your house. Many highly trained soldiers break into your house and they all have the deadliest guns possible. You think one guy with an extremely deadly weapon will protect himself against several guys all armed with extremely deadly weapons? That wouldn't work even if you were holding your AR-15 in your hand waiting for them to come in.
This argument that gun control will make tyranny happen is a paranoid argument that the worst thing will happen. Guess what? With mass shootings and high gun violence, the worst is already happening. The odds of tyranny taking over this country, the odds of our military killing us all, the odds of America being annihilated, etc. are all zero.
Argument: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994-2004 didn't work. Therefore, gun control won't work.
From 1994-2004, gun control wasn't completely accomplished. There was a ban on assault weapons, but there wasn't a sufficient amount of gun control. We still had a lack of gun regulation. This is why back then, people were still debating gun control. The Columbine shooters (Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris) obtained some of their guns from Robyn Anderson. Anderson bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee, who knew Klebold and Harris were minors but still sold the gun to the two for $500. Kip Kinkel, the Thurston High School shooter from 1998, acquired guns and was 15 years old. The firearms Kinkel used were legal. The Glock and .22 rifle were purchased for Kinkel by his father. Police believe Kinkel took the .22 pistol from his dad. A friend of Kinkel stole a pistol from the dad of one of his friends and arranged to sell it to Kinkel. Kinkel paid $110 for the Beretta Model 90 .32-caliber pistol loaded with a nine-round magazine.
What prevented the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from working was that the definition of an assault weapon according to the ban was very strict. In 1994, the federal government did ban many assault weapons. Gun-control supporters and firearms-industry leaders both agreed that a detachable ammunition magazine, which allows for clips with hundreds of rounds, was central to the definition of an assault weapon. Unfortunately, the law as enacted said that a gun must have at least two additional traits, such as a flash suppressor or a folding stock, to be banned. A 1999 article by Rolling Stone gives more details about how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban wasn't sufficient gun control. There were many problems with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and those problems showed that the ban didn't use a sufficient amount of gun control. The Washington Post wrote a good article about why the ban wasn't sufficient gun control.
Argument: Mass shootings will still happen even if gun control makes any effect. Vehicle deaths still happen. Massacres will still happen. Gun violence will still happen.
Sure, mass shootings might still happen, but mass shootings and gun violence will still be significantly reduced. Vehicle regulations didn't stop vehicle deaths, but it did significantly reduce it. Massacres do still happen in countries with gun control, but those massacres happen pretty rarely while massacres in America happen very frequently. Murder still could happen in countries with gun control, but the murder rate in those countries is still much lower than the murder rate in America. Murder could still happen in America but with gun control, the murder rate will be reduced.
Argument: Not that many mass shooters don't use AR-15s. It's most common for mass shooters to use handguns.
This, I will admit, is true. 75.6% of mass shooters use handguns. Nonetheless, weapons like AR-15s, AK-47s and other guns deadlier than handguns still can be used in mass shootings and they kill way more people than handguns. Handguns don't kill as much as these guns. The shooter who uses an AR-15 or semi-automatic rifle will kill more people in his massacre than a shooter who uses a handgun. I don't believe handguns should be banned, but handguns should be heavily regulated, just like how vehicles are heavily regulated. Weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s, however, definitely should be banned. If handguns were regulated, mass shooters who use handguns probably wouldn't obtain them so easily, and handguns would instead be obtained by good people.
Argument: If I want an AR-15, that's my right. Just because you cannot think of a reason to own an AR-15, doesn't mean AR-15s should be banned. You shouldn't tell me what I can and cannot own.
"If I want to own bombs, that's my right. Just because you cannot think of a reason to own bombs, doesn't mean bombs should be banned. You shouldn't tell me what I can and cannot own. How dare you tell me I shouldn't be allowed to own bombs!" <----- That's what your argument sounds like.
Argument: I've read about mass shooters who still obtained guns and background checks didn't stop them. Some mass shooters failed background checks.
It'll take a lot of words and sentences to debunk this argument, so I would like you to read this article. One mass shooter who got guns without a good background check was a shooter named Seth Ator. Ator failed background checks but still got his gun through a private sale, which didn't require background checks.
Argument: Millions of lives are saved by guns being used in self-defense.
This argument is debunked in this article.
Argument: If things like drugs come into our country because it comes from Latin America and Latin America and Jamaica get their guns from the United States. Wouldn't gun control lead to guns in Latin America coming to the USA like how drugs come to the USA from Latin America?
This argument is hypothetical. We cannot be certain that guns in Mexico will suddenly be smuggled into the United States. Guns in America have been smuggled into Mexico. There are cases where guns in America end up in Canada. Nonetheless, level of smuggling of guns into Canada is moderate and Canada still has a low murder rate and low gun violence rate. The level of smuggling of guns into the USA is also moderate, just like Canada. I don't see any evidence that guns will suddenly be smuggled into the United States. Nonetheless, we can strengthen our borders to prevent smuggling. Most guns in America that come from other countries are usually imported to America from countries far away. There aren't that many guns imported to Canada.
Argument: So, you're saying we cannot completely ban vehicles and airplanes because we need vehicles and airplanes for important reasons, but we need to ban assault weapons and need to regulate weapons like handguns like how we regulate vehicles? You contradicted yourself.
Some Americans will need handguns to protect themselves, especially Americans who live where there aren't a lot of police. Nonetheless, Americans really don't need weapons like AR-15s or AK-47s. You can say that this goes against freedom all you want and that I shouldn't tell you what you can or cannot have, but allowing AR-15s and weapons like that still does more harm than good. Saying that AR-15s should be allowed because I shouldn't tell you what you can or cannot own is like saying bombs should be allowed because I shouldn't tell you what you can or cannot own. You don't need AR-15s or AK-47s to defend yourself against one home invader or even a couple home invaders. A handgun is good enough for that. You're acting like 20 home invaders, all armed with deadly weapons, are going to break into your house. The odds of that happening are so rare that even being a victim of a mass shooting is more likely to happen. You don't need an AR-15 to protect yourself. You don't need one to be safe. You don't need one to be happy. You don't need one to have freedom. If AR-15s were really important and sacred, places like Europe, Canada and Japan would be places where people have dangerous, miserable lives. You can share articles about someone defending themselves with an AR-15 all you want, but those people could've still successfully defended themselves with a handgun. Vehicles and airplanes are important to have because they help us with traveling. Handguns can be important if it's used for self-defense, especially in places where there aren't any police. AR-15s, AK-47s, etc. aren't needed at all and don't have any benefits at all. Their only purpose is to kill lots of people and cause destruction. AR-15s and AK-47s kill lots of people very easily, just like how bombs kill lots of people very easily. This is why vehicles and handguns can be legal, but heavily regulated. This is why airplanes can be allowed but we still have strict airport security. This is also why we believe assault weapons should be banned.
Argument: Russia has strict gun control and they didn't stop gun violence.
This argument is something I found in an article from right-wing news website The Daily Wire. Russia goes have a higher murder rate than the United States. The United States' murder rate is 5.30 per 100,000 while Russia's murder rate is 9.20 per 100,000. There are 11,020,000 unregistered or illicit firearms in Russia. Nonetheless, the firearm homicide rate in Russia still very low. In 2013, only 1,283 people in Russia were killed by guns. This means that in 2013, the gun homicide rate in Russia was 0.90 per 100,000. Guns were involved in less than 0.5% of all crimes in Russia. In the USA, the gun homicide rate is 4.46 per 100,000. I'll explain why there are illegal or unregistered guns in Russia and why Russia has a huge black market for weapons. There is a moderate level of firearm and ammunition smuggling in Russia. Also, it seems like doctors in Russia issue inauthentic health reports to people applying for gun ownership, because the Russian government is discussing a law to punish doctors who do that. In Russia, most weapons criminals use are stolen military or police guns, guns sold by law enforcement personnel who took illegal weapons from criminals and did not register the confiscation of those guns, or guns made from modified nonlethal guns. Also, the numerous wars on Russia's borders also cause a lot of illegal weapons to flow throughout Russia.
A couple of things I agree with the pro-gun people on and disagree with the gun control advocates on
Gun control and suicide
I don't think gun control will help deter suicide. I've heard some gun control supporters say that gun control will help deter suicide. I doubt that gun control will deter suicide. Guns aren't the only way to commit suicide. There are many ways people have committed suicide and guns aren't the only way. Although 50.6% of suicide involves a gun, that means 49.4% of suicide doesn't involve a gun. There is strict gun control in Japan. In fact, Japan basically bans guns. Gun control did stop gun violence and even murder as a whole in Japan, but the suicide rate in Japan is very high. If people cannot access guns, they can still commit suicide by hanging themselves, which can be done with rope or a belt. People can jump off of buildings. People can drown themselves. People can still their own throat. People can do all kinds of things. Gun control won't stop suicide.
The suicide rate in the United States is 13.7 per 100,000. While gun control has reduced gun violence in Australia, Australia still doesn't have a very low suicide rate. The suicide rate there is 11.7. The suicide rate isn't much lower in Australia. Gun control began in Australia in 1996. The suicide rate in Australia only decreased from 14.7 per 100,000 in 1997 to 10.3 per 100,000 in 2005. That isn't a very big decrease. It looks like the suicide rate in Australia increased a little since 2005. The suicide rate in Canada is 10.4 per 100,000. That isn't very low compared to the USA. Gun control certainly didn't stop the suicide of Amanda Todd. Amanda Todd was a 15 year old Canadian girl who committed suicide by hanging herself due to cyberbullying. The suicide rate in Japan is very high, and guess what? The firearm-suicide rate there is very low and was .04 per 100,000 in 1999. Japan has had extremely strict gun laws for decades, and their firearm-suicide rate is very low, and has become much lower since the year 2000. Gun control there has been strict for a long time, starting way before 1999, so gun control cannot be the reason why firearm-suicides there have decreased since the year 2000. The firearm suicide in Japan is the lowest it has ever been, but the suicide rate in Japan is still high. The suicide rate in Japan in 2016 was 14.3 per 100,000, while in 2016, the suicide rate in the USA was 13.7 per 100,000. India's suicide rate is very high and is 16.5 per 100,000, and they have very strict gun control. Their homicide however, is only 3.22 per 100,000. Their firearm-related homicide rate is very low, and, despite a very high suicide rate, their firearm suicide rate is very low. Poland have gun control and a low firearm suicide, low firearm homicide rate, and low firearm death rate in general. Poland's murder rate overall is very low. Despite a low firearm suicide rate, Poland's suicide rate is 13.4 per 100,000, making it almost the same as the United States' suicide rate. Russia have gun control and their suicide rate is very high, being 26.5 per 100,000. Suicide in Russia tends to be done through alcohol abuse instead of guns. Finland has gun control and they have a suicide rate just a tiny bit higher than the United States. Finland's suicide rate is 13.8 per 100,000. Finland's homicide rate is very low (only 1.20 per 100,000) Their gun homicide rate is very low and their gun suicide rate is very low but they still have a high suicide rate. South Korea has strict gun control. They have a very, very low homicide rate (0.60 per 100,000). They have an extremely low gun murder rate and an extremely low gun suicide rate. Nonetheless, their suicide rate is very high, being 20.2 per 100,000. Most suicides in South Korea are done with carbon monoxide poisoning or jumping off a bridge. All this information shows that gun control won't deter suicide.
Raising the gun purchase age to 21
A lot of gun control supporters are saying that we should raise the gun purchase age to 21. I disagree completely with this. The reason they want the gun age to be 21 is for two reasons. They think because the drinking age is 21, that means the gun age should be 21, and they seem to believe that a lot of mass shooters are under 21 or that a lot of people below 21 use guns. I think the drinking age should be 18 because it's 18 in many countries and those countries are doing just fine, but the drinking age is irrelevant in this article. Just because 18 year olds cannot drink, doesn't mean they shouldn't own guns. 18 year olds are allowed to go to war, have sex with an older person, get married, vote, watch NC-17 movies, etc. Many people will say the brain doesn't finish developing until age 25, but guess what? That means 21 year olds' brains aren't finished developing either, and 21 year olds are just like 18 year olds. There's no difference between 18 year olds and 21 year olds.
I also would like to say most mass shooters are actually 21 or older. Only a minority of them are under 21. First of all, the average age of mass shooters is 33.4 years old or 34 years old. The median age of a mass shooter is 28 or 35. The median age for handgun-only mass shooters is 39.5 and the median age for assault rifle mass shooters is 31. Only 1 in 8 mass shooters are 18-20 years old, which means that only 12.5% of mass shooters are 18-20 years old. 84.2% of fatalities in mass shootings are perpetrated by a shooter age 21 or older. 90.2% of injuries in mass shootings are perpetrated by a shooter age 21 or older. 87.9% of both fatalities and injuries in mass shootings are perpetrated by a shooter age 21 or older. Most mass shooters are 21 or older. Also, if the gun purchase age was 21 instead of 18, then 18 year olds who want to do a mass shooting would just wait until they're 21 to do a mass shooting. They won't mind waiting 3 years. They could still get access to a gun by obtaining one from someone 21 or older. No 18 year old who wants to do a massacre would think "I cannot buy guns until I'm 21. Well, I guess I won't do a mass shooting even when I turn 21". They'll just wait until they're 21 and do a mass shooting. Waiting 3 years will be something they can handle. They also might get a gun from someone 21 or older, and many 18 year olds will know a lot of 21 year olds. Minors (people below 18) who did mass shootings could even get their guns from someone 21 or older. I don't think that someone under 18 should be allowed to own guns though. You might think that raising the gun age to 21 will reduce school shootings, and it will reduce school shootings to some extent, but then the percentage of shootings that do not happen at school will increase. These mass shooters will just decide to do their shooting somewhere else since at 21 they probably won't be interested in shooting up a school. This means the percentage of shootings that do not happen at school will increase significantly. Countries where gun control worked even allow 18 year olds to buy guns. Canada's gun age is 18. Australia has the gun age at 18. The United Kingdom's gun age is 18. Germany's gun age is 18. New Zealand allows 18 years olds to own guns. If 18 year olds are allowed to go to war and fight for their country, they're old enough to own a gun. 18 year olds use guns during war. The gun purchase should be 18, not 21. Raising it to 21 won't do anything to help stop gun violence. Sorry gun control supporters, but this is something I agree with the pro-gun crowd on. The Los Angeles Times and even Vox both disagree with raising the gun age to 21. Most murderers in the USA are 21 or older. Raising the gun age to 21 won't prevent people under 21 from becoming murderers or mass shooters. If they want to do a mass shooting, they'll just wait until they're 21, which will only take a few years. If they want to kill one or two people, they can just get themselves a knife or just wait until they're 21, which, like I said, will only take a few years. They can still get guns from someone 21 or older. Although juvenile offenders (criminals below age 18) are somewhat more likely than adult offenders (18 and older) to own guns, this is about juvenile offenders, meaning those below age 18. I never heard about America allowing people under 18 to own guns. If these minors are somewhat more likely to own guns than adult offenders, then these minors, who are under 18, clearly got their guns from an adult or something. This shows that having the gun age at 18 or even 21 wouldn't prevent minors from getting guns from adults. I don't think minors (those below 18) should be allowed guns, but refusing to allow 18 year olds to buy guns is ridiculous. If 18 year olds can go to war and fight for their country, they're old enough to buy a gun. The gun age should be 18, not 21. Raising it to 21 won't do anything to help stop gun violence. Countries with gun control allow 18 year olds to buy guns and those countries still had a low gun violence rate.
Does gun control work?
It has worked in some countries and in some countries it failed. In order to know for sure whether or not it will work in America, we have to give gun control a chance. We need to have gun control nationwide in America and see the result. If it doesn't deter gun violence, you gun supporters can have your AR-15s back and can easily buy as many guns as you want. If it does deter gun violence, you're just gonna have to live with gun control and tough it out. Also, if you gun supporters are so confident that gun control will never work, then wouldn't this test be something you can handle. If we're going to have gun control nationwide and see what happens, and we'll get rid of gun control if it doesn't work, wouldn't you be okay with this test if you're so confident gun control won't work, because you're assuming that a while later you'll get your AR-15s back and whatnot? If you're so confident that gun control won't work, you shouldn't be so afraid of giving this gun control test a chance, because then you would be confident that you'll eventually get your AR-15 back or something. If gun control works, you won't get your AR-15s back and you'll have to live in a country with gun control and tough it out. Maybe it will suck at first, but you'll eventually get used to it. We cannot know for certain whether or not gun control will work in America unless we try it out. We cannot form a hypothesis without testing it. Imagine how ridiculous it'd be if scientists formed a hypothesis without testing. We need to give nationwide gun control a chance, and, in my opinion, I think gun control will probably work in the USA. Gun control worked in Canada, and Canada is right above us and basically the same country as us, so I assume gun control could work in America.
We need to give nationwide gun control a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment