Jump to content

should the government ban civilian body armor


cąℓσceđrus ☁☽

Recommended Posts

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the highest/nearly highest murder rate involving firearms.

Chicago? this Chicago? 14th in the list, Chicago?

 

St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore & Newark have 2 or even 3 times as much murders per capita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did try to get rid of some high power guns. NRA put a quick stop to that.

We literally introduced a bill to stop people on the terrorist watchlist from buying weapons and they shut that down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always:

 

Mass shooting occurs -> let's do everything except get rid of guns because that will solve the problem somehow

 

Countdown until next mass shooting: Less Than 1 Day

Just had to fix that ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good example is Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden.

 

Murder rates: .7 homicides per 100,000 people.

 

Gun laws: For civilians it's illegal to carry a firearm unless there is a specific, legal, purpose (hunting, going to range, etc.)

 

But, there are 1.47 firearm related deaths per 100,000 people, with 1.2 of those beings suicides.

 

You can also collect guns, but they must have a very clean history.

 

See the continual pattern of stricter gun laws, leading to lower homicides?

 

Sources:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Sweden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thread goes from body armour to gun control :u rip original topic

 

In my opinion,

banning civilian body armour isn't going to solve any of the underlying issues.  I don't think having body armour or not was a deciding factor for any of the past mass-shooters to go on a shooting spree or not :u

 

As to the gun control part, I live in Massachusetts, yes, firearm owner, yes, NRA member (don't hate plis).  Laws in MA are pretty strict on firearms and I'd be perfectly fine with the rest of the country adopting similar/equal measures.  Nothing unreasonable about background checks, needing a license, that sorta thing.  My only problem with adopting stricter national gun control laws is that I don't feel it solves any root issues (why are these people performing mass-shootings?  were there warning signs?  did nobody pay attention to these warning signs?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thread goes from body armour to gun control :u rip original topic

 

In my opinion,

banning civilian body armour isn't going to solve any of the underlying issues.  I don't think having body armour or not was a deciding factor for any of the past mass-shooters to go on a shooting spree or not :u

 

As to the gun control part, I live in Massachusetts, yes, firearm owner, yes, NRA member (don't hate plis).  Laws in MA are pretty strict on firearms and I'd be perfectly fine with the rest of the country adopting similar/equal measures.  Nothing unreasonable about background checks, needing a license, that sorta thing.  My only problem with adopting stricter national gun control laws is that I don't feel it solves any root issues (why are these people performing mass-shootings?  were there warning signs?  did nobody pay attention to these warning signs?)

 

I think most people agree the root cause of these mass shootings is generally some kind of mental illness. It seems like that comes up a lot (at least in the ones that aren't clearly terrorist-driven). The obvious solution would be to get help for all of these people and help them deal with their issues. The practical solution would be to do everything we can to keep them from getting guns. Since no one seems interested in doing the first one, we better do the second one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most people agree the root cause of these mass shootings is generally some kind of mental illness. It seems like that comes up a lot (at least in the ones that aren't clearly terrorist-driven). The obvious solution would be to get help for all of these people and help them deal with their issues. The practical solution would be to do everything we can to keep them from getting guns. Since no one seems interested in doing the first one, we better do the second one. 

dat U.S. logic :P  (I assume the "we better do the second one" is sarcastic :?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dat U.S. logic :P  (I assume the "we better do the second one" is sarcastic :?)

 

Umm no? No idea why you'd think I was being sarcastic if you read what I wrote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...