Preventing access to the gun isn't necessarily going to prevent the murder

I call BS on that claim

 

How shall I get thru the day now???????

 

People are dying....I call that harm

 

Tell me why Conservative states, with all those guns, are not complaining about this.

 

States complain? To who? Lol

 

More gun control laws will not totally solve the problem, just like giving the death penalty to those that commit murder does not totally solve the problem.

 

I never said it would

 

'Preventing access to the gun isn't necessarily going to prevent the murder'

This whole statement is framed and being argued in terms of absolutes. No, preventing access to (all) guns will not prevent (all) murders.

But preventing access by (some) people - based on a reasoned assessment of their aptitude, character and circumstances would prevent (some) murders. And its up to the citizens of the nations concerned to decide where that balance lies.

 

In the US, the ability of the citizens to arbitrarily restrict gun ownership is itself restricted.

 

Federal law already covers this.

 

maybe start posting the truth? just sayin.....

 

What wise man noted that complaining about a problem without offering valid solutions is called whining?

 

I'm not an enemy of the Constitution. Unlike some here, Bubba.

 

Being dismissed by the likes of you means nothing. Just confirms that I'm right.

 

It goes much deeper than any of that. See, the thing is human beings want mind-altering substances. It's an innate part of who we are, in our DNA. You will never legislate or incarcerate our country into being drug-free. This results in a thriving black market. But, as you know, black markets do not have access to Courts or Law Enforcement to settle disputes, so they resort to their only choice which is violence. It's long ago since the "War on Drugs" has become worse for our society than the drugs themselves. So it's time to end it, and let legit businesses who have things like quality control and use lawyers rather than bullets to settle disputes take over the market.

That would probably do more to reduce gun crime than ANYTHING else anyone could envision. And pretty much put cartels and gangs out of business overnight.

 

The problem with this logic is that while it IS logical, it seems to be trying to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. A few years after they passed waiting periods here in Florida (only for handguns), they found it had made no noticeable impact on overall homicides. People getting pissed, going to the gun store, and then killing whomever they were pissed at seems like a non-existent problem.

 

The homicide rate for the whole country tracks virtually identically to that and nobody is quite sure why, not even the authorities. That, despite the fact that since the peak in the early 90s tens of millions of legal firearms have entered society.

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

I give up. Who?

 

You mean continue doing that

 

Or maybe it wasn't enough people for the numbers to show

 

Which makes it a non-existent problem.

 

Or means you need to have a larger population to study

 

I'm talking about the state of Florida, not Rhode Island or Wyoming. Even factoring in that I'm talking about decades ago, it was more than enough.

 

Why does "decades ago" make a difference? And just one state may not be enough, it may require a whole region. We are talking about people who have enough of a violent tendency to kill someone but don't have any guns already, that may be a fairly rare situation