If you actually bothered to open the link and look at the charts, the researchers plotted number of gun homicides vs per capita gun ownership and didn’t find a strong correlation. If you pull out all the developing countries and South Africa and are left with the 25 or so western countries there does seem to be some correlation between gun ownership rates and number of homicides.
So let’s just say the solution is to become like Japan. Repeal the second amendment, make gun ownership illegal and confiscate most of the 300 million guns in this country. That would probably be effective at preventing mass killings by guns. Do you think that is feasible in this country. I would argue that an attempt to go down that path probably gets fairly bloody and might end in civil war. There’s a fairly large segment of the population that isn’t going to give up their guns voluntarily and likely would fight to the death to keep their weapons. This would likely be an effective solution but you might have decades worth of mass killing deaths to implement it.
Solution 2 add more gun control that was discussed after Sandy Hook. Enhanced back ground checks, assault riffle bans, ammunition buying limits, etc. Does anybody here think those additions would have prevented this current tragedy. Do you have any scientific evidence it prevents any future tragedy? If so then this is a reasonable debate to have. It obviously can’t prevent a mass killing from ever happening, but maybe there some evidence that it creates fewer mass killings. I honestly don’t think anybody knows although I’m sure some will argue it’s worth doing even if we can’t measure the results.
Solution 3. Address the mental illness problems in this country. In pretty much ever single one of these cases you have a total nut job that goes on one of these killing sprees. In all the cases there were significant warning signs, but effective action was not taken before the tragedy happened. I personally think it would be more effective to spend the money and resources on identifying and helping those citizens that exhibit these warning signs.
Solution 4? Do nothing. The most likely solution in our current political climate and maybe the only realistic solution in a country that values it’s right to own guns. I’d like to see the debate focus on solution 3 because I think it can get broad support. It might mean taking on the pharmaceutical lobby but I think it’s at least reasonable doable.
Solution ? Do something that isn’t a violation of the second amendment and has a measurable reduction in the number of mass killings? Tell me what it is and we can debate it. It’s not enough in my eyes to say do this because we had to do something. Demonstrate how you think it would reduce mass killings preferably using this case. What do you advocate for that would have prevented this particular case.[/quote]
+1
Agreed…with Solution 3.
Again, the fight over gun control is a losing battle and a waste of money/time/resources…I wouldn’t support it neither since having so many guns in America seems to make us impossible to take over by a foreign power. I’m sure some folks have enough guns to arm a small army. I also don’t trust our government neither…
Aside from all that personal believe, I think…Solution 3 won’t be challenged by many groups and the NRA can’t be against getting help for people who do this since it puts them on the defensive yet again.
If it takes drugging more people and it shows it helps to prevent this, then the drug companies would be happy too.
It is sad not much/anything seems to be done since we are wasting all our time/resources on the gun debate issue.
