There are THREE proven methods to reduce firearm violence - none have anything to do with the type of weapon.
Here lies a perfect example as to where current laws and possible flagging laws would have been beneficial (if the prior were enforced). A person openly threatens a list of people 10 years ago in school, authorities are engaged, etc. However, the minors record is expunged and no account ever used for future engagements. Thus making it easy for the person to obtain a firearm legally. We need to break down these absurd limits. Drafting a 'kill list' and declaring it as such, should be grounds for engagement regarding your ability to handle a firearm, and noted permanently. If we aren't comfortable with that, make having and advertising a "kill list" a felony - that will knock you off the legal firearm block in most places.
Shootings and murder in general is performed by a person who has lost connectivity with the value of human life or their own existence in it. This person is not 'driven' by hate or any ideology, they have a zero-value point system on lives. They are 100% desensitized. That is what makes this problem elusive and not one that 'laws' can remove. The person doesn't fear the law. If laws against guns stopped firearm related murders, well, the inner-cities of America would be far less violent. The FACTS show you that common measure of background checks, proper flagging through authoritative channels of dangerous individuals and 'may issue' policies collectively brought together can reduce firearm related murders/attacks by nearly 40%. Independently they are less successful. Similar research also notes that limiting 'types' of weapons has near zero impact, same goes for ammunition capacity. When you hear politicians wrap banning weapons in with a background check bill, they are essentially throwing away science for emotion. There is not one shred of proof that says banning a version of semi-automatic weapon reduces firearm violence. Politicians, specifically Democrats such as Ben Cardin, are notorious for looping in nonsensical elements in with facts. Example here where not only does Cardin assume all mass shooters are white supremacists (forgetting entirely the latest Ohio terrorist was a complete leftist) but that some how "assault weapons" - which don't exist - are to blame.
Cardin said there is no “justification for private ownership of assault weapons,” and that the weapons should be removed from the public and the room applauded. He also called for universal background checks and said that though there is more to do, these are important steps, he said.
Societies issue is that it refuses to actually engineer a solution to a problem. The concept that somehow one day you'll awake and there are no firearms in the US Civilian hand is absurd and borderline 'no-fly list' worthy. You really aren't sane if you believe that is plausible. Don't think that is accurate? Look at the decades-long federal/state campaign against cigarette smoking and let me know if zero people smoke.
We need common sense measures regarding violence in America, that starts with understanding measures that have actual statistical relevance. As noted earlier, proven measure to reduce firearm related violence:
Will these remove all violence? No, not at all and thy shouldn't be sold that way. Will they statistically reduce it, yes. And that is a proven fact, not an anecdotal account or a partisan view, that is science.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html
Shootings and murder in general is performed by a person who has lost connectivity with the value of human life or their own existence in it. This person is not 'driven' by hate or any ideology, they have a zero-value point system on lives. They are 100% desensitized. That is what makes this problem elusive and not one that 'laws' can remove. The person doesn't fear the law. If laws against guns stopped firearm related murders, well, the inner-cities of America would be far less violent. The FACTS show you that common measure of background checks, proper flagging through authoritative channels of dangerous individuals and 'may issue' policies collectively brought together can reduce firearm related murders/attacks by nearly 40%. Independently they are less successful. Similar research also notes that limiting 'types' of weapons has near zero impact, same goes for ammunition capacity. When you hear politicians wrap banning weapons in with a background check bill, they are essentially throwing away science for emotion. There is not one shred of proof that says banning a version of semi-automatic weapon reduces firearm violence. Politicians, specifically Democrats such as Ben Cardin, are notorious for looping in nonsensical elements in with facts. Example here where not only does Cardin assume all mass shooters are white supremacists (forgetting entirely the latest Ohio terrorist was a complete leftist) but that some how "assault weapons" - which don't exist - are to blame.
Cardin said there is no “justification for private ownership of assault weapons,” and that the weapons should be removed from the public and the room applauded. He also called for universal background checks and said that though there is more to do, these are important steps, he said.
Societies issue is that it refuses to actually engineer a solution to a problem. The concept that somehow one day you'll awake and there are no firearms in the US Civilian hand is absurd and borderline 'no-fly list' worthy. You really aren't sane if you believe that is plausible. Don't think that is accurate? Look at the decades-long federal/state campaign against cigarette smoking and let me know if zero people smoke.
We need common sense measures regarding violence in America, that starts with understanding measures that have actual statistical relevance. As noted earlier, proven measure to reduce firearm related violence:
- background check
- may-issue carry permits
- 'red flag' measures
Will these remove all violence? No, not at all and thy shouldn't be sold that way. Will they statistically reduce it, yes. And that is a proven fact, not an anecdotal account or a partisan view, that is science.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html
Comments
Post a Comment