Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders
These killers had no previous criminal records.
Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems? What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?
Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced
Only real solution is to ban guns outright.
This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.
Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.
No. Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different. I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.
But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.
You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.
The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without. At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue
Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.
What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?
you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year. Rise in the number of gun related murders every year
There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns
Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase. However mass shootings would definitely decrease
I'm not even sure that robberies would increase (or that mass shootings would definitely decrease). However, I would just like to point out that you seem to be selecting a lesser negative consequence (robberies) as increasing, while the greater negative consequence (mass shootings) would decrease.
Why would robberies possibly increase, but for instance, gun murders not also increase? What evidence is there that a gun would deter a robbery (by your admission), but would not also deter a gun violence, or even any other murder? If a gun could deter a robbery, couldn't a gun deter a murder? I'm just saying, you seem to be showing some bias in your selection. And I think the best answers are found when eliminating all the bias we can.