There are so many charts and statistics showing that there are strong correlation between gun homicide and gun ownership or weak gun laws.
States such as :
Has the strongest gun laws as well as lowest gun death . Also about 68 % of murderer use Firarms in the US vs knives 13 %,blunt object 4 %,Personal weapons 6 %,Others 9 %.
Also since 1982 56 out 71 mass shootings utitilized at least one legally bought-gun.
I look up onto the internet and there many many evidence show that gun control truly works.
Also Massachusetts has the lowest gun death rate in 2016 About 3.5 per 100,000. People killed by guns in Massachusetts represents a smaller fraction of those killed nationally.
If every state had the same gun death rate as Massachusetts , some 27000 lives could be saves.
And some states, with worst gun death rate exceed car accidental death these are :
Clearly the right to bear arms is so ridicioulous and the second amendment should definetly be repealed if we want to save lives.
Their are no international human right law which address the right to bear arms in fact they condemn gun violence. In many countries, the right to own a weapon is not a civil right.
Here are some facts about gun violence :
State with strongest gun control laws has the fewest gun homicide these are :
1.Hawaii 2.5 gun related death per 1000000
2.Massachusetts 2.9 gun related death per 1000000
3.New York 4.1 gun related death per 1000000
4.Connecticut 4.3 gun related death per 1000000
5.Rhode island 5.2 gun related death per 1000000
6.New Jersey 5.7 gun related death per 1000000
And here are states with weakest gun control laws has the highest gun homicide :
1.Wyoming 16.7 gun related death per 1000000
2.Arizona 16.7 gun related death per 1000000
3.Alaska 17.5 gun related death per 1000000
5.Missisippi 17.7 gun related death per 1000000
6.Louisianna 19.1 gun related death per 1000000
7.Arkansas 19.8 gun related death per 1000000
Obviously if congress pas a bill on gun control that would violate second amendment which it's the reason why second amendment is useless, serve no purpose and should be abolish.
If we want to prevent future death then we need to abolish second amendment now !!!!!
In many countries there are no right to bear arms that is protected by the constitution, because they don’t see this as human right.
While I support freedom of press and speech but freedom should not be extended the right to bear arms.
Those opposite side, you guys support right to bear arms does it also mean you support the right to kill someone, idiot ?
Of course guns should be banned because gun fatalities are nearly as high as vehicle crash fatalities.
We also spend lots of money on gun violence because it claim so many lives and victim, more than any other violent crime.
Gun advocates, do you really think your guns are much more worth than human life ?
You are so fucking selfish and an asshole for promoting killing people by legalizing guns.
A number of amendment in the US constitution has bee abolish because of their illogical rules. Such as the 21 amendment which prohibit alcohol has been abolish because it's stupid. The same should be with second amendment. It should be abolish in the same line as other previous amendment.
Like lanza, said if guns has always been protected by the us constitution which it's not right. No citizen should carry a gun if they are psychological unfit or are violent.
Many european countries as well as others does not have the right to bear arms in their constitution and yet their gun homicide are incomparable to the US.
Weakest gun laws such as in alaska and southern state of us are the most dangerous zone prone to gun violence because they don't have back ground check, you are not require a license to buy a gun, and it's very easy to obtain concealed handgun in public or anywhere else.
We don't want to lose more lives. If we want to save lives and make places a better place , support march for our lives and enact strict gun control.
For the most part, outside of movie screens and fabricated scenarios of a purchase being conducted in the confines of a motel room, guns are purchased over the counter, requiring the prospective owner of the guns to register. As such, it is safe to say that majority of the guns in current circulation, aside from those owned by the military, police and other public agencies authorized to possess firearms, and owned are registered, legally purchased firearms. So, quite consequentially, by abolishing the right to bear arms- limited ONLY to firearms-, majority of guns would be removed from ownership, then no one, unless illegally procured- even those procured illegally would have been first purchased as legal firearms, but with their serial numbers filed away, and even so, a bit of forensics work could unravel any attempts at concealing the purchase-, would be able to use firearms at all.
It's Our Culture
Antisemitism was also a cultural movement then in Nazi Germany. So just because something is regarded as a cultural component, it doesn't make it defensible to retain a proven danger to people.
Criminals have Guns.
If you have guns, then they will likely also not have guns. And if you think the mafia or the drug cartels are going to invade your homes to kill you for the fun of it, don't worry, you are just misinformed by media portrayals of criminal syndicates.
Don't make yourself a target against men who have been trained to blow your head away by pointing a gun at them. For example, the French militia couldn't defend France during WW2 even when they had this and that to kill the Nazi Germans. So, honestly, even if you have a gun, history has shown that in owning a gun, against a force that has superior firepower (and perhaps just even their physical prowess) to the pistol you hide under your pillow, you are still gonna likely get killed. And if you wanna argue on probability of surmounting such odds if a person had owned a gun, sure the probability does exist, but as terrorists have demonstrated, they prefer to fight from a distance by crashing airplanes into buildings and planting bombs that may be remotely detonated.
Look at Europe and Canada!
Yes. Mostly by bombs and rampaging vehicles. And owning guns wouldn't have made a difference because all those attacks were preemptive, in other words, unforeseeable. The one recent hostage situation resulting in the death of a French police officer took time to diffuse despite the police owning guns. It seems to only be in America where the people are killing one another in places like schools and shopping malls, with guns.
We are a First World Country that Deserves this Right.
Countries that surpasses America in quality of living, majority do not allow civilian ownership of guns. Japan, South Korea, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, are a few examples where firearm ownership is demonstrated to not be essential to a safer environment.
It’s an urgent need that USA need strict gun laws.There are so many mass shooting happen in the us and many of those active shooter obtain gun legally.
It’s shock me deeply that many states still don’t mandate background check and pass a law on assault weapon ban.
Here are some fact that you need to know:
When congress pass a federal law on banning assault weapon in 1995-2004 there has been fewer mass shooting fatalities. But now in 2005-2018 the government repealed this law and its fatalities has been skyrocketed which is the higher than decades ago.
Shooting since 2011: every 64 days there are 64 mass shooting on average. Yet I won’t count all the mass shooting incidents because it’s too much.
But in comparison to oecd countries USA is an outlier. It has the highest firearms per 1000000 and firearms death per 10000 . Here are some chart:
US : 3.0 gun murder per 1000000
Italy: 0.7 gun murder per 1000000
Canada: 0.5 gun murder per 1000000
Sweden: 0.3 gun murder per 1000000
Germany: 0.2 gun murder per 1000000
Switzerland:0.2 gun murder per 1000000
Australia: 0.1 gun murder per 1000000
UK : 0.1 gun murder per 1000000
France: 0.1 gun murder per 1000000
Spain : 0.1 gun murder per 1000000
Japan: 0 gun murder per 1000000
And I often heard from you morons saying that ,, OH but wait Latin America also has toughest gun control law and yet they among the most dangerous region.
But wait!!!!!!! You has been misinformed something.
First of all Latin America is an developing country, they are poor and their GDP rate is much lower than US.
Whereas US is an industrialized nation. You can’t truly compare a rich country to poor countries.
OH HEY should we also compare to US to Somalia, Afghanistan or Chad in terms of War casualties?
Of course not , that’s simply ridiculous. Africa is already has been a war torn continent long time ago because poverty, hunger, environmental factors and dictatorship.
Should dictatorship syria be compare to Democratic USA ?
Similar to Latin America , you can not compare these countries to us.
The reason why I advocate for gun control because I want to ensure every people are safe in public. Now there has been so many students fear of going to school because of rampage killer.
Also these rampage killer often use assault weapon which is an weapon of war that no one should be allowed to carry.
Stupidity of some people defending right to bear arms a really sad and disappointed.
I want these attitude to be change in the future.
Those who think america law is the best, but in reality it isn't. Before in the 17th-19th century the law allowed slavery and slave owner are allowed to do anything what they want including killing them. It's wasn't change until the mid 19th where abolitionist fight with abraham lincoln to outlawed slavery which lead to american civil war. Until then 13th amendment were pass which prohibit slavery.
But that hasn't significiantly change much. Even then, black continue to suffer from discrimination such as racial seggragration .
If you ask my opinion should second amendment be abolish ? Yes it should because guns kil 33,000 and injure 88.000 people a year and USA is one of the highest homicide rate in the industrialized nation (excluding south america).
You guys are turning in the wrong direction if you support guns. Do you know how corrupt the NRA is ? There is an affirmative evidence show that the organization funneling illegal money from russia to support trump election. Most americans don't want trump to be president, But the NRA was behind everything including ties with russian mobsters to hack hillary clinton email and interfere with trump election.
And the very sad fact is that on average there is around one mass shooting for each day in america which translate to 336 days, 355 mass shootings.
Also statistic show that state with weakest gun laws and highest gun ownership tend to have higher homicide rate.
Among industrialized nation, USA has the highest gun homicide rate (excluding south america).
1996 Uk pass a law on handgun ban and mass shooting never happen since.
Those on opposite side are doing exactly what NRA wants. NO gun control, No background check on purchasing guns,No law passing ban an semi automatic weapon,No license to buy guns and no law pan bump stock.
The main reason why i think second amendment should be abolish because it's ridicioulsy stupid. If you pass a law require background check on purchasing guns that should outright violate second amendment.
''A well regulated militia implies that any citizen can own a gun including mental ill, criminals,or anyone who posses a threat to others.
At least there should be a background check on buying guns because studies shows that it's the most effective way to keep us safe from gun violence. Here are some evidence :
States that has strictes gun laws have lowest homicide rate these include :
These states has background check, child access prevention,concealed carry permit, ban of military weapons, and domestic violence law.
Their homicide rate are lower than the national average which is 11.7 homicide per 1000000
Sources : ( http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/#MA).
Guns used to be not as dangerous and it was your source of protection. Now guns are very dangerous and can kill many people at a time. Guns no longer take like a minute to load and aren't even as killer as guns nowadays. Overall they just are ruining our society, so many innocent people have died from shootings and this needs to stop.
"A well regulated Militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (2nd Amendment text)
Fact is, every nation faces a threat of a foreign nation invasion. This is as true now as it was when the amendment was written. Sure, we have a strong military but tho an enemy may bomb a military (hard) target, they also need to make landfall fairly quickly. This means attacking soft targets like cities, towns, and rural areas that have little if any defense. Once an enemy has taken control of a region, it is much harder to drive them out as you have citizens who are now in a war zone and possibly being used as human shields. Sure, we also have a second line of defense in our police force but they are few. With a much larger third line of defense (armed citizens), we could slow or even fend off an enemy attack with or without the aid of police and our military. Look, it's not like your required to have guns but having others with guns slowing an enemy advance, you have a much better chance to flee for safety instead of being held prisoner and used as a human shield.
This is something our forefathers knew could happen so felt it necessary to allow citizens to bear arms.
America's best bet would probably to try an educational campaign. Something like the campaign that has seen the consumption of tobacco products dwindled in North America. It only took a couple of generations to get the public to have a distaste for tobacco. But it still isn't completely gone yet.
In Canada, raising taxes on cigarettes only ended up with exported Canadian smokes being smuggled back across the border from the US at a much cheaper price. Now a days illegally manufactured smokes are still a problem.
However, America also started an education campaign for drugs. Do you remember the commercials... "this is your brain on drugs"...? Well that didn't work so well now did it? In fact, the same sort of people involved with illegal drugs, smuggling, dealing, etc, are often involved with illegal guns. So that market, that already exist, could easily expand, if there's money to be made, and cause even more problems for law enforcement.
America has to answer some fundamental social questions and solve some social issues before it can get rid of it's gun culture. Simply trying to force people to give up something they've known for generations, something they were raise up to believe is right is to be naive about human behavior.
But this issue of gun control is usually political and not actually looking to solve America's gun culture in a pragmatic way. The only time we hear about gun control on mass-media is when the public's emotions are stirred up over a mass shooting. They always ignore important factors of America's gun culture.
Instead they attack the face of America's gun culture: the NRA, who are law abiding and know they've done nothing wrong
Consider London, England. A place that doesn't have a gun culture. Ordinary don't police carry guns in England and it's not often they encounter criminals with guns. But the mayor of London is trying to place a ban on knives because there's an epidemic of knife violence.
How do you really ban knives though? You can argue guns for military use or hunting only, but do you have to register kitchen knives, steak knives. Knives are a far more everyday tool than guns are. Yet knives are the preferred tool for a murderous epidemic in London.
The fundamental question in London is the same as in the US: what's driving more and more people to disregard human life? Whether it's gang violence, terrorism, mass killings etc. It means it's possible to have an out of control murder rate in the US even if you somehow got rid of all the guns.
There are a lot of arguments to develop around why gun control laws alone wont be enough to stop gun violence in America. The least of which is about angering even more American citizen who've lately shown a willingness to deliberately and violently target law enforcement officers.
The thing is, if we banned guns, where would they go? They'd still be laying around somewhere, right? Or some people would just hide them and then sell them to other criminals. So in reality, you'd just have a bunch of guns laying around with criminals shooting the good citizens who gave theirs back. (Just a theory)
Countries which have abolished guns have higher homicide rates than in the US. Also, this isn't even the point of the Second Amendment. The point is to be able to rebel against a tyrannical government. For example, if we didn't have guns, we would still be living under the tyranny of Great Britain. Also, owning a gun IS a natural right. It is the right to self-preservation.
First off, a gun is just an object that can be used for good and bad purposes depending on the intentions of the person who bears it. A person can try breaking into your house in the middle of the night and pose a threat to your entire family, possessing a gun will help repel, or neatralize the predator. If you don't have a gun and this man does, then you are helpless. So those who argue guns kill, they also save lives.
I would like to make my second point by saying that abolishing the second amendment will not prevent guns from being illegally sold and possessed as they already are. Taking that right away will not have a big impact on those who seek to possess a gun, as is with drugs.
Finally, the sale of arms helps stimulate our economy as and keeps it flowing as it has created over 120,000+ jobs in the last 10 years.
Guns are necessary for self-defense. You cannot count on the police to save your life when they are often several minutes away, and that's if you even get the chance to call them. There are people out there that will hurt you given the chance. Whether it be breaking and entering, stealing your property, raping you, or trying to kill you or others. The right to own and carry a gun should never be infringed because there might come a time when you will need to actually shoot somebody. It's a reality myself, and anyone with any empathy, wishes was not true, but it is. You cannot take away people's right to bear arms.
It is our culture. It is evidence that we are a people worthy of such rights. We are a first world country where our citizens are trusted, not some third world where warlords reign and guns are used in constant war. I am not willing to give up my responsibility to act as a person should, nor I believe should others. On a side note, I don't own any guns thus far in my life because I don't really care for them. But I intend to keep the right to have one if I want one.
The second amendment exists as a barrier to authoritarian governments violating property rights. Guns don't kill people as they are inanimate objects lacking will, eliminating guns will lead to more knife and acid attacks. See London's knife control. The right to bare arms isn't opposed to life it gives you the individual the ability to preserve your life and the lives hoof your loved ones.
First off, you need to get better grammar. Second off, we will lose more lives if we restrict guns because the bad people will find them but the good ones won't be able to defend themselves. Also, Europe is very prone to invasion because they don't let their people have guns. Another thing is that southern states (OTHER THAN FLORIDA) aren't the ones with the shootings. If anything it's mostly the states that voted for Clinton, so the Democrats need to do a lot better. It's just that liberals don't have enough common sense to realize this and NOT TO GO INTO SCHOOLS SHOOTING PEOPLE EVERY THREE FREAKING MONTHS! One last thing,
We need the seconded amendment to insure that we do not lose our ability to protect ourselves. The right to bear arms should not be be taken away because it is to give people the chance to defend themselves from others. The second amendment is primarily about defense and the right to protect yourself and to hold your life in your own hands.