It would likely take more than a year to do an accurate assessment. America has a LOT of guns in circulation, the goal of gun control is to take some out but it wouldnt happen immediately. I think a decade would be a better time frame and I feel confident we would see a change within a decade based on the results of other countries that have introduced gun control measures.
They don't want them to have Health Care They don't want them to have Housing They don't want them to have Food Stamps They don't want them to have Social Security They don't want them to have Minimum Wage They don't want them to have Worker Compensation insurance But They do want them to have semi automatic assault rifles?
Ahh..yeah I did look into it a little more after reading your post and yeah, I definitely think if there isnt a lot of evidence there that he can be rehabilitated, he should be tried as an adult. Apparently he has been threatening a guard at his dentention center so...it doesn't seem like he has a lot of remorse or has learned anything in the last few months I did find out something significant while looking into this. His dad had an arsenal of guns, like 30 of them. He also had a CDV charge from the 90s but South Carolina didn't make it illegal for people with domestic violence charges to purchase a gun until 2015. Maybe if this had been made illegal a long time ago this could have been prevented.
This is the rate in proportion to the population though .The US has a higher rate of gun deaths, not just a larger number.
If they can't afford housing If they can't afford food If they can't afford saving for retirement If they don't wish to go to school to learn a trade that pays better How can they afford to buy these semi automatic weapons you think they want them to have? They aren't free by any means, and I don't see any program that promotes any government subsidies to buy them.
A gun can be bought on the street for as little as $20 or $30 come on we both know this. Black markets, people needing to get rid of a gun they used in a crime. Prices drop. Is it an "assault riffle" maybe not but it fires more than once for sure.
I know what you're saying, but I still see it being a lopsided comparison. Where is USSR on that slide? The most crooked, corrupt, and violent people on the planet aren't being equally represented on that graph.....
The U.S. has always had a lot of guns. Hundreds of years worth. Maybe instead of looking at the fact that they have a lot of guns, look at the statistics of frequency of gun use in these crimes now in recent decades compared to previous decades. Maybe that will shed some light on your thought processes. Something in our society has changed. Maybe we need to consider that its a social/people factor that has changed.
I was responding to the tendency the opposers tend to use in their arguments of taking examples to the extremes. If they yell assault weapons loud and often enough, then assault weapons will represent all weapons with their logic. If they are caught possessing any illegal weapons, they should lose all rights to social support programs. But we can't try that, as it targets a socially sensitive grouping of people.
No our attitudes towards guns have changed in the last few decades too. I dont have time to dig up the stats right now, gotta get back to work, but I will later. The culture surrounding guns has changed. 50 years ago a higher percentage of the population supported gun control. Also if you look at the stats of gun ownership over the last few decades you'll see the number of people who own guns has decreased but the total numver of guns owned has increased, suggesting people who do own guns are stockpiling them The US has a gun problem and a gun culture problem. I've said this before - NRA propoganda has done a number on our nation's psyche .
How is this an excuse? Are you suggesting we haven't had open gun ownership and manufacturing in the USA for hundreds of years? Or are you struggling with the fact that the problem of violent crime isn't a current (within say the past say 30 years) problem that we didn't have prior?
Or perhaps the logic used to argue against responsible ownership has become the problem. Yes the U.S has a culture problem. I agree its far too easy to obtain guns for far too many people. We need to start there.
Lack of observant parenting is a huge problem. These shooters are raising themselves, most likely, in a household with no parent present because they work. Sadly, I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that their are alot of people who are leaving it to the system and techo gadgets to raise their children.
There is something you are not grasping here: They are Republicans who do not want Them (poor folks) to have these things. "BUT" they (Republicans) do not want new gun laws...meaning They (Republicans) want Them (poor folks) to have guns. It is a conventional syllogism in a way; and, before you say anything, I did not insinuate a slippery slope argument here. That is not my premise. I am a religious Democrat with roots in the Jimi Carter days of activism.
Sorry I am having a hard time following this logic. The Republicans do or do not want the poor folks to have guns? In one sentence it seems to say both. Your earlier post said this: They don't want them to have Health Care They don't want them to have Housing They don't want them to have Food Stamps They don't want them to have Social Security They don't want them to have Minimum Wage They don't want them to have Worker Compensation insurance But They do want them to have semi automatic assault rifles? To me that implies you argue that this is a Republican effort to somehow say its OK for them to be broke, but lets not question how they can afford firearms. I think the Republicans favor all people to have gun ownership and the Democrats hate all gun owners. Neither of these are alright. Now then if poor people are also the predominant crime perpetrators, now the slope is far less slippery. That is a pretty easy mark to say should not own guns. Not that they are poor, but the fact that they may be a predominant source of crime. Which by the way, I think if someone is convicted of a felony, they should lose all rights to social support programs.