I don't know, but universal background checks certainly qualify as "restrictions on guns."
I don't know, but universal background checks certainly qualify as "restrictions on guns."That poll shows support for background checks. Is there support in the US for banning certain types of weapons beyond "Assault Weapons"?
Agreed. Replace 'em all with AI.I agree. If only we didn't have a radical group of lawyers over turning all those defined rules.
If we required universal background checks before voting, most would consider that a 'restriction on voting rights' I imagine.I don't know, but universal background checks certainly qualify as "restrictions on guns."
I don't think "ashamed" is a strong enough word. I can't come up with anything better, but I know "ashamed" doesn't cover 1/1000000th of what they should be feeling.
I don't know, but universal background checks certainly qualify as "restrictions on guns."
I think there is decent support for raising minimum age to purchase/own but don't know the numbers.It does qualify as restrictions. However is there much support for going beyond that?
That poll shows support for background checks. Is there support in the US for banning certain types of weapons beyond "Assault Weapons"?
I think there is decent support for raising minimum age to purchase/own but don't know the numbers.
I agree that the risk of suicide is still small if you own a gun, but to me what that data point means is that the most commonly cited reason for gun ownership is protection. Even if the risk increase is small it doesn’t make sense to buy something for protection that makes you less safe.I was thinking about the data yesterday you shared and the increased risk of 10xtimes in suicide if someone owns a gun. The average annual rate per 100k in the US for suicide is about 14 people per 100k. Which means the average person has about .014% of suicide. If you times by 10 that would be .14%? I think most people just don't see that increase even if 10x as a concern because the risk is still so low. Even when I agree with you that 10x is huge. I thought how many times I have driven from Southern CA to either Las Vegas, San Francisco or Phoenix. Despite the fact that I have easy access to a airport and I could make that journey by air, that it would probably be 10x to 100x safer than me driving in a car. Yet I still will drive myself the majority of the time despite that journey by car placing myself or anyone else with me at increased risk. I think overall statistically people have a hard time appreciating the data around small risks.
Even if you do everything right with safe storage, how many examples are there of people who had their gun taken from them and then used against them? How many examples of situations where the mere presence of a gun escalated a situation when it could have been deescalated? How many innocent bystanders shot by stray bullets? People romanticize the idea of being a hero and it very rarely works out that way.I agree that the risk of suicide is still small if you own a gun, but to me what that data point means is that the most commonly cited reason for gun ownership is protection. Even if the risk increase is small it doesn’t make sense to buy something for protection that makes you less safe.
I agree that the risk of suicide is still small if you own a gun, but to me what that data point means is that the most commonly cited reason for gun ownership is protection. Even if the risk increase is small it doesn’t make sense to buy something for protection that makes you less safe.
So $3500 worth of killing power 4 days after 18th bday on credit:
Well, you are in luck! After much debate, It appears that is the solution we have decided to go with!your shit hole country just deserves what it gets and should just cleanse the world by killing each other.
The total contempt the police and this state in particular has for its duties to its citizens is something I've never really experienced on this level.
Fucking depraved
If we required universal background checks before voting, most would consider that a 'restriction on voting rights' I imagine.
Except that's literally not what the data shows. You keep drawing conclusions and calling them reasonable when they're anything but. What you really should be saying is "this conclusion FEELS right to me." Unfortunately, though, being comfortable with a conclusion can have little correlation with it being logically sound.
You're arguing against "guns dramatically increase risk of successful suicide" by arguing "guns don't cause suicide as much as I think they should!" It's not just a strawman, it's an emotional anecdote about a strawman. I know you see those arguments as equivalent or "basically the same" but they aren't at all.
And outside of person to person sales, we already require a 'background check' before selling a firearm, which is done at the point of sale. Further 'background checks' for gun sales would be like further 'background checks' for voting, beyond voter registration.We already do require a “background check” before voting. It’s called voter registration.