The debate "Would banning bump stocks make any difference in the US" was started by
February 23, 2018, 5:48 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
MajorGeneralX posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
MajorGeneralX, MayaC17, liberty4all1776, NPW and 3 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, chasediedrich1, criscap, chemikilsm0ke and 3 visitors disagree.
As to your examples. Switzerland does have a high armed population... But all the adult male citizens are considered part of the military, and the presumed rigorous training that entails. so them being armed is a bit different, although some of the same issues may remain.
it also has an amazing social programs and universal healthcare. so its citizens are less likely to crack.
Honduras, in addition to its corruption is also not exactly a wealthy modern state. would it be able to control their guns if they wanted to? I'm not a big fan of comparing wealthy nations to much poorer ones as the entire environment is different.
and 9 dead is much better then the double digits we often get. and that seems like on the high end for a single fire gun attack.
thats exactly what i meant
they have been used in only 1 attack so historically no. But it may become more common now that it's out there.
I don't think the presence or not of bump stocks will reduce the frequency of attacks in any way. assault rifles are effective and easy on their own. But it will reduce the body count substantially, which is a good thing.
I think having access only to limited fire weapons will reduce attacks as the risk reward for the psychos will be massively reduced. banning bump stocks is a no brainer, but it's like banning nitro boost on roads that still permit formula one cars and drag racers. by itself, it's a worthless half step. bump stocks are just an accessory that makes the still existing problem marginally worse.
I would like to know it from American citizens. Your president made a decision to ban bump stocks that turn semi autos into autos.
Would that really make any significant change? Cause in Finland ( Im not from Finland) , Erik, the shooter used a non auto rifle to kill as many as 9 students in what we know as the Jokela high school massacre.
Since school shootings can still be carried out with not just autos but also semi's and even knives ( like in China where a man stabbed many in a school)
I'm not pro guns nor con guns. What I personally, believe is that 'Guns are a total useless to people'.
The United states should ban guns regardless of background check of the license holder.
Some might say, we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals in remote areas . But arming everyone in remote areas where law is out of reach cant make the situation any better. Insteading of making powerful guns accesible to citizens , spending more on law enforcement would be much helpful.
Honduras has toughest gun laws yet highest criminal rates while ironically, Swiss people are required to arm themselves and are advised to do so by their government. Switzerland has now the lowest crime rates of 193 UN nations.
But..... The situation in US is quite different. Honduras despite its tough laws, has corruption everywhere so its laws wont work in the real world.
In the US , they have literate and illeterate people. and both can carry firearms and can harm the society.