Among the dead are four men and two women, as well as an unborn baby, authorities said. It is unclear if the baby’s mother, who was seven months pregnant, was also killed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hamburg-germany-shooting-rcna74270
Hmm. So sad for the victims involved but that aside, I thought Europeans weren’t supposed to have “gun” violence, because guns are outlawed…Hmm.
shareNo-one said it never happens, but it happens far less in Europe than USA.
shareI know no one hardly ever says anything about it never happening but they still try to make too big of a deal about it not happening as much when it still happens and the point being made here is that gun control doesn’t do shit except disarm the wrong people… You know, the people who follow laws.
Yes, we do have access to guns here, but access to those guns is not why we have more of this “gun”violence. We have people of all cultures here and we do have a lot more violent society than anywhere else. But trust me when I say this, it’s not a gun problem, it’s a People problem. There’s probably 400 million guns under civilian ownership in this country with almost as many legal gun owners; if it was truly a gun problem, you would most definitely know it.
It's hard to say because US and EU gun culture are completely different. But there are European countries with relaxed gun laws that do not have the rate of US shootings (Finland, Switzerland).
Clearly the massive difference in gun crime in UK, France, Germany, Spain etc has a lot to do with access to guns. It's not the only factor, but it is a factor.
It’s not the access to guns. You even said it yourself with the European countries that have relaxed gun laws and not near the violence so that right there oughta be enough proof that it’s not a factor that we have access to guns.
All of these gun restrictions and regulations that we have is the problem because what these gun control advocates don’t realize is that the more gun control you push for, creates more crime because it literally disarms the good people and arms even more of the bad people. If there were more armed good guys, there’d be a lot more people around to take out these people who want to go shoot up a school, shopping mall, theater or supermarket. Even doing away with gun free zones would help tremendously because anybody with half a brain realizes that the only people who are gonna respect gun free zones are the good people. The bad people realize the hero factor is very low in a gun free zone because most legal gun owners aren’t going to carry their weapon in an area where weapons are not allowed. Why? Because the good people follow and obey laws; the bad people, however, do not.
So why are there hardly any shootings in Europe compared to USA?
shareI literally just explained it for the most part.
For one thing, a lot of the shootings today really didn’t used to constitute as a mass shooting years ago. The media has inflated that by so much which is why it seems like we’re having a lot more of a problem.
But the sad thing is, when you have somebody like that guy up in the Indiana mall last summer who took out that shooter, that’s not one of those widely reported on situations because it goes against the whole gun control narrative. The gun control advocates don’t want you to know stuff like that and sadly a lot of the news media outlets are either liberal or Democrats so, there you go.
I wish I had a lot more of an accurate answer why it happens more over here than it does in other countries but I know in my heart that it’s not because we don’t have enough gun laws and I know that it’s not because we have access to guns over here unlike a lot of other countries.
What I feel we need is a lot less gun restriction and regulation so that more good people could own and carry arms can reduce the amount of prosecution from somebody who tries to defend themselves or somebody else with a gun. Get rid of all this legal bullshit that still could find ways to put somebody in jail if they shoot somebody who’s trying to harm them or rob them. Get rid of the gun free zones, so that the good people wouldn’t have to worry about breaking the law if they want to carry their gun with them for for protection because, like I said, anybody with half a brain knows that gun free zones, even in states, where that sign does carry the weight of the law is not going to stop a criminal from carrying past that sign.
I know so many people like to say we need waiting periods and stricter background checks but what good does that do when so many people buy guns illegally off the street or they steal them?
The Las Vegas shooter who shot up the Jason Aldean concert; he bought his guns legally and he passed the background check- why? Because he had no prior record. Even the same thing for the kid that shot up the Uvalde school- he had a background check ran on him and he passed it because there was nothing on his record that could’ve prevented that sale. Sure, you could say raise the gun buying age to 21 but seriously, what good would that do when if that kid really wanted to do what he wanted to do bad enough, he could’ve gotten a gun from somewhere else. There’s lots of 17 and 18 year olds who are even a lot more responsible with firearms than a lot of adults do saying we should raise the gun-buying age to 21 really doesn’t make any sense.
Seems to me that you are against any and all gun regulations and restrictions and your idea of a solution is to put even more guns out there which will put even more guns into the hands of criminals.
We are already doing that and it still isn't working.
This is like fighting a fire with gas.
Making it burn hotter and spreading is not going to put it out.
It is just going to make it worse.
@WarrenPeace said-
Seems to me that you are against any and all gun regulations and restrictions....
...and your idea of a solution is to put even more guns out there which will put even more guns into the hands of criminals.
We are already doing that and it still isn't working.
"I'm saying putting more guns in good guys hands and what I mean by that is, loosening the regs and restrictions so that more law-abiding people will have access."
You don't know if the law abiding people are going to stay law abiding after they get that gun.
You gave two examples of law abiding citizens who got their hands on guns then used them in crimes of mass shootings.
You are being way too trusting, caviler and naive with your solutions for the gun problem.
If your idea of putting more guns out there would stop gun crimes then we would have seen that by now.
You don't know if the law abiding people are going to stay law abiding after they get that gun.
You gave two examples of law abiding citizens who got their hands on guns then used them in crimes of mass shootings.
You are being way too trusting, caviler and naive with your solutions for the gun problem.
If your idea of putting more guns out there would stop gun crimes then we would have seen that by now.
"And you will never know who is and who isn't but blocking access to both groups isn't the right way to do it. We give drivers licenses out but we don't know who's gonna drive home drunk and kill somebody and we don't just take away driving privileges from everybody, do we?? Exactly."
When someone gets a license, I seriously doubt they are thinking, "Woo hoo! Now I can drive home drunk!"
DUI, which I have a strong prejudice against, is more of the result of poor judgement and an accident is just that. Not like they crashed the car on purpose.
When anyone picks up a gun and does a criminal act with it and points and shoots at others with it, that is not an accident.
Yes, there are those who have used a car as a weapon for a crime on purpose, I even know of a victim, but that is far and few between in comparison to those who use a gun as a weapon for a crime.
More people will have a need for a car, where the sole purpose of it is not to be used as a weapon to kill, then they do for a gun, which only purpose is to kill.
So your suggestion at taking away everyone's license is ludicrous and naive.
"That's why you arm yourself so you can be prepared when that person decides they no longer wish to be a law-abiding citizen."
Oh I get it now.
We just go ahead and give EVERYONE a gun and let the criminals commit their act where they might kill a few people then everyone around him will kill him and others in the cross fire and eventually all the criminals will be dead and there will be a bunch of collateral damage.
Yeah, that should work.
Great idea!
"No I'm not. I'm just protecting the ones who won't turn bad. But you know, again, bad people will still get guns regardless."
Good people who get guns turn into bad people with guns.
Are you denying that happens all the time?
Look at the famous soul singer Marvin Gaye.
He was killed by his own father by a gun when they got into an argument.
No gun in the house Gaye would have lived and maybe still be alive.
@WarrenPeace said-
This is like fighting a fire with gas.
Making it burn hotter and spreading is not going to put it out.
It is just going to make it worse
"...he limited the amount of people killed to THREE instead of 10 or 15+."
So even though he stopped more carnage he still didn't do enough to keep three from getting killed.
Three is still too many.
The one and only way to prevent any deaths, which is what would have been better, is to not have so many guns around in the first place which is why so many free countries do not have nearly the high death counts from guns as we do.
So even though he stopped more carnage he still didn't do enough to keep three from getting killed.
Three is still too many.
The one and only way to prevent any deaths, which is what would have been better, is to not have so many guns around in the first place which is why so many free countries do not have nearly the high death counts from guns as we do.
Because they stab and bludgeon each other instead.
sharehttps://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/world/london-us-cities-homicide-rates-comparison-intl-gbr/index.html
London has a lower crime rate than every major US city
Yeah, so? moot point. Switzerland has a low crime rate and their citizens have easy access to guns so besides calling this a moot point, you're really not even making a point, to be honest. You're just regurgitating some BS stat that CNN says.
shareI mean how many crime states can I give? The reality is that crime in general is lower in most EU cities. We're not all substituting gun crime for stabbings.
All you have from your end is "I don't know why gun crime is much higher in the US, but I just know in my heart it has nothing to do with gun accessibility". It's literally just "just trust me bro" level of argument.
Well, it may have a little bit more to do with gun accessibility but we do have a lot more of a violent society here. That part is fact. You're just focusing on the wrong aspect. Maybe that is the by-product of having constitutional rights to firearms but either way regardless, those gun rights are what's keeping our country free. Do you really wish to live like China or North Korea where you have no rights? Having your life completely controlled by the government? I don't want that and the very fact that Sleepy Joe Biden responded to the People saying they have f-15's and tanks should've been taken as a threat to more government control.
But what is the basis of your argument besides mostly-fabricated statistics generated from mostly government-controlled sources?
Well, it may have a little bit more to do with gun accessibility but we do have a lot more of a violent society here. That part is fact. You're just focusing on the wrong aspect. Maybe that is the by-product of having constitutional rights to firearms but either way regardless, those gun rights are what's keeping our country free. Do you really wish to live like China or North Korea where you have no rights?
But what is the basis of your argument besides mostly-fabricated statistics generated from mostly government-controlled sources?
You think having firearm restrictions = living like North Korea or China?
So all crime statistics are lies? Do you think that agencies in the Uk or France or Germany are corrupt institutions of banana republics who intentionally report misinformation?
In addition there are tons of sources for this stuff:
Pretty much. Sure, there might not be other countries as bad as Japan, China or North Korea but to some degree, yes.
I don't know about their data but it's primarily the "data" here that I don't trust because there's far too much Liberal, Lefty and corrupt Democratic influence here who are desperately trying to push a specific narrative. These people think our gun rights are the reason why people die and why they fiercely fight the NRA who's fighting for my gun rights so why would I trust them? Anything a Dem or Lefty says or even a Dem or Lefty-influenced statistic is something I would only trust as far as I could throw it.
But here's a serious question to those death rates- How many of those were justifiable killings that just so happen to make it int the national database of deaths by guns? What I mean by that are the would-be victims who shot back and killed their attacker or the people who fired upon police who got filled full of lead.
Why did you mention Japan there? They're a democratic country.
I'm in the UK. No-one here wants to legalise firearms for general accessibility and use.
So what's the point then? You'll just accuse any source I can find as lying. Why even bother?
Are you proposing that a plurality or majority of death rates in the US were conducted in self-defence? That seems like an utterly preposterous claim
I mentioned Japan for the same reasons I mentioned China and North Korea. Barely any freedoms at all and that our gun rights here in America is what prevents us from having to live that way.
And how do you know no one there wants to LEGALIZE guns in the UK or any other country for that matter? Did you make up some national poll, or what? But you know, for arguments sake, there probably are a lot of people over there who don't want gun rights because for one, you never had them anyways and two, its not and never was in your constitution or whatever your version of the Bill of Rights is so of course I would understand why opinions in another country would be different.
Exactly. why bother? Besides.... Even if some of those numbers are true, they mean nothing because our gun rights is not the root cause. Ive already explained what that is.
I didn't say the majority, I said SOME so what's the preposterous claim, your assumption that I said majority or that some- as in what I truly said, of these numbers might not entirely be cold-blooded murders??
On what grounds does Japan have "barely any freedoms"? Japan is nothing like China and North Korea.
Not only do we not want gun liberalisation, we want even stricter laws.
Your explanation was speculative. I would add that the US lack of welfare safety net, poor mental health issues, and polarisation (albeit that also exists in much of Europe) also influences this too.
It would have to be a plurality or majority of violent crimes to make up the difference between the reported violent crime rates of that of Europe and the USA.
Egh, you're right, Japan is better than China and North Korea. Still not better than America, though.
Good for y'all but why bother? You already got guns outlawed so why wish for more? If gun laws were so great, you wouldn't need more.
Sure, I can see how someone with your opinion of guns would say what I said is speculative. Still doesn't make it so.
I'm not worried so much about Europe but here in the states, a lot of those numbers probably do include justifiable killings from self defense both civilian and law enforcement but information like that is hard to come by because it goes against the whole gun control narrative.
Probably. But it's nowhere near the category of China and North Korea.
It's not exactly a pressing issue - it's simply that if pushed, we'd want more restrictions.
But you haven't really given much of an argument other than "I just feel it in my heart".
I mean if like 30% of all deaths in the US are suicide by cop or death by gun from civilian protecting themselves/others, I mean, that's quite a suggestion.
Sure I have. You just don't care to hear it or agree with it because it goes against your beliefs.
"....those gun rights are what's keeping our country free."
Not at all.
There are a lot of other countries that are way more freer than we are and they don't have gun rights.
Instead they have far less gun violence.
What keeps us free is the Constitution and the system of Govt. we have set up.
Not guns.
Child, please.
So take your gunless ass and move to one of those countries.
What keeps us free is the Constitution
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.share
"So take your gunless ass and move to one of those countries."
Be happy to if you pay for the expenses.
Is your blank check in the mail yet?
"Yes, based on the the 2nd Amendment:
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."
No, not based on the archaic 2nd Amend. since it does not declare that guns are what makes us free.
It's the stuff about the freedom of speech and assembly that makes us free.
Be happy to if you pay for the expenses. Is your blank check in the mail yet?
No, not based on the archaic 2nd Amend. since it does not declare that guns are what makes us free.
It's the stuff about the freedom of speech and assembly that makes us free.
I have a lot of big and heavy stuff like family heirlooms and antiques.
Not like I can just pack a suitcase and leave.
Typical Righty Conservaturd who cannot handle another's freedom of expression.
"Doesn't have to. That's why the 2A was written in the first place, as it says, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
Yeah, but this was written during older times before we had the police force and an organized military to protect us as well as when there were not so many gun crimes and they were one shot muskets.
Men settled their disputes with legal gun duels instead of going up to one guy and just randomly shooting him in the head.
Perhaps we should bring duels back and all you gun nuts can kill each other and leave those of us who are smart and part of the solution alone.
I have a lot of big and heavy stuff like family heirlooms and antiques. Not like I can just pack a suitcase and leave.
Yeah, but this was written during older times before we had the police force and an organized military to protect us as well as when there were not so many gun crimes and they were one shot muskets.
Men settled their disputes with legal gun duels instead of going up to one guy and just randomly shooting him in the head.
Perhaps we should bring duels back and all you gun nuts can kill each other and leave those of us who are smart and part of the solution alone.
Not at all.
There are a lot of other countries that are way more freer than we are and they don't have gun rights.
Instead they have far less gun violence.
What keeps us free is the Constitution and the system of Govt. we have set up. Not guns.
"No they're not. We're not told how many children we can have. We actually have a voice to the government. Not that they listen a whole lot but we have a voice. Choose how we cut our hair. right to vote. all sorts of shit I'm not going to type out."
Yeah and other countries that are also as free as ours can do all that too plus more.
We are not the greatest nor the freest country on the planet, numb nuts.
Here in America we still have states where pot and prostitution (Nevada only has it legal in some areas.) is still illegal.
Now try and convince me that Holland aka The Netherlands where you can smoke pot and have sex with a hooker with no fear of ever getting busted is somehow less free than the USA.
Go ahead.
Canada has assisted suicide legal for those who feel like their quality of life is at an end.
It is our life and we should have the right to decide if we want to end it with help.
A country that prolongs suffering for humans when their physical suffering is impossible to end is not freedom and that is just cruel.
Change my mind.
Go ahead.
"Sorry pal, its the guns. It's kinda hard to control people wen they're armed."
Take a look at other countries that do not have as many guns as us which are as free or even more so than we are and you will see that their government is sane and stable and a democracy.
This argument of, "My guns is what keeps the armies away, derp derp," is BS because Jed's deer rifle is not going to stop that tank or that bomb from falling on his house and killing him.
Those of you who somehow have fooled yourselves into thinking that your guns is what keeps the Govt. in line are deluding yourselves with delusions of grandeur.
Take a look at what happened right after the Boston Marathon bombing.
Heavily armed cops were doing illegal and unconstitutional house to house searches, making the residents leave with their hands up.
They were doing this and no one resisted and everyone who had guns complied because they know they would have ended up dead had they tried to keep the cops away at gunpoint.
"If you trust governments so much then go shack up with ole Skavau in the UK."
Send me a blank check and I will.
And sure I'll hook up with Skavu if she is a straight and available woman.
If Skav. is a man then I could make a new friend!
Yeah and other countries that are also as free as ours can do all that too plus more. We are not the greatest nor the freest country on the planet, numb nuts.
Here in America we still have states where pot and prostitution (Nevada only has it legal in some areas.) is still illegal. Now try and convince me that Holland aka The Netherlands where you can smoke pot and have sex with a hooker with no fear of ever getting busted is somehow less free than the USA. Go ahead.
Canada has assisted suicide legal for those who feel like their quality of life is at an end. It is our life and we should have the right to decide if we want to end it with help. A country that prolongs suffering for humans when their physical suffering is impossible to end is not freedom and that is just cruel. Change my mind. Go ahead.
Don't need to. No matter how you slice it, assisted suicide is still murder. KILLING a human is not the same as putting an old dog down or shooting an injured horse. Its funny how you even have the audacity to use this as a pathetic example, saying its ok to kill a human being due to old age or some sickness and then preach to me about people dying from "guns". I quoted "guns" because of how you idiots blame the "gun" and not the lousy piece of shit pulling the trigger.
Interesting how this was the only point you're touching on....
Anywho, I never said what my thoughts were on this issue, I was just simply pointing out that it was still murder and, why they call it assisted suicide is beyond me because the person in question isnt killing themselves, they're just giving someone else permission which, is still murder.
Are you in favour of capital punishment?
And if assisted suicide was legalised, then it would by a direct reading of the definition - not be murder.
Are you in favour of capital punishment?
And if assisted suicide was legalised, then it would by a direct reading of the definition - not be murder.
Because I don't see by your logic how capital punishment isn't murder if assisted suicide is. I was inquiring to your position on it.
If it was legaliZed, that still wouldn't change what it actually is.
Because I don't see by your logic how capital punishment isn't murder if assisted suicide is. I was inquiring to your position on it.
I don't accept your premise that following a request to help someone end their life constitutes murder. And the literal dictionary definition of murder is "unlawful" killings.
Take a look at other countries that do not have as many guns as us which are as free or even more so than we are and you will see that their government is sane and stable and a democracy.
This argument of, "My guns is what keeps the armies away, derp derp," is BS because Jed's deer rifle is not going to stop that tank or that bomb from falling on his house and killing him.
Those of you who somehow have fooled yourselves into thinking that your guns is what keeps the Govt. in line are deluding yourselves with delusions of grandeur.
Take a look at what happened right after the Boston Marathon bombing. Heavily armed cops were doing illegal and unconstitutional house to house searches, making the residents leave with their hands up.
They were doing this and no one resisted and everyone who had guns complied because they know they would have ended up dead had they tried to keep the cops away at gunpoint.
Send me a blank check and I will.
No they're not. We're not told how many children we can have. We actually have a voice to the government. Not that they listen a whole lot but we have a voice. Choose how we cut our hair. right to vote. all sorts of shit I'm not going to type out.
North Korea. Look it up.
1. Foreign movies, songs not allowed
2. Making International calls is a crime
3. Disloyalty to the leader can mean the death penalty
4. Three-generation punishment
5. Only government-approved haircuts
6. Own basketball rules
7. Permission needed to live in the national capital
8. Students required to pay for their own desks and chairs
9. Bible is banned in North Korea
10. No iPhones or laptops
11. Strict customs rules
12. Prison camps in North Korea
13. Different calendar
14. Only one leader to vote in the election
15. Kim Il Sung is their only true leader
16. No Marijuana law
17. Insult to Kim and his family considered blasphemy
18. Not allowed to leave the country
19. Strict rules for tourists
20. Military service is compulsory
In Europe they enjoy sex, and the women don't put gravy on their gravy.
shareSo you expect millions of Americans to give up their guns for something that kinda-sorta works? Are you retarded???
shareI didn't make any demand - just noted that gun crime is MUCH LESS in Europe.
shareAnd for the history-illiterate among us, world wars are much less common in the US. People like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot who murder millions of their own people are also much less common in the US. In fact, they are non-existent.
shareOkay? US is geographically situated in one of the best places on earth, safety wise. It dominates its continent.
Europe is comprised of 44 countries each with its own history, traditions and cultures. Europe has 30+ languages.
Ah, so it's just geography that prevents mass murder, okay. Nice try but that is irrelevant. I said "murdering their own people", not invading others.
Is that why the Japanese only bombed Pearl, rather than invading the mainland? Fact is, our 2nd Amendment not only discourages invasion but also prevents people like Stalin from coming to power. Your ideology promotes it. That's why we fight it.
Ah, so it's just geography that prevents mass murder, okay. Nice try but that is irrelevant. I said "murdering their own people", not invading others.
Is that why the Japanese only bombed Pearl, rather than invading the mainland? Fact is, our 2nd Amendment not only discourages invasion but also prevents people like Stalin from coming to power. Your ideology promotes it. That's why we fight it.
Okay, once again, I'm not talking about invading your neighbors. Let me try to be even more clear, geography doesn't prevent a regime from emerging that murders its own people. Savvy???
Prove it. Do you really think a small island nation like Japan would've stood a chance invading a country with millions of armed citizens? Whether or not Yamamoto said anything about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" or not, it's still true.
Okay, once again, I'm not talking about invading your neighbors. Let me try to be even more clear, geography doesn't prevent a regime from emerging that murders its own people. Savvy???
Prove it. Do you really think a small island nation like Japan would've stood a chance invading a country with millions of armed citizens? Whether or not Yamamoto said anything about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" or not, it's still true.
Are you retarded? How ignorant can a person be of their own history. England was at war with itself for centuries before it was unified 1000yrs ago. They've made war on Ireland and Scotland just as long. In every instance, they tried to disarm the people they were trying to subjugate.
God damn, they did get across the Pacific and destroyed nearly the whole Pacific fleet.
Fuck me, liberals are dumber than I ever thought possible. No wonder you're doomed to repeat history.
Are you retarded? How ignorant can a person be of their own history. England was at war with itself for centuries before it was unified 1000yrs ago. They've made war on Ireland and Scotland just as long. In every instance, they tried to disarm the people they were trying to subjugate.
God damn, they did get across the Pacific and destroyed nearly the whole Pacific fleet.
Report what you want, you're an idiot who needs to be laughed off this forum.
shareI guess all those gun control laws don't work so well.
shareExcept than mass shootings in Europe are far less common than in the USA
shareAnd thats not because of gun control. We have the same gun control laws here. 'Magine that.
shareNot compared to most of Europe you don't.
And Finland is a pretty mostly monocultural country (Switzerland too) which would explain the much less social strife that could cause gun crimes.
Compared to what, other than no rights to guns??
Finland and Switzerland may be monocultural but they are no where near like here. Besides; as Ive already stated, they don't have near the violent society, either. They don't have drug cartels. They probably don't even have the gang population we have here, either. They probably even have stricter penalties for crimes committed as well.
And stop calling it "gun" crimes. That is the dumbest term anybody could ever use because it's not gun crimes, it's people crimes. We don't call it car crimes when a drunk kills a family with his car while driving drunk. We don't call it "baseball bat" crime when a person bludgeons someone to death with a bat, nor do we call it "fist" crime when a guy uses his bare hands.
Finland and Switzerland may be monocultural but they are no where near like here. Besides; as Ive already stated, they don't have near the violent society, either. They don't have drug cartels. They probably don't even have the gang population we have here, either. They probably even have stricter penalties for crimes committed as well.
And stop calling it "gun" crimes. That is the dumbest term anybody could ever use because it's not gun crimes, it's people crimes. We don't call it car crimes when a drunk kills a family with his car while driving drunk. We don't call it "baseball bat" crime when a person bludgeons someone to death with a bat, nor do we call it "fist" crime when a guy uses his bare hands.
That's my point - there's much less civil strife there
And you think Finland and Switzerland have stricter penalties than the USA? I doubt it. Especially in Finland, part of the Scandinavian cultural ecosphere.
Overall Europe has way less murders and violent crime than the USA.
I I don't know how their penalties compare to the US but their citizens do have getter gun rights and lower crime rate so what does that tell you??
Okay.... and why the need to repeat that?? Ive already told you my take on that so why keep repeating number comparisons between two countries?
That there are other factors.
Harsh punishments does not correlate with getting low crime.
I mean, not quite, you questioned the data.
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment/201804/why-punishment-doesnt-reduce-crime
https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/moj-evaluation-restorative-justice#:~:text=Restorative%20justice%20led%20to%20a,other%20people%20in%20their%20situation.
Our prison systems here are too lax and not to mention, we have too many corrupt lawyers who are more interested in getting violent criminals off rather than putting them away where they belong.
Yeah, and your point?
Well, you're right, irregardless of the punishment, most people are violent enough to where no matter the consequences, they'll still commit crimes.
And I didn't disagree with you about Europe having less crime. We have it here in the US and it wont get any less worse if you could even find a way to remove the guns.
Imagine being so ignorant of basic statistics that one can write that post without feeling even slightly embarrassed. The purpose of laws is to reduce undesirable behavior, not eliminate it.
In the US, mass shooting deaths are less than one percent of the victims of gun violence.
I wonder if Germany will have the typical reaction after mass shootings that more enlightened countries then America have.
Will they do the right thing and put even more restrictions on guns?
Or are they going to be like America where they somehow think that the old BS of sending, "Thoughts and prayers," will solve anything?
I don't know, did disarming the Jews work in Germany???
share