Comments by "Dan" (@Dan-di9jd) on "Would stronger gun laws save 300K lives like new study suggests? | On Balance" video.

The problem is that you're looking at a single issue rather than the complete picture. There are laws, then there's the enforcement of the law. When they enforce the law, it is considered a "crime." They don't record or report crimes that they don't find. Sure you can say that a country reduced its gun violence by whatever fold, but when you compare to the crime rate it's either going up or the same as it was prior to enacting the gun law. Suicide rates are the same too because people find another means to carry it out so saying you "reduced" suicide rates or crimes rate, you're just leaving out facts. If you notice they never say they reduced the totality of crimes only that they reduced the specific "gun" related crimes.
1
Also, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with crimes or the reduction of. It is purely there to prevent the government from overreach or to prevent outsiders from taking over the country. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or anything of the sort. It is there purely for self-defense of yourself, your family, and your community. Other countries do not have such thing in place and as such, it has shown time and time again that removal of access to weapons means that the government has plans to control you and your livelihood.
1
@donttreadonme1423 Correct, that's one of the bigger problems in the UK. They say crime and gun crimes are both going down since they passed their laws in the 90s but what they're not telling you is how they're recording said crimes. Also, it's not just a death rate that is concerning with what is going on there. Just in general some police departments aren't recording crimes, even if you called the police and had someone come out. They are not reporting ALL of the crimes to make it appear as if they reduced crime. In the USA, the reporting of a crime and specifically gun crimes are all politically motivated as the FBI, and local police are usually instructed on how they record a crime and in the event of a death, how they are supposed to record it depending on if a firearm was used. It's very concerning that people are not getting the full facts.
1
You're mixing up what I'm saying with what the other guy said. So I think that alone tells me you're not a very wise person and that you'd believe anything CNN tells you. @JT.Pilgrim
1
I think it is important to realize that when data is not recorded people assume that it is not as bad as people are making it based on the data they do have. So let's say they say crime is at an all time low but they don't record mugging when they don't use a weapon. It could be that it is a rare occurrence or it could be a very dangerous thing. I heard in cases in the UK, there is a particular bridge where mugging is so common that people are advised not to walk on it because this gang holds both ends and you can't escape. The police don't even come if called and if they do they are long gone. So with that in mind, the cases of mugging, for example, may be high or low but we can't really know for sure because they don't record it. So it's hard to know statistical data being correct or not because it really depends on knowing what is recorded and how they are recorded and how they are instructed to record it. @donttreadonme1423
1