So, lets make people criminal because of what they might do!:rolleyes:
Hey, Smoking kills 500000 Americans a year. Booze kills 50000 or more. Are you a drinker? But you’re a* responsible* drinker, right? It doesn’t matter. You *might *drive drunk, so let’s ban booze.
Wait, so you make an assumption for which you have no proof or evidence to support, and then assume that your assumption proves something? Talk about :rolleyes:. They’re aren’t enough.
Fine, then if the government does give you compensation, will you be for it then? Especially given that if most guns are banned, the homicide and suicide rates by guns will absolutely, 100% surely drop dramatically.
DrDeth
Some more thoughts: If and when the 2nd amendment does get repealed, or if it remains but gun control laws that ban huge amounts of guns are passed, it will happen only because there is widespread support for it across the nation. If that’s the case, sure, there might be a few who try to resist and for which more cops may be needed, but it seems to me the number would be negligible. It’s not gonna cost the exorbitant amounts you keep throwing out.
You have absolutely no way to prove that. There’s the rub. The homicide rate in the US has plummeted since highs in the early '90’s without consfcating a single gun via Federal law, even more so than the rates in Australia.
My reality is called due process, presumption of innocence, etc. Come join us, we have snacks.
No, I cannot absolutely prove it. But do you seriously think that if major gun banning took place to the tune of millions and millions of guns being removed, that the homicide and suicide rates wouldn’t plummet?
ETA: Gun ownership is going up. Well, what do you know, so is the homicide rate involving guns. Does it not make sense that the opposite would happen if guns are banned?
From my link in last post.
Considering the rates plummeted without a ban, I think another plummet is dubious. A reduction, maybe, but you are making a HUGE assumption that the folk who are causing the gun violence today, will somehow see the light and turn in their tools in the face of a ban.
Sure our law abiding folks will do so, probably in droves. Your problem however is that they aren’t the ones causing the problems. You are somehow expecting criminals to give up the one thing that elevates their ability to project power because the Feds say so? It’s already illegal for them to own firearms today. Are you convinced that making it extra illegal will change their hearts and set then on a crime free life?
Someone earlier questioned my reality, how is yours?
You make a assumption that taking guns from law abiding citizens will reduce the violent crime rate.
According to who?
Lots of suicide in Japan, without guns.
Well, he makes the assumption that taking guns from law-abiding citizens (in addition, of course, to non-law-abiding citizens) will result in fewer *deaths *from violent crime, which is not IME unreasonable.
You, in turn, *seem *to make the assumption that the rate of murders and suicides would remain constant regardless of available means. That feels less tenable.
Nope, that’s correlation without causation, a typical logical fallacy.
*Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s. …
Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 74% during that span. (For both studies, 2017 is the most recent full year of data.) The long-term decline in violent crime hasn’t been uninterrupted, though. The FBI, for instance, reported increases in the violent crime rate between 2004 and 2006 and again between 2014 and 2016… Opinion surveys regularly find that Americans believe crime is up nationally, even when the data show it is down. I*
Now yes, there are upticks and downticks. But overall, violent crime is way down.
Again, I’ll ask. How exactly will you take the guns from those committing crimes with them today? Are we playing that wave the magic wand game again?
Same way we do now, friend. Police work.
If you’ve asked that of me before, you have my apologies for not responding to it.
I don’t intend to “take away” peoples’ guns, and have not advocated for such action. Sorry that was unclear.
So house to house searches? Or, perhaps, in the style of leftists far and wide, soliciting friends and neighbors to inform?
Where I live there’s no requirement to register firearms. The vast majority of states don’t require registration.
Rates have decreased without us having laws banning guns. I am saying that they would decrease more, lots more, if large amounts of guns were banned. You really don’t think this would happen? Or are you just saying that because you just don’t like the idea of bans? I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems blindingly obvious to me that major reductions in guns will have the result I’ve described.
As for law abiding or not, if guns are banned, the supply dries up. Over time, criminals will have no more access to guns than law-abiding citizens do. In addition, lots of murders/deaths are of course not planned. They happen by accident, or when say a thief goes into a 7-11 with a gun, with no intention of using it, but it goes off anyway. These types of deaths, and crime-of-passion deaths, would be also decrease.
As for my reality, maybe you missed my earlier comments where I’ve said that the idea of bans happening anytime soon, or ever for that matter, are not likely today. That doesn’t mean such should not be under discussion.
Your assumption was about how people will react to gun bans. Human behavior is unpredictable. And I did not make an assumption about law abiding people. I made a claim about people and guns in general, that homicides and suicides involving guns would decrease, given reduction in guns. Massive reductions in guns, fewer deaths because of them. How anyone could deny this happening as being very likely is truly beyond me.
Yeah, looking at the link again, that data is only from 2014-2016, yes, it’s not enough to draw any conclusions. I withdraw post.