I make the assumption that if most guns are banned, those committing crimes with them today won’t have them in the future, because the supply would dry up. But for the sake of what I’ve mostly been saying here, I don’t give a damn how they are taken. And yes, as I’ve acknowledged before, it would take a magic wand to do that today or in the near future. If you or anyone else isn’t interested in the theoretical discussion about what would happen to homicide and suicide numbers if that magic wand existed, fair enough.
I’m not really interested in theoreticals. Thanks
Well, shit, I was just going to reply to what you just edited out. Oh, well, fair enough on the theoretical discussions.
A random idea: if people were motivated to discuss theoretical ideas, rather than just stay based in the reality of what may be accomplished today, we all might be able to come up with some solutions for the most intractable problems we face today. I know this kind of thing has happened before. I read it in my history books…
If of course one just doesn’t want to get into a discussion of such theoreticals with some random guy on the internet, that is perfectly understandable. 
Ok, I’ll bite. If all guns were banned and gone, there would be no gun realted deaths. Simple.
If you can find a way to get guns out of the criminal hands that shouldn’t have them, there would be fewer gun related deaths.
If you could determine who was at risk for suicide by gun, and feel it is your business to stop them and take away their guns prior to their death, the suicide by gun rate would drop significantly.
That leaves about 450,000,000 guns left, collecting dust and not harming anyone. That’s a 10% removal which is still pretty high FYI but it’s easy math based on 500mm privately owned guns in the country. It would require some “Minority Report” pre-cog abilities and a hefty dose of magic however.
I didn’t say all, but most, but yeah, the same idea applies. One way to get guns out of the hands of criminals would be to ban a lot, and over time the supply would dry up. Gun manufacturers aren’t going to make guns and ammo if the market disappears.
Agreed. But since that cannot be done, at least fewer guns would make it harder for suicidal people to acquire them and use them to kill themselves.
And, a whole hell of a long time. But, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done, if society wanted it.
I guess I missed this joke of a response. So, the pro-gun solutions to this problem of firearm violence is to solve every other problem that exists first before directly addressing the issue at hand?
Seeing as how the problems you want others to tackle first are just as difficult(or even more difficult) to solve, this is basically saying that you don’t think the problem of firearm violence is really worth bothering with at all.
Well, you see, pretty much everyone agrees those are serious problems. But only about half want gun control and a small % want a gun ban.
So, yes, lets solve those problems we agree on, and those problems that can be solved within the limits of the Constitution.
Since gun ownership is increasing, but violent crime is decreasing, perhaps those solutions are the right ones for now.
But thanks for calling
"Better mental health support, Fighting poverty, ending the war on drugs and fighting racism" a “joke”. This shows is where your head is at.
Better mental health support- you consider a joke. :rolleyes:
Fighting poverty- you think this is funny.:rolleyes:
ending the war on drugs- hilarious, no? :rolleyes:
fighting racism- laugh out loud! :rolleyes:
Those are very difficult problems that need to be solved also, and I doubt that anyone believes that I was calling those problems a joke, including you. If you misunderstood my post that much, then your response has turned from a joke to just absolute nonsense. :dubious:
“I guess I missed this joke of a response.”
Did you not post this?
Are these not your words? Did you not then quote that passage?
You called my post, with those solutions a “joke”.
You sure seem to be confused a lot.
I know, it hurts when someone uses your very own words against you.
I am feeling pretty good right now, so I guess your weak-ass attempt to “misunderstand” a easily understood post pointing out your avoidance of the issue at hand (“Look over there at all those other problems! Nothing to see here!!”) wasn’t very effective. All you are doing now is embarrassing yourself.
One thing I never understood is that even though drunk driving deaths are comparable to gun homicides (~10,000/year), nobody ever marshals a grassroots campaign for alcohol restrictions after a particularly grisly drunk driving crash that kills a dozen people. There isn’t a national conversation about easy access to alcohol after a drunk driver piloting a bus collides with oncoming traffic and kills 15 people. It’s only when a mass shooting occurs that we have these serious talks.
I think it’s the visceral nature of the act. The fear and the pure bloodshed. Particularly when it’s children. I think this is what causes the inordinate focus. Part of me wants to entertain the right-wing fantasy that guns are an impediment to enacting sweeping and unpopular government mandates (to quote Aristotle, “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms”), but I’m not at all ready to take that leap.
They did, actually:* By January 16, 1919, the Amendment had been ratified by 36 of the 48 states, making it law. Eventually, only two states—Connecticut and Rhode Island—opted out of ratifying it.[53][54] On October 28, 1919, Congress passed enabling legislation, known as the Volstead Act, to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment when it went into effect in 1920.
Start of national prohibition (January 1920)
…
Prohibition began on January 17, 1920, when the Volstead Act went into effect.[55]*
Which possible was the biggest fucking failure in our history of bad laws. Oh wait, maybe the War on drugs beats it.
You’re shitting us, right? You’ve never noticed all the enforcement and restrictions on drunk driving, reductions in BAC required for citations, license suspensions, sobriety checkpoints, designated drivers, bartenders cutting off drunk customers, cab/Uber rides offered free on holidays, none of that? Seriously?
Yes, and guns have similar restrictions. Waiting periods, ban on purchase with felony record, background checks, etc. etc. So they’re both heavily regulated, but only one has this massive push to be banned, namely rifles. Can you imagine after a bad drunk driving crash if there was national outrage over the ridiculous alcohol content in a bottle of Wild Turkey, and that “Nobody needs that high of an alcohol content”?
You don’t see any organized opposition to measures that would reduce drunk driving, do you? There’s no national organization or political lobby or even a school of thought (defined generously) defending some imaginary personal freedom to drive drunk, is there?
It’s a useful analogy, yes, but not one in your favor.
Yes, there’s organized opposition to mass shootings as well. And there definitely is a school of thought that the freedom of Americans to consume alcohol should not be restricted because of a few bad people.
Here’s a thought experiment. Restricting alcohol access would prevent deaths. Some people would still make moonshine, but drunk driving deaths would go down, as well as other alcohol-related deaths due to the fact that obtaining alcohol would be prohibitive for most people. So how would you react to this question: The thousands of dead people every year due to alcohol, is that a price you’re just willing to pay to be able to drink? How would you react to that argument?
The point was that there is no opposition to reducing and preventing drunk driving. There certainly is opposition to reducing and preventing mass (and other) shootings.
None who claim it’s in the Constitution or God-given, though, right?
Are you asserting that there is an acceptable number of gun victims you think we should “pay” in order for you to keep your ability to cause them? Alcohol has uses and is not intended to cause death. Guns, not the case. But you’re looking for ways to excuse them.