"* otherwise *law abiding citizens "
Yeah, we have so lets double down and put tens of thousands more in prison!
:rolleyes:
To answer the question is simplistic in nature but it will be disregarded (which might be why it has never been answered)
Gun control laws perform a thing: they control guns (to the law abiding)
So to answer your question, probably very little.
How about a compromise. Release the people in jail for pot on the condition that they share some of their Cannatonic with the twitchy gun folks. That kills two birds with one stone, rather than 33k people with bullets.
One of Canada’s top sharpshooters would like civilians restricted to single shot longuns. Makes a lot of sense to me. Handguns are already restricted.
Is the firearms violence in Indiana higher than Illinois? It should be, with firearms easier to get in Indiana.
Let’s ask USA Today for 2016:
Illinois
Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 11.6 per 100,000
Total firearm deaths 2016: 1490 (suicides: 506, homicides: 944)
Violent crime rate: 436.3 per 100,000 (16th highest)
Permit required to carry handgun: FOID Required
Poverty rate: 13.0% (24th lowest)
Indiana
Firearm deaths per 100,000 people: 14.9 per 100,000
Total firearm deaths 2016: 997 (suicides: 591, homicides: 368)
Violent crime rate: 404.7 per 100,000 (20th highest)
Permit required to carry handgun: Yes
Poverty rate: 14.1% (21st highest)
So suicide is higher in Indiana, but you need to worry about someone else more in Illinois.
And presumably 21 others as well. So? Do they have a closer per-capita GNP to the U.S. than, say, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guyana, Honduras and Bolivia, all of which you suggested were better comparators by virtue of being in “the Americas”.
Of course, you could just say fuck all that and just compare the U.S. to the handful of the wealthier countries in the so-called Anglosphere, i.e. Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, just to minimize disparities in per-capita wealth, culture and even “race” if you want to go down that rabbit-hole.
Spoiler: You don’t look good.
Nope, just compare the uSA to all the nations, no cherrypicking.
There is no point in trying to compare the US to most other countries because the 50 states are just too different and too independent of federal control in so many ways. This doesn’t just apply to the guns issue, it applies to everything IMO. It makes more sense to compare individual American states to European countries.
The Swiss would like you to be so kind as to return their eyes: they fell to the floor from being rolled that far back.
Oh, name a few for us, with a bit of explanation, will you?
What does “law-abiding” mean when you say it? Is it *all *laws, or only the ones you like?
Yes, that bullshit only got started when the NRA invented it.
But then you wouldn’t get to turn around and say “it doesn’t matter, the USA is special because we’re different and you know, special, and that’s why [idea that works in other countries] wouldn’t work here.”
Personally I think you should ignore gun regulation as a lost cause and just legalize drugs, if the goal is to reduce violence.
Now you’re just being silly. Nobody says guns have a will of their own. But some things are dangerous.
No, guns don’t kill people. That’s a strawman, one of the many raised by the I Just Like Guns crowd. The *combination *of guns and assholes, however, certainly does kill a lot of people, both singly and in bulk.
Can we fix the asshole problem? No? Then what’s left?
No that’s revisionist history on the part of gun control advocates. It attempts to ignore the preceding history in English law such as the Bill of Rights of 1689 which gave Protestants the right to carry arms in self-defense. It also ignores Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765 which advocated for a right to self-defense. Both were hugely influential on the changes in legal and political philosophies in England with regards to the rights of the common person and the diminished supremacy of the monarch and Parliament. It’s no coincidence that the same era saw the rise of the concept of judicial review of acts of Parliament as well. Unsurprisingly these influences resonated with the Framers who not only sought to cure what they thought were the defects and limitations of English law but to apply those principles in a practical manner in a land that was much less “civilized” than England. The 2nd Amendment is essentially the relevant portion of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 minus the religious restrictions with some Blackstone thrown in.
It also ignores all the prominent Constitutional scholars of the 19th century such as St. George Tucker, Justice Joseph Story, and Thomas Cooley. All of whom argued that the right to bear arms in self-defense was in no way dependent on the existence of, or participation in, any militia. Later this became part of the holding in United States vs Cruikshank where SCOTUS found that the right to bear arms in self-defense was in no way dependent on the 2nd Amendment and it (the 2nd) was instead a limitation on the Federal Gov’t’s ability to infringe on that right.
So you can disagree with those viewpoints all you want, and I’m sure you will. But in doing so you should probably provide more evidence in support of your argument than the non-existent amount you cited for your initial incorrect assertion.
Yeah, no shit. 
I’d advise against that myself. I think that would do more harm than good at the voting booth. Not that this has anything to do with what I wrote.
Rabid pro-gun people don’t even want to answer the question, because they don’t want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the homicide rate even more than it has fallen over the last decades.
That isn’t what I called bullshit. Please reread.
I don’t need to reread anything. You were taking the position that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment modifies the second clause in support of the position that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia.
You then went on to claim that the opposite position, that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause, is a recent invention originated by the NRA/gun lobby and implying that it was completely contrary to how it had previously been interpreted. A claim I have seen you and others make before.
My post shows that the idea that the people’s right to bear arms for self-defense in English Common Law dates back to the late 17th century and how the idea was further expanded by Blackstone. The fact that Blackstone was unquestionably the most influential legal scholars of the era provides context for interpreting the 2nd Amendment because of the huge amount of influence he likewise had on the Framers.
Not only that, but the same interpretation was advocated by leading Constitutional scholars of the 19th century starting less than two decades from ratification. So, you see, my post was not only responsive to your claims but strongly refuted the first and completely disproves the second. Maybe you should take the time to read more carefully