Not if they decide to be law-abiding citizens.
Are you talking only about handguns? Because I’m not.
I saw that. That’s why I said maybe this is one of those situations where better enforcement is needed.
Depends on how it was done, really. If the 2nd Amendment was vacated by another Amendment, clearing the way for a federal ban that made it illegal to own a firearm and superseded state laws, then when that was actually implemented, whatever percentage of people chose to continue to keep guns would be breaking the law, yes. Full stop. Just like with other things that were legal in the past but became illegal when laws changed. I seriously doubt it would be 70 million people…or even 1% of that. There certainly would be some that would be breaking the law though, and some would certainly go to jail.
You know how they can pass laws against speeding, without putting everyone who gets caught speeding in jail?
Pretty sure we could figure out something similar for guns.
By “states with the most strict gun control laws”, I assume you mean New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia? Because you won’t find any states with strict gun control laws anywhere in the US.
Amazingly, all of those places with strict gun control laws, in fact, have violent crime rates far below those places without.
So, His step one was repeal, step two was ban. Are there more steps? Asking people to turn in their guns voluntarily? Will those guns be paid for? Then what- door to door confiscation? Warrant less searches? More Ruby Ridge stand offs?
Come on, get real. Or lets talk rainbow unicorns.
I can’t disagree, but that means larger police budgets.
Well, here is Giffords, a radical anti-gun org.
Eleven states get a A or a B, so Giffords considers them to have strict or strong gun control laws.
I assume you’re trying to say that this means no defund the police?
My personal view is that I support the idea behind the defund the police movement because it is very pro-police. Police should be handling fewer types of calls and not be treated like the garbagemen for human suffering. This is too much of an attitude that anything dealing with people that we kind of don’t want to deal with we just say “let the police do it!”
For example, mental health checks. You should not send an armed enforcer of the law for a call that does not require it, e.g., no expectation of violence. Because a police officer will react like an armed enforcer of the law. That’s what they do. And you end up with a police officer dragging a suicidal girl by the hair down a hallway and slamming her face into the ground. Just, you know, for example.
But for a call where there is the possibility of violence, then yes, send the police. And yes, give the police to appropriate funding to handle such calls. Whether it is more or less depending on more laws, less calls, I don’t know. But give them the appropriate funding. Also, stop militarizing the police.
But now we’re into a tangent of a tangent of a tangent? It is tangents all the way down. 
No states in the US have strict gun control laws? Anyway, yes, that’s true…and in 1996-1997 Australia had a ground-breaking by back program…and were able to buy back staggering 600-700k guns! A similar program in the US would need to be 2-3 orders of magnitude more to even start to have a similar effect, assuming it would. Looking at Australia’s violent crime rate, it was never really that high compared to the US, either before or after the ban. Certainly, it’s dropped quite a bit since 2005…from around 2.0 per 100k to around 1.0 per 100k. Over that same period, the US’s violent crime rate has also dropped…from 7.32 per 100k to 4.96 (these stats are from 1995-2015 btw).
And your cite does indeed show that these strong gun laws are correlated with a decrease in gun deaths. I was honestly shocked to find that despite the ongoing carnage in some parts of Chicago, Illinoisians are actually less likely than the average American to die of a lead overdose.
But IIRC this is where you explain that only violent crime rates should be considered, and gun suicides and accidents don’t “really” count as things we should be concerned about preventing for some reason.
I support the ACLU "Divest and reinvest".
If the government repeals the 1st and bans being an atheist, will you be a “law-abiding citizen.” ? Or will you say your rights have been violated?
This is the root of the problem. So long as Americans are convinced that personally owning a murderstick is a human right on par with freedom of religion, Americans will keep blowing each other (and their children) away, year after bloody year. Period, and of story.
I’m not familiar with that. But sounds about right.
Googled it quick (I’m in a meeting). I agree.
Read something interesting on that subject just the other day
In all, the researchers found a 24 percent reduction in deer-automobile collisions as a result of wolf colonization. Three-quarters of this benefit comes from wolves creating what the paper calls a “landscape of fear” and scaring the deer away from roads. The remaining quarter is due to wolves eating enough deer to lower their numbers. The team based its calculations on deer population data in the counties.
Of course, wolves have a negative economic impact, as well—they kill livestock, for instance. But regions with the predators largely came out ahead. The paper notes that there’s an $11 million benefit from collision reductions. According to Parker, this sum is 63 times the cost of the wolves killing livestock.
According to Raynor, ungulates like elk and deer will change their behavior to avoid being eaten when predators are around. Further, wolves often use roads as corridors to move around these regions quickly. As such, the deer tend to steer clear of the areas and thus avoid death by automobile.
I must admit when I made this thread I never expected it to get into wolves and deer. LOL
Next up : lions, and tigers, and bears…
Oh my!
It’s kind of amazing how many levels this analogy doesn’t work on.