Your clever answers- aren’t.
And you accused me and everyone else trying to figure out how to solve this problem of being opportunistic and not actually caring about the victims of all of these slaughters.
I think we’ve both said all we need to say to each other at this point.
Dangerous people are prevented from buying guns every day, yes.
And yet, 30,000 people are killed with bullets every year.
We seem to be missing an awful lot of people who are a “danger to themselves or others”.
Maybe this cunning plan doesn’t work? Maybe?
That would be a strong argument. If it had any relationship to reality.
Here’s the murder rate per 100,000 citizens in several countries:
The United States - 5.3
Canada - 1.8
Belgium - 1.7
Israel - 1.4
France - 1.3
Denmark - 1.2
United Kingdom - 1.2
Sweden - 1.1
Germany - 1.0
Ireland - 0.9
Australia - 0.8
Netherlands - 0.8
Poland - 0.8
Austria - 0.7
Greece - 0.7
Italy - 0.7
New Zealand - 0.7
Portugal - 0.7
Spain - 0.7
Czech Republic - 0.6
South Korea - 0.6
Norway - 0.5
Switzerland - 0.5
Japan - 0.2
We have the National Firearms Act, the Federal Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Brady Act. We even had a federal assault weapon ban for 10 years until Congress realized it didn’t accomplish much of anything and let it sunset. I don’t know if you’re ignorant of those pieces of legislation or just ignoring their existence and relying on your audience’s ignorance of those pieces of legislation, but either way, you’re wrong.
Nice cherry picked list you have there. You left out Belarus. And Hungary And Estonia. And Mexico. And Greenland…
Far fewer in shall-issue jurisdictions than in others.
2/3 of which are suicides. Did you look at how many were from mass shootings?
I didn’t say ‘all’; you asked “Lots of dangerous people unable to get guns these days?”
We aren’t getting agreement on the definition, or even existence, of the problem, sadly. While we think there is a real problem and that it is the number of people getting killed, *they *think in short that the problem is that their guns are under threat. The killings don’t even get mentioned compassionately, or at all; it’s the guns they care about. That’s defining *themselves *as a problem to be solved.
You do know the chances of being murdered by someone with a gun are way down over the last few decades, right?
So the need to have guns for self-defense has also gone down, right?
Dangerous people are prevented from buying guns every day, yes.
“Shall issue” generally refers to concealed carry licenses, not purchase. The purchase requirements are the same in a particular jurisdiction whether one has a CCW or not.
I’m sure the irony of *that *instruction in *this *thread has not escaped you. 
HD: You do know the chances of being murdered by someone with a gun are way down over the last few decades, right?
NO.
People who are smaller and/ or less strong that assailants, or those members of a group that has historically been ‘ganged up’ on, have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Prey should not be limited in self defense to equivalent devices that are strength and/ or agility dependent.
I don’t really subscribe to your “need” philosophy. It’s a right, and people ought to be free to exercise it, regardless of how you judge their “need”.
So those are the people that should be allowed to own firearms, right?
This, too.
Actually – this sounds like it might have a lot of potential. How about this – only women and minorities can purchase or own guns; white men aren’t allowed unless they’re under 5’4" and 135 lbs. Height and weight could be negotiable. Agreed?
“that’s racist!”