Because this isn’t about that? I am looking forward to your thread about stopping the epidemic of knife deaths and the abolishing of the Amendment that gives us the right to own knives, however.
Becuase the rest of the world isnt the USA. Andof course we have notions out there with strict gun controls, but murder rates higher than the USA. Sure, if you cherry pick what parts of the “rest of the world” you want to compare, it can look like gun control might work. If you ignore Mexico and only look at Britain, sure.
The thing is, when gun control had & is tried in the USA there has not been a corresponding decrease in violent crime rates. Of course, excuses are made. But gun control has not worked in the USA.
I’m not sure what you are driving at. It seems like you are suggesting the Second Amendment is necessary to allow the overthrow of potential tyrannical government of the US. That has always struck me as naive fantasy, something gun owners tell themselves at night to convince themselves that they are heroes or at least potential heroes.
Your OP: "This thread is for the discussion of claims that the murder rate and/or the total death rate(including accidents and suicides) would go up if the 2nd Amendment were abolished, versus claims that we would see a drop in the murder rate and the total death rate if it happened. "
This thread is exactly about that- would the* overall murder rate* decline if more gun controls were put into place? The answer is no.
Tying this in with your statement about knives and bombs, are you claiming that if gun deaths dropped they would be replaced with knife and/or bomb deaths?
Okay, let’s say that you have 100 soldiers at your command. I’m a peasant who lives on your land and you’ve decided to take up the hobby of raping my wife every once in a while, when you come out to the part of the estate.
Do you send your guys to collect the rifle that I own, or do you let me keep it?
Perhaps. All we know, is that in America, gun control has not made a significant decrease in violent crime. But my point was is that when comparing if and how Gun control works or might work, we need to compare overall murder rates, not “gun deaths”.
Restating your dismissal of evidence, not explaining it. HOW is the US different from the rest of the world in a fundamental* and relevant* way? BTW, you’d be the first person in this board’s history to provide a factual answer, so don’t feel bad.
When has it been tried? If you’re referring to Chicago, please be aware that most guns used in crimes there were bought in Indiana, an NRA paradise. Or do you have something else to point to?
According to the FBI, probably not.
In 2016, out of 15,070 murders 11,004 of them were done by firearms(7105 of those by handguns). Only 1604 by knives and other cutting instruments, and only 1 by explosives. By the way, that link also tells what the stats are for 2012 through 2015…and there are no real surprises that would make 2016 an aberration.
You would have to spin quite a tale to get me to believe that knives and/or bombs would come even close to picking up the slack.
Well, we are the USA and the rest of the world isnt. France is France and the rest of the world isnt. Each (larger) nation is somewhat unique.
DC, California.
Of course, that’s the excuse- why didnt gun control work? Well, they just brought in guns from elsewhere.:rolleyes: That excuse will be used untill we have w world government, with 100% gun control in all nations, and even so they will think of some other excuse.
However,when you use that excuse- that is a perfect reason to NOT have gun control- after all, they will just bring them in from somewhere else. 
:dubious: Srsly?
Waiter, the check, please.
If you are seriously concerned that the United States might eventually devolve into something as feudal as this, and that your personal gun collection is somehow stopping it, then I comfortably stand by my earlier statement.
Let’s keep it simple: If the total amount of guns owned by citizens went down, would the number of deaths go up, down or stay the same?
Yes, Is France the USA? No, France is France. Look, different nations have different people, different sociologies, different national personalities, different laws, diffferent histories.
But again, sure if you want to compare world stats, then you can’t cherrypick. If you want to show the USA has a higher murder rate than Britain, clearly because Britain has gun control, then you can’t handwave Mexico that has even stricter gun control but a even higher murder rate. In fact the USA pretty much falls squarely in the middle of overall homicide rate in the world.
So, if your idea is that the USA is in no way unique, that we can blithely compare the USA to Britain, then you have to accept El Salvador also. No cherry picking.
I already answered that: “Likely no significant change. I suppose, maybe, after a century, with less guns in circulation, maybe a small decrease. But certainly nothing significant in the next couple of decades.”
Guns can kill way more people way faster and way easier. Without guns, I can’t see how the murder rate wouldn’t go down. It would certainly go down in urban areas where drive by shootings account for thousands of murders nationwide every year.
Still, if overall crime reduction in the U.S. is your goal, I wouldn’t bother trying to restrict guns; I’d just legalize drugs. It’d probably be to Mexico’s long-term benefit as well.
Seems logical, but it has not done so.
My goal was to find out what people thought would happen to the death rate if states were allowed to disregard the 2nd Amendment and make it tougher to own firearms. If my goal was what you said, then I probably would have phrased the question thusly: “What would be the best way to reduce crime in the U.S.?”.
Yep, the War on Drugs is a failure.