What has that got to do with the topic of this thread?
Really, many factors contribute to violence in this country. Guns (mostly) do not contribute to violence, they just facilitate it – though, from what I can tell, they do tend to make people stupid, so maybe some ad hoc violence would be suppressed in their putative absence.
But if 2A was repealed/greatly revised, allowing the potential for strong restrictive laws, what happens when #38 ratifies and suddenly 2A is toothless/gone? There probably would be some sort of initial reaction on the part of a few, as in “hide my guns”, and there might be, at first, a rash of crazies acting out, while they still had guns.
But little would change early on. And unless we address the underlying causes of our social turbulence (which I believe to be primarily economic in nature), violent deaths are not likely to decline in the near term.
I still believe it is possible to talk about one specific factor without having to talk about every other possible factor in existence…unless there is something about that one factor someone would rather not talk about, of course. All I am asking is that for the purpose of this thread we focus on the OP for just this little while.
As has been noted repealing the 2nd Amendment does nothing except allow gun regulation free rein.
I will assume the question is whether gun regulation would lower gun violence if it had a chance unfettered by 2nd amendment restrictions on gun control.
The answer seems to be a definitive “yes”.
The number of good guys killed by bad guys would go up. The number of bad guys killed by good guys would go down.
This includes good guy deaths resulting from weapons other than guns that would have been prevented had the good guys had guns. For example, you are lying in bed at night when a bad guy with a knife breaks in. You are at his mercy and he kills you for whatever reason (you wouldn’t/couldn’t tell him where your money was hidden, he didn’t want to leave witnesses, the thrill of the kill, whatever). Obviously your best defense would have been a gun, which would have rendered the bad guy with a knife no problem at all. But you’re a good, law-abiding citizen and you’ve turned in all your guns, so now you’re dead. And probably your wife will be too once he’s done raping her.
Bad things happen to people when they can’t defend themselves, and guns are the best defense there is.
Now try to answer the question that was actually asked, without “good guys”, “bad guys”, “wife raping”, “hidden money” etc., please.
Why?
Because:
- That’s the topic, and
- I did say “please”.
Not “obviously strong windows and doors”?
What about a safe room? Seems like a better defense than a gun.
Yes, you did say ‘please’, I’ll grant you that. Thanks.
But I see no point in discussing numbers that don’t take into account the positive or negative impact upon society that it takes to arrive at them.
I don’t think the overall murder rate would go down at all. I think people who point to Australia and the UK enacting gun control as a deterrent to violent crime overstate its effectiveness in doing so. Both countries had lower murder rates than the US before gun control was enacted. The United States has always been considered a more violent place than most of Europe even since colonial times.
They can make the teachers pay for their own weapons and training, but a safe room is paid by with tax money…the same tax money they won’t put out for needed supplies. Besides, space is already precious in schools-if they had the room to build the necessary amount of “safe rooms” that would be needed that extra space would already have been converted into more classrooms.
I meant in the home.
- Doesn’t need to be locked away
- Doesn’t need any training
- Easy access
- Won’t accidentally kill your children
- You don’t have to potentially kill anyone
Seems better than a gun to me.
What’s the cost of an assault-proof safe room?
There’s no cost that is too high for the safety of my family!!! 
anyway, this is getting off topic, sorry. I was just answering the “a gun is the best defense” statement.
Always? Always? Are you missing that time about a hundred years ago? And that time 70~80 years ago? Was 18[sup]th[/sup]-19[sup]th[/sup] Century Europe uniformly less violent than the US? I am doubting this “always”.
Sorry, I assumed a reasonable interpretation of ‘best defense’.
As Czarcasm points out, the cost of a safe room is prohibitive. And not entirely reliable. What if the miscreant happens to come in through a door or window that places him between you and the safe room? What if you’re sound asleep and don’t hear him enter? What if he threatens to burn the house down around you unless you come out of the safe room? Unless your safe room, which you’ve somehow managed to get all your family awakened and into from other areas of the house, is fireproof and very well insulated, you’ll likely come out rather than face the prospect of being burned to death.
Clearly there are other defenses that would be more effective. But most people can’t afford to live in gated communities with closed circuit tvs and a security team and a fireproof and immediately accessible safe room.
Most people, however, can afford a gun. So when all things are considered, for most people a gun is indeed the ‘best defense’.
Living in a gated community gives only an illusory sense of security. Crime rates there really aren’t any lower than outside.
These clearly common scenarios just crack me up. 
:rolleyes: If you actually spend any part of your day scared that a miscreant might set fire to your house in order to get you to come outside, I feel bad for you.