Where on earth are you getting that I’m quaking in my boots from fear of an invasion? And what difference would it make if I were? Anyone can fall prey at any time. A person can live in an expensive home with alarms on every door and window and closed-circuit television and guards at the gate, etc., and still get robbed, beaten or shot during a hijacking. His wife could get abducted from a parking lot. Etc., etc.
When it comes to protection, people buy guns for the same reason they buy insurance - not because they expect something to happen (or are ‘afraid’ of it, as you suppose), but to be protected in the event it does.
The thing I find hilarious about this scenario, aside from the general aura of hysteria, is that when he gave himself back his gun he didn’t also give one to the crook.
Of course it can be assumed that even if the crook did have a gun, he’d miss, or only give those flesh wounds that can be shrugged off like on the TV.
No, we’re landing on how stupid your presented scenario was - how the man with the knife dominated you, but then you (and not he (especially not he)) suddenly got a gun, and were GOD.
Your argument for keeping guns was bad comedy. So we’re laughing at it.
That might be a valid point if the discussion was actually centered on literally outlawing guns. But I guess those are our only options: guns coming out of the woodworks or all guns are illegal. Thanks for clarifying the terms of discussion.
The OP asks two questions. Would murder rates decrease and would death rates decrease. Your graph shows death rates decreasing in Australia. I can tell you that murder rates have also decreased in Australia.
Yes, but (as has been brought up in some of our discussions about Trump’s economic performance) that analysis of yours in the paragraph I cited above, completely ignores the pre-existing trend.
But I think that the gun restrictions were also part of the same anti-violence trend that Australia has been going through since the 70s. A big public campaign against drinking (or pro responsible drinking) and anti brawling posters etc. It’s been a big change.
An America that mustered up enough momentum to repeal the 2nd would be socially very different than current America - so much so that social differences would alter homicide/suicide rates much more than any legal changes. Hard to predict what that would look like, so instead, we’ll go with waving a magic wand and poofing the 2A out of existence in current America. California, New Jersey, New York, Chicago, Washington D.C. all immediately pass draconian gun-control laws, some with very well-funded confiscation efforts that are magically very successful (just to play with the hypothetical).
IMHO with no cites whatsoever…
Suicide attempts go down very slightly among the least committed. Successful suicide rate goes down somewhat more - probably the biggest change caused by the hypothetical with the most chance to be statistically measurable.
The majority of murder doesn’t change much. Criminals in gun-controlled areas still get plenty of guns to shoot each other with.
Attempted murders of impulse & passion probably go down very slightly, and also have a lower success rate.
High profile school shootings by teenagers probably significantly drop or disappear in heavy gun-control areas, no change elsewhere. A tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of all murders, so not noticeable in the stats. Adult whackos still get their hands on guns and commit enough mass murders to keep the news networks busy.
Various forms of assault go up. Some assaults not intended to be murders end up being murders, so the increased assaults result in more murders. Enough to fill in the gaps left by the very small decreases in other successful murders, or even exceed them? I actually think this will be close.
As for overall death rate, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that 100% of people still die. Not a guarantee when we’re swinging magic wands around, but I’m going to stick with “no change”.
Well, not to bother quibbling over the difference between “many” and “relatively few”, at least we agree that something being ruined. Other constitutional rights are subject to restriction, even when the harms caused by abuses of those rights are far less severe. I don’t see why the 2nd should be special.
Suicide attempts - and obviously successful suicide attempts - would probably fall sharply, probably by at least 30%.
That’s based on what has happened pretty much any time any sort of barrier - anything at all! - to killing oneself has been introduced (changing the types of ovens we use, adding a slightly higher barrier to climb over on bridges etc).
The actual act of suicide itself is a split-second, spontaneous thing. Guns make it very easy. Note that people that survive an actual suicide attempt usually don’t try again.
:smack:
So with fewer guns around, we end up with more assaults and more murders? I am struggling to understand how you could arrive at that causal relationship.
In terms of total crimes per capita, the UK is as ‘dangerous’ (or possibly more so) than the US, yet the homicide rate in the UK is considerably lower.
Our main argument has nothing to do with your preparedness when in comes to rare/extreme circumstances you may have seen on crime reality shows.
The next time you grasp at straws, might I suggest you go for the ones that haven’t already traveled through a cow’s stomachs?
The RKBA is already subject to restrictions. I don’t see why so frequently debaters on your side make the false claim that there aren’t regulations in place today.
Which fellow Americans would those be? The ones committing crimes with guns?
I have a great idea, make whatever they do ILLEGAL!
Oh wait…
Or even better, make whatever they do WITH A GUN, even more ILLEGAL!
Oh wait …