I don't feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don't have the time right now I'm sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no "well regulated" does not mean legal regulations)
I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don't commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won't bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.
Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There's no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who's needs are actually met don't need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.
I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we'd probably still have just as many murders. There's something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don't kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it's a whole lot easier to just say "guns bad".
You've built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.
Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we'd probably still have just as many murders.
Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.
Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you've finished building all of that, you can have them back?
After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn't fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.
Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.
Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about "defensive gun use" without any form of validation whatsoever?
Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?
70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.
So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.
You literally asked what if we took all he guns away and I gave a counterpoint why i think that would be bad. If you doubt my sources (which is impressive since i hadn't provided any yet) say so instead of jumping to insults. If you want to start ad hominem attacks, just reply to yourself cause I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
So your answer to "What if we took your guns away?" is "Because guns in America are used defensively"?
Lie better.
Hey if being such an asshole to someone who's done nothing to you make you feel good, have fun. Not letting people provide evidence and going strait to being rude is a great way to think you're always right.
If even if I were that, I'd still have the moral high ground over someone who insists the deaths of hundreds of innocent people is just the price society has to pay for their hobby.
Because do you know what's far more offensive than someone "being rude" on the internet? Children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner.
I don't feel like writing an essay to address all your points, I don't have the time right now I'm sorry. Ultimately it comes down to the fact the highest law (and most state constitutions) of the land gives us the inalienable right to arms. Period. (And no "well regulated" does not mean legal regulations)
I believe we would be far better off dealing with the root of violence, like many European countries have done but gun control advocates like to only focus on gun control laws. People with financial, health, reproductive, and employment security don't commit violent crimes. Things like labor protections, maternity/paternity leave, mandatory vacation time, physical and mental healthcare that won't bankrupt you are some of the things that dramatically reduce all violent crime regardless of the tool used.
Look at violent crimes in the US compared to the UK for things like murder using only the human body (ie kicks, punches, strangulation, etc), its lower per 100k in the UK and many other European countries. There's no body control laws restricting how strong or trained your body can be, yet its lower. Its because people who's needs are actually met don't need to turn to or are driven to crime, our social protections in the USA suck ass and need to be fixed.
I agree with you. Even if the US got rid of every single gun in the country we'd probably still have just as many murders. There's something else at play here that causes us to be violent. As a general rule happy people don't kill others. Legislation to fix our social issues would go a long way towards reducing violence, but it's a whole lot easier to just say "guns bad".
You've built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.
Absolutely not. Your odds of surviving a knife attack are an order of magnitude higher than of you are shot.
Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you've finished building all of that, you can have them back?
After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn't fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.
Because guns in America are used defensively at least 1 to 1 (this ratio is higher in some studies) with their use in crime. So no, until the crime is gone I want to defend myself. And once crime is gone, then who are you making safer by disarming anyone.
Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about "defensive gun use" without any form of validation whatsoever?
Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?
70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.
The pro-gun community has spent 20 years insisting that they (and they alone) have the answers yet the problem continues to spiral further out of control. The number of guns used in crimes that were bought through "gun show loopholes" is on the rise, but the pro-gun community still opposes background checks for private sales.
So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.
You literally asked what if we took all he guns away and I gave a counterpoint why i think that would be bad. If you doubt my sources (which is impressive since i hadn't provided any yet) say so instead of jumping to insults. If you want to start ad hominem attacks, just reply to yourself cause I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
So your answer to "What if we took your guns away?" is "Because guns in America are used defensively"?
Lie better.
Hey if being such an asshole to someone who's done nothing to you make you feel good, have fun. Not letting people provide evidence and going strait to being rude is a great way to think you're always right.
If even if I were that, I'd still have the moral high ground over someone who insists the deaths of hundreds of innocent people is just the price society has to pay for their hobby.
Because do you know what's far more offensive than someone "being rude" on the internet? Children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner.
Okay