[eckesicle]

Proponents of firearms always seem to fall back on the same argument against a ban: “Take the guns away and the bad guys will be the only people armed”.

This isn’t true though. Guns are used to shoot people because they are available, not because they are legal.

In the UK it is still possible to acquire guns illegally, but they are rare and difficult to come by. There were only 28 homicides from shootings last year.

If you just make it a lot more difficult to acquire a weapon the shootings disappear.

[theonething]

> Guns are used to shoot people because they are available, not because they are legal.

It's fairly easy for Italian citizens to obtain a gun (they need permits just like US), yet their mean death rate from mass shootings is one of the lowest, (lower than UK's) [1]

The problem with changing US gun culture is, right or wrong, the Second Amendment has been literally foundational to our history and culture.

If people disagree with the second Amendment, then it needs to revoked or changed. Until then, it's the law of the land. Changing the second Amendment won't happen. There isn't enough support for that in this country. A half-solution of restricting guns ties the hands of the good guys and empowers the bad guys.

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shoo...

[kubectl_h]

> If people disagree with the second Amendment, then it needs to revoked or changed. Until then, it's the law of the land.

I own eight firearms, including a semi-auto centerfire rifle and autoloading shotgun. None of them would be banned under the original terms of the FAWB. My Second Amendment rights would perfectly intact if we brought it back, even if we omitted the grandfather clause.

I guess there's always a world where we bring it back and criminals 3D print high capacity mags for Model 740s but we have to start somewhere.