If you take away guns from people who are honest and honorable and just want to protect their own by setting stones in legal avenues to acquire them, you create an environment in which only the criminals have guns.
If you uniformly and simply regulate gun ownership across an entire country so that any of the honest and honorable who want a gun can have one (or more) then you create an environment in which it's far easier to focus on criminals with guns and easier to seperate them from guns.
This is likely impossible in the modern USofA given the requirement for uniform simple regulation across the entire country and the massive historic backlog.
It worked well in Australia; three decades after breaking the world record for deaths at the hand of a crazed lone gunman, in Australia there's been fewer mass shooting than fingers on one hand, and I can go and shoot ULR with my neighbour here in WA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE
NB: Guns weren't banned in Australalia (no matter what the US NRA claims), regulations were made uniform - two low population states with little to no regulation came in line with existing states, and the territories also.
This made all guns licenced with an annual fee, a central registry, all sales and purchases recorded, no "straw sales", background checks mandatory, etc.
I was asking, given that it’s unlikely that guns are going to be further controlled, what hope is there for stemming gun violence. Maybe you’re saying gun violence goes down the more the honorable are armed? It’s a genuine question. Not sure you were attempting to answer that particular question.
Like I said, loaded topic. Trying to avoid charged language so please take my words as sincere.
Yeah, pretty much exactly that. An armed individual who wants to do harm with that firearm would be a lot less likely to act on it if he knows there are 10 armed good samaritans around him.
If you're in the opinion you're the only person likely to have a weapon on yourself, the stakes and balance change entirely.
He is also incentivized to use it before the 10 good samaritans do. And police is incentivized to use it before he does. Also, police cannot arrest someone because he carries a fully loaded machinegun.
I'm not against guns, i think the open carry of the BPP did way more for human rights than MLK and the civil right movement, but the fact that you can carry loaded war weapons and not be arrested for it in some states is fascinating to me.
I have heard (hearsay, mind you, I don't have solid fact or figures) that having a gun for protection tends to cause more problems than it solves. Not sure if it's an actually quantifiable position, but I am sure it won't sway anyone who's firmly on one side of the argument.
This is likely impossible in the modern USofA given the requirement for uniform simple regulation across the entire country and the massive historic backlog.
It worked well in Australia; three decades after breaking the world record for deaths at the hand of a crazed lone gunman, in Australia there's been fewer mass shooting than fingers on one hand, and I can go and shoot ULR with my neighbour here in WA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE
NB: Guns weren't banned in Australalia (no matter what the US NRA claims), regulations were made uniform - two low population states with little to no regulation came in line with existing states, and the territories also.
This made all guns licenced with an annual fee, a central registry, all sales and purchases recorded, no "straw sales", background checks mandatory, etc.