While I respect and acknowledge the arguments put forth here, I noticed they didn’t address one:
“If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns”.
I have never, not once, heard anyone even try to refute this statement, much less do so persuasively.
So what’s the point? FBI statistics show that more people are killed with hammers and bats every year than with rifles. So does that shoot down any pro-hammer/bat myths? More people are killed by cars every year than with guns. Where do we end it?
Then let me try.
Not only outlaws will have guns but also police, and legitimate authorized US armed forces.
Anyone else will obviously be subject to accountability.
But of course all guns will never be outlawed.
Amen. Most everyday objects could be used as an “assault weapon” (that is, something you use to attack someone with). School kids have scissors and pencils at arm’s length, which could be used as shivs. And you can buy all the bomb-making components used by Timothy McVeigh at Walmart without any restrictions (heck, you could buy bleach, an axe, and trash bags all in the same purchase).
Can you please include handguns in your analysis?
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Duh. When a shooting is stopped by an armed civilian, it doesn’t become a mass shooting.
Maybe they should fact check out how many mass shootings are in victim zones. (Also known as gun free zones.)
I always laugh when people that don’t know what they are talking about, try to convince you and themselves that they do.
In other words, give them to Big Brother like a good little comrade. Oh, the intruder butchered you and your family while you waited for the cops to get there? Too bad, sucks to be you.
You did not state which of the myths are incorrect!
Even though it’s a cliche I don’t know how anyone could ever say that “guns don’t kill people - people kill people” is a myth? Throw as many statistics at me as you like - it’s a simple fact that guns are not moral agents - the people behind the triggers are.
Gun control may serve to put a band-aid on violent crime - but it doesn’t address the real woes of society. Not to mention, it disregards all the good that can come of responsible gun ownership. And as a previous poster noted with another true cliche - if guns are illegal then only the bad guys will have them.
That doesn’t refute the other poster’s post, because those people presently have guns and at Fort Hood they weren’t allowed to carry them. And anybody who uses a gun illegally is held accountable.
I once knew a fellow who didn’t own a gun and wouldn’t own a gun. He told me that he was thankful that others had guns, because criminals may be more hesitant to do their crime if they were afraid of doing crime not know who may have one.
Any how that was a none gun owners point of view.
I need only three words to respond:Danziger bridge massacre.
The second amendment exists for a reason. We need to restore checks and balances, not to remove what few remain in place.
You’re confusing the presence of guns with the presence of violence. Taking away guns will not decrease levels of violence (as shown in Britain) or suicide (as shown by the extremely high suicide rate in Japan), but merely result in violence committed with another type of weapon.
Switzerland has one of the highest levels of gun ownership in the world since the majority of men between 20-30 are conscripted, and keep their weapons (ie assault weapons) at home. Yet the level of crime (related to guns or in general) is very low. Scandinavian countries also have high levels of gun ownership, yet very little crime.
Suicides in Japan are well known to be a product of their culture. With guns, the suicide rate would likely skyrocket.
If you’re going to kill yourself, you don’t need a gun to do it. If you have a gun, it isn’t going to whisper nihilistic thoughts into your ear while you sleep. The most you could claim is that some suicide attempts which were unsuccessful might have been successful with a gun.
Many suicides are the result of a very temporary urge and guns make it too quick and easy. By the time many suicidal people come up with an alternative plan, their state of mind is likely to have changed, and they no longer feel compelled to commit an immediate suicide.
**If I lived next door to you Robert, I would put up a sign that points to your house and says:
" My neighbor doesn’t believe people should own guns.
Pick which house you’d rather commit your crime ".**
Actually you’re making my point. The culture determines the outcome, though I doubt the suicide rate in Japan would increase so much as it would remain stable with the manner of suicide being what changes. Again, the high prevalence of guns owned by ordinary citizens in countries such as Switzerland and the Scandinavian nations (with Switzerland having a high prevalence of assault weapons) does not translate to an increase in violent crime involving firearms or otherwise.
You don’t fix the suicide rate by banning guns, you fix the suicide rate by providing easy and affordable access to mental health professionals.
Because Japan has no bridges to jump off of, buildings to jump from, knives to cut, tubs to drown in, pills to OD with, bags to suffocate in, or cars to intentionally crash.