How To Argue For Gun Control.

If "gun owners are not fearful" then why do they own guns?

 

If anti gun people are not afraid why do they want them gone.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It depends on if such a situation was an improvement? Things change, horses were replaced by cars, public transport was an improvement on gridlock but I don’t see such a thing happening in the near future as cities are commercial/entertainment/transport hubs but in lots of ways we do that already by building ring roads and bypasses so cars not want to enter a city can go around it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’ve pointed out the irrationality of this reply before (please please read the posts) – I don’t know how to put it more simply but will try – laws and regulations are used for certain issues – so car regulation aimed at reducing the harm from cars is about trying to reduce the harm from car ownership – so gun regulation aimed at reducing the harm from guns is about trying to reduce the harm from gun ownership.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So in the US there are many incidences involving gun use, resulting in injury and death, regulation would be aimed at trying to lessen those numbers. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yes checked it out and what is that old saying lies, damned lies and statistics – I mean I looked at this and the first thing I noticed was that Norway is at number one in a survey of 2009 to 2014 but that is based on ONE incident Anders Breivik who shot 67 people in 2011[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I mean if you compare Norway with the US between 2000-2014 Norway had ONE mass shooting while the US had 133 (and some say more).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But as mentioned a number of times mass shootings get the headlines but while many deaths do occur from such incidences a far greater numbers are killed by guns in less reported incidences. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again I’ve explained how that isn’t a rational argument, we are using methods that can compare numbers in different countries and the US does have a very high number of gun related incidences compared with other developed countries. [/SIZE]

 

Mac

Could you please read the fucking posts? I covered this a long time ago on page 2 of this thread

To REPEAT -

I remember a post I wrote some time ago around this subject when some pro gunner quoted that old Heinlein line about –

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

Well as I’ve said guns are a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ (and anyone else) will be too afraid to act badly.

The view prevalent among pro-gunners that America is a more polite society because of widespread gun ownership is also based on this idea of repression it basically about the threat of – ‘be polite or else’ - not real politeness but politeness at the point of a gun.

*

So is it true that an armed society is a politer society, or is it just that an armed society is a paranoid society that is just being polite out of fear?

And it begs the question, why not try and bring about a society where people are polite because they are polite not just out of fear that they might be shot?

The thing is that, maybe you already have it, maybe your society is as polite as it is and guns and gun ownership have nothing to do with it, it’s just a myth and says more about the mentality of pro-gunners than about reality?

Because I’ve been to the US (well California at least) and I’ve meet a lot of Americans from all over the states, and the thing is that they seem as polite (or not) as any other people I’ve meet and I’ve live and travelled extensively in Europe and I’d say that there is really very little difference in the range and the amount of politeness between those people and Americans, and it seems they don’t need the threat of getting shot to be polite.

So why is it that so many pro-gunners in the US think they need guns to have polite Americans?

*


I’d also ask who judges what is correct behavior, what is polite? It can be subjective and also irrational and if irrational people get into arguments the outcomes are likely to be irrational.

We have covered this many times, if someone feels they need such a lethal weapon to defend themselves they must to some degree be afraid of attack, because if they were not afraid they wouldn’t feel they needed such a lethal weapon.

OH this old argument covered many times before –

It is a matter of risk many pro-gunners seem to feel the risk of attack is so high they feel they need lethal weapons to protect themselves from it. Where I am I don’t - I might if I was in a warzone but this is not a war zone and supposedly nor is the US.

If my child asks me why she has to wear a seat belt, I tell her that she is more likely to be killed in an accident without it; I’m using fear to promote the seatbelt.

What I’m pointed out is when pro-gunners talk of murder, beatings, rapes etc they are using fear to promote guns.

I and other like me have done a lot to improve traffic safety in the UK, from traffic calming (speed bumps and 20mph zones), more zebra crossings, dedicated cycle routes etc etc. I’ve voted and even campaigned for those that promote such things.

What I’m highlighting is that many pro-gunners don’t seem interested in making their society a better place they seem to shrug and say nothing can be done they seem to sneer at those that suggest it could be done and many seem to support social, economic and political views that would actually make things worse.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Penguin[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]What a silly argument – I mean first the majority of people here wanting prudent gun control are not saying they want to ban all guns, so this rubbish falls flat on its face right there, but then – this is about reducing harm, it’s about bringing in prudent regulation to try and reduce the harm from something that causes harm. Are you saying you don’t want to try and reduce the numbers of people. human beings and your fellow citizens who have suffered or died due to ease of access to guns? [/SIZE]

 

For the same reason you lock your doors, buckle your seat belt, have insurance, have a fire extinguisher, put a fence around your pool, need I go on?

 

Continuing from yesterday, what irrational fear do gun owners have?

The same can be said with any item used illegally. From hit and run to the butler with the candlestick just about everything used as a murder weapon was at one point legal.

The gun was essentially out of the mother's supervision, the kid was four years old, I never said you can just leave guns lying around if you train your child on safety and handling, and I never said it was a guarantee.

We do the same with CPR and driver Ed. America has enough guns to arm every single American. The kid IS going to run into a gun sooner or later so its best to teach him what to do in a situation. Plus I never said that we force kids to take such classes. I do think that shooting classes should be an option.

So you admit that a criminal will get his hands on a gun no matter what. To answer your question the same can be said with CPR and driver's Ed. Both can be lethal if used that way. Plus this shooting class will come with more character building in schools. In fact shooting sports instill responsibility. It's just like what they say when teaching kids karate.

And again I can't see what you're talking about.

See above.

 

And that harm is dropping.

Mandatory background checks on everything would prohibit otherwise law abiding citizens from making a perfectly legal transaction to members they know or trust. Registrations sets up an easy way to ban certain guns if not all as history has pointed out. Banning certain guns or magazine limits hinders the gun owners choice in what he feels is adequate for his defense and livelihood. That's just a small sample. And all of these don't work.

The Koreans were smart and had their guns already. During the Rodney King riots the Koreans with guns were left alone. Can you show me an incident that actually went the way you think it might of happened?

Of what? If there was a difference it would be on the news as the mainstream media is left wing.

New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, etc.

Cars, knives, piano wire, bats, etc.

Yes, if they actually work and don't infringe on the second amendment.

And they made their fatal flaw in the first sentence. They are talking about gun deaths, not violent crime in general.

 

going to take a break. If I can't get to the rest today I'll try tomorrow.

 

Good Lawd People!!!
you still going on about this "gun control" bullshit.
holy fuck, give it a break.

Balbus, how many friggin' years you been posting these threads and it's ALWAYS the same. you aren't impressing or convincing anyone, haven't you figured that out yet?


Maccabees, you just HAD to start another "gun control" thread and resurrect this crap, didn't you.


I will admit it is amusing watching two trolls duke it out...

 

[SIZE=9pt]Mac[/SIZE]

Gun theory

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Against Government

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

Against Crime

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**


What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?

As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.

This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).

The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?


If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.

Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).

The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.

 

Mac

Already covered

Why are we going over the same stuff?

Why not address the criticisms rather than just repeat something already criticised?

I don’t want to go around in circles and it really pisses off Noxious Gas

Could you please have the common courtesy of reading the posts in the thread in which you are debating?

Basically these things are not lethal weapons specifically designed to maim and kill other human beings.

They are passive not aggressive in nature.

I don’t put on my seatbelt because I fear attack from other road users (it’s the law to do so here) and I don’t have it stashed away until I feel threatened the equivalent for a gun would to be having it out safty off and targeting everyone around you.

My door is often not locked especially when I’m home so I can’t be that frightened, I do lock it when the house is empty as a deterrent to thieves but that’s not about personal threat because I’m not there. Again the equivalent would be to stand in the door frame with the gun ready and never leave the house, silly really.

I don’t have a fire extinguisher in my house I think we do in the car but that’s because that’s the law in some European countries although I haven’t seen it for a while so we may have lost it.

As for insurance we have it because it’s the law and usually covers material things I don’t have life insurance) it not about personal protection because of a feeling of personal threat and again it something that is passive and also used after the effect it would be like pulling a gun out and shooting long after the incident had finished.

 

Mac

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

Again already covered

I’ve already explained that this doesn’t seem to be a very rational argument – can you please reply to that?

Basically these things are not lethal weapons specifically designed to maim and kill other human beings. A candlestick was designed to hold a candle, cars as vehicles, baseball bats to hit baseballs, etc etc etc. They are not sold as weapons.

Yes such things can be used to attack people but because they were not specifically designed to maximise the potential damage they are mush less lethal than the majority of guns, which are sold on their ability to do damage.

 

Mac

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So you’d be in favour of mandatory gun safes? [/SIZE]

 

Mac

And wouldn’t just be teaching those that would use guns for criminal acts to be better and more confident shots?

Oh for fuck sake please read the posts – or is this something else, you know that things have been covered but it’s just you have no real replies so you pump out these fatuitous asides?

How are we supposed to have a rational debate when you seem opposed debating honestly?

we know criminals (and the irresponsible) can get their hands on guns that’s the point of our argument – we wish to try and limit the possibilities of such people getting hold of guns.

You seem opposed to that – in that you seem happy with the ease of access criminals (and other) have to guns and seem opposed to any prudent means in reducing it.

So in your opinion CPR is as lethal as a gun a weapon designed specifically to kill and maim people?

Again are you thinking about what you’re writing before you post?

What about people they don’t know or know to trust?

Your idea seems rather irrational if you are trying to lessen the risk of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible or criminal.

It doesn’t seem like something that would be about reducing harm

So you don’t mind such lethal weapons getting into the hands of the irresponsible or criminal, why?

But as I’ve pointed out why do they feel they need such guns for their defence, why not try and work to have a society in which they were not so afraid?

So you are not interested in trying to reduce harm from guns in general only in specific cases that doesn’t seem like a very rational approach.

 

Alright as I’ve said it’s hard to pin down Mac’s ideas - many seem irrationally based – in this he not alone amongst those opposed to prudent gun control, he is just the most resent.

*

It seems to me that for many Americans like Mac opposition to prudent gun control is emotionally not rationally based, it seems more about fear, that they are personally under threat.

They have come to depend on the ease of access to guns for them or other ‘decent’ people as a type of emotional crutch; it makes them feel stronger more in control (although the fear doesn’t go away), it allows them to see themselves (like Mac said) as the hero figure (not a coward) and that guns are the only thing standing between them and the loss of their life or the removal of their liberty.

For that reason they oppose regulation because they are frightened it might diminish their ability to ‘fight’ back against those you fear and removing the image of themselves as the hero and fear it will reduce them to the position of ‘coward’.

So they have come to believe that the high number of death in the US related to ease of access to guns is a price worth paying to protect their crutch.

The problem is that they know that the ease of access to such lethal weapons also extends to criminals and their fellow citizen’s o the fear never goes away, the political, social and economic pressures behind the uses of guns in irresponsible ways are not tackled a situation that could be improved is not.

 

This seems to be one of the problems with the anti-gun control lobby they seem to see things in a far too simplistic a manner.

It seems to me that they throw out silly things like this because they know they have no rational or sensible arguments, oh the poor things.

[SIZE=11pt]The thing is that you can be in favour of trying to tackle bad police practices and improving their services, while at the same time being in favour of prudent gun control. In fact both are about trying to bring about a society where people are not so afraid for their personal safety that they feel they need of a gun for protection. [/SIZE]

 

Yes, show me the ones that reduced violent crime and is constitutional.

It's up to you to prove that ease of access increase violent crime. We have the highest gun to citizen ratio and yet we don't even rank 25 on the country with the most crime. By your logic we should be way up there.

The drunk driver who killed a pedestrian should get the chair as well. He knew full well before taking that first sip that if he gets into a car and drives he's liable to cause an accident. However if he just damaged property them he should pay double for what it's worth.

It depends on the situation.

Must I repeat myself? The same can be said with ANY murder weapon.

No I'm saying that what works for cars doesn't necessarily work for guns. You yourself said the same thing. Plus you have yet to show any correlation between gun control and violent crime.

Stats.

Frankly that doesn't matter. All of our murders could be committed by guns but if our murder rate is decreasing and is lower than other countries with strict gun control then its irrelevant.

I forgot to look up how many we have here but suffice it to say that its not so much and quantity but quality that matters. For all I know your gangs biggest offense is jaywalking. While for us we only have one gang that burn down entire cities for analogy.

However if I'm not mistaken your murder rate wasn't that high to begin with.

Which wasn't the problem in the first place.

 

I don't.

Please provide a solution with evidence that it reduces violent crime and its constitutional.

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is focusing on gun deaths doesn't do anything.

Yet violent crime in general hasn't been affected.