Because a false sense of security is more important to sensationalist liberals
But you could argue (and the experience during the 90’s AR ban agrees) that assault weapon bans do not impact gun violence. In fact, gun violence declined markedly after the AR ban was repealed. The handgun issue may be tougher to pass and enforce but it is where we need to spend our efforts, not on silly posturing against the boogie man. Maybe not an outright ban of handguns, but increase ownership standards inline with what’s currently used for fully automatics (and to the same standard) and make holding an unregistered pistol a 10 year offense. If you don’t qualify for the federal automatic weapons permit’s standards, they buy back your pistol at MSRP.
Hard to pass, but that would work.
OR (and this would never fly) put a heavy tax (like 5x the value) on gun purchases that must be paid retroactively on existing guns or the gun forfitted. Would help subsidize societal costs and price out the lower class which are responsible for the majority of gun offenses.
Is there an example of a country that passed stricter gun control laws and since has seen lower murder rates? Or even an American city? Has to be at least one you would think…
I used to use a rifle bigger than that to hunt ground hogs. But yeah, no more deer hunting, and no more shotguns.
Sure, by all means I would consider .223 an AW. Obviously, I’m not talking about single shot rifles, but for the sake of argument, I’ll include them too.
Seems reasonable to me. Now we just need a congressperson with some gumption. No? No one? Damn it.
Hunt deer with a bow like a man
FTFY
Serously, bow hunters are the worst. Probably critically wound a deer for every kill they get. I’ve shot more than one buck with an arrow shaft in it where the meat was so infected you couldn’t eat it.
you still dont get it, if a criminal wants a gun he will get it
^ +1
Not really.
Look, contrary to how it sounds, I’m not pro-gun control. But if we’re going to have a discussion, I want it to at least make sense and see people agree on the facts. Listening to poorly informed people quote US gun death stats and pound the table on AR bans while ignoring handguns is stupid as all get out.
That being said, you won’t completely eliminate gun deaths by banning guns. You’re right, people may find a way. But not every criminal can get a gun, the same way not every criminal can get a machine gun. It’s tricky. For starters, illegal gun dealers are the BSD’s of the black market world, running the most risky and lucrative operations tied to the biggest organizations. Even a small time street dealer won’t sell to someone they dont’ have a major established credibility with. $500 is not worth selling a gun to some nut job that’s going to go do something stupid and blow up your spot with a major investigation. So in a way, ironically, illegal gun dealers actually vett their customers more thoroughly than a legal dealer. Many criminals will opt to just commit robberies etc without a gun if acquiring one presents too large of a hurdle or risk. If you’re going ot knock over a liquor store, you and your buddy may just take clubs or knives if it’s a drugged up spur of the moment thing or neither of you has a connection for a firearm and legal purchase is not an option.
Secondly, not all crimes are committed by “criminals”. In fact the majority of gun deaths are either not premeditated or are domestic disturbances, road rage etc. Simply reducing the proliferation of guns can and will materially reduce this occurance. I am a big time gun owner, everyone in my family has multiple assault rifles. My brother just bought himself a Noveske for Christmas. But I really don’t think on the aggregate firearms serve as a statistically meaningful deterent and I don’t ever plan on needing one to defend my home.
That all being said, I do own them and believe the 2nd ammendment plays a role in balancing the power of the government, but you have to be pragmatic.
agree. slow torture is far worse than just killing it outright
Very interesting.
Another major issue are straw purchases where someone purchases a gun through another individual. Basically a little bit of basic regulation and documentation focused on handguns with some heightened penalties could go a looooong way towards curbing gun violence. Studies show that less than 10% of guns used to commit murder followed the current legal guidlines of gun transfer. People need to step up execution on enforcement of existing gun laws and tracking firearms.
The difference I’m highlighting here is black market (IE, major illegal arms dealers) versus grey market (people using straw purchases, selling in cash private party, etc). Most (nearly all) illegal guns are ones from grey market purchases where your friend simply bought it for you or you stole your friends gun, etc. Grey market purchases could easily be curbed by enforcing existing laws and putting the methods in place to ensure laws are adhered to. True black market purchases are far more rare and difficult to either attain or curb.
these guys dont care who they sell the gun to, for $500 they will do it in a second…they kill each other over smaller amounts like $20
How does this work? Someone decides to murder someone. Once they can’t find a gun, no murder? Not very committed killers. I say we leave buckets of guns in the ghettos and see what happens to the murder rates.
A lot of murders are not methodically premeditated.
i would imagine that one’s propensity to use their lethal weapon decreases with the weapon’s effectiveness. i.e. people are scared $hitless of a gun so they rarely need to be fired to be an effective robbery weapon. people are probably more willing to face a guy with a club or knife as they could reach for a hockey stick and call it an equal weapon. one could argue that it would be more dangerous to ban guns for this reason, at least as it pertains to armed robbery.
^laughed out loud, as only a canadian would refer to a hockey stick 
genius