you say the lions share of murders are committed by drug gangs, but that’s ignoring the majority of gun injuries are self inflicted.
And while it was written into the constitution it was amended into the constitution, and like the 21st which repealed the 18th, could be amended out again.
you also say there are 5x defensive Gun owners. This is a made up statistic - there is no formal definition of a defensive gun owner, there is no way to shoot a gun defensively.
While it may take time - a few generations - maybe even a dozen generations - to disarm the majority of households, it’s possible.
who are you disarming
the majority of gun owners own guns for fun/sport. So while, yes, it is sad to ruin fun, it’s also sad to have children killed.
Finally, you don’t have to ban all guns, you could keep say, bolt action rifles and single barrel shotguns - where sports and hunting could still continue. This wouldn’t solve all the problems but it might have saved lives multiplicatively in mass shootings.
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 months ago
Quite correct. Somewhere between 2/3 and 4/5 depending on the year of gun deaths are suicides. It’s why I hate most ‘gun violence’ numbers because they include suicides to get to a ~30k/year number (homicides are 10-12k/year most years) while the term ‘gun violence’ strongly suggests crime done to others.
I don’t believe we should blame a gun for suicide anymore than we should blame a knife, body of water, tall bridge/building, bottle of pills, etc. Suicide is a (shitty) personal choice someone makes for themselves. And I reject the idea that all of society should be prohibited from owning a tool simply because a suicidal person might use it to end their own life.
Suicide is a tragedy and I’m all for preventing it. But depriving hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens from having a tool they use safely, daily, for protection and recreation is not the answer. It’s not how a ‘free’ society works or should work.
Yes it could be. Any part of the Constitution can be changed. Even the 1st Amendment. Should we rewrite the 1st Amendment to ban pornography or politically unpopular speech? Should we rewrite the 4th Amendment to exclude computers and only apply to printed papers?
Just because we CAN muck with the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
I said ‘defensive gun USES’. That has a definition- it’s when a law-abiding citizen uses a lawfully-owned firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (90-95%) end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
Sorry for a reddit link but click here - that’s from /r/CCW (concealed carry weapon) and it’s a filter for ‘member DGU’, IE posts where a redditor is involved in a DGU situation. I’d encourage you to read some of them.
The problem with DGUs is they aren’t tracked. Most aren’t reported to the police and those that are aren’t centrally tracked in any database like the FBI’s homicide database. That means coming up with a number is done with statistical analysis of victimization surveys. This of course produces wildly different numbers, which range from 55k-80k/year (anti-gun researcher Hemenway) to ~2 million (pro-gun researcher Lott). Personally I think the number is somewhere around 300-500k (at least that’s what NCVS data suggests) but you can draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia has a great article on DGUs.
For the sake of this argument though I go with a low number of 60k-- 12k homicides, 60k DGUs, that’s about 5x.
Let’s say you do that. Let’s say you repeal the 2nd Amendment, and do ‘buybacks’ (or as gun owners call it, ‘confiscation with compensation’), and you keep this up for 20+ years. What have you actually accomplished?
Most likely DGUs would drop to near zero. FIREARM suicides would drop to near-zero, and suicides overall might drop a little (a gun is faster and works at home, a lot of people who take pills or decide to jump off a building change their mind before they’re dead and survive). This would have little/no effect on drug gangs who are usually using illegal guns anyway. And without DGUs, criminals would KNOW their victims are ALWAYS unarmed.
Spree shootings would probably become less frequent. But under 100 people per year die in such incidents anyway, despite the big headlines (you’re literally more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a spree shooting in the USA).
I therefore look at that and say even if you stop a few spree shootings, you don’t do much for gang violence, you empower criminals, and you get rid of the DGUs. I don’t see that as being an effective policy.
And if there was a direct zero-sum tradeoff between sport shooting and dead kids you’d have a really good argument. There isn’t.
Well that also removes pistols for personal defense.
But even if you did, what happens when some enterprising machinist with a basement workshop downloads plans for a gun or to turn a bolt action rifle into a semi-auto?
THIS is why gun bans don’t work. They’re too easy to make. The only reason criminals don’t manufacture or import them in great number is because while they’re easy to make, they’re easier to steal or straw purchase. Just because a lot of crime guns were once legal guns doesn’t mean cutting off the legal guns will make gun crime go away.
Curious for your thoughts/reactions to this?