I think we should start by banning handguns not rifles.

When you look at gun stats for America you see that in most violent crimes that use a firearm a handgun is used. They are easily concealed, have a high rate of fire, and are easily carried around. If you have an assault rifle or a rifle it is often kept at home. With handguns they are made to be kept on a person or in a vehicle where they will be immediately available upon rage outbursts. If you have to go home to load up your rifle and then go find the person who angered you this leads to a cooling off period. If this wasn't going to stop you then you were going to shoot anyway.

Still we have to note that there is a huge percentage of gun violence that comes from handguns over other types. By banning handguns we leave things like hunting and home protection intact through using rifles and shotguns. It may be that these weapons are used less because of their nature. It just does not seem to make sense to ban the weapons which are used in far less crimes and hope that makes an effect. We may want to also ban assault rifles but let us start off with the greatest effect and go after handguns if we are going to ban something because they are the biggest killer.

 

Good luck with that.

 

above all else, we must blame the gun.

if we don't blame the gun, we have to blame other things,

and if we start exploring for other things to blame, we risk swerving into an uncomfortable discussion about cultures.

and that won't do.

 

Blaming wood be the wrong word. Recognising the statistical reality of the situation would be more correct. The violence will exist no matter what. We might be able to lower it. However providing the violent with a deadly and convenient tool that has no other uses but to kill would make the violence worse for no good reason. We can blame the violent for their violence while not providing them with handguns.

 

Well, at least one Liberal has finally caught on to the fact that rifles are far down on the list.

Ahh, we banned alcohol in 1920. It didn't work.

We, currently, have a ban on Heroin, Cocaine, and other hard drugs. It isn't working.

We banned "assault weapons" in 1994 for 10 years. It didn't work.

One of those Eastern states, Massachusetts I think it was, tried to confiscate "assault weapons" or register them. It didn't work.

There are over 300 million guns in the U.S. Good luck with that.

Check out You Tube for lessons on making highly sophisticated firearms at home.

Reality is a bitch, ain't it?

 

Drugs are not guns. There are different reasons to use guns, and guns do not exist in nature as does alcohol.

There are a lot of factors which make prohibition and banning firearms different. So much so that comparing the two is like comparing a glass of beer with a gun. It does not work.

 

Hmmmmm is 54 times more deadly than a similar crime in the UK eh???

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts

 

Even Australia has handguns. You want to become more radical than us?

I agree emphatically that handguns are more of the issue. But the only reason they have a shot at banning long arms is because they look scary. A ban on any of this won't pass SCOTUS now.

Amendment is the only option for bans.

 

Won't happen the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns.

 

You think we should "start" by banning handguns.....thanks for your honesty. The real goal of the left is to ban ALL guns.

The fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns will NEVER happen. Understand this. Human beings are capable of great things and capable of incredible evil. This is the reality. There will always be a struggle. Get used to it.

 

Lol... Oh you guys
... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ...

 

but you take away self-defense.

I don't think Benning it would do anything to Halt crime I think it would increase because many people carry a pistol for self-defense and that being the case many crimes are stopped by someone having a pistol for self-defense.

 

The left already tried to ban hand guns and the Supreme Court said no.

This is settled law already.

 

MD was one of those states. When the deadline expired and most of them weren't registered the idiot AG said she didn't realize so many were in the hands of criminals.

 

Since you have the stats in front of you, and being the OP, can you tell us....what is the stat for how many legally owned firearms were used in your currently cited stats versus illegally owned firearms.

 

right drugs arent guns. Drugs are far more effective at killing teens than all firearms in existence. Where is your outrage? Alcohol kills more teens...where is your outrage...second hand smoke kills more innocent people every day than all guns combined...where is your call to ban?

 

Yes one made sure that only Outlaws had beer the other make sure that only Outlaws have guns.

 

Having handguns creates far more crimes than it prevents. Let us not forget many of those crimes would not happen because the person would be afraid to do them without a pistol. Statistics of gun free countries show this to be true.

 

Legal vs illegal is irrelevant when the market is flooded with guns.

 

Show me the numbers.

 

So how do you make 300 million guns disappear?

 

Actually all of those things have purposes that are not killing. A guns purpose is killing. There is no other use. So we can remove guns without removing utility considering you no longer need to hunt in the US.

 

Ban this, ban that. How about no? Let us, for once, try unbanning!

 

You are comparing handguns and a beer. If that is not screaming there is something wrong then I cannot help you.

 

Ok easily done. Here is a good start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

You will notice the countries that have gun bans of all firearms have a much lower rate of deaths.