Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
That it's not linear, and that it matters much less than propensity to crime.
Ie, even if you somehow halved the amount of guns currently in circulation in the USA, and put licensing as a requirement to buy guns for everyone, and used red flag laws a lot more, gun violence would be almost the same.
Keep in mind that halving the amount of guns currently in circulation is already asking for a lot more than what the median democrat asks for.
If you somehow managed to "pull an australia", ie reduce the amount of guns in circulation by 95-99, somehow secured the border to make it close to impossible for guns to irregularly come from the mexican border or by boat, and required "special reasons" for people to own a gun, then yes you would reduce gun violence by a lot.
But, aside the complete unconstitutionality of the above,
1) forcing americans to give back at least 290m of the 300m guns they own privately is literally impossible. Many millions of people + all criminals wouldn't give them back.
2) securing the border against illegal gun import in large quantities is absolutely impossible (keep in mind how profitable that trade would become if guns in the USA Get the australian treatment)
3) it would require a permanent police state of the kind the american population won't accept , both from the left and from the right (for different reasons).
So gun control initiatives in the USA are close to useless. What would be needed to have a significant effect on crime is impossible to do, and the rest is anyway currently unconstitutional with this scotus (but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a difference). Please remind you had a very leftist SCOTUS pre Heller, wrt gun control.
Pre Heller (2008) it's not like gun crime was low, then the right came, SCOTUS defended the 2a too much, and gun crime increased massively right?
The focus on gun control on the left is an attempt at misdirection. They can't admit their fairly recent absurd takes on policing are part of the problem, and that crime has to be fought with state violence as the only solution. They can't admit some minorities (for whatever reasons), and some white subdemographics in some areas, have sky high propensities to crime and that's the only reason why crime is high.
There is one kind of gun crime that has gone up a lot since then - young men, usually with no criminal records and who legally bought weapons, committing mass shootings.
These still don't make up a large percentage of gun violence, but they get a ton of publicity, and rightfully so, IMO. These incidents scare normal law abiding citizens (especially those who don't own guns). They scare me, because that is the only kind of gun violence which is likely to directly affect me or those I care most about.
I'm not in a gang, and I stay out of neighborhoods with a lot of gang activity, so I'm not going to be killed in gang related violence. I don't have a firearm in my home so I'm not going to be killed by accident or anger by a roommate, family member, or romantic partner.
However, I do go out to nightclubs, where some mass shootings have happened. I occasionally go to large outdoor festivals, where mass shootings have happened. I go to supermarkets, where some mass shootings have happened. I gamble in a small casino with very little security, where several people actually got shot by a disgruntled gambler just about a year ago.
These mass shootings are the reason I think legal gun purchases should be much more difficult to make than they are now, even if it means criminals still have them. Criminals are not who I'm worried about.