Right, someone used the word "violence" and you saw an opening to make a blatant equivocation fallacy. Then it took 150 posts and me asking over and over for you to clarify.

The US is still vastly worse for homicide than the UK. End of deflection,

rofl yeah, my deflection, not a simple correction. I haven't addressed the homicide rate with the massive drop in homicides despite the liberalization of gun laws in the US. Carry on.

So... no one from the pro gun crowd is gonna comment on this:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

A funny thing, that.

I got a "page couldn't be found", so maybe that's why.

AFAIK negligent entrustment cases are hard to win, require you to basically go full ****** entrusting your gun to someone, and only really extend to civil suits.

Not saying this is what happened here or that it would've changed anything in this case where the gun owner was killed, but how would everyone feel about a much heavier burden placed on gun owners to keep their **** out of the hands of others? Strict(er) and maybe criminal liability for not taking affirmative steps to keep your gun out of the hands of your ****** son?

Sorry, this page cannot be found.

If guns are banned then eventually few people will possess them. Heroin is banned and illegal, few people possess it.

yea just replaced it... it worked when i clicked the first time, though. That's how I knew what it was

link replaced: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

So you vote 'wait it out', eventually the existing guns will rust away.

Gotcha.

Anyone else?

Well, they have to run out of bullets eventually.

More jokes, more bla bla bla....

No realistic ideas.





....but you all sound so smart

Seems to me you'd do something like specifying regional dates by which time all guns need to be turned in, and have offending parties incur larger and larger fines the longer they are in neglect of the law

You mean this?

And just like guns, heroin was once legal. So perhaps people can get behind making something illegal that was once legal.

Larger and larger fines for what? Are we setting a date to search homes also?

Wait for them to rust away? Huh? How bout you have to turn them in by a certain time or you're committing a felony.

Again, turn what in? Are we searching houses?

what do you mean fines for what? For breaking the law.

Are you conceding that guns are a problem and we should turn our attention to figuring out the best solution?

Homes don't have to be systematically searched for most people to make sure they don't have anything illegal there.

Also, I figure I'll just keep doing this every few posts until someone responds:


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

Why not just ban ammo. You can keep the guns.

From the abstract of: "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature"


"The available evidence is quite consistent. The few case control studies suggest that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates. Most studies, cross sectional or time series, international or domestic, are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate."

It's just a discussion/debate, so sure, I have no problem conceding 'guns are a problem'.

Now tell me your realistic idea for getting rid of them.

Since I am conceding the 2nd amendment, try to keep all of my other rights intact with your solution mmmmk?