And And about 24 million people have died from cigarettes in the last 50 years, that's sixteen times as many people as those that have died from gunshots in that same time period, your point?
1) Many people suffering Mental Disability are unaware of their condition. 2) People who are normal today may be severely depressed a year later.
As is the consumption of shellfish, wearing blended fabrics such as denim, and stealing a box of paperclips from an office supply room. All are equally sinful and equal to murder from the perspective of religion.
In all examples without exception? There are no individuals who are lazy without experiencing depression?
"(CNN)A United Parcel Service (UPS) employee was arrested after sending threatening text messages to his employer about planning a mass shooting at a UPS facility in Northern California, authorities said. "Thomas Andrews, 32, was arrested and booked into the Santa Clara County jail for criminal threats, evading police, driving under the influence and several counts of weapons violations after police found over 20,000 rounds of handgun and rifle ammunition, the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety (DPS) said in the release Monday." https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/us/ups-employee-mass-shooting-threat-arrest/index.html Good job. So much better than the "good guy with a gun" solution.
What actual point are you trying to make with your last sentence? Were you expecting some to take exception to the actions of the police in this case?
Exactly which firearm-related restrictions were useful in this particular situation, that allowed for the arrest to occur, that simply would not have been possible otherwise? How did the firearm-related restrictions actually work in the state of California, when the individual in question was apparently able to amass so much ammunition?
Physical evidence of threats to inflict harm, a misdemeanor in many states, provided enough probable cause for a search warrant. Then, given CA laws on gun storage and etc. action could be legally taken, with the guns taken as evidence. One charge would be ‘Stupidity’ if that was an offense in the Law, but then....
How about alcohol? Alcohol causes lots of deaths and we already tried banning it during the prohibition, it didn't work.
Well the point is, any ban on cigarettes or alcohol will not work. After all just look at the prohibition, how much alcohol was being sold, bought, and consumed illegally and how criminal organizations made a fortune off it. Look at how hard drugs are sold, bought, and used today, all of which are banned. A ban on alcohol didn't work. A ban on drugs often doesn't work. And by the same token a ban on guns will not work, we will get the same results.
Will not work and does not work. There is not a single place in the world where guns are banned that is free of gun crime.
Australia has a very low gun crime rate. Gun control does work for the most part when it's strict enough.
Such does not amount to fewer deaths overall, however. Reduction in one particular category of implement use does not automatically mean a reduction in total numbers. There are many countries around the world that have fewer firearm-related deaths than the united states, but a significantly higher number of homicides. Therefore no net benefit is had, thus meaning there is no legitimate reason in attempting such an approach.
