They aren't taxed to the point where the tax is more expensive than the car. And in case you don't know gun manufacturers are taxed just as every other business.
So the blood of law abiding citizens is worth your implementation of gun control even if that blood outweighs the gun violence we currently have? - - - Updated - - - Turn in your credibility card and don't expect anyone to think you're in any way intellectually honest or even just plain honest.
Which comes from suicides. Besides, they don't have the most violent crime. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUUIGf4ll4g
How can a state like Vermont transfer something that doesn't exist in its own state like violent crime? If guns are the problem then Vermont should be a Wild West. - - - Updated - - - Thank you for conceding to my point. How I know that you did? Because you offered no rebuttal as usual.
Prove that you are stopping the bloodshed. Provide one gun strict gun law that reduced violent crime. - - - Updated - - - How so?
You act like suicide by gun is not a gun death. Lol - - - Updated - - - More people in a smaller area - - - Updated - - - Proof is not required for a new law
Well that's just a fantasy pipe dream some have, it will never happen in most states and never on a federal level. Anyway there's over 100 million handguns in private ownership in America today, there have been record sales in the last few years. Even if the new market stopped today there's plenty out there and owners willing to make a private sale to someone who doesn't have one. But like I said, a ludicrous tax on every handgun will never happen.
For the record, Suicide is in a separate category, the method used is not relevant as far as cause and effect, once a person decides to commit Suicide, their mind is pretty much made up, the last last step is methodology, Firearms are not the first choice, in spite of false statistics by Gun Control advocates, people that commit Suicide come from all walks of life and of both genders, women do not typically use Firearms, too messy, and most people hang themselves or use some type of Drugs, prescription or otherwise.
In the many Suicides I have either Investigated or responded to, and the ones I prevented, when People used methods other than Firearms, those "other" methods had a high degree of success, If you remove Firearms from the methods use, people will simply substitute another method, they not be deterred in their quest to exit life.
The obvious question of "so what" applies with regard to the above. What difference does it make? If someone has concluded that they wish to end their existence, then they have no interest in stopping before actually doing such. The only ones who would have second thoughts about following through, and actually reconsider ending their existence, are those who were not truly suicidal to begin with, but rather are seeking attention.
Dead from suicide requires a different solution than dead from street violence. So when crafting solutions..... dead is not dead.
From your reference More people start an attempt and abort it than carry it through; therefore, methods that can be interrupted without harm mid-attempt — such as overdose, cutting, CO poisoning, and hanging/suffocation — offer a window of opportunity for rescue or change of heart that guns and jumps do not.
So what? Hanging is over 60% effective as a suicide method. When will the rope restrictions be put in place?
They are much less effective. The goal is harm reduction. Do you know of a country that has instituted rope restrictions effectively so we can model after them? LOL
Can we assume that you hold that all harm reduction, regardless of rights, efficacy or enforcability, is the primary goal?
