Criminals can only be prevented from getting guns by laying unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. Duh.
Yes, my claim is true, and yours is false. If you total the numbers of annual firearm production listed in the ATF report from 1986, subtract the exports, and add back in the imports, that total production figure for 1986 to 2019 is 270 million guns. For your claim to be true, the number of guns in the US in 1985 would have had to have been zero. I think we can agree that the number of guns in the US in 1985 was not zero, given that homicide rate in the US for 1985 was 8.0. That's a oft quoted claim, but since there's no way to know who actually owns guns, it's just a guess. If true, it just means that 97% of the 100 million gun owners own 200 million guns. Perhaps interesting, but totally worthless. Again, perhaps interesting but worthless. It would take a police state to prevent criminals from getting guns.
My bad. I trusted my memory and believed 270 million was the total guns held by civilians, but I checked and the estimate is 390 million firearms in civilian possession in 2020. So the statement "From 1986, the earliest date that the ATF kept records, to 2019, the year of the latest data, the number of guns in the US increased by 270 million." is possible.
Who said that? Have you been listening to right-wing propaganda again? You need to get out more. Demonstrate the inanity of passing laws with the intent to prevent people from breaking other laws. As I've said repeatedly you can reduce the probability. Have laws against theft stopped theft? Should we have laws against theft? So your contention remains that the statement, "if you increased the number of firearms available you increase the potential illicit use." is illogical? You know the US just recorded the highest homicide rate increase in history. In '20 homicides up 25% over the previous year, but violent crime which contains homicides up only 3% in the same period. That implies the overall crime rate has not changed, but what has changed is the amount of gunfire.
You have not demonstrated that any law that reduces the probability of the killer getting a gun. Are you stumped? We are not in a discussion about theft laws.
Demonstrate the inanity of passing laws with the intent to prevent people from breaking other laws. It's called an analogy. There are no national laws that do that, as you well know, but I think adopting something like NYC laws nationally would certainly reduce the probability.
In other words you are unwilling to prevent criminals from getting guns. Demonstrate how they are unnecessary and ineffective restrictions.
Would you allow the government to do anything if it kept even one criminal from getting a gun? I'll repeat: I am not willing to allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or SCOTUS to infringe any right.
So the previous three decades in which the number of guns climbed immensely but the homicide rate trended downwards continuously is an outlier, but a single year of increase is the statistical norm? The only reason that the rate of increase is of note is because in the previous years where the rate increase by the same amount, the previous rate was so high as to make the rate increase itself a smaller percentage of a much higher number.
The unnecessary and ineffective laws you seek do not prevent criminals from getting guns. Thus, your support for said laws has nothing to do with preventing criminals from getting guns. See: Sacramento mass shooting. This shooting demonstrates CA's gun laws are ineffective, and as such, the restrictions they create are unnecessary. See how easy that was?
Infringing on the rights of every American because you "think" it will reduce probability is unacceptable. Did you give up on disarming Flaco?
No All rights can be "infringed". And "if you increased the number of firearms available you increase the potential illicit use." is an illogical statement in your world. Demonstrate the inanity of passing laws with the intent to prevent people from breaking other laws. So gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting guns so there is no point in any gun laws is your stance. Insanity is having different gun laws in every state. I'm sorry you feel that way but the majority of Americans do not feel that way.
What an odd statement, Of course you can feel sorry for how someone feels unless you are way up there on the autistic spectrum or a psychopath. Once Flaco has a firearm it is difficult to disarm him if he keeps his head down. The best strategy would be making it difficult for him to obtain a firearm in the first place, which it seems the right is against.
You have only described how you would disarm his victim. You have yet to describe how you would prevent him from obtaining a firearm. Did you give up?
Already done See; Sacramento shooting There you go again, deliberately misrepresenting my position, because you know you cannot meaningfully respond to it. A position held by those who do not understand federalism. Fallacy: argumentum ad populum
We've been over this and you ignored it. Nothing can prevent Flaco from getting a gun if it's available the point is not making it available. The Sacramento shootings does not demonstrate the inanity of passing laws with the intent to prevent people from breaking other laws. You can say that about any law that is broken. Teenagers are prevented from purchasing guns. The fact that a teen can get a gun and rob a drug store does not mean laws preventing teens from buying guns is inane. Try again. What are the gun laws that you approve of?
Please show how laws make guns unavailable or less available to Flaco. I know your question was for TOG, but I approve of laws against harming others.
I demonstrated previously that it does, and I will demonstrate it again: -CA has 107 laws passed with the intent to prevent the crimes committed in Sacramento and any number of other mass shooting events in the state of CA. -Every singe one of those laws failed to do so. Every single one. -As such these laws are demonstrably ineffective; there's no demonstrable necessity for laws that have no effect, especially when those laws restrict the law abiding -It is both silly and stupid to have unnecessary and ineffective laws. Thus, inanity. See how easy that was? You may now deliberately misrepresenting my argument, above, because you know you cannot meaningfully respond to it.
