Guns are relatively simple to manufacture. The tools and skills required are enough of an investment that theres relatively little profit in black market arms manufacturing. Kinda like how no one cooks their own aspirin, even though it would be pretty simple. Its just easier to buy from a factory. No one cooked meth until it was banned either. Wherever meth was popular before it was banned is where illegal methlabs will be found. Banning guns while there is still demand for guns will just make illegal gunsmithing a lucrative black market trade. And like meth, criminals will still not have difficulty getting them.
How do you Constitutionally plan to reduce the number of guns, and what was the homicide rate in the 1970s and 1980s when we had less than half of the number of guns we have now?
Gun control is predicated on the assumption that a woman lying dead, raped and strangled with her pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to that same woman explaining how her would-be rapist got that bullet hole in his head.
Mine has. I didn't even have to touch it. Its mere existence protected me from being robbed. I posted about it here back in 2017. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...arm-for-defense.518353/page-2#post-1068244554
That’s one desperate plea. Lmao democrats attack books like dr Seuss and republicans attack books about gays, pornography, and pedophilia in schools. I’ll take the republicans
The problem with this is that firearms are durable goods. I have in my safe, firearms that have been in my family for over 120 years. They still function as well as they did when they were new. I can say with pretty sure confidence, that they will remain in my family for another 120 years, and that they will remain fully functional. Waiting for firearms to "age out" is not a workable strategy, because even without meticulous maintenance, they last for centuries. So, in order to meet your 50% goal, you will either have to amend, or violate, the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is not likely to happen, and violating it will not end well for anyone involved.
Ah the simpleton argument. The people who fight real hard to not hold criminals accountable for their actions are the same people who fight real hard to make sure that people are defenseless. These are the same people that fight real hard when it comes to having access to hard drugs and open borders, despite the fact that the two combined have killed far more people in this country than all of our guns. Do you have any data that suggests less accessibility to firearms results in less homicide? Do states with more restrictive firearm ownership have lower homicide rates? Do states with higher per-capita gun ownership translate into states with higher homicide rates? Do countries with more restrictive firearm ownership have lower homicide rates? The answer is, of course, that there is no correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rates. The laws we should really be passing are ones that prevent people who live in high gun control states from moving to our low gun control, safer, states as their ****holes continue to collapse under their own stupidity.
So your god like government can control the population and force your ideologies on those who disagree. You folks on the Left believe you'll have a seat at the table, but I think you're going to be sadly mistaken.
Nice deflection. I'm not worried anyone is after me or my freedom. Some people have spent their whole lives worried that someone is coming to take their guns. Keep waiting on the great Pumpkin, Linus.
Do the Democrats want the US to have the same gun violence rate as the UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand? I keep seeing comparisons to those countries.
How about we just shoot for it to be less than it is now. We have too many people who think that they are defending themselves, when they are only fighting imaginary battles.
The homicide rate fell from 10.2 in 1980 to 4.4 in 2014. The Democrats still kept calling for more gun control. The homicide rate for the 2010s was the lowest since the 1950s, and the second lowest for a decade in the last 100 years, but the Democrats still kept calling for more gun control. I don't think they'll be happier with "less than it is now", especially given their common cries of "End gun violence", "no more school shootings" and "no more mass shootings". [/QUOTE]
The fact gun-related violence is so bad that we need to place additional unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding is, in and of itself, a demonstration of the necessity for the possession of a gun for self-defense.
If so, then there's clearly no need for additional unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding.
