There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rate

@chad

But there are examples like Kennsaw. In 1982, there was a mandate requiring almost every household to own a gun. Ever since then there has never been over 15 murders and crime there has been declining since. Other examples are the safest cities in the US are the ones in “gun nut zones “

Like Lincoln, Chandler and Plano

The idea I was going off of is that gun ownership usually tells you how many “good guys” (law-abiding citizens) have guns, while the strictness of gun laws has more of an impact on how many “bad guys” (criminals) have them. The ideal situation is that criminals have no guys and normal people have sufficient guns. I just think that, in general, gun control helps make that balance more favorable than no gun laws at all (although that depends highly on the type of gun legislation and subsequently I do oppose certain restrictions)

Gun control does the opposite

It restricts “good guys” as they’re the only people that follow the laws

Criminals don’t follow these laws

Since it’s impossible to stop bad guys with guns its better to let the good guys have it too

@Leo (BillNyeLand) check out gun violence on a county map.

Even taking the natural stress of population density into account, the high rates in red states are mostly contained to the big blue counties.

You can’t stop a criminal from buying a gun but you can stop a law-abiding gun store owner from selling a gun.

Sucks for whoever you is

Grab the guns and the next spike in gun violence will be against the door-knocking pigs

insallah

Visitor stopping a law abiding gun owner from selling one does nothing either

It’s very easy to get a gun illegally

Hence why most guns used in crime are illegal sources

Think about price controls bro, when they’re placed there is always an excess demand which means black markets

I found this but it’s from mother jones which makes me somewhat skeptical

yeah mass shootings

Sure, there’s a black market for guns, but it isn’t the same size as the gun market would be without restrictions. By restricting supply, you get some black market demand, but you also see the demand curve shift until the overall demand is lower, which means that the number of “bad guys” with guns would be lower than originally.

Ah. Here’s something from the Washington Post

Sorry it’s pixelated

In Pittsburgh 2008, most crimes were committed with someone else’s gun

Mhm I'm talking overall

I'll find it

But that doesn’t say how much of that was actual black market stuff, unfortunately

https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/

Theres another one I have

But I'll find it after

@Leo (BillNyeLand) It's true a black market will always come no matter how hard you try to ban something, especailly a big one for something like guns which is so easily available. The USSR etc tried to stop market forces and they resulted in a "second" economy bigger than the original I believe, because consumer demanding consumer goods they couldn't get due to inefficiency.

Just look at drugs today.

No, but the high-level Freemasons certainly are baby-eating demons

Gun control definitely lowers suicide

Lowering suicide is still better than nothing

How

that makes no sense....

dying has to be one of the easiest things to do

Would you rather die instantly or slowly?