Like most things in life statistics can be used and abused (kind of like guns). As an actuary I’ve seen my share of statistics that are collected and / or interpreted to further ones agenda and intentionally mislead others. I’m fairly confident the statistics your basing your opinions on would fall into that category. As far as I’m concerned the way a statistic is interpreted is an opinion and not a fact. Can you please logically (not statistically) explain why an illegally armed criminal who up until now refrained from breaking into someone’s house because they were afraid that the homeowner may have a legally purchased weapon will not go ahead and break into the persons home if their gun was turned in?
To reiterate again- you CAN NOT compare two countries based on one parameter- it’s like comparing an apple to an orange because they’re both fruits. Just because another country has a lower murder rate doesn’t mean it’s because guns are less rampant. There are other things that cause crime- lack of family structure, being taught at a young age that crime does pay, not having to fear punishment… All these parameters need to be compared. I don’t know what goes on in Scandinavia but let’s say from a young age the schools emphasize proper respect for others and following the law instead of using proper pronouns. I would hope that when they get older they’re afraid of jail because of social stigmas and prefer to stay far away from prison regardless of how comfortable it is. In places in the US where a criminal knows that if they’re arrested for armed carjacking they’ll be released with no bail- there’s no fear in committing the crime. Can you please explain what a life long criminal has to fear if they never faced any consequences?
You mentioned earlier that there’s no valid reason to have an automatic weapon. The case that I mentioned originally was just to poke a hole in your statement by choosing a rare scenario where there would be a valid reason to have an automatic weapon. I believe that I mentioned other situations where it would have been beneficial to have automatic weapons but you chose to not to acknowledge them (i.e. Yidden in Europe during the late 1930’s and residents of the Old City in 1948). Do you mind responding to that? Can you also let me know what I was paraphrasing from the NRA- I honestly have no idea?
You’re probably correct that most mass murders in the US happened with guns purchased legally- you still haven’t explained how banning them will remove the illegally obtained ones. Again- it may may them harder to get but they will still be available to those that have them and obtainable from those who smuggle them across an open border.
I don’t know what cigarettes have to do with guns. They both may be dangerous but they are different. Before there were any known dangers with cigarettes many people got addicted to them and it was going to take some time for the smoking rates to go down. If we’re at that point- great! Guns were known from the start to be dangerous and people either obtained them as a weapon to help their criminal lifestyle or as a necessary evil to protect themselves.