I think so. The disadvantages of guns outweigh advantages. More guns mean more homicides, suicides, gun crimes and serious injuries. The economic cost of gun violence is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The claimed self defense benefits of firearms are very questionable and outshadowed by criminal gun usage. This is a separate question from whether or not guns should be banned or to what extent they should be restricted. I think it could be reasonably argued that alcohol and cigarettes are a net negative but they are still allowed with some restrictions.
Well we have different countries for a reason, and luckily for you, there are plenty (probably most) of countries that restrict private ownership of guns. So problem solved!
I'd say it depends very much on the situation. Some people are lucky enough to live in areas where they have absolutely no worry about someone breaking into their home and doing bad things to their teenage daughters... If you think that whenever there's a problem you can just call the police and it's as simple as that, just be aware that not everyone has that luxury. Some people live in areas where the typical police response time would be 20 minutes away, sometimes an hour or two hours, or in some very remote areas, even 4 or 5 hours away. Some people live in crime-ridden poor cities with a limited budget. In these areas you might make an emergency phone call and the dispatcher will tell you "Sorry, can't help you right now." I think we had a whole other thread in this forum citing stories where people called police for assistance and the wait time was so long that they were dead by the time police got there. Oh, and don't forget some areas prone to natural disasters where the police just suddenly disappear and can't help anyone. But if we are talking areas like Chicago or New York City, you are probably right, "Galileo".
Anything to prove that or is that an opinion? If you do have proof of this does it include the economic advantage of guns saving lives?
Hirohito (probably never) said: "The United States can never be invaded because there is a rifle behind every blade of grass." Whether he actually said it or not is not important. Just as relevant now as it was when he was around.
You say "gun violence" like it's always a bad thing. It's what keeps a 300lb man from raping a 100lb woman, gun violence.
"In an average year, gun violence in America kills nearly 40,000 people, injures more than twice as many, and costs our nation $280 billion... American taxpayers pay a daily average of $34.8 million for medical care, first responders, ambulances, police, and criminal justice services related to gun violence. Families directly affected by gun violence everyday face $4.7 million in out-of-pocket costs for medical bills and mental health support, and $140.3 million in losses from work missed due to injury or death. Society loses an estimated $586.8 million per day in intangible costs from the pain and suffering of gun violence victims and their families. Employers every day lose $1.4 million in productivity, revenue, and costs required to recruit and train replacements for victims of gun violence." https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-economic-cost-of-gun-violence/
It's sure easy to dream up some very unlikely scenario. But that isn't evidence. Here are some real facts about how women are affected by guns: "Nearly 1,800 women were murdered by men in 2019 and nine out of 10 were killed by a man they knew, most often with a gun.... "Firearms were the weapons most commonly used by males to murder females in 2019. Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 58 percent of female victims were shot and killed with a gun. Of the homicides committed with guns, 65 percent were killed with handguns." https://vpc.org/press/nearly-1800-w...-year-new-violence-policy-center-study-finds/
Whether or not the statement below is true doesn't matter. It has no impact of the right to keep and bear arms, and the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. "The disadvantages of guns outweigh advantages"
As it concerns taking people's rights away for the torts or crimes of others? That would be correct, its a non issue on that front. You can't even cite the proper statistic: Your stat includes suicides and justifiable homicides, and other justified shootings, in its analysis.
"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."
Opposition to gun control: The theory that putting women in greater danger of being shot and murdered is morally superior to trying to prevent such harm. We can all come up with such bumper sticker arguments. Now let's look at some real data: "More than 30 peer-reviewed studies, focusing on individuals as well as populations, have been published that confirm what Kellermann's studies suggested: that guns are associated with an increased risk for violence and homicide." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
Lets say that a political leader managed to make an excuse to ignore a democratic election and used the military to end democracy? Wouldn't an armed population be preferable to an unarmed population in this case?
Suicides pick a different method if you stymie one. Blaming a tool for the person is nonsensical. Justifiable homicides are justified because they halt a felony in progress: That's an economic gain dear.
People have not changed so human nature has not changed. Modern society just means we have different gadgets.
If you don't collect guns, target shoot or have never been in a position in which having a firearm saved your life, I can see why you might have a negative view of guns due to the anti gun bias in our MSM. A gun only has to save your life once to be the most valuable possession you own so I must disagree with your opinion that: "The disadvantages of guns outweigh advantages." since I can think of at least three instances in which having a pistol saved me and others from miscreants whose intentions were certainly not to make me any happier, healthier or wealthier. There are few 2nd Amendment supporters that are more fervent than a former anti 2nd Amendment individual that has just been mugged. Yes, it can happen to you and / or your family. Thanks,
How much did the Rittenhouse trial cost taxpayers? The total amount could be in the millions and should definitely not be classified as an economic gain. How much did the economy lose due to Rittenhouse not working during the trial? How about the people he shot- two of them will never work again. How about Grosskreutz? How much did it cost to treat his injury?
The Rittenhouse trial was extremely unnecessary given the information that came out during the trial of just how much info the prosecution had about the shootings before filing. It was a political dog and pony show for binger and krause only. Rittenhouse not working during the trial? That's your economic loss? Seriously? What about the economic loss to him and us if some pedophile skinhead arsonist had beat him half to death in the streets? Again this harm is avoided by not bringing frivolous lawsuits against plain self defense defendants. The pedo just got out the loony bin and was a convicted forcible rapist of children style sex offender. The other dude holds his family at knifepoint to force them to clean his residence and beat on his ex. Lefty was defrocked as a paramedic for a burglary charge he pled down to criminal trespass. None of them were working and contributing to society before the shooting. The shooting did however take two of them and cause them to become organ donors and to stop consuming necessary resources or committing felonies against other citizens. Net gain. Lefty can pay his own bills, that's how it works remember? It seems the only complaint here is that had kyle been a little bit better shot we wouldn't have had to treat lefty at all. Shame on him.