By opting out of owning guns, you're giving us a power monopoly.

Statistics Here.

 

Sad Statistics Here.

 

1; Most mass shootings in recent years have taken place in states which do not require any background checks in private sales. Very few mass shooters have bought their weapons through FFL dealers, and as such, they didn't have to have background checks at all under federal law.

2; It's hard to prove that someone KNEW the person was ineligible, which is required under current federal law. They have to have had a malicious intent to undermine the system by knowingly buying weapons for someone who was not eligible to own them.

 

There is no proof that if a person didn’t have a gun that they wouldn’t have succeeded in taking their life with another method.

 

They why exactly did they succeed in the cases where no firearms were present?

 

It is not matters of the soul that are being discussed, however.

 

Do you "like" to pay the various bills and taxes assigned to yourself for basic utilities and other expenses?

One does not have to "like" a necessity for it to make any difference. No one gets to live a life devoid of unpleasantries they would rather do away with, as the real world simply does not work that way?

 

In short, simple, easy to understand terms, there is not a single geographical location in the entire united states, or in any other part of the world, where violent crime simply does not occur, or where the public does not need to be concerned about such. Crime and the resulting concern and/or fear about being a victim of crime, are universal across all walks of life.

Such is not relevant to the discussion, as the discussion does not pertain to details relating to myself.

 

Because the united states is host to a violent society. Far more violent than any other so-called "first world" or "developed" nation. The reasons for such are numerous and varied, impossible to blame on any one particular aspect. The constant influx and migration of thousands of illegal aliens, widespread drug abuse by the public, being land locked with one of the most violent and corrupt nations in the entire world, political corruption at all levels of government, the lack of enforcement of various laws governing illegal activity, widespread unemployment and illiteracy, the breakdown of the family unit, the promotion and glorification of violence against law enforcement officers, and many other factors all add up to the recipe of the united states being more violent than most other nations.

 

In this discussion, no one present has claimed otherwise. There are no guarantees of success in life. But at the same time the discussion is not about guarantees.

 

Exactly how is such relevant to the discussion?

 

Firearms are already subject to extensive regulation.

The people in the city of Nice in the nation of France would beg to differ. Even Stephen Paddock who committed the Las Vegas incident with numerous firearms, did not come close to achieving the degree of body count achieved with a single motor vehicle.

 

False. Not factually incorrect, but outright false.

With only one exception, every mass shooting committed in the current century has been committed by individuals who legally purchased their firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. The sole exception was one who murdered the legal owner of the firearms that were used, before stealing them for their own purposes.

And such is already illegal under the current system, therefore nothing further needs to be done.

 

The nation of Japan is proof that such is the case. Next to no legal firearm ownership, and an exceedingly high rate of successful suicide committed by other methods.

 

A minority succeeded in suicide by other means, the majority failed.

 

They do not consider suicide a sin.

 

In Scandinavia, all Humans are guaranteed food, shelter, medical care. In USA the Society does not view preventable deaths of tens of thousands of people each year as a tragedy.

USA is a sick society.

 

Guns are an excellent means to project deadly force in self-defense, when necessary to do so.

 

Thank you for proving your assertion wrong.

 

None of this is relevant unless you can show how many of these shooters were not able to legally buy a firearm, and/or did not steal the firearm(s) in question.

 

If you don't like it, you can leave.

 

They increase the risk of an accidental shooting, I do not hunt, I do not walk around in fear and I have no desire to own a gun at all under any circumstances.

 

1999-2017, accidental gun deaths dropped steadily from 824 to 486 deaths per year. all while the number of guns steadily increased.
Thus, more guns does not mean more accidents.

That's fine, so long as you do not try to force those choices onto anyone else.

 

The National Institute of Mental Health holds otherwise:

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml

For the most recent year the data is available, approximately half of all successful suicides in the united states involved the use of a firearm. The remaining amount was made up of suffocation, poisoning, and numerous other undisclosed causes.

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention agrees with the above data:

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

An absence of firearms will not, under any circumstances, amount to an absence of suicides. Nor is there reason to believe that these individuals will not follow through with suicide simply because firearms are not readily available at any given time. Nor is there any evidence to show that an individual will not attempt suicide a second, third, or fourth time if the first attempt fails.

 

Of what relevance is such?