"Most gun-related crimes are carried out with illegally owned firearms—as much as 80 percent according to some estimates." From a heavily skewed pro-gun article https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/here-are-8-stubborn-facts-gun-violence-america What does that mean? 20% or more legally owned firearms were used in gun related crimes....hardly insignificant.
None the less the guns didn't commit the crimes, the person pulling the trigger did and that is what you should be focused on not some inanimate object.
Then present evidence to prove such is factually incorrect. Cite the evidence that proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is legal firearm owners who are committing the majority of all firearm-related violence in the united states, rather than those who illegally possess firearms for the express purpose of criminal use.
An oversimplification. Both intent and weapon type determine deadliness. Do you think the Parkland shooter could have killed as many students with a pocket knife? I don't think so. If you don't understand that then you probably shouldn't be trusted with a firearm. If you own a firearm you should understand how deadly it can be.
And of course introducing guns into that equation would make things so much better ..... just like it has in the US .... errrr
So what you say ? You are in a low level urban war with each other and you seem to like it that way. In the last 50 years you have lost more of your citizens to domestic firearms than in all the wars you have ever fought since your nations creation
No; YOU are the problem. You seek to undermine our rights and freedoms, and force people to surrender their liberty, citing junk studies and denigrating the factual ones because they are an impediment to your disarmament agenda. I understand I'm alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it. Do you think the Parkland shooter could have killed as many students if there were proper security measures in place? Do you think he would have killed so many if the police had actually acted instead of cowering outside? Would he have killed as many if law enforcement hadn't ignored all the warnings regarding his actions and intentions before the shooting ever happened? If you understood anything you'd be asking smarter questions.
You quoted heritage.org in reference to the percentage of "gun crimes" committed by unlawfully owned guns, 80% which implies that the remaining 20% of "gun crime" is perpetrated by lawfully owned firearms, and I'm ok with that source and statistic. Where you went wrong is conflating 20% of "gun crime" with 20% of lawfully owned firearms. So far there have been 17,777 instances of "gun crime" in America in 2019, 80% of which would be 14,221.6. That leaves 3,555 for the remaining 20% of "gun crime" committed so far this year. ( https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ ) Some estimate that there are 300 million lawfully owned firearms in America, some estimate 600 million. ( https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/25/told-600-million-guns-united-states/ ) 20% of 300 million is not 3,555. It's 60,000,000.
I contend that a rape victim is not morally superior to a woman who has successfully defended herself with a gun. It looks as though you are more worried about the criminal getting shot/killed in the commission of the crime than you are for the woman's safety. That makes you the problem. Not me.
Additionally, recent study performed at U of Pittsburgh disagrees with you. Their claim is that lawful gun owner's commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f25c7df0873a
Distortion. The figures used are for knife offences not attacks. Carrying a knife over 3.5" is an offence and this accounts for the majority of knife offences. Fewer than 300 deaths and fewer than 4000 injuries a year are a result of knife attacks.
To repeat... There are nowhere near 40,000 ''knifings'' . The figure for stabbings is fewer than 4,000.
According to the UK authorities is the current rate continues there will be 40,000 stabbings in the UK and many of them will be deadly stabbings. And those are the ones reported, who knows how many go unreported.
Being less likely to be shot while more likely to be stabbed does not amount to a sound trade off. What is ignored on the part of yourself, and so many others, is that what drives violence in the united kingdom has not gone anywhere. The same problem still exists and is going untreated, while everyone has chosen instead to focus on a mere symptom.
Once again, the obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make?
Even if such is truly a factually correct assessment of the situation, why is the number of individuals illegally carrying knives continuing to grow so high?
And yet a great number of those who own firearms do not actually utilize them for the purpose of deliberately hurting others. So why do certain individuals do such while others do not? Attempting to address the matter of firearms is nothing more than trying to treat the symptoms of a problem, while leaving the problem itself unaddressed. Such is not how a problem is addressed, nor does it cure the disease. Treating the symptoms is only considered valid when one recognizes the underlying problem is impossible to address, impossible to cure, and there is no way of actually improving the situation. It is no different than claiming pain management is a cure for cancer.
