Yes, but I still advocate that the fewer guns there are in a society, the better
I can understand your reasoning. But of course that could only have a positive effect if guns were reduced evenly; if the law-abiding citizens had fewer or no guns, but the criminals still had as many, then it only puts the innocent at more of a disadvantage.
It's easy to get the guns away from average people by passing a law, since most would obey it, even if unhappy about it. The problem is that criminals already prefer to buy arms through illegal means, because it's harder to trace them back to the shooter. In order to buy them legally, we have to register them. So in order for that to work in any beneficial way, they'd have to come up with a successful way of removing the illegal ones first. If there was a simple solution to that, it wouldn't be a problem now.
Also, reduce the number of total guns in the US by taking away the now legal ones the price on illegal guns will soar as there are fewer around. Also, eventually there will be fewer illegal guns too as guns seized by the police during arrests can be taken off the market and destroyed, something wich will increase the black market price even higher. That will lead to fewer guns used in crimes as it will be harder for criminals to afford guns and as a result, hospitals won't have to deal with as many bullet wounds, both accidental and intentional.
Again, I can understand where you're coming from on this. But the past has shown us that while that makes sense in theory, it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice. It was the same line of reasoning that brought about Prohibition, and that's not the result we saw when we tried it. Instead, the black market increased beyond expectations. The suppliers became more powerful, branched out into other areas, and violent crimes multiplied, like ripples in a pond.
In this case, since criminals generally use guns purchased by illegal means rather than those purchased on the legal market, it would, in effect, simply make it more lucrative for the illegal suppliers. In addition to the old criminal customer base, they'd now have a percentage of those who used to buy them legally for self-defense, etc. So there again, it isn't the legal supply that's the problem - it's the illegal market, which would only become more powerful if the legal was removed. Suppliers are in it to make money. They aren't going to price guns so high that no one buys them anymore. That would be shooting themselves in the foot (bad pun intended).
A US government that oppresses its people too much would suffer the consequences, but in an unarmed country, the citizens can do nothing.I am confounded why you aren't using them in that way right now
If you're being serious, then on the one hand, you're saying that Americans are wrong to have guns, but on the other hand, we're wrong because we're not using our to overthrow the government. Either guns are alright or they're not - saying that it's not okay to have guns, BUT it's okay to have them if we're going to go kill people with them makes no sense to me. I can't imagine that you're saying politicians and those whose job it is to defend them don't count as people, so it's okay to shoot them. So I have to assume that you posted before thinking things through.
Americans aren't gun-happy. If we disapprove of something our government is doing, we're not likely to start shooting people in order to change it. Personally, I consider non-violence a good thing. If you think we approve of what our current government has done internationally lately, then you've been mislead. People here -are- trying to do something about it. Even many in politicians are trying as well. We just aren't using violence as the means. But it's wrong because we're not killing people to achieve that goal?
If the entire point was to bring up your disapproval of what the US government is doing, and you just wrote it badly, then that's a subject for an entirely different thread.
Actually, after thinking about it, I know what will bring gun-related deaths and overall homicide rates down.
The legalization of drugs.
That's certainly been suggested many times, and although I'm not a proponent of it, there is some basis to think it could work if done correctly. Much of the violent crime in the US is drug-related, which is similar to what happened during the Prohibition years when alcohol was illegal. So it isn't completely irrational to theorize that by legalizing drugs, we shift it into non-criminal hands, and thus the crime rate should fall.
What I've been saying all along is that we'll be much more successful if we address what motivates people to commit violent crimes, rather than take away one means of doing them.
Just for a recent example, look what they've done about cigarette smoking. Rather than make it illegal and spend money on the increased law enforcement needed to limit the black market that would inevitably develop, they attacked the motivation to smoke in the first place instead.
They directed money and effort into programs engineered to reduce people's desire to smoke, instead. Cigarettes were still freely available, although more expensive. Laws were enacted to prohibit smoking in public places. People are free to smoke if they want, but it's now much less convenient.
They gave people more -motivation- not to smoke, rather than try to force them to stop, and achieved remarkable success. Reduce the desire and reduce the market. The black market has nowhere to take hold, because there's less customer base. Therefore, no increased criminal activity.
