Firearms

[TheProwler]

Statistics conclude that the #1 preventative for a person turning to a life of crime is having a father and a mother.

Interested in the detail behind this (not doubting, just keen to look at material).

That's just one of those stats that can misleading. If there is a father, that almost always will mean a father *and* a mother.

Which means a much better chance for a caring and stable environment.



The stats on *father only* children are probably very insignificant because of a very low occurance.

Better? This would eliminate the "insignificance of such a low occurrence" by not segregating one from the other.

Well, it's probably more accurate.

So that would make it better, yeah.

[TheProwler]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

Is this problem getting better or worse over the years? If it's getting better, then no need to change anything right? It'll eventually level off.

If it's getting worse, then perhaps we should look at what's changed over the years, rather than jumping to a strawman of "sterilize the immoral" argument.

Hahahaha!!!

For a guy that seems really involved in protecting his right to bear arms, you seem all too willing to "do something about" people who want to procreate and be bad parents.


"Freedom!!!! (If you agree with me.)"


This is not the type of thing that should be the reason for pushing for changes.


"We should end poverty because children born in poverty are more likely to commit arson."

What a fuckin' joke!!


You should end poverty because it sucks. Period.



You solve the primary problems, and the rest of the shit would solve itself.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

Well, single-parents gets subsidies for that status, so people have an incentive to discard their partners. That has some negative effect on the value of maintaining a traditional family. It also, in essence, rewards one for making a potential mistake (e.g. having a kid without securing a strong relationship).

Not sure how deleterious this subsidy is, but there's probably some literature on it.


One main cause is the conflict of federal laws with the informal rules of the poorer sub-societies (e.g. prohibition has negative unintended consequences like creating an incentive to get into a relatively more profitable business, the black market).

[BigBallinStalin]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

Don't reward the behavior with subsidies, but it's more than just looking at the subsidy. It depends on what kind of organization is handing out the subsidies. In this aspect, there are two: (1) government and (2) civil society/market.

So, I'd encourage the growth of mutual aid societies (e.g. church societies, non-religious help groups, etc.), but for them to be more effective, you'd have to significantly reduce government-paid and imposed welfare programs (since they obviate the need for others to be more altruistic, thus contribute to mutual aid societies). Having more local programs taps into the local knowledge of the donors and recipients, thereby cutting down the cost of enforcement (e.g. who really deserves the subsidy, and who doesn't). Governments don't really do that much investigation because they lack the incentive (they're not playing with their own money, and their bureau's existence doesn't rely on voluntary donations, so who cares if you're wasteful).

[TheProwler]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

Don't reward the behavior with subsidies, but it's more than just looking at the subsidy. It depends on what kind of organization is handing out the subsidies. In this aspect, there are two: (1) government and (2) civil society/market.

So, I'd encourage the growth of mutual aid societies (e.g. church societies, non-religious help groups, etc.), but for them to be more effective, you'd have to significantly reduce government-paid and imposed welfare programs (since they obviate the need for others to be more altruistic, thus contribute to mutual aid societies). Having more local programs taps into the local knowledge of the donors and recipients, thereby cutting down the cost of enforcement (e.g. who really deserves the subsidy, and who doesn't). Governments don't really do that much investigation because they lack the incentive (they're not playing with their own money, and their bureau's existence doesn't rely on voluntary donations, so who cares if you're wasteful).

You just seem to be talking about replacing government support with more localized support. That isn't changing the number of fatherless children. And if you stop giving them support (who deserves and who doesn't), then you are promoting a whole lot of other problems.

That isn't really a solution.

[BigBallinStalin]

I doubt it wouldn't change the current rates for reasons already explained. (lack of incentive to investigate/to understand/to know = government's incentive).

As to other problems, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There is no correct one-size-fits-all solution. It's all about relative benefits and costs, which is best decided by the individuals involved as oppose to some faraway bureaucracy. So, I'll leave it to you and the 300 million others to solve this problem as y'all see fit.

Besides, mutual aid societies can act as substitutes to fathers, so it's not like the father is the end-all be-all solution. People are ingenious at resolving issues in ways which none of us could foresee, and without the need of some asshat behind a desk plotting out their lives.

[Phatscotty]

In short, the problem is not with the inanimate objects (guns). The problem is in the souls and with the morals and emptiness of people.

Start teaching "thou shall not murder" again, and I guarantee you less people will be murdered.

[chang50]

In short, the problem is not with the inanimate objects (guns). The problem is in the souls and with the morals and emptiness of people.

Start teaching "thou shall not murder" again, and I guarantee you less people will be murdered.

Does this argument apply equally to inanimate objects like crack cocaine,and should it be as easily legally accessible as firearms.?

[Phatscotty]

In short, the problem is not with the inanimate objects (guns). The problem is in the souls and with the morals and emptiness of people.

Start teaching "thou shall not murder" again, and I guarantee you less people will be murdered.

Does this argument apply equally to inanimate objects like crack cocaine,and should it be as easily legally accessible as firearms.?

I don't think drugs should be criminalized, no.

When you say "legally accessible" does that mean background checks and permit refusals and confiscation and heavy regulation and registries and special licenses that cost hundreds of dollars to get for legal access to crack cocaine?

[Lootifer]

If you think crack cocaine would be released to the market without extrordinarily high levels of regulation then you have obviously taken up resident in BBS's night time dreams.

Correct me if I am wrong chang, but I assume he likely assumed any hypothetical decriminalisation would come with a metric shit tonne of regulation, so much in fact thatd itd make the barriers to gun ownership seem like a walk in the park (note: I am not commenting on weather or not this regulation is a good idea; simply stating the reality of the hypothetical).

As far as weather or not regulation is a good idea comes down to how you want to recover the social costs of drug consumption.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you think crack cocaine would be released to the market without extrordinarily high levels of regulation then you have obviously taken up resident in BBS's night time dreams.

Correct me if I am wrong chang, but I assume he likely assumed any hypothetical decriminalisation would come with a metric shit tonne of regulation, so much in fact thatd itd make the barriers to gun ownership seem like a walk in the park (note: I am not commenting on weather or not this regulation is a good idea; simply stating the reality of the hypothetical).

As far as weather or not regulation is a good idea comes down to how you want to recover the social costs of drug consumption.

I usually dream about arguments and equations while traveling to unknown lands, interacting with/becoming unknown peoples, who speak unknown languages. No libertarian utopia has been discovered yet, but I'll keep ya updated.

[Phatscotty]

This is why

[PLAYER57832]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

How nice and "non" judgemental

And I suppose you live the life of a monk?

No?.... Well, then...

What you do is
#1. TEACH sex education. The facts, the science, so that whatever morals their parents have, the kids at least know the impact. It is not a school's job to teach morals, but it IS a school's job to teach facts, and facts includes real and true serious impacts that can and do very much coincide with many morals. (aka if you have a kid when you are 15, your child is more likely to have problems and you will have a tough time in life).

#2. TEACH responsibility. YEP.. that CAN be taught! We have models of programs that work well, that actually result in kids NOT having kids or, if they do, in men taking responsibility, teens doing a decent job with their kids.

#3. PART of that is having easy access to birth control.. so well, if you cannot control yourself, at least its less likely to create a new irresponsible person.

#4 ANOTHER part is to keep up programs that offer medical and social assistance -- the practical stuff that allows families to stay healthy, teens and their kids to get educated, etc.

There is more, but I
Gotta go, not being one of the irresponsible folks, I just got called in to work.

[thegreekdog]

I was about to write a responce in the thread about the new law in Indiana, when I decided it'd be better to start a new one, so as to not take that thread too far from it's original topic.

I have always found the stupidity and delusion of Americans, who believe that everyone is safer if everyone owns a firearm, quite amusing. Hence, I would be entertained hearing some of you argue that guns are a good and useful thing for the average citizen to possess and even carry around.

"We need to carry weapons around in order to protect ourselves," many Americans will say. The thing is, would you rather defend yourself unarmed against an attacker who is also unarmed, or with your rifle against another man with a similar weapom?

"But the badguys still get their hands on guns, making it them with guns vs. us without," they may argue, and their point would be valid, if that were the case. Luckily for the inhabitants of many other countries, it is not. Firstly, having not grown up surrounded by firearms, it doesn't even cross most people's minds that they could use one. Secondly and more importantly, most shootings are not the acts of men who are evil at heart, but of mad men. When a man, or even a child, snaps because of all the stress they have been under, or whatever other reason, and there is a rifle around, there is a possibility they will grab it and take lives with it. If there isn't one around, they will do something else, usually far less severe.

I can't even think of what someone defending automatic rifles that shoot multiple bullets per second might say, but I know that people who are pro automatic-rifles exist. Perhaps we will even come across such a person in this thread, I'm sure it would be very interesting and amusing.

Now, obviously this is just my opinion, though statistics do certainly back me up.
Please note that i say Americans, not because I intend to demonstrate bigotry towards them, but because I am yet to come across this type of idiot in Europe, though no one could deny there are many other types.

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

The reason that many people in the United States believe it is safer to have a gun than not have one is because the people likely to commit crimes with guns are not swayed by any anti-gun laws to stop owning or using guns for nefarious purposes. The absurdity of the argument for more gun laws boggles my mind. Someone who is going to kill someone with a gun is probably not going to say "oh wait, I acquired this gun illegally - I'd better put it down." The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who acquired his weapons illegally, for example. I suppose the response is to ban all guns, including the manufacture of guns.

[PLAYER57832]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

Well, single-parents gets subsidies for that status, so people have an incentive to discard their partners. That has some negative effect on the value of maintaining a traditional family. It also, in essence, rewards one for making a potential mistake (e.g. having a kid without securing a strong relationship).

Not sure how deleterious this subsidy is, but there's probably some literature on it.

One main cause is the conflict of federal laws with the informal rules of the poorer sub-societies (e.g. prohibition has negative unintended consequences like creating an incentive to get into a relatively more profitable business, the black market).

Not everything is about economics, BS.

The above is a very traditional, and yes, partially correct view. However, its not about "incentives", its about "survival". Women and minorities did not really and truly enter the workforce fully until the late 70's and early 80's. Even then, it was not a "slam dunk" "you are qualified, here is a job" by any means. Even today, women only make about $0.75 on the dollar for a man in the same job. If you go across jobs, looking at the fact that women often have to take lower paid, less professional jobs, then it gets worse. The difference between "incentive" and "survival" matters because while you can overcome "incentives", getting out of something that is necessary to survive (or that is perceived in that way) is another matter. People go with incentives because they see benefits, its easy, etc. People do what they have to survive because they don't see any other choice, or really don't have another choice.

That part agrees with what you said, but you miss some other factors that go well beyond subsidies and more into a lot of black men in cities who cannot find work, who wind up in gangs and other negative pursuits and the whole "machoismo" attitude that "getting a girl pregnant" is some great achievement -- with nothing about actually rearing the child involved. Boys who don't have fathers or even many male role models often see being a man as just being the opposite of being a woman, rather than as being like a positive male in their life.

To get around and beyond that requires teaching and education, not just a "change of incentives". Reducing welfare payments, for example ( a classic economic approach and one tried by many areas) really just results in many kids in dire straights. It leads to hungry and sick kids, which leads to bad outcomes for the kids, and harms society, too boot. Teaching the parents to be better parents and to have marketable skills, to contrast works.

Despite the stereotypes, few people really like to just rely on subsidies, but they will take them and rely on them if they see no other choice. The key is to offer choice.

[TheProwler]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

How do you address the fact that some dudes get chicks knocked-up and then take no responsibility for it?

Or that some chicks f*ck around so much that when they get knocked-up, they have no fucking' idea who the father is?


These are the kind of people that do things that result in fatherless children. And these children are fucked. Genetically and otherwise.


What are you going to do? Sterilize the immoral?

How nice and "non" judgemental

And I suppose you live the life of a monk?

No?.... Well, then...

The irony in that is priceless.

By the way, I am judgmental and I don't mind when people judge me for it...

What you do is
#1. TEACH sex education. The facts, the science, so that whatever morals their parents have, the kids at least know the impact. It is not a school's job to teach morals, but it IS a school's job to teach facts, and facts includes real and true serious impacts that can and do very much coincide with many morals. (aka if you have a kid when you are 15, your child is more likely to have problems and you will have a tough time in life).

#2. TEACH responsibility. YEP.. that CAN be taught! We have models of programs that work well, that actually result in kids NOT having kids or, if they do, in men taking responsibility, teens doing a decent job with their kids.

#3. PART of that is having easy access to birth control.. so well, if you cannot control yourself, at least its less likely to create a new irresponsible person.

#4 ANOTHER part is to keep up programs that offer medical and social assistance -- the practical stuff that allows families to stay healthy, teens and their kids to get educated, etc.

There is more, but I
Gotta go, not being one of the irresponsible folks, I just got called in to work.

Yeah, spend lots of money that you don't have to make an insignificant impact. Sounds like a plan.


Just not a good one.

[TheProwler]

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

The reason that many people in the United States believe it is safer to have a gun than not have one is because the people likely to commit crimes with guns are not swayed by any anti-gun laws to stop owning or using guns for nefarious purposes. The absurdity of the argument for more gun laws boggles my mind. Someone who is going to kill someone with a gun is probably not going to say "oh wait, I acquired this gun illegally - I'd better put it down." The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who acquired his weapons illegally, for example. I suppose the response is to ban all guns, including the manufacture of guns.

Part (a big part) of the reason there are so many illegal guns is that there are so many legal guns. You have to concede that this is a fact.

[TheProwler]

Teaching the parents to be better parents and to have marketable skills, to contrast works.

Despite the stereotypes, few people really like to just rely on subsidies, but they will take them and rely on them if they see no other choice. The key is to offer choice.

Cue the violins.


Seriously, I think you have a hard time understanding your own species. There's a lot of people who are more than happy to rely on subsidies; in fact, you take those subsidies away and they'd rather let their kids starve than get a job. You said it yourself:

Reducing welfare payments, for example ( a classic economic approach and one tried by many areas) really just results in many kids in dire straights. It leads to hungry and sick kids, which leads to bad outcomes for the kids, and harms society, too boot.

There's a lot of lazy ass people out there with the desire to procreate. The more you try to get them to fight their true nature, the more it's going to cost you in money and frustration.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wowzers, thats pretty telling stuff.

My main question on seeing this information is: whats the causal factor at play here? is it lack of father-figures, or, single parent stress (ie lack of dual income), or, some socio-economic effect, or what? (obviously its almost certainly a combination of many things, but getting a feel for whats important and whats only secondary is the best way in tackling the problem).

Either way it's an issue that really needs addressing.

Well, single-parents gets subsidies for that status, so people have an incentive to discard their partners. That has some negative effect on the value of maintaining a traditional family. It also, in essence, rewards one for making a potential mistake (e.g. having a kid without securing a strong relationship).

Not sure how deleterious this subsidy is, but there's probably some literature on it.

One main cause is the conflict of federal laws with the informal rules of the poorer sub-societies (e.g. prohibition has negative unintended consequences like creating an incentive to get into a relatively more profitable business, the black market).

Not everything is about economics, BS.

The above is a very traditional, and yes, partially correct view. However, its not about "incentives", its about "survival". Women and minorities did not really and truly enter the workforce fully until the late 70's and early 80's. Even then, it was not a "slam dunk" "you are qualified, here is a job" by any means. Even today, women only make about $0.75 on the dollar for a man in the same job. If you go across jobs, looking at the fact that women often have to take lower paid, less professional jobs, then it gets worse. The difference between "incentive" and "survival" matters because while you can overcome "incentives", getting out of something that is necessary to survive (or that is perceived in that way) is another matter. People go with incentives because they see benefits, its easy, etc. People do what they have to survive because they don't see any other choice, or really don't have another choice.

That part agrees with what you said, but you miss some other factors that go well beyond subsidies and more into a lot of black men in cities who cannot find work, who wind up in gangs and other negative pursuits and the whole "machoismo" attitude that "getting a girl pregnant" is some great achievement -- with nothing about actually rearing the child involved. Boys who don't have fathers or even many male role models often see being a man as just being the opposite of being a woman, rather than as being like a positive male in their life.

To get around and beyond that requires teaching and education, not just a "change of incentives". Reducing welfare payments, for example ( a classic economic approach and one tried by many areas) really just results in many kids in dire straights. It leads to hungry and sick kids, which leads to bad outcomes for the kids, and harms society, too boot. Teaching the parents to be better parents and to have marketable skills, to contrast works.

Despite the stereotypes, few people really like to just rely on subsidies, but they will take them and rely on them if they see no other choice. The key is to offer choice.

I didn't spend >30 minutes mentioning all variables, but the ones I've mentioned pull people toward opting for single-parent families. Other variables may induce greater pull toward that or away. I'm only mentioning a few.

It's very much about incentives because that's what people respond to. As you just said, when others expose people to greater opportunities, say through better parenting or increasing more valuable skills, then you've just created an incentive for others to act toward those means and goals (improving oneself, getting a better job). "Incentive" just means that one would be induced toward doing something, so it's highly applicable. For example, cultural norms change/enforce informal rules which in turn change the incentives of individuals, who then accordingly change their plans and/or re-evaluate the situation as they see fit.

Charles Murray would disagree with the underlined when you consider the longer term effects (say from the 1950s to the 2000s or so). He demonstrates how many well-intended government policies have terrible, negative consequences (e.g. tearing up forms of traditional families, thereby diminishing their chances of greater success in life).

[thegreekdog]

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

The reason that many people in the United States believe it is safer to have a gun than not have one is because the people likely to commit crimes with guns are not swayed by any anti-gun laws to stop owning or using guns for nefarious purposes. The absurdity of the argument for more gun laws boggles my mind. Someone who is going to kill someone with a gun is probably not going to say "oh wait, I acquired this gun illegally - I'd better put it down." The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who acquired his weapons illegally, for example. I suppose the response is to ban all guns, including the manufacture of guns.

Part (a big part) of the reason there are so many illegal guns is that there are so many legal guns. You have to concede that this is a fact.

I conceded that in my post actually. I said "I suppose the response is to ban all guns." I have yet to see a serious proposal in the United States to ban all guns.

[Phatscotty]

Despite the stereotypes, few people really like to just rely on subsidies, but they will take them and rely on them if they see no other choice. The key is to offer choice.

Lemme get this straight. Human beings take the path of least resistance only when they have no other choice?

[chang50]

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

The reason that many people in the United States believe it is safer to have a gun than not have one is because the people likely to commit crimes with guns are not swayed by any anti-gun laws to stop owning or using guns for nefarious purposes. The absurdity of the argument for more gun laws boggles my mind. Someone who is going to kill someone with a gun is probably not going to say "oh wait, I acquired this gun illegally - I'd better put it down." The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who acquired his weapons illegally, for example. I suppose the response is to ban all guns, including the manufacture of guns.

Part (a big part) of the reason there are so many illegal guns is that there are so many legal guns. You have to concede that this is a fact.

And a breathtakingly obvious fact to boot,whatever solutions if any emerge to the problems caused by this,only someone barely acquainted with commonsense could dispute this elementary statement.

[thegreekdog]

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

The reason that many people in the United States believe it is safer to have a gun than not have one is because the people likely to commit crimes with guns are not swayed by any anti-gun laws to stop owning or using guns for nefarious purposes. The absurdity of the argument for more gun laws boggles my mind. Someone who is going to kill someone with a gun is probably not going to say "oh wait, I acquired this gun illegally - I'd better put it down." The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who acquired his weapons illegally, for example. I suppose the response is to ban all guns, including the manufacture of guns.

Part (a big part) of the reason there are so many illegal guns is that there are so many legal guns. You have to concede that this is a fact.

And a breathtakingly obvious fact to boot,whatever solutions if any emerge to the problems caused by this,only someone barely acquainted with commonsense could dispute this elementary statement.

Are there people disputing this? If the United States government passed a law banning all guns, there would probably be an uptick of gun violence, followed by a dramatic drop near to zero. As I indicated previously, I have seen no such proposal in any serious fashion. Have you seen one?

[chang50]

(1) Automatic rifles are illegal in the United States. None of the weapons used in the shooting sprees were automatic weapons.
(2) Do you know how many gun deaths in the United States are caused by guns that are illegally owned?

The reason that many people in the United States believe it is safer to have a gun than not have one is because the people likely to commit crimes with guns are not swayed by any anti-gun laws to stop owning or using guns for nefarious purposes. The absurdity of the argument for more gun laws boggles my mind. Someone who is going to kill someone with a gun is probably not going to say "oh wait, I acquired this gun illegally - I'd better put it down." The Connecticut shooting was done by someone who acquired his weapons illegally, for example. I suppose the response is to ban all guns, including the manufacture of guns.

Part (a big part) of the reason there are so many illegal guns is that there are so many legal guns. You have to concede that this is a fact.

And a breathtakingly obvious fact to boot,whatever solutions if any emerge to the problems caused by this,only someone barely acquainted with commonsense could dispute this elementary statement.

Are there people disputing this? If the United States government passed a law banning all guns, there would probably be an uptick of gun violence, followed by a dramatic drop near to zero. As I indicated previously, I have seen no such proposal in any serious fashion. Have you seen one?

I would hope nobody does dispute this,although someone could easily prove me wrong.Banning all guns is unrealistic,a reduction in numbers is surely desirable?

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) Assuming those who use them for nefarious purposes would be affected enough by such reductions, while also assuming that they wouldn't seek substitutes (i.e. engage in any crime with other means (ha, yah), then sure....