Original post by Underscore__Well done for ignoring all of the questions I put to you and ignoring every counter point to what you’ve said below.
There are likely millions of illegally owned guns in the US, if you ban guns these millions of guns still exist and are all in the hands of criminals. The vast majority of crimes committed with a gun are committed using an illegally held gun. Reports estimate, even at the low end, hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of firearms in the US every year. If you ban guns the people who use guns defensively no longer have guns but criminals still do and this is before we even consider the huge black market that would open up and how many guns that would put into circulation.
As I asked previously, can you point to a law that would have prevented that here? You can buy semi automatic rifles in the UK, there’s no limit on magazine capacity and as far as I’m aware bump stocks aren’t illegal. We have very strict gun control yet Stephen Paddock could still have bought a semi automatic rifle, bought a large magazine and a bump stock and shot people here.
As for not thinking there’s a problem; put forward a suggestion on how the law can be changed and I’m happy to consider it.
I would, to some extent, agree but as I’ve already said there are already likely millions of illegal guns in circulation, a pretty big black market would arise as America clearly has an appetite for guns so that number would only grow. The difference is only criminals would have guns do the number of defensive uses would drop but the majority of firearm related crime already involves an illegal weapon so there’s no reason to think that would significantly drop.
Correct me if I’m wrong but he only uses two of the guns? As I’ve already said there is no law to prevent a person in this country buying a semi automatic rifle, a large magazine and, as far as I can tell, a bump stock. So which law would have prevented him doing that here?
So what you’re saying is because we have less gun crime it must be because of our laws, have you never heard the ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’ maxim?
Even with our strict laws you can’t point to a law that would have stopped Stephen Paddock.
Well I don’t think you need a weapon that matches the threat exactly, the idea that the average person can defend themselves with a gun holds up regardless of what weapon an attacker has. Also when have I said someone should be able to ‘carry’ a gun? I’ve said that in the US it’s necessary to own a gun because of how gun crime is (what’s betting you pick up on this and choose to ignore me saying previously that most gun crime is carried out with illegal weapons).
Because there aren’t millions of illegal guns in the UK