D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
I mean that a "full ban", which can obviously never and shouldn't be because the standard model still allows ownership even with whatever respective qualms and restrictions, as with pretty much every and any sort of dangerous merchandise, would be more effective *than* the status quo solution, if that wasn't clear. I'm sure that's what would happen, but "the black market" is only accessed by the people who, as many have answered with before, WOULD commit whatever crime they thought to regardless, while detering the common lowbrow thug. It effectively wouldn't change that much, and this is a long term solution. Less guns are fed in circulation, less guns are being sent to the black market, and meanwhile they're ideally being confiscated, lost or even regulated as it goes.while your take is that a full ban would be better at reducing the violence, I see it from a different angle and I alluded to that above with the thousands if not millions of newly illegal guns that would enter into the black market. This would happen because if even 5% of the existing guns in the US did not get turned in that would leave 17.5 million newly illegal guns flooding the market.
That's what deregulation of anything is. It's not a Thanos finger snap that is gonna make 50% of them crumble to dust, it's the *start* of a process that can take from a year to a decade or even more. 17 million firearms for 330 million inhabitants (and solely from the Black Market) already sounds like a desirable enough proportion, it'd roughly mean 19-24/100 inhabitants can have *one* gun each, which is WAY better than the recent-ish data showing that there's just *almost* as many weapons as inhabitants, 89 per every 100 citiziens. (yes, gun owners are 1/4 but shush it's not really important) And that's not counting for any possible unregistered guns and owners, of course.
Last edited by a moderator: