Defeat to their argument.

This is not a straw argument, I am simply asking you to consider a stance if the oppositions arguments ended up being proven. It's not some complicated thing that you have to dodge the question by saying you would need to see the data first. It's basically one of three possibilities, banning all guns would either produce a decrease in deaths, an increase in deaths, or no significant change in deaths. It isn't a gotcha type question, it's meant to merely make you think through

When I look at how people argue the point of whether legal guns save more lives or cost more lives I often see pro gun rights people who almost cling to the idea that were it not for guns we would be awash in blood. They are very invested in the idea that guns can't possibly be playing a role in homicide and suicide rates to the point that they fail to be objective about the data and are letting their interest in firearms lead their conclusions instead of the data. For example I notice this when they all point towards the liberal estimate of 2 million crimes stopped per year instead of a more conservative and documented number of 60,000 instances per year according to the FBI (which by the way is still doubt the amount of gun deaths). Its not that I want guns to be banned, I want to be able to keep owning firearms, but I can see past that bias where sometimes the data supports guns and sometimes it doesn't.  Some data does show/correlate with a reduction in homicide or suicide when guns are more strictly controlled and some other data swings the other way as well. The real scientific position is to look at both sides of the data.

However I am pointing out to you why it is not a key argument that we have to hold so dear to. We don't have to prove that guns don't cause more deaths because our interest, our justifications, and our rights to have guns do not rest on whether the guns can be proven to have a net lives saved or lives lost. Even if we could prove that a revocation of the 1st amendment would save more lives it is something I (and I assume you as well) would never give up. Since my assertion that guns are an important right does not hinge on whether there is a net life savings or a net lives lost I do not become so attached to this idea that I must defend at all costs the idea that guns being legal cannot have anything to do with our homicide and suicide rate problems.

You don't have to "think through" anything if you simply look at the reality that's in front of your eyes.

New York is reporting a 31% drop in GUN CRIMES even after a massive increase in LEGAL GUNS inline with the national numbers of new gun sales.

To state it plainly:  MORE LEGALLY OWNED GUNS = FEWER GUN CRIMES.

Officials in NY are explaining the drop by pointing to the arrest and sentencing of ILLEGAL gun owners.  That flies in the face of the anti-gunners' narrative completely.  It also destroys your academic "thought experiment" here.  Having more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does NOT increase gun crimes. 

There are too many examples of locations with increased gun ownership and lower gun crime stats to dismiss the probable causal effect more legal guns in the hands of citizens does not create more gun crimes.  The opposite has been proven over and over.

I think what you and other "purely hypothetical" gun crime thinkers have in common is you only focus on one aspect of guns at a time.  Instead, reality shows that while more guns sold might show a small increase in suicides (a victimless "crime") or domestic violence cases, the number is offset by increased defensive uses of guns as well as a reduction in criminals willing to take the risk of getting shot -- thus they find ways to get paid other than violent crimes.

I'd rather go with what's been demonstrated rather than trust the disproven theories of "thinkers."

MDA and ET have many studies that show less guns=less crimes. We all know theyre wrong, but the sheep dont know.

So how do u know that covid things now are not wrong?

Same thing already mentioned earlier when blacks were told they cant fight in ww2 due to night blindness in blacks. Then studies by scholars that said jews spread disease.

A wise man questions an organization when they have been wrong often.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.
It doesn't reduce man's desire to kill.

As seen around the world,  other deaths just take their place,  like increased stabbings. 

Banning an object doesn't address the reasons behind why they occur.  , it just limits how people can effectively defend themselves

Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.

Didn't work in Mexico.... or Columbia... or Nicaragua   ... or El Salvador ... .... ....

Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.

For that to be true, the opposite must also be true:  Increasing the number of firearms in a given community will also increase the number of firearm deaths.

There's no study to support that premise.  in fact, it's been shown that more guns = fewer gun deaths and less crime.

When the sheep are armed, the wolves look for food elsewhere.

Taliban started taking away private firearms telling Afghans they were safe so they didn't need them.  Then the beatings, rapes, and forced marriages started.

You don't have to "think through" anything if you simply look at the reality that's in front of your eyes.

New York is reporting a 31% drop in GUN CRIMES even after a massive increase in LEGAL GUNS inline with the national numbers of new gun sales.

To state it plainly:  MORE LEGALLY OWNED GUNS = FEWER GUN CRIMES.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. We could point to other states with very strict gun control and low gun crime as well to counter that argument. But of course it isn't that simple.

Officials in NY are explaining the drop by pointing to the arrest and sentencing of ILLEGAL gun owners.  That flies in the face of the anti-gunners' narrative completely.  It also destroys your academic "thought experiment" here.  Having more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does NOT increase gun crimes. 

There are too many examples of locations with increased gun ownership and lower gun crime stats to dismiss the probable causal effect more legal guns in the hands of citizens does not create more gun crimes.  The opposite has been proven over and over.

I think what you and other "purely hypothetical" gun crime thinkers have in common is you only focus on one aspect of guns at a time.  Instead, reality shows that while more guns sold might show a small increase in suicides (a victimless "crime") or domestic violence cases, the number is offset by increased defensive uses of guns as well as a reduction in criminals willing to take the risk of getting shot -- thus they find ways to get paid other than violent crimes.

I'd rather go with what's been demonstrated rather than trust the disproven theories of "thinkers."

Keep in mind that there is a different between just making guns illegal and getting rid of them. If the CDC could get rid of guns then we would see fewer deaths. Most other countries where guns are outlawed or heavily restricted have much lower murder rates overall. Even if people are not less violent, without guns they are less successful at taking lives. Suicides by gun are also more successful than suicides by other means.

But none of that matters because our right and interest to own guns don't hinge on whether guns result in a net loss of life.

Banning firearms only reduces firearm deaths.
It doesn't reduce man's desire to kill.

As seen around the world,  other deaths just take their place,  like increased stabbings. 

No, it doesn't make people less violent but it does reduce their ability to be violent. Mass stabbings almost never suffer the body count that mass shootings manage to attain. Have 5 people ever been killed by a gang related drive by knife-throwing? Violence rates absolutely matter but if liberals believe or can show a net amount of lives saved then they say it is worth it.

No, it doesn't make people less violent but it does reduce their ability to be violent. Mass stabbings almost never suffer the body count that mass shootings manage to attain. Have 5 people ever been killed by a gang related drive by knife-throwing? Violence rates absolutely matter but if liberals believe or can show a net amount of lives saved then they say it is worth it.

Read up on mass poisoning in Japan. they happen enough to be more frightening than mass shooters. Where there is a will there is a way.

Also the Bail Fund that Kamala Harris was championing while Anti Fa was burning cities? Yeah they let loose a guy who committed murder a couple days later. And the No Bail / Own Recog things they keep pushing in Dem cities on the mainland has many similar stories.


You want to lower violent death numbers stop letting felons loose. Legal gun owners dont even move the needle on CDC gun death statistics. 

Read up on mass poisoning in Japan. they happen enough to be more frightening than mass shooters. Where there is a will there is a way.

I did look at mass stabbing data in Asia a while back. Though the victim numbers were still quite high, the fatalities were much much lower. I would have to look the data up again but IIRC in the UK knife attacks are quite high but the death rate is much lower than if it were gun attacks.

But our homicide problem is mostly gang violence, not mass murder. The crazy people will usually find a way