[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If there were fewer guns in circulation, would more or less guns be available for use by "criminal elements"?

If there were fewer guns in circulation in the hands of criminal elements, there would be less guns.

If there were fewer guns in circulation by law abiding citizens, I think there is negligible impact to how many guns criminal elements would have unless you foresee criminal elements stealing guns from law abiding citizens (which I'm sure happens but does that really move the dial?)

So work on the criminal elements first.

If penalties existed for having insufficient security for you gun, would there be more or less guns available for use by "criminal elements"?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Can you rephrase or provide more context to the intent of your question.

How I'm reading this is it would only make a difference if you suppose criminal elements would steal alot of guns from law abiding citizens to make a difference. I don't think that happens so I would answer negligible but unsure if I understand your question.

If the penalties for illegally selling guns and/or if the "gun show loophole" was closed, would there be more or less guns available for use by "criminal elements"?

Good question. Welcome any stats that anyone has.

If the only guns available for sale had limited magazines and fire rates, would there be fewer casualties in mass shooter events?

Absolutely on fire rates. If all we had were bolt-action rifles, it would be a lot slower to reload and fire. On limited magazines, possibly. A shooter that trained can probably swap out magazines pretty quickly.

I would ask you the question I've been asking. Why not start with criminal elements (and mental health) first before eliminating all/most guns from law abiding citizens?

Based on your line of questioning, I'm thinking you believe if we started with criminal elements first, they would steal the guns they want from law abiding citizens?