|
Because I'm doing Q&A with 4 folks here, let me summarize my core assumptions, beliefs and questions first just to level set and make sure we are clear on what I believe in.
1) I assume that law abiding citizens and their guns do not contribute significantly to gun deaths vs criminal elements and mentally unstable. This is gun deaths, not gun crime as was posted somewhere else. It could be basically the same thing but haven't had time to digest that yet.
2) I am okay with increased gun control (e.g. see prior post which I described going from 4 to a 7). I am not okay with a total or near total ban as has been proposed by Brian, Lathum (I think but that was based on a weird assumption he made) and Flere (bolt action guns only).
Therefore 3 questions I've asked throughout. And would appreciate clear answers to. Caveat if you wish but if you don't answer my questions clearly, don't expect me to answer yours clearly.
3) For those proposing gun bans (or near bans), why start with law abiding citizens? Why not start with banning & removing guns from criminal elements and mentally unstable first? Let's see where we are in 3-5 year where, if successful, I believe gun deaths will have decreased significantly
4) Are there stats that show law abiding citizens (not mentally unstable) and their weapons contribute significantly to gun deaths? As examples - are their weapons stolen and used to commit a lot of gun deaths? are law abiding citizens shown to have committed a lot of gun deaths (e.g. no prior criminal record until the point where they commit the gun death/homicide)
5) Are you for banning or near banning of all guns?
For no. 4, I believe Grantdawg has some metrics and I've asked for a link. Flere has provided a source but on a cursory note, I don't think it makes a distinction between law abiding vs criminal elements vs mentally unstable. But I'll look more.
..... okay, now to read and address Flere's question
|