I just want to say how much I appreciate the lack of "thoroughly", "completely", "destroys", and other such words in this title.
I think many "gun nuts" would also agree with this, including myself, it's not about bans, it's about means to get the firearm.
There's a reason why in the US there's fully automatic weapons, artillery pieces, tanks with functioning guns and miniguns in private hands that have never been used in a crime, because of the filters.
**Now** considering this link is from /r/politics, I hope they push for such things instead of "assault weapons ban" which will never pass and is useless. That sub has been pushing for gun bans for far too long.
You know whats changed in america, it sure aint gun ownership, its the media making hero's out of these shooters. Remember all publicity is good publicity. The DAY after the Florida shooting we had a kid in canton take a gunand bombs into school (he chickened out and killed himself first) but the manifesto he wrote was centered around idolizing the columbine shooters (kid wasn't even born when that happened) and how he would be immortal by doing this. THE MEDIA NEEDS TO STEP THE FUCK BACK.
*guns* linked to *gun violence*? but how?
These are all non-starters. They are arguing for the slippery slope, and we've all seen how that has gone in NJ, NY, CA, France and elsewhere across the globe.
If they bothered to look at the issue as a whole instead of cherry picking "background checks" they'd find a very different story. DGU data shows a net positive when citizens are armed *before* political implications. Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.
And according to the DGU data The Violence Policy center (which is extremely anti-gun fyi) gives the low range estimates at ~67,000 DGUs per year. Consider this the extreme low:
FYI most estimates put it far higher, including the CDC:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
So how about guns killing? Statistics show only .0005% of gun owners commit a gun related crime. Best estimates put gun ownership at 37% in America, and that was in 2013, the number today is estimated to be closer to 45% but lets go with the smaller number to do the math conservatively. So America has population of 318 million people. So the number of gun owners is 318,000,000 x .37 = 117,660,000 Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/
So we have ~117,660,000 gun owners. What is the latest FBI statistic on violent crime? FBI database shows ~11,000 fatal gun crimes a year. The study linked in the OP including suicides is [beyond BS](https://mises.org/blog/guns-dont-cause-suicide
). So 117,660,000 / 11,000= .0000934897 = 99.99065% But there is a problem with this number, it doesn't take into account illegal gun ownership and assumes the legal gun owners are the ones causing all the crime. This source shows 90% of homicides involved illegally bought or sold guns, or owners who where previously felons: Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
So for fun lets re-run the numbers to differentiate between criminals and non criminals. Since a felony record disbars you from legally owning a firearm, yet 90% of murders are committed by those with felony records, we know only 10% of murders are committed by legal gun owners. So we have ~11,000 murders, ten percent of which are committed by previously law abiding gun owners. So that is 1,100 murders. So we have 117,660,000 law abiding gun owners commenting 1,100 murders, which comes out to 99.999065% So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders. So as you can see, the stats clearly show that guns do not increase the likelihood of violent crime, or cause anyone to be less safe, quite the opposite as the DGU data shows.
So using the high estimates for gun violence, and the low estimates for DGUs, DGUs outnumber use of a legally held weapon in a deadly violence by ~60 times.
You are just wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. If you want an even more simple summary, the "moar guns moar death" BS is just hilariously wrong on the face of it. According to the Washington Post, civilian firearms ownership has increased from [~240 million (1996) to ~357 million (2013)](https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/10/number_of_guns1.png&w=480
) (For reference to the figures below, it shows about 325 million guns in 2010). According to Pew Research, the firearms homicide death rate fell from [~6 per 100,000 persons (1996) to 3.6 per 100,000 (2010)](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-2.png
). So according to these figures, between 1996 and 2010, the number of civilian firearms increased by ~35%. And this is while firearms ownership as % of pop [stayed constant]( https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/#0
). Over the same time period, firearms homicide deaths decreased by ~40%. If you want to focus on ccw specifically, [fine](https://crimeresearch.org/2015/07/new-study-over-12-8-concealed-handgun-permits-last-year-saw-by-far-the-largest-increase-ever-in-the-number-of-permits/
) that shows the [same thing](https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
). Rather do murder per 100,000 globally? [Sure thing](https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/
). And that is where you get your GINI connect fyi. The correlation is a lot stronger than gun ownership. This has been [looked at](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15817728
) and somehow keeps getting forgotten. You don't pick up a gun to hurt someone because it is your first choice, you generally do it because it is your last. Inequality, desperation, the effects of capitalism in the third world and increasingly the first, drastically increase this.
**Bonus:** Schools are safer than ever [if you bothered to check the facts](https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/
**EDIT:** Shameless plug for r/socialistra.
His point on *Heller* is such bullshit. Let me copy/paste an old post I wrote about this topic:
Ok, let me break this down in two parts. First, why it makes no sense that the 2A would be anything but an individual right:
1. To believe the 2A is just a militia right you would have to argue the following ludicrous points:
• That the founders wanted to protect a collective state/militia right, when they didn't seem to care for collective anything otherwise, they were all about the individual.
• That the founders made a list of individual rights, literally called the "Bill of Rights" but then stuffed a collective right into it at #2.
• That the founders, having decided to include a collective right in this Bill of otherwise individual rights, said "the right of the people" but meant "the right of the militia/state"
And remember, the militia is all of us by their understanding:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
2.Ok, now, what people also forget when they argue the 2A is a "collective" right is that the founders considered the right to keep and bear arms a NATURAL right. It can't be given to you by any government, because you have already been granted it by God. The Bill of Rights, in the Founders' view, did not grant rights, because rights don't come from government. It simply RECOGNIZED the inalienable rights people already had and restricted the new federal government from stepping on those rights.
This is also why the 2A doesn't mention a right to self defense or hunting, because the founders considered those obvious. You didn't need to say someone had the right to own a gun (or other bearable weapon) to defend himself or put food on the table - those were natural rights.
People like to say that the individual right was supposedly "invented" in Heller but that is incorrect, Heller wasn't even the first time the Supreme Court looked at the 2A through an individual rights lens-
In 1875, the Supreme Court ruled in *United States v. Cruikshank* that the 1st amendment right to assembly and the 2nd amendment apply only as limits to the federal government, not the states (both were later incorporated through the 14th amendment).
However, the Court also said about the 2nd amendment right to bear arms:
*"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."*
The Court essentially said the 2A was just a limit on the federal government infringing on your pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, which existed before the 2A - you have it by virtue of being a person.
Yes, a Natural Rights argument is different than the Court saying the 2A definitively protects the individual's right to own a gun, I get that. But Cruikshank makes it clear that even about 150 years ago, the Court was already looking at the 2A through an individual rights perspective.
Heller clarified it definitively, but Scalia certainly did not pull an individual right out of his ass as some people claim.
It's probably not going to be popular in this thread, but while increasing gun control decreases gun homicides, it doesn't affect the overall homicide rate. So the same number of people still get killed, just not by guns. I'm at work on mobile but I can back this up when I get home.
First is the US violent crime rate, via [Pew Research.](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1.png
)) Which has been steadily declining since the early 90s. This particular article only shows gun crime rates, but the general rates trend together, so it works as an illustration. Notice the downward trend?
Now here's [Australia's data](http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/
) about their homicide rates. They have a very similar trend to ours. Murder happens less in the early 90s, and steadily trends downwards. Something to note in particular is the line after 1996, which is when the big gun buyback happened, and new gun laws went into effect. The line still keeps trending downwards eventually, but remains nearly flat from 1996-2001, with a bit of a spike in 2001, then trending downwards.
So, comparing the US to Australia, crime has gone down both places. US crime is still significantly higher than Australia's, but it has been since at least 1980, and probably further back. But crime has been decreasing, at roughly the same rate in both places, since about the same time. This is despite wildly different gun laws and gun ownership. There is a similar comparison to the UK, where the same basic trend exists.
As far as background checks for ammo are concerned, New York tried to implement this but gave up on it due to the costs and the logistical nightmare of doing so.
Ar-15's have killed about 150 people in the past 5 years in a country of 5 million AR-15 owners.
Most gun crimes are in the inner cities, with pistols, bought illegally. But people won't tackle those shootings because they don't want to be racist.