The population argument makes no sense. There are places with much larger populations and population density with less gun crime and also better gun control. Even within the US NYC is the largest city you have by far and yet has less gun crime than smaller cities like New Orleans. It also has better gun control.
I don't think "people will still kill people" is the best argument either. Of course there's always going to be messed up, violent people out there but why should we make it easier by continuing to allow such easy access to firearms? I don't think the ease of access to guns is the entire problem, it's more complicated than that, but why add fuel to the fire?
Sorry I haven't gone through the entirety of your post just yet but reading through, those two points jumped out to me.
You have never seemed to ever combat the gang population argument. You have danced around it in the past.
The argument of 'population' is not the density, but the overall populace. We can splice and slice the demographics any way you would like, however the fact remains that Europe has less gang members per capita than the United States. Gang members account for an estimated 80-90% of all firearm related homicides (I have stated this before but I will say it again) in the United States. This is correllated by the alphabet soup that is the United States law enforcement.
Yet, despite the United States having a) more gangbangers and felons per capita and b) more firearms per capita the United States is seeing a decline in violent crime across the board, despite more guns existing now than back in the 50's and 60's. How? If your argument is "It's easy to buy a gun" then why is the homicide rate declining while the population increases along with the firearm ownership increase? Surely the more guns there are, the more deaths from guns (per capita) would see an increase. But the US sees a decrease? (this isn't to say that we're done, there is always work to be done)
I could make the argument, regardless of the sense it makes or not, that increasing the number of firearms in the US has led to a decrease in violent crime. It may or may not be true, but the possibility to make that argument is available. If more firearms meant more death than that argument would fall flat entirely but it is given legs by the fact that crime isn't climbing.
What's more is that some states with less firearm control laws see less firearm related homicides, but others with harsher gun control see more. Why? Probably the gangbangers.
Explain to me, someone who follows the law and uses my property legally and responsibly, why I should be required to give my property without just compensation (a 'buy-back' program is a joke and you'll get pennies on the dollar) or be forced to follow laws that are then crafted to make me the bad guy?
Criminals do not, will not and won't ever follow the laws. The cartels bring in weapons across the border, foreign countries smuggle in weapons at other entry points.
We have laws against giving weapons to felons (a felony) we have laws that say felons cannot own any gun whatsoever but how, in all that is holy do gangbangers manage to consistently make up 80-90% of all firearm homicides? They can't own them. They can't buy them legally. Family members buying them for others is a felony.
Would you like it so gangbanger's families cannot buy any firearm whatsoever? What about the cartels? What about the guns that remain in circulation? (Not all guns from homicides are recovered, thus they can be sold or traded to another gangbanger)
Right now, we see London trying to prevent the sales and purchase of knives because criminals are using them to kill people. If, hypothetically, the US follows their shining example, would we be able to avoid this issue? I've already explained time and time and time again that we have more damned gangbangers than you or anybody else on the planet. Our crime is organized, we use the most narcotics, and a slew of other baddies that we try to keep locked up.
That's not to say we have the most homicides (I think it might be Honduras?) but gangbangers and cartels are not typically cartels and gangbangers just to be cartels and gangbangers. They like money. They kill people for money, over money, over drugs, over slaves and anything else under the sun. They will never follow any law you will ever conceive of or put forth.
I have no idea how to be any clearer.
If a single demographic (gangbangers and felons, cartels etc.) commit 80-90% of all firearm related homicides (I think 70% of all other violent crime), if you take away 100% of all the guns everywhere in the United States (You found Will Smith and wished it to be so) do you have any guarantee that this number will shift?
This is my point. All the guns everywhere and will it make a difference? "It's a start" isn't an excuse to strip legal citizen's rights away, because in the United States unlike much of everywhere else it is a right.
Maybe I can be considered fanatical, but failing to address the number one issue of guncrime is crazy to me.
Do you have any suggestions at all to combat the gangbangers? The gangbangers already have guns they have illegally and I highly doubt they'd ever hand them over wllingly. The criminals are rhe problem here. Mass shootings (3 or more people) account for the least amount of firearm related homicides. This isn't to say homicides aren't tragic, but to me, claiming to 'care' about the US' citizens only after media shootings is quite sick. I've despised every single media shooting because it isn't respectful and empty platitudes and half-brained ideas give me a headache.
Does anyone pay attention the rest of the time or does everyone just like munching popcorn and proclaiming how awful shootings are? Because from what I have seen is always:
1) a shooting happens
2) people proclaim guns are evil
3) push more gun laws
4) ignore the drug and gang related homicides the rest of the time
and the cycle repeats.
