GUN CONTROL!!!

[Emsworth]

"Gun-related deaths" is too broad a term. It can include all manner of things: suicides, killings by police, and the like non-criminal activities. A more important figure to consider might be "gun-related murders."

But even if gun-related murders are higher in the U.S. than in, say, Australia, it would be no argument against gun control. The primary argument in favor of gun rights is not that it reduces crime; the primary argument is that there is an inherent and fundamental right of self-defense. Ultimately, the weapon is not responsible for the crime; the criminal is. And penalizing individuals for the actions of criminals, by depriving them of so important a right as self-defense, strikes me as absurdly unjust.

[Emsworth]

but the access to the weapon is what's producing the deaths!

I hesitate to be flippant, but so what? Knives often cause deaths; shall we ban knives as well? Or if someone decides to bludgeon another person to death with a cricket bat, should we ban cricket bats as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I completely disagree. A criminal tends to have no regard for gun control. Whether there are gun control laws or not, criminals will still have access to firearms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No such utopia exists, or in practice can exist.