Steve CoxKonto zweryfikowane

No, it doesn’t! They don’t have a market. That was part of the point. Can you explain why the gun-homicide rate is the same in France and England, even though France has 5x the guns as England? Or why Brazil has 6 times our gun-homicide rate when we own 15x the guns?

Ummm because countries, people, and cultures vary? In Brazil's case, I'm guessing economics, corruption, and maybe even drought contributed to increased desperation and crime.

It’s *always* economics. At least you’re catching on. Brazil’s socioeconomic inequality is far worse than ours. In Western Europe, it’s far better than ours. But between France and England, it’s about the same, thus the similar gun-homicide rates despite the ownership disparity

And that’s my point. Our gun-death rate isn’t because of gun-ownership rates, it’s because of our terrible socioeconomics. No universal healthcare, huge wealth/wage gap, the war on drugs, etc. We fix those, we fix the gun deaths.

Steve—the question I think is on everyone’s minds, here, is what is your goal in sharing these incredibly dull takes? There isn’t a single solution & no one asked you to find one. No one wants to *just* ban guns. Have you been arguing against a suggestion no one made?

You want to ban weapons that are defined for how they look rather than how they operate, and there are over 15 million of them in circulation not counting the ones made at home. And we don't know where they are. So, you want to "ban guns" is accurate. You just define which ones.

You have no idea what we know about guns. I want to ban guns based on their action. Wound ballistics. Maybe you don’t know a lot about guns. What they DO, not how they look. Do tests to determine the guns. I won’t even look at the gun. Only the damage & how fast it can do it.