Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

[MKSheppard]

Maryland, not to be outdone by VA has proposed this bill:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/L ... ?ys=2020RS

It redefines “Copycat weapon” to mean:

....

a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has any ONE of the following:

1. a folding OR TELESCOPING stock;

2. a grenade launcher or flare launcher; [or]

3. a flash suppressor;

4. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;

5. A THUMBHOLE STOCK; OR

6. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;

...

(IV) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND HAS ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A THREADED BARREL, CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;

....

7. THE ABILITY TO DISCHARGE THROUGH FIRING ACTION ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ROUNDS:

A. .450 BUSHMASTER;

B. 5.56 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 5.56X45 MILLIMETER NATO AND .223 REMINGTON);

C. 7.62 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 7.62X39 MILLIMETER, .308 WINCHESTER, 7.62 NATO, 7.62X51 MILLIMETER NATO, .30 CARBINE, 7.62X33 MILLIMETER, OR 300 AAC BLACKOUT);

D. .50 BMG;

E. 5.7X28 MILLIMETER; OR

F. ANY OTHER ROUND DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE TO BE CAPABLE OF PENETRATING THE STANDARD BODY ARMOR WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEN FIRED BY THE PISTOL;

....

Snip over:

(6) (I) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2020, SHALL REGISTER THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2021.

(II) SUBJECT TO SUBPARAGRAPH (IV) OF THIS PARAGRAPH, A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND WHO VOLUNTARILY REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES IN § 4–306 OF THIS SUBTITLE.

(III) A PERSON WHO VOLUNTARILY REGISTERS AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON AS DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS SUBJECT TO:

1. ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2021, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $290 PER FIREARM;

2. ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2022, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $580 PER FIREARM; AND

3. ON OR AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 2022, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, A REGISTRATION FEE NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 PER FIREARM.

(IV) 1. A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2020, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021, AND BEFORE MAY 1, 2023, ONLY AFTER BEING DISCOVERED IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES IN § 4–306 OF THIS SUBTITLE.

2. A PERSON DESCRIBED IN SUBSUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION IS SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 1 YEAR FOR EACH INCIDENT IN WHICH THE PERSON IS DISCOVERED WITH UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.

[The_Saint]

[snip]

7. THE ABILITY TO DISCHARGE THROUGH FIRING ACTION ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ROUNDS:

A. .450 BUSHMASTER;

B. 5.56 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 5.56X45 MILLIMETER NATO AND .223 REMINGTON);

C. 7.62 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 7.62X39 MILLIMETER, .308 WINCHESTER, 7.62 NATO, 7.62X51 MILLIMETER NATO, .30 CARBINE, 7.62X33 MILLIMETER, OR 300 AAC BLACKOUT);

D. .50 BMG;

E. 5.7X28 MILLIMETER; OR

F. ANY OTHER ROUND DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE TO BE CAPABLE OF PENETRATING THE STANDARD BODY ARMOR WORN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHEN FIRED BY THE PISTOL;

[snip]

So ... does that mean that 5.45mm is fine??

and for point 'F.' ... assuming your police body armour is approximately equivalent to our police body armour .... does that also preclude anything larger than .38/9mm para

[The Romulan Republic]

We've been offering the Reich-wing reasonable compromises backed by the vast majority of Americans on gun control. We've gotten jack shit, and any compromise, however narrow, is treated as a fundamental attack on their freedoms and a prelude to dictatorship justifying armed resistance.

If that's how its going to be, what possible incentive does the Left have to compromise on gun control? We might as well say fuck it and pass the strongest gun control bills we can ram through a blue state legislature. But that's not because we were all secretly plotting to confiscate your guns all along- its because the other side have made it clear that no matter how many dead little kids pile up, they will not accept any compromise whatsoever. And we're all fucking sick of it.

Its slavery all over again- a violent, militant minority opposing any and all limitations on a destructive "property right", against the will of the majority of the nation, until the rest of the nation finally has had enough and becomes increasingly radical on the issue. And I hope I'm wrong, but I very much fear that its going to end the same way.

Just remember- the South held most of the political power then. They held most of the military power, initially. It didn't save them when they made enemies of the majority of the nation to defend their "right" to something corrosive to the entire country and destructive to the lives of innocent people. All their refusal to give an inch did was make possible the very abolitionism they had feared.

Good people aren't always rewarded, but in the long-run, history does have a way of making unimitgated asshole pay a karmic price.

[Lonestar]

We've been offering the Reich-wing reasonable compromises backed by the vast majority of Americans on gun control.

No you haven't, dipshit. I've gone about 7 rounds with you on this in several threads and you have never offered something that you give up other than "I didn't get everything I want".

Every single "compromise" offer has been "Pray that I don't alter it further" sort of deals, obvious chip aways intended to make it easier for a complete ban further down the line. Nothing has been offered in return, e.g. national concealed carry, deregulating suppressors, etc.

Seriously, what kind of dick goes "well we didn't get everything that we wanted and you didn't get anything, so it's a compromise!"?

[The Romulan Republic]

We've been offering the Reich-wing reasonable compromises backed by the vast majority of Americans on gun control.

No you haven't, dipshit. I've gone about 7 rounds with you on this in several threads and you have never offered something that you give up other than "I didn't get everything I want".

Every single "compromise" offer has been "Pray that I don't alter it further" sort of deals, obvious chip aways intended to make it easier for a complete ban further down the line. Nothing has been offered in return, e.g. national concealed carry, deregulating suppressors, etc.

Seriously, what kind of dick goes "well we didn't get everything that we wanted and you didn't get anything, so it's a compromise!"?

I'm not talking about me personally, fuck-face- I'm talking about the Democrats generally. But we all know that the fastest way to dodge having to defend your points on this board is to derail the thread into another "Why we all hate TRR" circle-jerk.

But since you mentioned it, a basic summary of my views on gun control is that the Constitution guarantees a right to civilian access to firearms (for the purpose of equipping "a well-regulated militia"), and that should not be abridged without a Constitutional Amendment. Also, that private ownership of firearms (but not assault weapons) is fine as long as the owner is trained, and passes criminal and mental health checks.

That's a pretty moderate position by any standard other than "Any regulation whatsoever is dictatorship, MAGA!"

Edit: In fact, given my concerns about the escalation in Right-wing violence, I'd probably be a gun owner myself soon if a gun weren't literally out of my price range right now.

[RogueIce]

I'm not talking about me personally, fuck-face- I'm talking about the Democrats generally.

Honestly, that really doesn't change the main point of Lonestar's argument. Point to a major Democratic gun control initiative that doesn't boil down to "more restrictions, but not all the restrictions" and does, in fact, lessen or eliminate some existing restriction. Heck, any major gun control advocate will do.

That's the thing, and yes there have been threads on this before: "compromise" is never genuinely offered in this discussion. It straight up isn't. All that's ever put forward are more restrictions and bans, even if they're not 100% bans and confiscations. That's not what an actual compromise is.

The status quo is already a compromise. There are restrictions on firearms ownership. Advancing yet more restrictions and bans without ever offering anything in return - beyond the aforementioned "well we didn't ban everything so" ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ - is not compromise. Don't say the pro-gun side doesn't accept compromise, because the status quo already is.

You want to talk compromise? Look at what Lonestar said: offer something in exchange. And I'm not talking about you, personally, I'm speaking in general. When Democrats/Gun Control Activists offer up deregulating suppressors for limiting magazine capacities (as one example), that's compromise. Until then, quit abusing the word.

[Jub]

Honestly, that really doesn't change the main point of Lonestar's argument. Point to a major Democratic gun control initiative that doesn't boil down to "more restrictions, but not all the restrictions" and does, in fact, lessen or eliminate some existing restriction. Heck, any major gun control advocate will do.

That's the thing, and yes there have been threads on this before: "compromise" is never genuinely offered in this discussion. It straight up isn't. All that's ever put forward are more restrictions and bans, even if they're not 100% bans and confiscations. That's not what an actual compromise is.

The status quo is already a compromise. There are restrictions on firearms ownership. Advancing yet more restrictions and bans without ever offering anything in return - beyond the aforementioned "well we didn't ban everything so" ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ - is not compromise. Don't say the pro-gun side doesn't accept compromise, because the status quo already is.

You want to talk compromise? Look at what Lonestar said: offer something in exchange. And I'm not talking about you, personally, I'm speaking in general. When Democrats/Gun Control Activists offer up deregulating suppressors for limiting magazine capacities (as one example), that's compromise. Until then, quit abusing the word.

Realistically you could easily walk back restrictions on suppressors, bayonet-mounts, pistol grips, adjustable stocks, etc. and not change how dangerous a weapon actually is. In fact, suppressors make guns safer in terms of hearing loss and general noise pollution while not making guns silent as they do in the movies so that really ought not to require a tax stamp.

I'd give up all the pointless shit that idiots think make a weapon scary for nationwide, well-enforced, background checks and waiting periods as well as restricted magazine capacity. You could even toss in softening of SBR rules in exchange for pistol carry bans but I doubt that would be seen as a fair exchange.

[Zwinmar]

I see these normally extremely well educated individuals revert to mouth breathing, drooling morons when it comes to guns. They refuse to use proper terminology rather reverting to buzz words that make people feel bad, even going as far as ignoring supreme court decisions that oppose their personal view.

Right now, federal gun laws are a patchwork mess because of this reactionary attitude they take. The ATF is allowed to make up arbitrary rules definitions that in retrospect are utter nonsense, i.e. the rules for any other firearm.

Here is an example: Say my great grandfather brought home a machine gun that he used in WWI, stored it in the garage and it was forgotten for whatever reason. I inherit his place and find it, what is my recourse? Call the ATF? They will destroy it because it wasn't registered, it cannot be sent to a museum, it cannot be transferred to someone with a licence, I can not get a licences for it. It would not matter if there was conclusive proof that it was the weapon used by a recipient of the Medal of Honor, I would not be allowed to ship it to the Museum as a vital historic relic.

At the same time, a centimeter can get you in trouble, which is why shotguns with an 18 inch barrel are usually 18.5 inches just so that the jackass with the tape-measure can't easily screw you over.

But they do not want just a comprehensive background check, which many places have incidentally. They claim they want Mental Health screenings while at the same time vilianizing Veterans who actually have the training necessary, in a country where the Mental Health care system is so screwed up it is basically non existent.

They want to eliminate Due Process because they are scared for no real reason. While at the same time they get behind the wheel and text, or go to the bar and get drunk, or are doped up on the meds they payed their doctor to give them because their feeling got hurt.

Murder is already illegal, as is discharging your firearm in town.

You want a real discussion; pull your heads out of your asses and use the brains you supposedly have. You are a smart individual, one who is well educated, use that education and look at he actually facts, not what some asshole is spouting in your ear, not the bullshit theories that could easily be on par with flat earthers. Get proper peer reviewed research done, not political bullshit that someone pulled out their ass to make them their campaign.

[bilateralrope]

You know what I'd like to do about gun control ?

Completely remove the Dickey Amendment. Let the CDC investigate guns and make recommendations. Then follow those.

Throw out the Tiahrt Amendment while your at it. The ATF probably has data that will be useful.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I see these normally extremely well educated individuals revert to mouth breathing, drooling morons when it comes to guns. They refuse to use proper terminology rather reverting to buzz words that make people feel bad, even going as far as ignoring supreme court decisions that oppose their personal view.

This is one of the tantrums anti-gun control advocates like to throw that just drives me absolutely insane. If you are an expert on guns, there are going to be plenty of fine technical terminological distinctions that aren't going to be readily understood by laypeople. This isn't unique to guns, this is literally true of every single fucking field of human knowledge in which some people are experts and some people are not. If you see terms being abused, it is all well and good to offer corrections. But I usually just see people stamping their feet and shrieking that so-and-so described a type of gun stock with a slightly incorrect word and acting like that is such an inexcusable faux pas that it isn't worth working with that person anymore. It's childish. Get the fuck over it. And this is speaking as someone who works in a technical field that is CONSTANTLY being misrepresented by news media and public policy due to lack of general scientific literacy.

[Knife]

If there was every a need for a FB style 'like' button, it's Ziggy's post above. It should be a logical fallacy, appeal to technical nomenclature. As a nurse, one of my various jobs is to dumb down or translate Dr speech to laymen speech. To help patients understand what it is happening to them and what the doc wants to do with it.

[MKSheppard]

VA AWB fails to pass out of Senate Committee; bill co sponsor vows he'll try again next year.

Other bills are still up, including UBCs, 1 handgun a month limit, etc.

[Jub]

Here's a question for those against strict gun control, is there some way that the US would be worse off if the 2nd amendment was never passed and the US had Canadian (or UK as it would have been for much of this time span) gun control laws from that point to the present day?

[Batman]

Most gun lovers would likely say yes because they somehow dream guns can save them from a dictatorial government (the fact that they voted for one apparently notwithstanding)

[Lord Insanity]

I see these normally extremely well educated individuals revert to mouth breathing, drooling morons when it comes to guns. They refuse to use proper terminology rather reverting to buzz words that make people feel bad, even going as far as ignoring supreme court decisions that oppose their personal view.

This is one of the tantrums anti-gun control advocates like to throw that just drives me absolutely insane. If you are an expert on guns, there are going to be plenty of fine technical terminological distinctions that aren't going to be readily understood by laypeople. This isn't unique to guns, this is literally true of every single fucking field of human knowledge in which some people are experts and some people are not. If you see terms being abused, it is all well and good to offer corrections. But I usually just see people stamping their feet and shrieking that so-and-so described a type of gun stock with a slightly incorrect word and acting like that is such an inexcusable faux pas that it isn't worth working with that person anymore. It's childish. Get the fuck over it. And this is speaking as someone who works in a technical field that is CONSTANTLY being misrepresented by news media and public policy due to lack of general scientific literacy.

This isn't about minor technical details. This is full on creationist equivalent stupidity. The term "assault weapon" is a nonsense political term just like "intelligent design". It's entire purpose is selling a lie. When people say: "Evolution is just a theory." they are correctly mocked and derided for it by the well educated liberals. When others say: "We don't want to take your hunting rifles we just want sensible bans on assault weapons." those same liberals go "yes yes good idea." Meanwhile here in the real world the poster child for "assault weapons" the AR-15, is the most popular and widely owned hunting rifle in the US today.

Here's a question for those against strict gun control, is there some way that the US would be worse off if the 2nd amendment was never passed and the US had Canadian (or UK as it would have been for much of this time span) gun control laws from that point to the present day?

The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

[Jub]

The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

I think your homicide rates argument is ignoring the role guns play in how militarized the US police have become as well as the obvious case of mass shootings. Then we also need to look at the less obvious factors such as suicide rates and people killed in situations that weren't technically crimes. Run your numbers again with these points factored in and get back to me.

[Dominus Atheos]

I'm not talking about me personally, fuck-face- I'm talking about the Democrats generally.

Honestly, that really doesn't change the main point of Lonestar's argument. Point to a major Democratic gun control initiative that doesn't boil down to "more restrictions, but not all the restrictions" and does, in fact, lessen or eliminate some existing restriction. Heck, any major gun control advocate will do.

That's the thing, and yes there have been threads on this before: "compromise" is never genuinely offered in this discussion. It straight up isn't. All that's ever put forward are more restrictions and bans, even if they're not 100% bans and confiscations. That's not what an actual compromise is.

The status quo is already a compromise. There are restrictions on firearms ownership. Advancing yet more restrictions and bans without ever offering anything in return - beyond the aforementioned "well we didn't ban everything so" ‾\_(ツ)_/‾ - is not compromise. Don't say the pro-gun side doesn't accept compromise, because the status quo already is.

You want to talk compromise? Look at what Lonestar said: offer something in exchange. And I'm not talking about you, personally, I'm speaking in general. When Democrats/Gun Control Activists offer up deregulating suppressors for limiting magazine capacities (as one example), that's compromise. Until then, quit abusing the word.

Currently the compromise the other side is talking about is "not banning all guns." If your side keeps refusing to negotiate, there may come a day when you look back and say to yourself "boy, I really wish we had taken some of those compromises we were offered."

[Dominus Atheos]

I see these normally extremely well educated individuals revert to mouth breathing, drooling morons when it comes to guns. They refuse to use proper terminology rather reverting to buzz words that make people feel bad, even going as far as ignoring supreme court decisions that oppose their personal view.

This is one of the tantrums anti-gun control advocates like to throw that just drives me absolutely insane. If you are an expert on guns, there are going to be plenty of fine technical terminological distinctions that aren't going to be readily understood by laypeople. This isn't unique to guns, this is literally true of every single fucking field of human knowledge in which some people are experts and some people are not. If you see terms being abused, it is all well and good to offer corrections. But I usually just see people stamping their feet and shrieking that so-and-so described a type of gun stock with a slightly incorrect word and acting like that is such an inexcusable faux pas that it isn't worth working with that person anymore. It's childish. Get the fuck over it. And this is speaking as someone who works in a technical field that is CONSTANTLY being misrepresented by news media and public policy due to lack of general scientific literacy.

Asking that you know what you are trying to ban and why isn't unreasonable. Your side doesn't know a thing about guns and refuses to learn, and it makes the other side pissed off when you keep talking about banning things that won't actually make anything safer.

[madd0ct0r]

[
The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

Uh. Would you mind backing those claims up with numbers and sources?
For England and Wales I can easily find data back to the 1970s and it does not support your claim.

I refer to fig 1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2018 and it's accompanying notes. (Homicide includes Shipman's patients, the Hillsborough victims of police and immigrants suffocated in lorries)

If you are making your claim for the UK as a whole, I will be interested how you consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland impacted by gun control / righteous Rebellion by militia against despotic martial law (as the IRA gun smuggling court case in USA found)

[Beowulf]

Currently the compromise the other side is talking about is "not banning all guns." If your side keeps refusing to negotiate, there may come a day when you look back and say to yourself "boy, I really wish we had taken some of those compromises we were offered."

10: "I've altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further."
20: goto 10

If the choice is "Take them all now" and "Take some of them now, and we'll look at taking the rest later, when taking some of them has failed to work", why even sit down at the table?

[madd0ct0r]

Currently the compromise the other side is talking about is "not banning all guns." If your side keeps refusing to negotiate, there may come a day when you look back and say to yourself "boy, I really wish we had taken some of those compromises we were offered."

10: "I've altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further."
20: goto 10

If the choice is "Take them all now" and "Take some of them now, and we'll look at taking the rest later, when taking some of them has failed to work", why even sit down at the table?

Of course the other side is hearing "we're responsible gun owners. Don't take our toys. Oh. Some more people died. But I want my toy more than I care about those strangers. Better ban research. And complain when adults try to negotiate"

[MKSheppard]

10: "I've altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further."
20: goto 10

If the choice is "Take them all now" and "Take some of them now, and we'll look at taking the rest later, when taking some of them has failed to work", why even sit down at the table?

I'd like to point out that Maryland has gone through:

10: "I've altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further."
20: goto 10

Two (or three) times, with constant, repeated efforts to make it a third/fourth time regarding "Assault weapons".

1989 Large quantities of "assault weapons" are declared "regulated weapons", and subject to the same restrictions as handguns -- you have to wait 7 days, you have to register with state police if buying from a dealer.

1994 Certain handguns are declared "Assault pistols" and banned from new sales, but existing owners are grandfathered in if they register with State Police (ban of UZI, MAC-10, etc).

1996 Regulated weapons are limited to one a month and private sales of such are banned. All have to go through Maryland State Police. (this includes 'assault rifles' declared such in 1989).

2013 Large quantities of assault weapons are banned from sale, existing owners grandfathered in, if they register with Maryland State Police. A "two feature" criteria was set -- if they had a detachable magazine and two of the following:

Folding Stock
Grenade/Flare Launcher
Flash Suppressor

Along with having an overall length less than 29 inches then it was an "Assault weapon".

2019-2020 Maryland Democrats push a new bill saying that assault weapons have a detachable magazine and ONE feature:

folding stock
telescopic/collapsible stock
Grenade/Flare Launcher
Flash Suppressor
Pistol Grip
Thumbhole Stock
Forward Pistol Grip

and as before, existing owners will be grandfathered in if they register.

Please keep in mind that THUMBHOLE stocks became a big thing in response to bans of "pistol grips" in California and other states.

Another thing is they declared any pistol is an assault pistol if it fires .450 BUSHMASTER.

That's rather perplexing considering .450 BUSHMASTER is the ultimate AR fudd caliber -- many states ban tapered cartridges for hunting -- you have to have straight wall cartridges or else for hunting; and .450 Bushy is a straight wall cartridge.

[MKSheppard]

Oh, someone pointed out somewhere else that the 2020 MD Democrat definition of an "assault pistol" as being one that fires:

C. 7.62 MILLIMETER (INCLUDING THE 7.62X39 MILLIMETER, .308 WINCHESTER, 7.62 NATO, 7.62X51 MILLIMETER NATO, .30 CARBINE, 7.62X33 MILLIMETER, OR 300 AAC BLACKOUT);

7.62mm is basically: .32 ACP and Mosin Nagant M1895 Revolver.

[Lord Insanity]

The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

I think your homicide rates argument is ignoring the role guns play in how militarized the US police have become as well as the obvious case of mass shootings. Then we also need to look at the less obvious factors such as suicide rates and people killed in situations that weren't technically crimes. Run your numbers again with these points factored in and get back to me.

50 years ago when access to guns was far easier the US didn't have a mass shooting problem.

Total suicide rates do not correlate to gun ownership rates at all. Sure gun suicides are more common in places with easy access to guns but non-gun suicides are more common in places with restricted access to guns. Taking gun suicides out of context of the total suicide rate is completely dishonest.

The CDC stats for the year 2017 list the total number of accidental deaths at 169,936. Accidental discharge of firearms is the lowest accidental cause at 486.

Uh. Would you mind backing those claims up with numbers and sources?
For England and Wales I can easily find data back to the 1970s and it does not support your claim.

I refer to fig 1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2018 and it's accompanying notes. (Homicide includes Shipman's patients, the Hillsborough victims of police and immigrants suffocated in lorries)

If you are making your claim for the UK as a whole, I will be interested how you consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland impacted by gun control / righteous Rebellion by militia against despotic martial law (as the IRA gun smuggling court case in USA found)

Well I was going off the data for 1919 to 1986 from the book Targeting Guns. I honestly forgot the data was that old, I still think of that book as having just come out a few years ago. What you posted shows exactly what I said though. The homicide rate is basically the same. If anything your chart shows it is trending slightly higher over the last 50 years. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement that gun control has done anything useful.

[madd0ct0r]

The northern boarder states in the US that share similar population densities to Canada have the same low homicide rates without any of the gun control laws.
The UK's homicide rate is basically the same as it was 100 years ago before they started toward modern gun control.
So if a measure is effectively a feel good do nothing measure, why pursue it at all?

I think your homicide rates argument is ignoring the role guns play in how militarized the US police have become as well as the obvious case of mass shootings. Then we also need to look at the less obvious factors such as suicide rates and people killed in situations that weren't technically crimes. Run your numbers again with these points factored in and get back to me.

50 years ago when access to guns was far easier the US didn't have a mass shooting problem.

Total suicide rates do not correlate to gun ownership rates at all. Sure gun suicides are more common in places with easy access to guns but non-gun suicides are more common in places with restricted access to guns. Taking gun suicides out of context of the total suicide rate is completely dishonest.

The CDC stats for the year 2017 list the total number of accidental deaths at 169,936. Accidental discharge of firearms is the lowest accidental cause at 486.

Uh. Would you mind backing those claims up with numbers and sources?
For England and Wales I can easily find data back to the 1970s and it does not support your claim.

I refer to fig 1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... gmarch2018 and it's accompanying notes. (Homicide includes Shipman's patients, the Hillsborough victims of police and immigrants suffocated in lorries)

If you are making your claim for the UK as a whole, I will be interested how you consider the Troubles in Northern Ireland impacted by gun control / righteous Rebellion by militia against despotic martial law (as the IRA gun smuggling court case in USA found)

Well I was going off the data for 1919 to 1986 from the book Targeting Guns. I honestly forgot the data was that old, I still think of that book as having just come out a few years ago. What you posted shows exactly what I said though. The homicide rate is basically the same. If anything your chart shows it is trending slightly higher over the last 50 years. That is not exactly a ringing endorsement that gun control has done anything useful.

Are you sure you want to use that argument with that ONS data? It's pretty detailed under the hood, covers pre and post dunblane handgun law, the troubles in England and more recent jihadist bombings and population growth of a few million.
As an example, would you object to comparison of spree killers with bombs, vans or knives being compared to spree killers in USA?