unnamednewbie13 wrote:
1. Guns are already exaggerated in the media and the subject of an excess amount of glamour. The act of denying something will only serve to raise interest in it. A likely scenario for a ban would be to block the sale of certain guns over time after specified dates, which would only serve to attract buyers to the firearms market before said dates.
And promptly have them confiscated after the ban.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
2. Firearms sales tend to increase in and around areas acts of crime result in injury and death. While the withdrawal of firearms would mean a certain shortage of firearms-related incidents sometime in the future, many Americans would not (and rightly so) appreciate the immediate risk placed on their persons and families due to this new lack of defense.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that A represents time with guns, B represents time when guns are illegal but criminals have them, and C represents time when guns are at about the same level as in the West which bans them (which is to say, hard to access). We know that B is the worst possible situation, so we will assign it to 3 as the worst. We, further, know that countries with C are better than countries with A, by and large, so C shall have 1, and A shall have 2.
So, over a three day period:
Your America has 3A, which is a rating of 6.
Mine has 1A + 1B + 1C, which also has a rating of 6.
If we extend it one more day, however, yours has a rating of 8, whereas mine has a rating of only 7.
It's vastly oversimplified, but you see what I'm getting at: in the long term, the sacrifice is much greater. Short term loss should never be used to argue against a plan which would institute long term gain.
Borrowing from one past scenario, I am not about to begrudge an old woman her right to defend herself against a rapist in her own home by shots fired through her bathroom door, due to a certain lack of police timeliness.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
3. The withdrawal of firearms rights would serve to inspire discord among the more stalwart gun owners of America, resulting in a mildly dystopian scenario of domestic terrorism from both police and extremists.
Well in that case you'd better do as Mr. bin Laden says: failing to do so could result in further attacks.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
4. To strike at tools that can be misused is ineffective.
Except that guns can only be used to either practice or cause physical harm, neither of which are legitimate.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The bans and restrictions in Washington, D.C. viewed in combination with its own significant crime rate contributes a bit of proof to that.
Except that it probably would be too hard to smuggle a weapon over a state border, which puts the lie to your theory: you see, Washington is probably suffering from looser gun laws over the border.