The outcome of widely available firearms is more innocent people dying.
reminds me of a post I made elsewhere about making guns illegal would make us safer:
I’ll start by asking a simple question. If you could push a button to save a loved one’s life if it meant 1,382 anonymous strangers had to sacrifice theirs in exchange, would you push it? While this is a bit of a long read, I think its worth it to stick around until the end...
Given all the “for the children” rhetoric about saving lives through more gun control legislation, I think it’s time to play a game; A numbers game. For fun, we’ll even use the numbers that those against guns claim is more realistic than what the pro-gun crowd tends to use.
According to a VERY liberal anti-gun publication, during the time period 2007-2011 there were “only” 338,700 uses of guns for self-defense.
Let’s break this down using the anti-gunner’s own stats and best case scenarios:
Over a 5 year period, that’s 67,740 times per year that a gun is used for self-defense. Not insignificant at all.
Now let’s assume that 90% of the time , the perp is only going to use his weapon for intimidation, and has no intention of killing you if you comply. Now we are down to “only” 6,774 shootings/stabbings/beatings per year, also assuming we are ALL good sheeple and comply with the thug’s demands with zero resistance.
Using the accepted conservative estimate of 22% mortality rate for shootings/stabbings, we are now talking “ONLY” 1,490 dead bodies per year.
So lets look at that “If we could only save one child, [gun bans] would be worth it!” quote now that we have some VERY conservative numbers that anti gunners can agree with. Even lumping in the adults, in the period of 1 year after Sandy Hook (but not including) there were 23 mass shootings (4 or more killed in a single incident, regardless of location) resulting in 108 casualties.
***
Assuming that we were able to stop each and every one of those mass shootings with gun control laws, THERE WOULD STILL BE 1,382 DEAD BODIES REGARDLESS OF THE “COMMON SENSE GUN BAN”. I would call this cutting off your nose to spite your face, etc.
***
But wont banning guns get rid of them all? Well, if you are willing to commit a crime with a gun, do you care about obtaining or possessing it legally? No. The only people impacted by restrictive gun laws are the “good guys”. Just ask the felons behind bars. They freely admit they (and their ilk still on the street) don’t care what the law says. They will obtain a gun in any way possible, and carry it regardless of whether its legal or not. They just don’t care as the law “doesn’t apply to them”.
So think about that next time somebody says “think of the children” or “if it could save only one life”. Statically speaking that “one life” saved equals over a thousand lost; not exactly a good trade in my book.
--------
Edit to add:
I did a bit more math to correct a failed assumption. Assuming a gun ban is put into place and ALL legal guns are turned in leaving only illegally obtained weapons in play (30% of those used in crime are illegally obtained), You still have almost 500 dead bodies for every person you save with the ban!
Even playing devil's advocate and poking holes in my own calculations I still cannot get to an acceptable level of savings. What they are proposing is like investing money in a stock that you know will have a 500% LOSS. (and possibly more) If you know it doesnt work, why do it?
