No-one said anything about banning anything.
I didn't say you did. I used the example of a ban on swimming pools as an example of swimming pool controls. I could have used an example of pools having depth limits, or may contain only salt water (it's more buoyant), or must have trained and licensed life guards. A ban is a kind of control, no? This swimming pool control would mean banning something, like a ban on fresh water pools, or banning private ownership of pools. Controls are bans.
When people talk of gun controls it will result in bans on some level. It will be bans on semi auto rifles, pump action shotguns,bans on standard capacity magazines, people will be banned from owning firearms, or certain kinds of ammunition would be banned. Even a waiting period is a kind of ban since people would be banned from purchasing a firearm on the same day. If you want gun control, but no bans, then explain a gun control law that is not a ban.
Perhaps you can explain a control that is not a ban, but I doubt it.
I can assume by this response that you do agree that less guns means less deaths.
There you go again, not reading what I wrote. I said fewer guns would mean fewer shootings, that is obvious. I also said, and this is important, that fewer guns means more crime and murder. I did a study on this for a statistics class. I took the gun laws as rated by the Brady Campaign and compared that to the murder rates in their respective states. There is a weak correlation there but it is there, the more restrictive the gun laws the higher the murder rate.
You bring up the suicide rates and I did not do a study on that but you linked to one and they state from the beginning that they do not advocate for stricter gun laws. They merely point out that people with access to dangerous items tend to be more successful in their suicide attempts and those that survive their first attempt at suicide tend to not repeat it. The point out several dangerous items used in suicides, great heights, pesticides, firearms, and so on. If people are denied these at the times they feel suicidal then then tend to survive. Again I point out the paper made it clear that this was not to advocate for new laws but a way to monitor and treat the suicidal. That I can understand and support.
There was a book written on this correlation between guns and crime which is widely regarded for its scientific rigor. Look it up:
When it comes to guns and crime there are three outcomes:
- More guns, less crime
- More guns. more crime
- More guns means just more guns
What no study can show is that more guns equates to more crime. VPC has repeatedly come out with "studies" showing that more guns equates to more shootings, with the intent that people will equate more shootings with more murders even though they must know this is false. What we are left with is more guns means either less crime or just more guns.
I've had someone ask me, if gun control does not increase crime then why oppose it? The answer is that the government has no business in reducing freedom, especially if there is no social benefit. The government wants to reduce our access to weapons promising that it will reduce crimes but there is nothing to support this claim. Even if the government could show gun control reduced crime I could not support it because the government would be punishing the innocent because of the criminal acts of others. That's how parents deal with unruly children, by taking away the toys from all the kids because one had a fit.
I am not a child and I expect my government not to treat me like one.
Pretty much every developed country has some level of gun ownership, they just apply some sensible rules around who can own them and how they can be used. And they all have lower murder rates, both with or without guns than the US. I fail to see how you think this outcome is a bad.
I think this is bad because you cherry pick the nations by limiting yourself to comparing the USA to "developed" nations. Mexico is a developed nation and it has a serious crime problem even though it restricts private firearm ownership. People like the VPC overlook Mexico and claim it is not "developed", why is that? The answer is simple, it makes their numbers look bad. Statistics will tell you anything if you torture them enough. VPC has tortured the statistics to make a lie look like a truth. This starts with defining "gun deaths" to include justified self defense shootings and suicides. The paper you linked to even pointed out that suicides are not linked to firearm ownership, but to access to any dangerous item that is convenient.
Gun control does nothing to help society, it can only do harm. Even when dealing with the mentally ill. When the law says that those deemed mentally incompetent cannot own a firearm then you have a case of people that need mental health treatment being reluctant to seek it because they know the government will come to take their guns away. Maybe some of these people should have their guns taken away but if you have an otherwise harmless person with an irrational fear of the government and after they get treatment the government comes and takes their guns away then what we have is a fear that is not so irrational any more.