However, the liklihood of a person becoming injured or dead from a gun in a crime is driven by weapon availability, wether illicit or legal. The only way (in the scope of this topic) I can think of to propose to reduce unnecessary deaths is to reduce supply. I think some criminals would move on to simpler weapons like sharp or blunts, resulting in less people dead. There might be less of a differentiation between gun models of criminals, but that's only because there's less available, just based on the general principles.
Law of economics. When gas prices rose, less people drove. More people walked or took public transportation, so on. ^ source:
http://www.prac.com/public/Plymouthrock/staticfiles/PDF/MA_Gas_Impact_Study_051812.pdf
Well, I'm also not advocating for outright weapon bans. I have nothing against removing weapons in society. I'm suggesting a medium be set so that it's not cheap and affordable enough for just about anyone on the streets. At least let there be some effort to earn it, not everyone should deserve to use a gun, even if it's their second amendment rights.
The more we debate about it, it seems like a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situation.
What if all of us who are entitled to, had guns? I think that would make for some serious questions about the state of our society. I would think some people are not fit for a gun, even if their amendment rights allow them for it - provided they are not mental, juvenile, or a felon. Some people just aren't meant to own one for certain reasons outside of legal limitations.
I'm afraid we can't go any further on the issue of statistics until there is some public information on the matter. At this point we can only move on with our differences in opinions. We'll just have to argue about other perspectives of this topic.
If you research the topic and find some information that supports your opinions about gun models/manufacturers, I want to see the material that support your perspectives.
