> I literally said "I'm not blaming gun hobbyists for violence." Thank you for starting off with a terribly bad faith reading of my comment.
I agree with you, this is not the problem. No bad faith intended.
> Gun hobbyists in the US will argue for it based on their "rights"..."
No quotes on rights. If you don't care about rights or are happy to cede them, then there are all kinds of societal improvements you could make -- say, banning hate speech, lowering or eliminating a presumption of innocence, banning private firearm ownership, etc. However, this is antithetical to how the US is setup and its system of laws. The same arguments used to attack gun control can just as easily be turned on other rights, such as the freedom of speech.
> It's difficult for me to believe that if you remove one of the easiest ways to kill people, violence would just remain the same
It's difficult to run a proper experiment for many reasons. However, I would argue that the concern from voters is not about routine violence (eg gang violence localized to a specific community) but mass killings like Uvalde or Parkland. As we can see in Europe (or even in the US, in New Orleans), you can kill plenty of people with a car, a bomb, a knife, etc. Killing lots of people quickly is not an attribute unique to firearms.
> Because gun ownership is part of your constitution, you can easily make it seem as though those questioning it are attacking the very basis of your country. Seems like a systemic issue to me...
Yes, this is a systematic attack and many Americans see it this way. Governments have only ever moved one direction on gun control -- once the right is eroded, it is gone forever.
> blatantly silly to think that if you give a hopeless population easy access to tools whose entire function is to kill...
Again, the second amendment for everyone. We do not gate rights behind fees, tests, or onerous restrictions. I am interested in preserving (and expanding!) civil liberties for all, while addressing the root causes of gun violence.
I agree with you, this is not the problem. No bad faith intended.
> Gun hobbyists in the US will argue for it based on their "rights"..."
No quotes on rights. If you don't care about rights or are happy to cede them, then there are all kinds of societal improvements you could make -- say, banning hate speech, lowering or eliminating a presumption of innocence, banning private firearm ownership, etc. However, this is antithetical to how the US is setup and its system of laws. The same arguments used to attack gun control can just as easily be turned on other rights, such as the freedom of speech.
> It's difficult for me to believe that if you remove one of the easiest ways to kill people, violence would just remain the same
It's difficult to run a proper experiment for many reasons. However, I would argue that the concern from voters is not about routine violence (eg gang violence localized to a specific community) but mass killings like Uvalde or Parkland. As we can see in Europe (or even in the US, in New Orleans), you can kill plenty of people with a car, a bomb, a knife, etc. Killing lots of people quickly is not an attribute unique to firearms.
> Because gun ownership is part of your constitution, you can easily make it seem as though those questioning it are attacking the very basis of your country. Seems like a systemic issue to me...
Yes, this is a systematic attack and many Americans see it this way. Governments have only ever moved one direction on gun control -- once the right is eroded, it is gone forever.
> blatantly silly to think that if you give a hopeless population easy access to tools whose entire function is to kill...
Again, the second amendment for everyone. We do not gate rights behind fees, tests, or onerous restrictions. I am interested in preserving (and expanding!) civil liberties for all, while addressing the root causes of gun violence.