@UnparalleledMonster: Getting testy and demanding? And here I thought it was an opportunity to educate...
No...it's not a gun availability issue. Just because you say otherwise simply doesn't make it so. And you have no data to really back it up. Forget the circumstantial data...for example, the US homicide rate v. the UK and try to explain the difference is due solely to gun ownership. Because I will simply point to the before and after examples of how violent crime increased after draconian firearm laws were implemented.
What happened in DC and Chicago when handguns were banned? Homicide rates increased. How about after the ban in the UK after the Dublane massacre...the homicide rate increased.
Lots of firearms owned in Switzerland and Isreal...firearm homicide rates are low.
If your premise of availability were true...Washington DC would be the safest place in the US. Toughest gun laws in the country, lowest gun ownership per capita in the country, and the highest firearm homicide rate in the country...4 times higher than the national average. And twice as high as California...another gun control haven with a firearm homicide rate ranking 49th in the nation...and the most firearm homicides of any state. As much as every gun control advocate wants to beliebe it, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. There is a ton of data to back it up.
The reality is that stringent gun control measures frequently have adverse consequences i.e. direct increases in violent crime.
Let's chat about DGU for a moment...Defensive Gun Use. Not a stat I ever hear uttered from the gun control crowd...it doesn't fit the narrative.
There are far more instances where a firearm is used to prevent a violent crime than there are to hurt people. Now a DGU does not mean the good guy shot the bad guy. Usually the good guy merely brandishes the firearm, and the perp retreats.
The CDC estimates between 100,000 to 250,000 instances each year in which someone uses a firearm to prevent a violent crime in which the potential victim was certain that the perpetrator intended to injure or kill. That data on DGU from the CDC is the most conservative out there. Other estimates put DGU instances far higher.
Regardless of how many legally owned firearms there are in the US (estimates approach 400 million) there are millions of illegally owned firearms. Take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, crime will sky rocket.
So back to your question I answered previously. My right to own a firearm, be it a handgun, shotgun or rifle...even if that rifle is an AR-15 has nothing to do with the rights of others.
It's a collectivist's argument to imply that owning an AR-15 is sinful and somehow puts the lives of innocent people at risk. Particularly in light of the data where people have been disarmed resulting in an increase in violence.
Rationalizing that it is somehow better for a lunatic to go on a killing spree with a knife vs. a gun is just disgusting. Nevermind that some of the most egregious acts of violence did not involve gun fire. Let's not forget the lives lost in buildings due to aircraft or the right mixture of fertlizer, ammonia and diesel fuel.
I've studied and debated gun rights v gun control for years. Nothing you've stated is anything I haven't heard before.
