Who would've thought?

They're only as Dangerous as the person handling them, so, Yes.

Thing is though, there is a higher Probability for guns to be used wilfully for nefarious purposes than Cars.

More cars are used in the perpetration of crimes than guns. A lot of gun violence involves cars as well. More people die from car accidents than gun accidents. And no care ever killed anyone just sitting still with no one in it.

Ah, Let me restate that. Guns have a higher probability for them to be used to wilfully kill/injure someone or help rob them. I see nefarious purposes was too general.

"More people die from car accidents than gun accidents"

Thing is though, Cars are a bit more vital to our daily life than guns. Hell, you could completely get rid of guns in you life without much change. Cars... not so much. Therefore its being attempted to tackle the deaths caused by guns.

The point is, if someone is determined to commit nefarious acts! like murder, the lack of guns isn’t going to stop them. They will use other things, such as cars, to do it. I know strict gun laws sound good but it doesn’t solve the root problem.

Sure it won't solve violent crime, but it'll sure as hell reduce the death toll

"wilfully for nefarious purposes" (sic)

Cars are even More Dangerous without the WILL or INTENT...

Meaning that more often than not the GUN requires both to kill someone... the car requires Neither...

"Cars are even More Dangerous without the WILL or INTENT..."

You seem to have forgotten the nefarious purposes part

"Meaning that more often than not the GUN requires both to kill someone... the car requires Neither..."

I am pretty sure the car still needs a driver and a victim.

I cannot follow your cahin of thought. It makes no f**king sense.

'my chain of thought' is this

For someone to die 'from a gun' a Killer has to actively want 'someone' dead, or be willfully ignorant of no less than a Half a Dozen safety protocols...

For someone to die 'from a Car' a Killer only needs to be slightly distracted...

Oh. I understand. Your saying that Car accidents are more common than Gun accidents! You are utterly right. But I am talking about how Guns are used more to wilfully kill/hurt someone than cars. Meaning accidents are discounted.

You Clearly DON'T "Understand"... Dead is Dead... You cannot Discount Accidents when assessing the Danger of an Inanimate Object

Not only are 'Car accidents' more commonly fatal , but but Willful self harm via gun (suicide) out numbers homicides via Gun 2:1 ... once again showing that INTENT is more important than the tool

"and suddenly I realize just how dense you are."

Hey, just because I don't get American cultural references doesn't make me dense. Thats just uncalled for!

Anyways, again, simple economics. Cut off the supply and the prise rises. Not only in legal gun stores but also on the black market. Insert example with Gang boss Stealabank

"ergo the Gun is only as Dangerous as the Person..."

Yes and unfortunately the number of Dangerous people is way too high for us to give out guns like candy.

and Over Population is still a problem, but you cutting off your dick doesn't stop me from Breeding like a Rabbit...how does stopping Law abiding non Violent Gun owners stop Criminals (who are already breaking the law) from getting one that 'fell off a truck'

Yes, but its more likely for you to kill someone else PURPOSEFULLY with a Gun than a Car. I agree that Car accidents kill more than Gun deaths by suicide and accidents combined. My argument however is that your more likely to wilfully murder someone with a Gun than a car

THERE IN... the Gun Requires the WILL (whether Malice or Stupidity) of a PERSON to be Dangerous... ergo the Gun is only as Dangerous as the Person...

"how does stopping Law abiding non Violent Gun owners stop Criminals (who are already breaking the law)'"

Its basic economics really. The law doesn't expect Criminals to follow it. So it employs economics. Cut off the supply and the product becomes more expensive. Meaning Gang Boss Franz Stealabank could afford five Guns for Five gang members. With gun laws he could now only afford two guns with the same money he could've bought five guns with.

"from getting one that 'fell off a truck"

The scenario in which this would be the case is mind boggling. Who transports Firearms in such a way that they would fall off?

" Who transports Firearms in such a way that they would fall off?"...

and suddenly I realize just how dense you are... "It fell off a Truck." is an oft used line/joke in Countless Media where in someone buys a Stolen Item, and the seller assures him it wasn't Stolen, but found, after it "fell off the Truck"

Both are still done illegally

Yes. The point og Gun laws is not to force criminals to stop using Guns, but to limit their supply and by direct correlation their use due to a simple lack of a weapon in the first place

You could use that same argument as a solution to traffic jams.

Ah, but the difference is that Cars are Vital to our lives and Guns aren't.

Just because something isn’t vital to our lives doesn’t make it not important

"Also, why do you not want guns in our country if you own one?"

Well, I guess I misspoke a bit. America shouldn't ban Guns. It should however install stricter Gun Laws. I belive this neccaesary due to the prevalent gun Violence throughout America. Now let me make it clear that I am German and live in Germany. Possibly a country with THE strictest gun laws world wide, and yet I own a Gun. Sure there are inspections and a small pile of paperwork and training, but I went through that and bought myself a gun. For the simple reason of defence. Might be a bit unnecessary, could've gotten a taser or some such. Anyways the point I am rambling about is that I know how dangerous Guns are and I also know there are people who know how to handle them. What I also know is that there are way too many people who would abuse the power of the firearm. Its these people the laas aim to stop and its also why I belive them to be a good idea

"lol I don’t give a flying crap what you call yourself, I just know that most of not all of the time, I will probably disagree with you politically."

Heh, thats true.👍😂

"liberal/possibly socialist"

Social Democrat, but your dictionary says socialist. So lets go with that.

"probably doesn’t own a gun."

I do own one as a matter of fact. Eine Glock Pistole 48. Was a bitch and a half to get all the necessary paperwork.

"Speak for yourself."

I am and also bad Argument.

Maybe guns aren’t important to YOUR life. So yes you were speaking for yourself along with everyone else. Also, why do you not want guns in our country if you own one? “Social democrat” lol I don’t give a flying crap what you call yourself, I just know that most of not all of the time, I will probably disagree with you politically.

Guns are also not Important for our lives. One would not suffer from harsher Gun laws as much as one would suffer from a Car ban

Coming from a liberal/possibly socialist who probably doesn’t own a gun. Speak for yourself.

Gun deaths in the U.S. have been declining steadily over the past 50 years. This when gun ownership has tripled. I'll just leave that here.

That is nice. Still means America has a gun problem

Your chart is somewhat misleading. This is from a study completed in 2016 by Chicago Univ.
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms. U.S. population at the time was 324,059,091. Do the math: 0.00925% of the
population dies from gun-related actions each year. Statistically
speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a
breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty or self-defense and justified
• 17% is through criminal activity, gang and drug-related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths
So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.
Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C.
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of
those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is
the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states.
So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be
something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? Yes, but how about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

Nicely put

"Statistically
speaking, this is insignificant!"

That is true statistically speaking, but I have got the families and friends of about 30,000 people who will disagree with you that this number is insignificant

"65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws"

Right. Limiting the access to Guns would somehow not stop people from shooting themselves. Makes sense. I wouldn't say that Gun laws don't work against suicides, seeing as if they wouldn't have had a gun they wouldn't have shot themselves in the first place. Now, studies have shown that the presence of firearms might be linked with a higher likelihood of suicide and higher regional suicide rates.

"So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100."

Ah, but we are talking about violence caused by guns. Well technically Gun deaths, but never mind that. Now seeing as Gun laws, if implemented nation wide, would realistically effect suicide victims, by limiting their access to guns and lowering their Suicide likelihood, that Number raises to about 24600... so...

"those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is
the root cause."

Your right! Its the fact that you can go get a gun from your local Gun Grocery a couple hours drive away in the next city without gun laws. gun laws don't work if they are not implemented fully. If you build a Plane, but don't build the wings, its not gonna fly.

"Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this."

Guns are not causing Gun problems? No no. You are right. Damn those criminals! Where do they get those guns and why are they using for their nefarious purposes? It wouldn't be as though they could drive for a few hours and get their guns without restrictions in a Gun-law-less state/city.

"Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? Yes, but how..."

So since you are only accounting for Gun deaths caused by Criminals and I am doing that plus those caused by suicides my number would rise to about 24600 making your argument a bit weaker.

"thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous"

Ah, but thats not the thought behind the laws no is it? The thinking goes, if we make it harder for Criminals to get guns would it not become harder for criminals to get guns?

Sure, it would stop insane people from shooting themselves, but they can still jump off a high-rise, stab themselves, get hit by a train/car, OD on meds, etc.

You see, the key component to that is that there are various Studies that suggest an increased availability of firearms increases the risk of suicide.

I am not sure I agree with you that reducing access to guns would reduce suicides. If someone is disturbed enough to kill themselves, I doubt not having a gun would stop them.

There is a 2018 study by UC Davis and John Hopkins Univ. that looked at California over a 10 year period and found that their strict gun laws did nothing to reduce suicides or crime.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

I am also not sure how making it harder for law-abiding citizens to get a gun affects criminals getting a gun. It is already illegal for a felon to own a gun and most criminals don't get their guns legally anyway.

In any case, my initial stand is that gun violence is not as bad as the media tries to make it. The opioid crisis, illegal immigration, and the deficit are far more serious issues.

"If someone is disturbed enough to kill themselves, I doubt not having a gun would stop them."

True, but and once again there are multiple studies that show a linke between an increase in availability of firearms and an increase of suicide likelihood. Its far easier to put a bullet through your head than jumping off a cliff.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

"It is already illegal for a felon to own a gun and most criminals don't get their guns legally anyway."

Ah, but first off there are many examples of Gun shop owners not checking ones background before selling the guns legally and not all criminals are convicted felons. Its a simple matter of economics. If the supply goes down the price goes up. That would mean both legal guns and illegal guns acquired through the black market would get more expensive. So instead of buying five guns for five Gang Members Gang Boss Josef Strongidiot would only be able to afford three of the very same guns with the same money.