No-nonsense gun control in the US. It really does exist.

[Shamash]

70. Disagree on a number of grounds

Example 1: The overall murder rate in Vermont is about the same as it is in the UK. On a per capita basis, Vermont has thirty times the gun ownership of the UK, allows all types of firearms and has no permits required for open or concealed carry (which includes in places like bars). The UK has complete bans on many types of firearms, requires permits for all of them and no open or concealed carry is allowed at all.

The only difference is that more people are murdering each other without guns in the UK.

Unfortunately, Vermont is not the US as a whole or we would have neither a gun violence problem nor gun control absolutists nor a big bad NRA. However, Vermont does let me reiterate the case that culture is more important than laws. Vermont has a firearm murder rate that is amazingly low and does this without any of the measures you think we need (or even the ones I mention) and with less restrictive gun laws than the country as a whole. So when it comes to which of legal restrictions or cultural change is more effective (and more progressive) in the long run...

Quod erat demonstrandum

Example 2: Canada had lower firearm murder rates than the US before their stricter gun laws went into effect. England had lower firearm murder rates than the US before their stricter gun laws went into effect. Australia had lower firearm murder rates than the US before their stricter gun laws went into effect.

Example 3: We have gun crime figures for London from the turn of the 20th century and we also know what UK gun laws were. They were virtually non-existent. You had to pay a few shillings at a post office to buy a permit for a pistol, but that was it. The gun crime rate (all types) in London (a densely populated metropolis) at that time was less than it is today. At least if you accept the accuracy of figures published by the British Parliament.

Continuing to flog a "guns vs. lives" argument makes you look silly, because you have already shown that you are completely unwilling to accept any other "X vs. lives" argument and this puts up a big neon sign that says "I am completely unable to deal with this topic objectively". If you are going to adopt a set of principles to guide social policy and public health, you need to do so in a consistent manner. When I apply my set of general principles to same-sex marriage, racial issues, gender issues, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, reproductive rights, censorship and gun ownership...I come up with the same results for all of them regarding the rights, responsibilities and limits of the individual, society and government. You don't.

So if you want to discuss gun control and being progressive, get back in the elevator, hit the "up" button and let me know when you arrive at where I'm already at. For me, this is the end of the discussion. Good day.