if you ban guns, you assume someone who willing to kill (break the law) will respect the law not to buy guns, and not go onto the black market?? thereby disarming the law-abiding citizens who can prevent crime/self-defend..
the logic is weak in this one..
Actually, not weak at all. This is a furphy put about by the redneck lobby.
In reality no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will stop all criminals owning guns .... but it does and will lower the number. Fewer guns in criuminal hands = fewer gunshot wounds. It's hardly rocket science.
In reality no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will prevent all nutcase murders of the Julian Knight variety ..... but it does and will reduce the numbers. (Note that this means
real restrictions on ownership, not the sort of pretend restrictions that led to the Tasmanian government allowing a known nutcase to buy and own deadly weapons and commit the massacre at Port Arthur.
In reality no-one pretends that sensibly restricting gun ownership will prevent all domestic gunshot murdersy ..... but it does and will
vastly reduce the numbers. When tempers flare, violent people pick up the weapons they have. If they have a gun, they use it. The result is typically a murder or multiple murder. If they don't have a gun, they use a knife, an axe, a hammer, or their fists. Yep, som,etimes that still means a murder. But the victim has a much, much better chance of escaping alive. And in the case of multiple victims, some have a chance of running away. With a gunl, they all die.
This last point is the key one: when you increase the number of guns in households, you dramatically increase the number of domestic murders. Therre are other good reasons, but this is the key reason why we have restrictions on gun ownership (and should have more stringent ones) -
it saves lives. Every year, in every state, it saves lives.