I don't see that he suggested a solution. Just the opposite, he pointed out that gun laws also aren't a solution. Much like the war on drugs isn't. Much like "though shalt not kill" didn't stop the inquisition, or the Moorish conquest.
No murders? No. You should read about the "Nirvana fallacy".
Fewer murders? Yes. The homicide rate is 0.854 per capita in Australia (5.763 in the US) and much lower than US in most European countries (Russia being the exception).
Look, if you're unable to back your point, that's a good time to reflect. Come back when you can. If you don't participate in that sequence of events, that's what anyone of sound mind would call ignorance.
Back your points with citation. We can all agree that's an important part of learning.
I think I need to just post the Sartre quote over and over again. The inability or disinterest of certain factions of the right in having a good faith argument is just genuinely frustrating.
I'm still here if you'd like to make an argument. The above rebuttal is not remotely a good faith argument. It appears to be a hope that repeating misinformation will somehow make it an accepted truth.
That might work for circles of low performing political movements, but it doesn't work for those of us interested in a scientific approach to knowledge.
By all means, explain what making guns illegal has actually done for Australia, the whitest country in the world, and the UK, the capital of knife crime.
You're about to prove facts that neither of us want to admit.
The correlation between lower crime and gun laws is very weak and disproven by countless other examples. The two countries given as proof aren't exceptions to that. Instead they are examples of how lower poverty correlates with lower crime rate.
Race isn't a factor, just as gun laws aren't. Pointing out that race isn't a factor is the opposite of racism.
