I believe that no action should be taken out of hot blood, be it for guns or any other thing.
+5
HISTORY has told us. Disarming the general population is always one of the top priorities of tyrants. I'll concede there are benevolent reasons for wanting disarmament, but how can you really know whether a government's endgame is benevolent or not?
War and killings by governments kills roughly 50k folk each year. Murders kill 500k each year. If there's a way to lower common kill rates, at the cost of greatening government killrates, do it. Some governments known to be oppressive.
China (civilian gun ownership near-banned; heavily regulated): civilian kills (~12k) 6x higher than government kills (~2k at a high estimate)
Iran (civilian gun ownership regulated): civilian kills (~3000) 2x higher than govenrment kills (~1.5k at high estimate)
Arabia (civilian gun ownership regulated): civilian kills (~200) 2x higher than government kills (~100).
Meantime in Japan or Norway, government executions are fully ended. So even by the most free estimates, it's still worth it to curb civilian killings - that is, if possible (the main problem with gun regulation).
Sure, and then we have condescending anti-gun people who list out a bunch of their absurd opinions with the assumption that they are somehow true and nobody could possibly have anything to say about them (and even if they do, they're just "pro-gun people who ignore a whole bunch of facts").
Please don't be so hostile.