How is this an unreasonable viewpoint?

Guns are the problem when combined with shitty education.

To the point that some people only know the second of an entire document.

You can only force licensing on guns when you force licensing on every other device that could be used to end a person's life:

>knives
>drills
>hammers
>guitar strings
>blocks of wood
>cleaning supplies
>lawn mowers
>bicycles

While we're at it, a computer can't be directly used to end a life, but it can be used to promote cyber bullying (which leads to suicide) and it can be used for hacking, identity theft, and libel. So we should require a license to own a computer

Any other inalienable rights we should take away while we're at it?

>Harvard published a study whose summary was "More Guns Equals Less Crime".
citation needed

>Look at London. Again, obviously and with statistical proof, firearms have nothing to do with an increase in violent crime.
no one is saying that guns are the ONLY thing that cause crime. However, despite the recent increase in crime London is still safer than almost all major us cities

Guns are not a problem, they just make symptoms more readily apparent.
And I fail to see how the second amendment is "to the point", as you claim, seeing as how nowhere in my comment did I bring up constitutional rights. It's not to the point. My point had nothing to do with constitutionality. My point was the difference between a problem and a symptom.

When you say the problem is guns combined with shitty eductation - this is only half true. Unemployment, income, and race all have higher correlations with violent crime than educational level. The most educated blacks commit more violent crime than the least educated whites, for example. Gun laws, as evidenced by the ban on guns in most of the countries with the highest rates of murder and violent crime, have done nothing to stem the issue - again, because guns are not the problem.

Attached: Fighting+fire+with+fire_18aa30_6687559.jpg (900x752, 80K)

Bad education doesn't cause people to murder others.

>citation needed
I actually looked into this one. A group of independent researchers (Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser, not Harvard) looked at several public data sources (FBI database, CDC, firearm registries, etc) and did basic statistics. They found a correlation that states with higher rates of gun ownership saw lower rates of crime.

There's an important caveat, however, to this data. They were looking at public data sources, which means they only saw LEGALLY REGISTERED firearms. The vast majority (95-100%) of deaths related to guns are from gang violence, and the vast majority (80-95%) of gang-held firearms are not legally registered. They're transported across state lines, smuggled, purchased on black markets, or stolen. When you account for these firearms the data is reversed: more guns = more deaths.

What this means is that it's not guns that are the problem, but criminals that are the problem. A state with many criminals will use guns to kill because they're more efficient. If guns are taken away but criminals remain, they'll resort to using knives or throwing acid (see the UK right now)

Interestingly in the last couple of years the gun debate has resurfaced and Harvard removed this study from their website because it contradicts the opinion of the university.

What is often left out of gun control debates is the defensive use of firearms. The FBI reports that 300,000 lives are saved annually by defensive use of firearms, compared to 30,000 lives that are lost from use of firearms, of which 15,000 are suicides. Removing suicides from the count, that means that guns save 20x more lives than they take away. Removing guns will lead to a 20x increase in homicides.

tldr

Attached: gun grabbers btfo.png (471x829, 283K)

>However, despite the recent increase in crime London is still safer than almost all major us cities
Utter nonsense.
Assault with injury rate in London is 950/100K
Let's look at US cities' violent crime rate (which is a wider array than assault with injury so it's actually skewed to be worse than it really is, but you're so wrong I can still use it.)
St. Louis: less than 200
Detroit: less than 400
Memphis: less than 300
Oakland: less than 500
Minneapolis: less than 100
Cincinnati: less than 50

There isn't a city in the USA whose violent crime rate comes close to equaling JUST the "assault with injury or occasioning injury" rate of London.

You might THINK London is safe, but what you think and what reality is are nothing alike.

>citation needed
(((Harvard))) deleted it from its law review. HAHAHA
There's this, which quotes the study:
range365.com/ignored-harvard-study-found-more-guns-mean-less-crime

>WE NEED MORE TESTING AND LICENSING

Wow you're a genius. Yes we need to develop a magic test that can magically detect people who are going to use a gun for nefarious purposes. And then finally gun violence in America will end.

it's literally every fucking leftist solution ever

>LOOK AT PROBLEM ISN'T PROBLEM BAD
>HERE'S A VAGUE SOLUTION THAT WILL FIX IT

okay explain specifically what you want to do and specifically how it will fix the problem

>NO TIME FOR SPECIFICS, FORFEIT YOUR RIGHTS NOW

They're the masters of "it's a genius solution, if you don't really think about it or ask questions"

>how is this an unreasonable viewpoint?
It seems to solve a nearly non existent problem. The media hypes every shooting, but the truth is gun related deaths are a small percentage of all annual deaths. There are 320 million people in the US. 2.5 million people die every year. Of that 33,000 deaths are gun related. This makes up 1.2% of all deaths. 21,000 of those deaths are suicide. This makes up 0.8% of all deaths. Note that the US has a suicide rate lower than most industrialized countries, including those with far stricter gun control. The remaining 12,000 gun related deaths can be broken down into three categories. 3500 per year are justified self defense, which makes up 0.1% of all deaths. There are 500 accidental deaths per year with guns and 8000 murders. Added together, these make up 0.3% of all deaths. And that's the problem you're trying to solve by limiting a Constitutional Right. Less than a third of a percent.

>The FBI reports that 300,000 lives are saved annually by defensive use of firearms
Not only wrong but obviously absurd. The number of justifiable homicides in the US every year is about 300. Even if you allow some leeway for the cases where the attacker is merely injured, there is no fucking way you can get up to 300,000.

statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

>Assault with injury rate in London is 950/100K
Looking at assault is never very useful because each jurisdiction tends to have a different bar as to what constituted 'assault' and 'injury'. Murder tends to be far less ambiguous - a corpse is a corpse, no matter where you are - and if you look at the murder rates you can see that:
>St. Louis: 59.8
>Detroit: 43.4
>Memphis: 20.5
>Oakland: 20.3
>Minneapolis: 11.4
>Cincinnati: 22.1
while London has a grand total of
>London: 1.9

Now, looking at those stats, do you think it likely that despite having a murder rate far below any of the American cities you mentioned, London has a greater problem with serious violent crime?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London#Murder

>gun related deaths are a small percentage of all annual deaths
so are road accidents, but you don't see people saying that traffic laws are unnecessary.

Who the fuck is this, and what are they sliding?

tldr