Double A said:
And just how do you know that the robbers wouldn't have stabbed her or her child? I have a pretty strong gut feeling that says they would have.
If guns were outlawed in America, in this one particular case, two innocent people probably would have died instead of a guilty one.
On to the national level: Criminals would still have them. They'd just be breaking another law. What's it to them if they already deal drugs or murder people? And if they can get drugs, they can probably get guns, and definitely get ammo. The War on Drugs is about as effective as a wet noodle is against a charging elephant, and the only thing Prohibition did was make Al Capone rich. Banning guns would have roughly the same effect, except innocent people wouldn't be able to defend themselves as easily, and the people who do want to defend themselves would be breaking the law.
Hi. I already responded to most of your points in other posts, but I'll summarize:
- In this particular case it could indeed have turned out badly. On a national scale it's completely different.
- Some criminals would still have guns, of course, but it's very easy to provide evidence for the fact that it will still save a lot of lives: just look at other countries. The amount of deaths by gun shot (and the total amount of violent deaths) in countries like Germany, Francy, Holland is not even close to the one in the U.S., which is directly related to allowing gun ownerships. And yes, the difference is still there when you control for country size.
- Sure, some people who intrude homes would probably get the death penalty, but this is only a very, very small percentage, since the overwhelming majority consists of robbers. Thus, anecdotal evidence like this, is not of any use for making nation-wide decisions.
- As someone else said, this is probably just a cultural difference: I don't think you should be allowed a 'license to kill' when someone enters your home, you probably do.
For a more nuanced message, I'll gladly refer you to those other posts of mine.