Originally Posted by drizzt3117
My point is that you're making the second amendment argument, which is that if guns weren't legal, only criminals would have them.
But don't you have to know the answer to additional questions, like what is the incidence of gun violence in Finland? "If guns weren't legal, only criminals would have them" is a nice slogan, but it's hardly the end of the discussion. I mean really, so what? How unsafe is Finland? (I have no idea really.) Is it really an inescapable conclusion that it would be safer if they had the equivalent of the Second Amendment, and non-criminals (some of whom may or may not later become criminals) can buy guns with relative impunity?
Ok, so in our hypothetical society only criminals have guns. In fact, only a very small percentage of criminals have guns, and they mostly use them on each other or the police. As a result, the incidence of shooting deaths among non-criminal civilians is miniscule. Plus, we don't have kids getting killed by bullets shot in the air by jackasses on Independence Day and New Years Day, kids killed accidentally by dad's gun, fatal shootings in domestic disputes, etc.
It's kind of a moot point, though, because guns are now so prevalent in America that it's not like you have the option of setting the clock and becoming a gun-less society.