I’m with ya. Are you willing to give up alcohol to prevent 40% of all crimes?

Once again, homicide isn’t Econ 101 supply and demand, we do not see consistent rises or falls in weapons used at the expense of others in order to maintain a consistent homicide rate, unless said weapons are banned, and until the overall homicide figure reaches a point at which it seemingly cannot fall further.

None of this makes any sense.

Probably.

Tax cuts don’t get “paid for.”

The gun buyback, statistically speaking, did not make a difference.

From 1996 to the current, the US murder rate declined at a faster rate than Australia. Guns are not the only factor.

Yes. Bernie’s plan costs 4 trillion per year, which is about what we collect now. You can’t just double taxes without driving away business and money.

It was higher before the gun ban, and its higher after the gun ban.

That’s precisely why the first one happened and this one is about the 2nd Amendment to our constitution. Literally the 2nd thing the founding fathers thought of as a pillar of what this country should represent.

Yes.

1) US Government discretionary spending isn’t the same as your discretionary beer money.

Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

You can still get it. Lots of people use it. But it’s easier to get guns.

Citation?

Let’s be more specific: which guns would you like to ban?

This isn’t how the math works. 40 million means doubling the federal budget and taking 2x the tax revenue from various places for a plan that we are not confident will work, provide better care, and better access. It also requires forcibly eliminating the industry that currently insures pretty much everyone.

Even sadder.

This is sad.