I want to ask about a hypothetical scenario and learn not only what your response would be, but why.
Let's say in this hypothetical. There exists 2 islands. One island has 5000 people and so does the other Island. One island every person owns a gun, so does the other one. The only difference between these 2 islands that we are going to discuss, is that one of the islands has zero gun deaths per year on average, while the other Island has 5 gun deaths a year.
Island A=
population= 5000
guns= 5000
gun deaths= 0
island B
Population= 5000
guns= 5000
gun deaths = 5
So we can know from the following, that clearly gun deaths are not caused primarily by the number of guns. So something else is going on. I am asking you guys to share, so I will share first.
My inclination is towards a pro freedom approach (as defined by libertarian ideology) . I would avoid banning guns at all costs or regulating them in any way, because there is a counter example of an island that doesn't need gun control measures to eliminate shootings. I personally would find out what other factors contribute to gun deaths and try to work on fixing those factors.
My intuition is that a lot of real life gun control advocates would still advocate for more gun control even knowing what we know above about the other island. If number of guns are not to blame,.
1. if there are other things that contributed to gun violence, are you guys still proposing gun control methods for island B?
2. Would you consider reducing gun control measures on island B, if the contributing factors for gun violence outside of guns, were solved?
more important than the answers to those questions is an explanation for why you are answering the way you are.