https://store.steampowered.com/app/3245330/The_Final_Exam/

I've heard these claims by pro-gunners several times when they argued that strict gun laws lead to increased substitution of weapons such as knives.

I remember reading a post where OP is deciding whether to live in NYC or London. Both NYC and London have low gun violence rates but NYC has more homicides than London. But then, the UK also has very high knife crimes (from various sources and headlines that I've gleaned).

So, how true is this claim? Would restricting guns lead to increased substitution of weapons such as knives? That restricting gun laws doesn't reduce crimes and homicides because criminals will use other weapons and instruments instead?

Please provide sources for this.

I'm a hardcore 2A-repealist. Many of you disagree that the 2A should be repealed and instead argue that the DC v. Heller decision should be repealed.

Would doing so pave the way for more restrictive gun laws? Would this sit well with pro-2A gun owners? And what is the chance of the 2A not being re-misinterpreted again in the future if the 2A is left on its own?

I imagine that it would be less toxic and more responsible now that it doesn't empower idiots to own guns and cause chaos in society.

^

If any Americans reading this could have any weapon at all (m249, M16 with grenade launcher etc). But couldn’t carry it on their person or in their vehicle (unsecured), would you go for it?

This seems to be a good compromise for the following reasons:

-gun owners get to own any weapon at all -police don’t need to feel as threatened on vehicular stops -people would feel generally safer knowing that people weren’t armed in public

For the purpose of this discussion, the following applies:

-extreme penalties for breaking the law (say 20 years minimum in prison for being found with a concealed weapon)

The title says it all.