>>5729060really i think the real concern with disarming the populace doesn't so much stem from "oh but criminals can just get the same banned weapons illegally" but the thing is, criminals are generally not mass shooters. the whole basis for the disarmament of the general population is to prevent mass shootings, and at the end of the day, 99% of criminals want to A: stay out of prison and B: commit crimes that benefit themselves personally while minimizing the risk of getting caught and arrested. its been shown in several countries at this point where they have one mass shooting event, ban or heavily restrict access to firearms and then have went 20 years with no/almost no mass shootings whatsoever.
the thing is, a criminal first and foremost wants to make money and not die/go to prison forever, so very few criminals are gonna go around and start mass shootings now that the general populace doesn't have any weapons, and since the whole gun control debate is centered around the rampant lone wolf mass shooter events, criminals still having weapons would not suddenly make daily life ten time more dangerous. and if we're being real, your average joe is not john wick, even if he were armed and got into a situation where there's a shoot out, his odds aren't much better or even worse due to him actively getting involved in the gun fight. not to mention the fact that when a mass shooter starts his attack in a crowded place that is actually full of people who were armed, it's way more chaotic and dangerous because now you have a bunch of barely or poorly trained civvies all shooting at who they think might be the mass shooter, but is instead just another armed man shooting at who he thinks is the mass shooter, and so on.
I'm not trying to start a giant shitfit argument here by the way, just wanted to give my two cents.