[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I think a better question would be, how many more murders occurred because of easy access to firearms. Also how many legal weapons ended up in criminal hands and later used in the commission of a crime?

How is that a better question? It's a fair question of course, but criminals will always figure out ways to make their crimes easier. Yes, we have a high gun crime rate, and reducing the number of guns would obviously reduce the number of uses in crimes, but how does our overall violent crime rate compare with that of other countries? Here's what one British source has to say.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

It's interesting to me that within the confines of the US, the states with the highest gun ownership rates are also the states with the lowest gun crime rates.
http://flowingdata.com/2011/01/19/st...earms-murders/

Maybe, but how many guns get stolen from "responsible citizens" each year? How do we know which people are going to be responsible with them and which are going to suddenly snap and use those weapons in a not so responsible way?

Good questions. How many times has either one happened? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Enough to make a statistical difference? I quoted ninety million guns in America as a conservative estimate; a source I looked at suggested a gun for every American is more likely. Not that everyone has one, but that there may be three hundred million privately owned guns in our country. My question still stands: How many of them were used to kill someone, or even rob someone last year?

Don't forget to ask the other questions. How many robberies are thwarted each year because the robber heard the sound of a slide working and ran for his life. I've heard first-hand accounts of several such incidences over the years, and that's just from people I've known or worked with.

Do we need to pull out the statistics comparing countries with easy access to guns vs countries without? Basic logic says that easier access increases the likelihood of use.

Basic logic avoids the point that people without access to firearms still manage to kill, harm and rob in creative ways. If someone comes into my home with intent to do any of the above, a gun is my best bet for defending my home and my life.

The statistics say otherwise in general. The notion that having armed citizens will keep the criminals at bay is laughable.

Really? Which statistics are those? I already asked how many home invasions have been thwarted by armed homeowners. Just google "armed homeowner stops invasion". There are hundreds of them. Not a fair trade? Maybe not, but hardly "laughable". Try "armed citizen foils robbery". Same thing. No, they don't keep criminals at bay, but then neither do armed police, or prisons, or courts. They do, however, stop a great many crimes.

Look at gang warfare for example, these kids will readily shoot at each other, and they know the other side is packing the same kind of weaponry they are and will definitely shoot back. Does that stop them in the slightest from attacking each other? Not one little bit. If anything it will only more likely increase the casualty rates as the criminal element will be even more inclined to shoot first.

Do you think that trying to ban all guns will make a difference in that. They'll still get them, and once again that trite saying will be true.

As far as the criminals getting one, that is both true and false. In Canada for example it is more difficult and expensive to get the more heavily regulated/outlawed weapons (non hunting weapons or weapons with more than 5 rounds), and most criminals particularly street hoodlums do not have them. The only criminals that reliably have them are organized crime groups such as the mafia, hells angels, etc. but they are into major smuggling (guns and drugs), which is why they have them.

And having more restrictions here will change that? They (and we) will get them elsewhere.

Ya, too bad that isn't true either. Still comes down to training, skill, experience, and willingness to shoot first. That generally tends to put the ball in the criminal's court particularly with the more recent trend with them entering the military for the training.

On that we agree. A gun is not a magic wand, to be waved at a criminal to make him go away. If you're going to have one, know how to use it and be willing to use it; otherwise don't have it. As to the "equality" idea, yes it is true. I'm old and have a hard time getting around sometimes. If someone breaks into my home, and I'm sure he intends more than just taking some stuff and leaving, how am I going to stop him? I have some handy weapons, but a gun is much more sure.

I also think most of the arguments put forth to justify ownership as being absurd when held up to rational scrutiny. Sure the idea of being able to defend oneself is a nice idea in theory, but does it really work that way most of the time?

I think I've shown enough real-life stories to indicate that it does. Most of the time? That's hard to judge, since we don't know how many times it has occured but not been reported. I mentioned personal knowledge of a few such events. Not all of those were reported to the police.

Most evidence seems to show that the safer countries are those that don't have piles of guns everywhere, particularly if the country also has strong social systems in place to help prevent crime in the first place (such as fairer distributions of wealth, equality, and opportunity).

Except of course for Switzerland.