So much for Democrats courting gun owners

Originally Posted by Tchocky

As a well-developed First World economy with high levels of personal freedom, I choose the UK.

That may be your personal preference but it didn't asnwer the question.

Ban jaguars
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=65375

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places

Jesus, this was such an easy question...

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by loynokid

Yep, i do have to agree with myself...

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't ... Wanta go have Chinese?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Again, violent crime rates are not going to be affected by restricting just one of means.

Semi-agreed. They won't vanish, but I believe taking away a powerful means (completely, not just more control legislation) will show some benefit .

Even assuming that you could make a gun law that restricts the criminal element as much as it does the potential victims, which you can't, all that means is those with evil on their minds will just use another tool to do what they risk the death penalty to do.

Of course no law will restrict criminals by definition. I think it follows that if no-one can get guns, it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Making guns prohibitively expensive (including effort and risk, not just money) for criminals would have a great effect on the numbers of guns on the country.
I know it's just one method, and that criminals set on violence will find another way, but can you think of a more powerful or destructive means that isn't already illegalised?

As I said to Tarjak on the preceeding page, if you want to reduce violent crime then you need to address the CAUSES of violent crime. Just taking the guns away almost exclusively from the potential victims of violent crime is just not going to do it.

I agree, it's not a solution. Removing guns from society won't stop crime, but it will stop school shootings, drive-by shootings etc. not totally of course, but if harsh enforcement and vigorous pursuit of arms traffickers was brought into play, the spread of illegal guns could be fought hard.
The root causes of the social problem of violent crime must be investigated. I think the symptom of gun violence is serious enough to warrant treatment as well.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Of course no law will restrict criminals by definition. I think it follows that if no-one can get guns, it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Making guns prohibitively expensive (including effort and risk, not just money) for criminals
would have a great effect on the numbers of guns on the country.

Perhaps slightly more difficult, but you're talking about a country with 5 thousand miles of land borders and millions of unregistered and untraceable guns already in the country, a significant percentage of them already in criminal hands, so you're talking years if not decades for this plan to have an effect.

Meanwhile law abiding people who have a real need to keep a firearm for defensive purposes will be either unable to afford one or unable to cut through the red tape and those 2 million instances where a gun in the hands of a victim prevented a crime from happening turn out differently making the violent crime rate skyrocket.

I know it's just one method, and that criminals set on violence will find another way, but can you think of a more powerful or destructive means that isn't already illegalised?

I can think of no more effective means by which a victim can stop an attacker than a gun. Anything less makes it a test of physical strength, one that the weaker among us will almost always loose.

I agree, it's not a solution. Removing guns from society won't stop crime, but it will stop school shootings, drive-by shootings etc. not totally of course, but if harsh enforcement and vigorous pursuit of arms traffickers was brought into play, the spread of illegal guns could be fought hard.

I disagree, especially with drive-by shootings. Gang bangers already have plenty of guns and they won't be giving them up just because it means they're addding one more crime to the many they're already committing. IMO, the bolded part of your paragraph is the only thing that could work, but I think it would require a level of "harshness and vigorous pursuit" so great as to literally turn this country into a war zone, not to mention forever alienating a large percentage of it.

The root causes of the social problem of violent crime must be investigated. I think the symptom of gun violence is serious enough to warrant treatment as well.

If the 20,000 gun control laws already on the books have not been effective in dealing with the symptom of gun violence what benefit would adding gun control law number 20,001 have? Really Dude, I understand that you believe in what you are advocating however piling more restrictions on our freedoms is not the way to do it.