The US Should Have Better Gun Control

From your own source (1) 39.2% of criminals get guns illegally, so gun control would save 60% of gun crime, or 18 thousand lives a year.Sorry for not explaining the wiki source is is unodc data from (2) wiki lays it out better. The reason I said your source wasn't credible was if you trace it to its source it comes from an unreliable website. According to the Brady Campaign the states with the strictest gun laws are Pennsylvania, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maryland, Hawaii, Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey & California, I would love to see where you got your list from seeing as Dallas, Cleveland, Detroit and Atlanta aren't in those states. Actually of the top ten states with the strictest gun laws 3 feature in the top ten gun homicide cities, however none of these states require buyers to have a gun licence before a gun is bought, the point is that if you aren't going to use your gun for violence there is rarely a need for it. You say at the end of your last argument that "guns are used right they are great" what is the great use for a gun, the purpose of a gun is to harm, if pencil murders were high there would be a case that it's a necessary evil as pencils are useful, gun murders don't have that argument. The way a gun licence works is that if you need one, for protection from animals, if you're a farmer, etc, you can buy one, but if you don't need one you can't have one.The argument about the cost of destroying guns seems odd, partly because you seem to have pulled the numbers from the air, but mainly because you got your math wrong, I'll walk you through it.Cost per gun = 500000000/640381 = $780.79Cost for all guns = 780.79 x 270000000 = 210.8 billion dollars. In actual fact we can assume that some of the Australian money was for infrastructure so it would probably be less than that. More importantly gun crime cost the US $174 billion in 2010 alone (3), so if we can remove all legal sources of guns and reduce gun crime by that magical 60% , in just over 2 years the destruction of guns would have paid for itself.In case you don't understand that math174 x 0.6 = 104.4 billion saving per year210.8 / 104.4 = 2.02 yearsShall we play the Australia statistics game you seem to enjoy, I'll give the headlines. Homicide down. Robbery has stayed the same. To be fair assault has risen, but you make yourself look foolish by claiming it's up 200%, try 27%. My favorite part of your source is where it shows the percentage of murders by guns and by knives, turns out that they still add up to 100%, it has proved that of all murders using a weapon 100% do actually use a weapon. I'm confused as how this source has looked at the same graphs and not understood them. Gun deaths in Australia have halved since '97 (5). If you're going to use sources please read them carefully.Just because only a 'small' number of people die from homicides, there are other deaths due to firearms, whether it is suicides or accidental deaths, in total in 2010 it was about 30 thousand people (6).Your final point of gun control being about 'the government controlling you and me' I'm going to let go, do you really think that deserves an answer?In conclusion, guns are weapons, why are they legal when they have no use but to maim and kill. No good reason. VOTE PRO!Sorry for source overload(1) http://dailycaller.com... (2) http://www.unodc.org... (3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.aic.gov.au... (5) http://www.gunpolicy.org... (6) http://www.cdc.gov...