Gun Control

1) I'd like to start with the Swiss crime rates. Like you said, other factors must be taken into account. the biggest factor in my opinion is not swiss gun control, but the prison and justice system there whxih is quite diffeerent and focuses more on education and rehabilitation, which has lead to much lower crime rates because the prisoners can go saftley back into society. You could argue that since this is true, then the answer is not gun control, but reforming the justice system. However a combination of these is needed to lower crime rates. The swiss dont threaten their criminals they theyll get shot by a good guy if they commit crime again, they just rehabilitate them. If you can greatly lower crime rates with a reformed justice system, then there really isnt any more positive needs for defensive firearsms. If you dont need them because of high crime rates anymore, the only use left is a dangerous use, hunting which doesnt need a gigantic weapon or giant magazine, or theyll just collect dust in a swiss guys basement. -in addition, you say their are other factors in low English gun violence because gun control is also present in other surrounding countries like France. That's not a case against gun control it shows that if gun control has widespread adoption it will greatly lower gun violence. 2) To address the idea that people could still buy guns from the black market even with gun control laws in place, this doesnt show that gun control would be ineffective. Maybe less effective than ideal, but still effective. Yes, you could get a three d printer. You could do a lot of things. Its still mich more difficult and leas likley to happen than what has happened woth the war on drugs. The simple fact that the black market is illegal would also help the idea of gun control because the simple illegality would discourage some, but more importantly it would allow for law enforcement to go after these distributers. Roght now you can walk down the street and get a gun. You can also walk down the street and but weed, which is the illegal ome of the two. The difference is if certain guns were illegal, they would be much harder to obtain. 3) Yes, it is one hundred percent true that the United Kingdom has a much higher violent crime rate than the United States. However, the very important distinction you are overlooking is that the murder rate, the rate at which lives are lost do to violent crime, is astronomically lower in the United Kingdom because they do not have guns. Guns are specifically designed for the purpose of ending lives, and they make it much easier to kill people and in some cases a lot of people much easier. 4) As for the government coming after guns, I will address the two examples that you gave. in the case of the Native Americans, I think it is a false notion that this country has not yet evolved to the point where we do not disarm ethnic groups in order to discriminate, relocate, and genocide them. As for the New Orleans example, that was wrong. But when you pass a law you can't ignore all of the benefits because of this one bad thing that could possibly happen under certain circumstances. in this case, the government siezed property, which is illegal. You can't not pass laws because somebody might break them. Otherwise we just wouldnt have laws. They did something that was illegal. If you register someone when they vote, you cant track them down and stop them from voting because you know they are registered. if the givernment did that it would be wring. Its the same with guns. but the benefits of registering people to vote outweigh the very unlikley possibility that soemething like that would happen. 5) I think magazine sizes should definetely be smaller. Again, the larger magazines would be harder to obtain. Also, Why on earth would an innocent civillian carry around a one hundred round magazine jsut in case a bad guy comes around and has a one hundred round magazine, even if they were legal. it just is not realistic that any signifigant amount of people would do that for self defense. The only people who would carry that around are probably not safe to be around. And not innocent civilian could defend themselves against that. Even if we said the bad guy ran across a good guy with the exact same magazine capacity. The bad guy is peobably going to fire first. Good guy has to take out the gun, get ready, then start shooting and hopefully are trained to use the weapon. If the bad guy has only six bullets, no matter what anyome else does, the risk of damage is still going to be much less. That and it is not the citizens responsibility to serve and protect. That would be law enforcement and the government. People have a right to walk the streets not feeling in constant guard with a firearm and we dont need any shootouts. We have never had the kind of gun control we need. If gun control ahs a chance of reducing murder rate and gun violence, why in earth wouldn't we at least try it for a sufficient length of time so we could see what the results are. i dint think anyone could convince me that there is a reason to prevent gum controlthat is more valuable than human life. over and out! (I'm stealing your line its fun) http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org... http://www.swissinfo.ch...