Gun Control

Hello again,This is perhaps the best of the debates I have been engaged in thus far on this site, you definitely have some strong arguments. However, I of course believe the facts are on my side. :)You said:"That all being said, I must admit, I struggle to find out how this example is meant to augment a position in favor of gun control. You indicated guns account for 68% of all homicides but do not refute that these deaths are likely to occur regardless of a guns availability."Here I will demonstrate that the availability of guns likely does increase the number of total homicides in a country.Total Homicides per Country (2011)USA 14,612 Australia 229Austria 56Belgium 180Canada 554Denmark 47Finland 118France 682Germany 690Greece 176Iceland 1Ireland 54Israel 159Italy 529Japan 506Luxembourg 3Malta 4Netherlands 179New Zealand 39Norway 29Portugal 124Spain 390Sweden 91Switzerland 52United Kingdom 722These countries minus the USA total up to: 5,614 total homocides any methodThe total population of those nations accumulatively is: 610,593,716The total population of the USA: 316,955,000So not only is their total population almost double that of the USA, their overall homicide rates are less than half that of the USA. Therefore, in modern societies such as the ones listed here, the statistics lend towards the conclusion that increased gun control not only effects the over count of fire-arm related deaths and homicides, but also homicides in general. The individual homicide rates also reflect this with Finland (having less gun control than the others) at 2.2 per 100,000 and Japan being the lowest at 0.4 per 100,000 and only 506 total in a country that has a population of 126 million.[1]To be sure, there are cultural, economic and historical influences on these numbers, however it is my contention that the removal of fire-arms in a given society will drastically reduce the amount of homicides as alternative means for murder are not as popular in more civilized societies. You said:"Moving on, if you prefer an obviously one-sided website over the FBI then so be it, but I will make this one point." It's not that I doubt the FBI's information or think the facts are incorrect, I just believe your application of the article to contradict my argument is misapplied as I am contending that the reduction of fire-arms would decrease the overall number of homicides drastically.You said:"Yet you refuse to accept my data when its from the largest national anti-crime department in the world. That hardly seems fair, but I suppose if that is your stance, I will go no further than to point out that per the FBI, the 1990s were considerably more violent than the last decade."I do not reject the data, it's just that I do not think the improvements over the past decade are enough. Our homicide rate is still through the roof, and has been for sometime and as evidenced above removing fire-arms would lower this number much more drastically than ever before.You said:"To your closing, I first have to ask, if you don't refute that deaths would otherwise occur without guns, how can you blame those 150k deaths on the proud tradition of gun ownership?"I do refute the notion that these deaths would still occur without guns, this number would be greately mitigated if the availability of fire-arms was either very limited or completely nill. It appears you also misunderstand my application of my objection for the foundations of this "right." It is not so much that traditions and ancient ideas are bad, but it is that specifcally regarding this amendment it was put forward in regards to having an organized and regulated militia for the self-defense of the nation and to ward off tyranny of the government. The political and economic climate is very different from that of the late 18th Century, and fire-arms are hugely more advanced and lethal than they were at that time. It therefore requires a new and fresh approach to the matter.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman