Cause guns are avaliable.  Otherwise those 9,326 murders would of just been committed by knives or crossbows.  People don't just see a gun and go.  "Hey, why don't i murder someone today."

 You have to look at it from this persective as well.  Simply outlawing the guns will not remove them from the economy.  If you make it illegal, only the law abiding citizens will not aquire them.  At that point, you would then have criminals intent on using such weapons with them in hand.  There is no possible way to remove and destroy all the guns across the entire world.  It's a task as daunting as implementing a perfect DRM.  There will always be these devices in the world, and people will find ways to aquire or manufacture them.  I'm sure if you had a utopian society where everyone felt safe, they might let the guns fall in disrepair and not purchase replacements, but there are far too many crimes and wars in the world to ever see that in mine or your lifetimes.

You and I seem to be looking at differnt data then. Or one of us doesn't know how to correctly inturpret data.

The fact that some areas with a lot of crime have a lot of guns is a false correlation. Both crime and Gun ownership are caused by other factors. Many small towns have a near 100% gun ownership yet haven't had a violent crime in decades.

In fact, in such studies, when they've introduced more guns into towns violent crime has DECREASED.


Places where there are a lot of guns have higher crime? Well gee what would you expect. Who's more likely to own a gun for their own saftey. Someone who lives in a poor area of NY. Or someone who live in a middle class suburb like me that hasn't seen a home invasion for as long as I've lived here.

That's like saying there are a lot of poor people living in goverment housing. Therefore if we get rid of government housing there won't be any poor.

Note this last plan did not work out well for Zimbabwe. 

QFE

I'm also going to add something, I know people are going to take it the wrong way, but life is harsh and sometimes, that harshness is the only thing that keeps people civil.

There are a number of people, the highest percentage of which are usually criminals to begin with, who do not give a shit about the consequences imposed by law. If they were scared of the consequences, they wouldn't break the law to begin with.

Now I know that if you made guns easier to get, people would have an easier time obtaining guns, and thus an easier time giving into the urge to use them to commit a crime. There's another side to this though, not a pretty one, but an effective one. No matter what other consequence you might come up with, there is very little that can deter a person quite like the realization that if they were to do something stupid, like commit a crime with a gun, that every person on the street could easily shoot them, and not just stop, or disable them, but KILL them.

People tend to consider the consequences of their actions a lot more carefully when they know that the consequences can be permanent and irrevocably enforced.

Like I said, not pretty, but effective.

EDIT: Another thing I want to point out is to remind people that in America right now, ALL incidents of a gun being used on a person is treated as a crime. Whether it is by a person actually commiting a crime or a person defending himself from it.

also, research has also shown that places with the most strict regulations restricting gun ownership, like Washington DC, actually have the worst crime rates. No, I can't recall where that is from, but I'm sure someone could look it up if there were really that interested.

More murders with firearms because firearms are the weapons of choice typically.  If guns did not exist these murders would have likely occurred with knives or other murder weapons.  Perhaps not 9000, but certainly not all or most of those murders occurred simply because of the gun...it's the murderer.

Listen, you can go for restricting or abolishing guns, but you're going to have a hard time proving that it would do anything.

Gun Control doesn't create a magical invisible air shield which protects the good, law abiding citizen from bullets which may or may not be directed towards them. Gun Control only disarms the good, law abiding citizen making them a far more compliant victim.

Gun Control doesn't address the root causes of most violent crimes which are a belief in entitlement, inequality which leads to desperation, and drug abuse. Gun Control only focuses the attention of people away from the act and its root causes towards the tool which was used in the crime.

Gun control works really well in most European countries for two reasons:
1)Generally good citizens have very little access to guns, so they won't end up using them in a moment of rage.
2)Since there aren't all that many illegal guns in circulation, it's not really all that easy for the criminal to get a gun.

There are so many firearms in the US, some of them even full auto that have been grandfathered in the law, that European-style gun control won't help. Without disarming the population first, it's of no use. Since every disarmament effort would not really make a dent on the criminal element's access to guns, it'd be a pretty bad idea.

Actually, just because there is less violent crime in European countries doesn't mean that gun control is working ... European countries tend to have far better welfare and education systems than the United States, more equal distributions of wealth, and a greater focuse on leasure over materialism; there are dozens of other relevant differences which people never seem to bring up in these discussions.

So tell me how owning a gun is either immoral or unethical? And laws do change but it is extremely difficult to modify the constitution of this country by design.

The Bill of Rights in America is a direct response to fears of an oppressive government squashing the common individual under the brute force of a bureaucracy with no accountability to the people it governs. We had just had a revolution to escape that very model of governance.  The Revolution might be over 200 years old but its sentiments are deeply rooted in the cultural identity of this nation.

I do agree that firearms are a more lethal form of arms. However, it is still a tool where one must have the desire to use it for whatever reason.  What I'm getting at is personal accountability; you cannot blame guns for people’s deaths, you blame people.

Please don't use outdated rhetoric to make your point.  The body politic has decided that items such as C4 etc. are unreasonable. Laws already exist, don't argue a non-issue.

On a personal note, I really don't see how it’s the business of any elected government made up of citizens just like me if I do or do not own firearms.  It is a guaranteed right as set forth in the Bill of Rights and has been tested time and again in our legal and governmental systems. This isn’t true in some countries but it is in mine. Don’t force your ideology (to use a word you brought up) on me.

If you dislike the idea so much move here, become a citizen, get involved and try to do something about it.  If not, I’ll let your countries political system resolve its citizens issues in its own way but please allow me the same courtesy. Long live the revolution.

It is very normal. If you have guns in your house, you have to make sure that the kids know how to handle the guns safely. That is why you see kids shooting guns under the watchful eyes of their parents. As long as adults and kids are taught to be safe and proficient with the guns. As long as they are locked up. As long as a person respects the fact that a gun is always to be treated as if it's loaded, guns and people can coexist very happily.