Here's the thing. Studies generally show either that legal guns either stop way more crime then they cause or guns don't stop any.

The difference is... the studies that say it doesn't stop any only consider it stopping a crime when someone is physically attacked before they pull the gun.

Also you have to fire a shot. If someone comes at you with a knife, and you pull out a gun, and then they run. That doesn't count.

Meanwhile on the otherside, it's considered stopping a crime so long as the person who pulled out the gun felt threatened. Not perfect either... but much much more reasonable.

Plenty of other places with more gun ownership actually has less crime. America just has a violent culture in general. Blaming it on guns is stupid and won't get to the root of the problem. All getting rid of guns will do is raise the rate of death via illegal guns and raise the rate of stabbing victims.

Note most of the most dangerous cities in the US are in states with very high gun control... including Washington DC.

Where violent crime went up after the handgun ban. 

Extensive gun control is just another case where laws are made on the sake of "common sense" and not real research.  So common sense really becomes common misconception.

You can't look outside the US to make any comparisons because their cultures are different.  You can only look inside the US for comparisons. 

As a gun owner, all I can say is, the decision made by the supreme court isn't gonna affect me one way or another.

Obama's speech was damage control, and didn't really do what it needed to do, imo.

I wouldn't dream of debating secular-progressives who believe in "shoot to wound" laws for cops, on a videogame website.

Suffice it to say, it you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry them. That simple truth is unavoidable, and undeniable, no matter how sick you are of hearing it, or how much you wish it wasn't true, it is.

My response to that is, yes, these people should not be allowed to be president for accepting support from KKK members. Every candidate must have his relationships examined.

What particularly gets me about this is simple, and I consider myself bi-partisian, and I voted for Obama in the democratic primary after McCain already won:

The seeming congruancy of Michelle Obama saying she was proud of her country for the first time, and the statements by Minister Wright. They seem to be cut from the same hateful, wrong, and insulting cloth, and now, even though I hate to admit it, I wish my vote would have been cast for Hillary.

I can't see myself voting for Obama in a general election. The percieved hate of white America by his wife and minister, and the tax increase of 12 percent on those families who make over 90,000 dollars a year, it's a double edged sword, and it swings my vote to McCain in a general election, and that's how I feel atm.

No country in the world has higher gun ownership than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_countries_by_gun_ownership 

Also have you possibly considered that there are confounding variables as to why violent crime has increased in Washington DC? In fact if you look at this graph.

You will see that immediately after gun control legislation was introduced (1975) murders dropped, it wasnt until over a decade later that crime boomed in the city and since then it has dropped again.

Also a reason why the most violent cities have gun control laws is because they are the most violent cities. The laws were introduced to control the violence, they were not the cause of it.

@Zen. Its safer for only outlaws to carry guns than for everyone to carry guns. Its even safer if nobody is carrying guns. That may sound unrealistic but its what occurs at least in NZ, it is practically unheard of for somebody to have a gun on them at any time other than for sport.

Look here is the point about the second amendment.

If it is found that guns are only meant for militias by the supreme court, which is unlikely but which is the most accurate translationof the second amendment. It would not outlaw guns. It would only make the ability to legally carry a gun open to state and federal laws. The constitution does not make laws it only protects rights and defintes which laws could be made.

Whether guns reduce crime increase crime or do nothing for it has no bearing on whether the right is constitutional period. The only thing those arguments can do is sway the supreme court on an amendment which is vaguely worded.

90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.
* 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

Less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in the commission of any type of crime (much less violent crime).
*FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994

Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals.
* FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.

Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminals) is shed.

Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are Prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually ever fired.
* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.


Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.
* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology


This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

The pure number of murders drop. The actual average isn't effected much at all as shown by the purple in your own graph and is not significant.

In the 1970's Washington DC lost over 15% of it's population. The law had no real statistsically significant effect at best.

However keep in mind even if this wasn't true... it takes time for these laws to go into effect. It's not like the law passes then the guns magically disapear... it takes years and years for the effects to take place... for people to either give their guns away in government programs or just for people with gun liscensed in their name to die.

@Renar

I don't know what I would classify myself as. I really hate classifying myself as a liberal or a conservative. If anything, I consider myself a realist, but that's besides the point.
Just going back to how the 2nd Amendment was worded, has anyone thought it was worded in that vague way on purpose? Or is it just more than likely the way we phrase words now is just different than back in the day?

 To be fair Kleck had some methodoligy problems.  Nowhere as badly as say MCdowall who said the gun had to

A) Be fired

and

B) Before it was fired you had to be physically hit otherwise you were the criminal.

But still somewhat flawed as all you had to do was feel threatened.  So if someone just felt paranoid and pulled a gun on someone that would count.   

^yeah but that just makes his numbers inflated not wrong gosh. (JK)