A quick I'm Feelin' Lucky on "gun violence" and voila:

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

I, inparticular, like this quote:

"The United States has the highest rates among developed countries"

Also "where there is a will there is a way" only applies to organized crime. And honestly, if the mafia or the cartels or yakuza, or whatever organized crime syndicate is after you. Are you telling me you and your gun is actually gonna protect you from being shot?

If you create a situation where everybody is constantly armed with (presumably) loaded weaponry and has the skill to use it, then yes - it will most likely reduce some forms of impulsive crime, like spur of the moment-type muggings on the street. However, it creates a whole new bag of problems:

1) Domestic violence can quickly evolve into domestic murder when guns are freely available, and anyone can reliably use them. Plus, it's much easier for firearm accidents to happen when you are involved with them constantly.

2) Even if you'll deter some impulsive crime, you won't stop determined/desperate criminals just because more people have guns - instead of holding you up, the crooks will just end up shooting first with bigger guns. Which can also create an arms race between the legislature, the police and crime.

3) Combine the previous point with the fact that anyone and everyone you meet has the power to kill you within seconds, anytime - and you'll get a nice little feeling of society-wide paranoia. Works wonders for your mental health.

You do know most crime stems from drugs right?

Also

"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."^[15]

Sorry epic fail again.

Seems like having gun-carrying public in Florida is having an impact in crime rates:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/florida_crime_r_1.php

Mise, I think you forget that the idea of an armed society would stem from the idea that the responsible would own guns, and not the irresponsible, nor those that didn't want to carry. You can argue increased domestic violence, and mental health, but if you only allowed smart, intelligent, responsible citizens to carry guns, you would skirt the problems you brought up.

If you want to ban dangerous things, then I think that, if we start with guns, we should not finish until the world has banned fatty foods, driving, smoking, hard drugs, and drinking. It's only rational that if you ban guns due to crime and health, that you not finish until the items that cause even higher numbers of deaths are removed, too.

That's another problem: There is no system that ensures only "good guys/gals" can have guns, or that the "good people" won't eventually turn into "bad people". There's no guarantee that someone who can ie. pass a marksmanship, gun maintenance and psychological exam on the day he gets his license isn't just putting up a facade, doesn't have latent/invisible mental issues, won't encounter a mind-crushing event later in his life etc. Constant surveillance would be a massive resource drain and a legal shitstorm, and wouldn't really solve these issues either. Plus, when the majority owns firearms, it also lowers the threshold of using those firearms, hence the criminal/domestic issues.

So you can't help one without helping everything else, cause it wouldn't be fair otherwise? That's just silly.

Besides, I wasn't advocating a total ban on guns. If anything, gun ownership outside the military and police should be restricted to hobbyists: If you belong to a local marksmanship society for six months, for instance, and pass all the necessary tests, you would be granted a license to purchase a limited number of registered firearms - and the license would have to be renewed every 1-2 years or so. Bullet control wouldn't hurt, either.

Im fairly sure that only applies to non Western countries. Just keep on failing and failing. I have yet to hear any worthwhile argument from you.

We have steak-knifes in the UK.

1. That's why in America we have something called a 'background check'. What happens is that every time someone attempts to purchase a gun, a comprehensive check of their personal background is done to ensure that he doesn't have the issues you describe to pop up afterwards. There is no one-and-done system in place for gun ownership in America. If you are competent now, and become incompetent later, your privledges are revoked, and usually for life.

2. Look at death rates in America due to tobbaco, firearms, alcohol, and driving. Of the 3, which are the least dangerous to the general US populace? Which one is the most restricted? I don't disagree with the notion that gun owners need to be very responsible, and have checks in place to assure it, but if you give the government an inch, they will take a mile. What is one day responsible measures can easily be used by the gun lobby to merely grab everyones weapon (as was such with hurricane Katrina, and firearms being confiscated in the NOLA area).

In all honesty, if background checks were so comprehensive, shit liek this wouldn't be happening. Unless by comprehensive you mean someone who just sits at a counter stamping ACCEPTED.

Also, the people that die from smoking chose that themselves, and driving is a very integral part of US culture, unlike in the EU. If you don't have a car you are extremely limited in your entire life. Somehow not owning a gun hasn't stopped me from working, socializing, and overall living my life so far.

A background check is fine and should be done, but it can only catch so much by itself. And unless this background check is complemented by, lets say, mandatory follow-ups or a renewable license like I mentioned, it's just that, a single check. It can prevent people who are known to be unstable from picking up weapons, but if they go nuts later for some reason or another, they'll probably lose their license along with their freedom (ie. after the breakdown/crime), and that's way too late for my tastes.

Personally, I think alcohol is somewhat redundant, and tobacco is one of the most retarded things ever invented, but there's a reason why guns have tighter restrictions than the other three.

IMO, Guns are restricted because they're the most dangerous at the hands of individuals. You're more liable to kill yourself with alcohol rather than someone else (it's still quite dangerous indirectly), tobacco doesn't kill anyone directly barring really heavy long-time exposure, and while a car is a lethal weapon when mishandled, using it as a murder weapon isn't really that feasible. With a gun, you'll only need something small - a single instance of forgetting about safety, not remembering/acknowledging that the gun is loaded, leaving your finger inside the trigger guard and getting spooked, etc. And while all of these things have gargantuan industries behind them, guns don't yet have the cultural acceptance that cars, tobacco and alcohol do.

And while I can agree that governments have the tendency to play pointless and overbearing power games with the people, that's something that the people have to counter.IMO the government can't take your liberties by itself, you have to give them to the government by proxy - or choose not to.