Penn and Teller - Gun Control and Columbine

"Why? It hasn't happened in other countries ..."

Actually, it did happen in the UK. Since their gun ban went into effect, violent crime there has skyrocketed.

Then there's Switzerland, where gun ownership is MANDATORY, which has one of the lowest gun and violent crime rates in the world.

I'ts not bullshit. YOUR argument is bullshit. In the US, every place with strict gun laws has a high violent crime rate, without exception.

And without exception, every place with lax gun laws and a high rate of gun ownership has a low rate of violent crime.

Any slum will tell you that they don't get a lot of police protection, and they have to protect themselves, something gun control prevents them from doing.

the ironic thing is criminals that use guns to commit crimes don't CARE about gun laws, what ends up happening is innocent citizins get no guns and the criminals get their guns illegally like they have always done since the gun cannot be traced back to them, stop being ignorant.

Note that "gun ownership" is positively correlated with "violent crime" - where there are lots of guns there is a lot of violent crime - any slum in any US city will tell you that. "Gun control" is then introduced to limit "gun ownership", in order to reduce the violent crime.

To turn up later, and conclude that gun control = violent crime is plain stupid. That's like concluding fire extinguishers cause fires because they only ever get used whenever there's fire.

"and astronomically increase the rate of ALL other violent crime. "

Why? It hasn't happened in other countries ...

Why do you only consider US experience,and completely ignore the experiences of other countries ? It's a peculiarly American thing to do.

E.g. "You don't see mass killings at places where guns are carried by the lawful. Educate yourself."

Yes you do. It's a place called "America". That place where gun massacres happen on a regular basis !

"in places where law abiding people are not prevented from exercising their God given right to defend themselves there are much lower levels of violent crime."

Again, you confused gun ownership with the right to self defense. Different things. Everybody has right to self defense, and has had since middle ages.

If you mean the right to own a gun reduces violent crime, then you are again, incorrect. E.g. Angola or Afganistan, Somalia, South Africa, etc.

"Facts disprove your arguement." But so far I am the only one who is actually posting any stats on this !

Re:- "effectiveness of bun bans in DC, LA, NYC, etc." All this proves is that the city-wide gun bans are useless. Ban gun stores across if not across the US, then across each entire state.

MIT1369:- You are playing word games. When I say "guns" have "no other use than to kill" I mean am referring to guns that are specifically designed for killing.

"Sporting equipment" - low calibre, not designed for killing.

"used to hunt food" - these guns are specifically designed to kill. And how many need a gun to feed themselves ?

"Works of art, collectors items". What a loss that would be! 10,000 extra homicides
each year so some dude can admire his own gun collection.

Look at the crime rate in every place that has enacted gun control laws that stripped the rights of Law Abiding Citizens. You need to educate yourself about the laws required to legally possess a fully automatic weapon in the US before you embarrass yourself further.

"And getting rid of guns would get drastically reduce the homicide rate. "

and astronomically increase the rate of ALL other violent crime.

We have been shown proof of what happens with draconian gun control. research the effectiveness of bun bans in DC, LA, NYC, every University, school and mall mass killing. Yet in places where law abiding people are not prevented from exercising their God given right to defend themselves there are much lower levels of violent crime. You don't see mass killings at places where guns are carried by the lawful. Educate yourself.

Facts disprove your arguement.

You'd better go turn yourself in then before the consience police come to get you. LOL
You're useing the "What if" arguement for THIS???

Your idea that firearms only have one use "To Kill" is fantasticly flawed. They are also sporting equipment, used to hunt food, works of art, collectors items, etc. But the thing you always keep denying is their use as a DEFENSE against attack. They are used more often in this manner than they are to kill humans.

Getting rid of alchohol and tobacco is hard - they are addictive, but we do it because we know that we are saving lives by doing so.

But guns are not addictive. And getting rid of guns would get drastically reduce the homicide rate.