Guns...for or against???

ITA agree with uvagradk's last post and appreciate all the well researched statistics that have been posted.

I am for the law-abiding populace having the option to own firearms. Sadly, we don't live in a safe world, and the fact is that guns can be an excellent tool for protecting oneself and others, not to mention that criminals by definition don't obey the law. So why, then, does anyone think that laws prohibiting the masses from owning guns will make us safer? I think it's pretty obvious that the law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the criminal element will not. I just don't understand how anyone can think this will not be the case. Plus, that is exactly what has played out in places where gun ownership is illegal. And as someone already pointed out, an armed citizenry can also protect itself from tyrannical government, should the need arise.

However, I do believe that those who wish to possess firearms should be required to demonstrate proficiency in operating their chosen gun safely and accurately.

DH and I own multiple firearms. Some are for sport and some are reserved for personal protection. We have trained in their proper and safe use, and we don't feel that having firearms in the house is dangerous to our child or anyone else other than a home invader. All of the guns are locked away, and the guns that we have chosen as our personal protection pieces are secured in such a way as to allow us very quick access. We will teach gun safety to Nate as soon as he is old enough but will continue to keep anyone other than DH and me from having unrestricted access to the guns.

Of course, the guns are a last resort, and I'm really hoping that our house alarm/security system will be enough to deter anyone from breaking in or will at least scare them off if they do. Obviously, I don't want to shoot anyone, but I hope that I would have the presence of mind to do so if needed.

[McPants]

So why, then, does anyone think that laws prohibiting the masses from owning guns will make us safer? I think it's pretty obvious that the law abiding citizens will give up their guns and the criminal element will not. I just don't understand how anyone can think this will not be the case. Plus, that is exactly what has played out in places where gun ownership is illegal. And as someone already pointed out, an armed citizenry can also protect itself from tyrannical government, should the need arise.

The reason why I think that laws prohibiting the masses from owning guns make a country safer is that countries comparable to the U.S. that have strict gun laws have vastly fewer murders, firearm-related murders and accidental firearm-related deaths.
In a sense, however, the U.S. has made its bed and now has to lie in it when it comes to the question of firearms. If you were to outlaw firearms (not including weapons designed for hunting) like large parts of the civilized world already has, it would take decades for the incredible amounts of guns already in the country to stop working because of natural degradation. As you say, they will not always be surrendered by their owners, especially if these happen to be criminals. This means that gun crime would remain high and would only gradually decrease as gun access gradually decreases. It's up to you whether you want to go through that kind of transitional period and given culture etc, you probably still wouldn't be able to decrease the murder frequency etc to the levels of many other countries, however I certainly know which option I would choose.

As for the risk of armed coups, I can't remember a country comparable to the U.S. that has had a successful armed coup in recent history. Despite the lack of guns here in the UK quite frankly I find it a laughable prospect that some despot would try to take the country by force.

In order to back my initial statement up, I will direct you to the statistics regarding homicides in the U.S. and in comparable countries with strict gun laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_murder_rate

For instance (murders per year per 100 000 citizens):
England/Wales: 1.58
Sweden: 2.64
Germany: 0.98
Denmark: 0.98
Ireland: 0.98
Australia: 1.45
U.S.: 5.8

That doesn't take the number of accidental deaths resulting from firearms into account. Statistics on that topic for the above-mentioned countries are available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

England/Wales: 0.03
Sweden: 0.03
Germany: 0.04
Denmark: 0.04
Ireland: 0.11
Australia: 0.11
U.S.: 0.59

The above link also shows the frequency of firearm homicides in different countries. The reader will for instance note that the U.S. yearly firearm homicide rate is roughly 25 times higher than that of England/Wales. 25 times! Stats for the previously compared countries available below:

England/Wales: 0.15
Sweden: 0.18
Germany: 0.22
Denmark: 0.23
Ireland: 0.03
Australia: 0.44
U.S.: 3.72

Guns may save lives in certain rare occasions, however their most basic aim is and always will be to kill and that is why they should be illegal (excepting perhaps certain hunting rifles).

[Flynn]

I agree with McPants and can't say it any better than he did in his most recent post.

The CULTURE of guns in the US is much different than in other countries and while I wish we could get rid of all the guns not used for responsible hunting, it will never happen in my lifetime.

[Flynn]

I agree with McPants and can't say it any better than he did in his most recent post.

The CULTURE of guns in the US is much different than in other countries and while I wish we could get rid of all the guns not used for responsible hunting (and for law enforcement), it will never happen in my lifetime.

I really think how you were raised and what environment you lived in growing up plays a HUGE role in how you think, feel and behave with your vote when it comes to guns.

I wrote more, then deleted it.

I'm NOT a gun person. Nuf said.