The more guns, the more homicides. Why is that so hard to understand?

Exactly right. And this is why we British (yes, London calling here!) cannot understand the US gun control debate. We know perfectly well that widespread gun ownership means they get into the wrong hands more often and bingo, up goes the homicide rate. Control them very tightly as we do, and criminals find it equally difficult to get hold of them. That kills off the argument about needing a gun for personal protection. Whenever we have a murder by shooting it makes the national news, which tells you how infrequently it happens.

Meanwhile we keep our proud tradition of unarmed police. The police like it too - it makes them less likely to get shot unless they come up against a real nutter. We do have police trained in firearms but they only get called out when needed. It just seems so much more civilised.

It seems to me that there is an emotional and cultural attachment to guns amongst many Americans that transcends all logic. I don't want to sound patronising but is part of it because the days of the "Wild West" were so relatively recent and that's something the UK hasn't experienced?

Then there is the Second Amendment. Every citizen has the right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia... and I've seen some quite amazing arguments about what a militia is. It's obvious what the Founding Fathers meant. They knew their stuff and I'm sure they were aware of English history. We had something of the same 600 years ago when we spent over a century fighting France, and there was a law that every able-bodied Englishman had not only to own a longbow but practise with it weekly in case he were needed. Back when the USA had no standing army, of course it had to make provision for defence. Rather out of date now the USA has the most powerful armed forces in the world.

How nice of Gungy to mention Dunblane. I remember it well... did you know that Andy Murray, the Scottish tennis player, was attending the school at the time? We did indeed crack down heavily on handguns afterwards - the government went further than was actually recommended by the inquiry into the incident - but as for gun-related crime doubling, I notice that ABC News story doesn't mention any figures. An increase from 1 to 2 is doubling. As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. I've studied statistics and know better than to take them at face value, as you clearly do because you're giving actual numbers. Guns exist and if hardcore criminals want to get hold of them they will. It never does any harm to make it more difficult for them.

Edit - and cry baby liberal gives us a link to the Daily Mail. OMG. The Daily Mail specialises in the kind of story designed to inflame its right-wing (by British standards - which means slightly to the left of Obama by US standards) readers' prejudices that "it shouldn't be allowed!" and "the country's going to the dogs!" I wonder why it ignored the USA in its list of statistics?

While I'm at it, nice nick. What an interesting guy Thomas Paine was.

A gun is an inanimate object. It doesn't think for itself or act on it's own. It isn't capable of being good or evil. Guns are neither the problem nor the solution. People are both. People don't kill because they have a gun. They kill because they're killers. The gun is only a tool. Just about anything can be used to kill.

Gun laws only keep guns away from law abiding citizens. They don't stop criminals. Fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means less risk to criminals and thus less deterrent.

Your statistics in the UK vs US may be accurate, but if you look at Australia vs US you see the opposite trend. If both are true then either it's random chance or there are other factors involved besides just the guns.

I have never owned a gun. I don't feel that I need one, but taking guns away from the good guys in order to stop the bad guys just doesn't make any sense to me. I support the right to bear arms.

If guns were ever banned than only the bad guys would have them..Criminals prefer unarmed victims!!

Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help..

When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.

Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!

**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**

@

Guessing you missed this story

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homi...

Check the homocide rates for the world...we are doing fine.

Talked with a Mexican friend of mine, he said Mexican citizens are not allowed to have guns. Mexico has a homocide rate of 22.7 per 100k...so I guess you need more than one source like your England example to form a logical opinion.

It takes more than one stat to make a solid point.

yes... that's like the guy who tried to wow the crowd by saying gun owners were more likely to have gun accidents than non-gun owners...

...no... really?

ok... so forgetting the same things go for cars & vehicular homicides...drugs & drug-related murder... knives & knife murders.. tell me this:

...how do you reduce the number of guns in the context of our established legal process?

please understand that some of the opposition isn't because of people being "gun nuts"... it's simply a need to live in a grown-up world where "because I want it" does not trump the rule of Law...

Here's some other simple logic.

The group with all the guns has all the negotiating power.

That's why I don't want government to have them all.

Republicans have proven time and time again that they don't understand simple math. Kinda like Gungy's answer.

the more cars the more car accidents

ban cars

Less guns = more crime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/Th...