[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

very well said. I'm glad that the discussion is moving towards a rational discussion.

You made two good points that should be highlighted and repeated:
1)crime itself will occur with or without guns
2)crime committed with guns results in more death

Naturally, accidental deaths with a gun only occur where a gun is present. That particular statistic is without meaning beyond the obvious.

But, there are other points to also consider.

Countries like Britain, France, and Greece have removed almost all firearms from their people. Those countries are left to the protection of their military and police forces. France and Greece have both shown that their police and military cannot protect their citizens when "all hell breaks loose" (earlier Islamic riots in France and current anarchy in Greece).

these situations have nothing to do with the french and greek police/military not being capable of protecting the citizens, it is a case of the political establishment choosing to not protect private property. note that there haven't been any lossof life in these greek riots, only property destruction. the greek government decided that they would rather allow for the destruction and then provide compenstion to those who lost their property. a very convoluted situation, but also not anything that supports increased gun ownership to sya the least.

Mexico is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot protect its people. See the murders and plain day executions occuring each week right now.

that is supposed to be an argument for increased access to guns?

The USA is another good example of a country whose military and police cannot:
1)secure the border
2)stop the drug trade
3)control gangs
4)deal with drug cartels
and generally cannot protect you or I.

have you been a victim of any of the above? I haven't. seems to me that our police do a very good job of providing us protection from these elements.

The discussion is larger than crime.

The 2nd amendment is specifically in place to allow citizens to protect themselves. period.

what????? the 2nd amendment relates to a militia and 'the security of a free state", it has NOTHING to do with individual citizen's "protection".

It, nonetheless, remains interesting that the areas of the USA with the strongest gun controls have the worst crime problems. And, the areas with the most lax gun laws have the lower crime rates.

one, not entirely accurate, and two as mentioned above the argument is not crime rates but murder rates and accidential death by firearms.

You also stated that all gun sales/transfers should require a background check. I would be shocked to see that ideal reached. That would require that guns not be sold person to person such as at garage sales. Somehow, you would have to force private citizens to take their guns for sale to a gun store and have the Federal Firearms License holder (the gun dealer) manage the transfer including performing the background check. Is that possible? Sure it is. Will it actually happen even if the law were written that way? Heck no.

I'm not saying that your ideal is a bad ideal. I'm just saying it would be like prohibition. A good intention that can't be enforced and which leads to backdoor "crime".

it should be a strict requirement for ALL gun sales both by private or by businesses.

if anyone chooses to violate that law they will be prosecuted. if a firearm were to be used in a crime and that firearm was sold without conformance to the law, the seller will be subject to criminal processes.

why any lawabiding citizen would be against such a requirement is beyond me, after all they want to be lawabiding, right? why would this be a law they would want to violate, they can still engage in the purchase and sale of firearms.

it would be their choice, and imo people on the whole choose to follow the law.