And that's why I'm happy to continuing debating points with you. If I thought you were running an agenda, where no matter what I said it couldn't change your thinking then I wouldn't waste my time. I see myself as a skeptic on all things because a skeptic has room for movement when further evidence shows things weren't as they seemed. If you can come up with REAL evidence I will certainly take that into account, as I have so far, otherwise I'd simply be a denier, a lobbyist or an extremist, each as bad for the world as each other IMHO. The evidence I presented here was almost presented to me wholly by the opposition. I used his figures which I understand to be just somebody's blog because he tried to use them to support his argument when in fact it showed the opposite to me. It shows everywhere there's guns the murder rate is higher there than the places with stricter rules on them and only gives excuses for this. I then see Wikipedia shows a different figure. Is there anywhere in the world where guns are totally banned? So the figures your mate presented weren't good enough for you and I gave you an argument of why gun control across all but 1 state could NEVER work so what next?
I gave more than one source though mate, which seem very sound to me. Also, I think you're in the wrong thread. Don't worry, I did that too I'm not sure whether there are any countries with guns completely forbidden. Probably some very dark dictatorship somewhere, which says a lot. Even if it were true that there is a somewhat positive correlation between gun ownership and murder (which as far as I can tell is weak at best looking at the opposing side) there will also be a higher number of successful defence cases, don't forget this point too. So it's quite meaningless to point out that there are more murders that could have been avoided if guns were less controlled when there would also, at the same time, be more lives saved because of this. A futile remark I've heard before: "Even if one life is lost because of firearms it is one to many and thus should be banned" springs to mind. Well, what about "Even if one life is saved because of more available gun ownership..."? No one seems to consider this point, at least not where I am. As I showed with Gary Kletch's peer reviewed journal, which he won an award for, the number of defensive uses outweighs assaults by far; 60 times in this case and even his critics' studies show this to be the case, albeit a lower ratio. Apocalypse's figures seem OK to me, my comment regarding the inaccuracy of generalising the whole US with a single country or small, uniform union referred to both "sides". Anyway, I'll see you in the other thread!