If I could get on chat, I'd set up a bet regarding what the first opposition post to this would look like. 

yeah I could see that coming...

and I would have turned down that bet cause I was thinking the same thing.

The story has merit, but those opposed would never let merit intervene of course

Ok I looked at England. Oh your fail there. Ok I looked elsewhere, fail there to. Sweden has almost universal guns, very low crime, more fail on you.

I showed my link for starters, he never showed his. I have upper hand

Fail Morbo is fail.

You don't win an argument by assertion... which, without evidence, is exactly what you're doing.

if England is so nonviolent why do cops have to wear stab-proof vests?

> If you're right as you claim, how difficult can it be?

Anything i can find, you can too. Instead of me seeking this information out, why
don't you just skip the middle man and do it yourself?

This forum has zero chance of an actual debate.

> if England is so nonviolent why do cops have to wear stab-proof vests?

You would prefer them wearing cashmere vests?
You wouldn't send a firefighter into a burning building wearing a pair of shorts and sleeveless shirt, would you?

> Fail Morbo is fail.
> You don't win an argument by assertion... which, without evidence, is exactly what you're doing.

Fail Zarf is fail.

You don't win an argument on an internet forum for a text-based game...especially against Flint, who
is in some make believe fantasy land.

> So... that means you're solely here to troll, then?  Since you're not in any way interested in
> actual debate... it really reduces the possible reasons for you actually being here.

Exactly.

Anyway, now that I'm done with my anti-trolling rampage, time to get on topic.

I think this example does help Flint's case, but not necessarily as much as he claims.

Here's the issue: The gun rights advocate would claim that, without access to guns, only the criminals would have access to guns, perpetuating violence.  The opposition would claim that without guns... nobody would have guns!

So... how do you weigh these two against each other?  I say it's really on a case-by-case scenario.

Let's look at Washington DC.  How easy would it be for someone who wanted to obtain a weapon illegally to obtain it, despite the ban in Washington DC?  Pretty damn simple, actually.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the existence of other states with lax gun control laws meant that gun control policies in DC were pretty much useless.  So yeah, at local government levels, this is probably a terrible idea.

Now what about when we extrapolate this to a more national level?  Yes, it becomes more difficult to illegally obtain weapons (although a country that already has a huge supply of guns within its borders would have a huge supply for a short term illegal market).  The easier it is to illegally obtain weapons, the more likely it is that the pro-gun lobby is correct in their argument.  So the validity of the gun argument is less determined by the empirics of gun policy, and should instead focus more on other factors.

Border control is a good example.  If we had an island with 100 people that established gun control, it would probably be successful... the government just destroys industries in place... no illegal imports to worry about... any guns produced would be very crude weapons when compared to government weapons.  But if we're talking about an open economy with very terrible border control, gun control would be a bad idea, because foreign producers could more easily smuggle weapons into the domestic market.  The result: A gun control policy isn't a solution in itself... it requires a mix of policies, including local firearm confiscation, government purchasing of firearms, and border control policies, of levels potentially as significant as the war on drugs.

That brings an interesting irony.  The United States has a huge gun industry in place, including people, expertise, and facilities.  If private gun ownership were suddenly banned, the prevalence of current stockpiles during the legal market period would increase the domestic supply when firearms became illegal.  The result?  The very existence of the firearms industry helps to justify the pro-gun argument by undermining the strength of law enforcement of a gun control policy.

Considering nobody else has posted a link... it's still the best we're looking at, as far as this thread is concerned.

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is still greater than 0

look at Chicago gun violence, up until recently handguns were banned. Gun laws only put restraints on the law abiding citizens, criminals get guns nevertheless. Illinois being the only state to not have ANY form of concealed carry. Chairman Quinn and the cronies in Springfield dont trust their citizens with firearms yet have detail of 4-6 guards that do.  Firearm instruction practice and common sense is better then gun control.  Btw right before hitler did his massacre, he revokeded gun rights , the guy in Cambodia revoked gun rights and went forth on a "cleansing" Guns arent just to protect citizens from criminals, but also against its government. THAT is what our founding fathers instilledupon the bill of rights for americans. And to give that up is asinine.

My apologies about the wild comment about the number of guns Sweden had, I was stating a perception around the world as their laws are pretty unique (tho I may be mistaking them with Switzerland as well).

I will seek some further links to support my case now that a serious poster is here.

As for Skoe, I am a Politician, you should instead seek to make me promote your cause by providing proofs and arguments. I am swayable on issues where good arguments do occur such as on the subject of Throttling on the internet and anonymity on the internet. But instead you show your old colors once more.