Originally Posted by LouisLeGros
That comparison sounds like bull****, I'd bet what is counted as a "violent crime" in Britain is much broader than what is counted as "violent crime" in the US.
However, just because most gun violence can be linked to gangs does not mean the only problems are with our social and medical services (Not to mention those who most strongly opposed to regulations on fire arms are generally the same people wanting cuts or completely removing programs that address what you say is the problem). Sure the Assault Weapons Ban is going to do jack**** because while incidents with assault weapons get a lot of press they are exceedingly rare. Handguns are the problem and all of the proposed bans ignore that factor.
Gun control laws of course encompasses more than just bans though (especially in regards to guns in America with current gun culture and the giant supply of guns that already exist). Bans are generally stupid and when you try to pigeon hole people critical of current gun laws as people who want to ban all guns it is easy to make the opposition seem stupid. I support things like tighter/universal background checks, gun registration, safety school.
Not to mention that I was taking issue with his saying gun control doesn't work because (basically) criminals by definition ignore the law so they will still have guns and be committing crimes with the guns. You haven't presented anything showing stricter gun control resulting in increased crimes committed with guns.
Now if his point was that gun control doesn't work because poverty is a much bigger factor in crime and people are still going to be driven to crime regardless of access to guns I could see it as a "failure" of gun control, but that wasn't his point supporting gun control always failing. Is it a failure of gun control if crimes are committed with different tools?
You could come to the conclusion that "OMG we passed gun control and the crime rate didn't change significantly, that must mean gun control fails!" However, if those crimes are being committed with guns less often it would likely result in fewer deaths. You are more likely to die from being shot than you are from being stabbed. If a result of gun control is that violent crime remains relatively the same, but knifes are used more often and guns less often it would mean gun control is succeeding in decreasing the number of fatalities.
Well, if you want to call the data from the FBI and Britain's Home Office, their version, complete bull****, go ahead.
I also didn't single out gangs; that was a conclusion you drew yourself. If you actually look into the matter you would find that most crime happens among the poor minorities, not just gangs. People who are well below the poverty line, are not educated, and have no health care or other supporting systems available to them.
There literally isn't an argument for or against guns that I haven't heard.
I will also point out your last line, about being stabbed and such; more people are killed each year via blunt force and bladed weapons than with guns. Further, depending on which number you use, between 180,000 and 2.5 million people defend themselves from physical harm each year with their legally owned firearms. 180,000 is the number if you use The Brady Campaigns highly bias figures, 2.5 million if you use the NRA's highly biased figures. Odds are the real number falls somewhere between those two, but even at 180,000, that is huge. I believe TBC said 180,000, because they only used situations where the firearm was actually fired. Ignoring the fact that most attacks stop the moment you draw your firearm, as you are no longer easy prey, but an opposition and force that would require work. Criminals are cowards and act upon opportunity....