>That depends. With accidents, I mean 'accidents', like children get at guns and start shooting at other people. Like the man who was rejected by his wife and gets temporary mentally ill. Those people are not criminals but victims of 'Accidents'. I'd expect this rate to be higher than anyone expects. Criminals are not by default murderers as well. A gun is a tool to force their criminal activity, using it as a threat, not with the initial intention to kill. That is only applicable to a very small percentage of all criminals.

Accidents are accidents - they are not a domain of guns exclusively. Would you prefer the "mentally ill" guy to stab his victim 87 times instead? Mentally ill is mentally ill. The guy is going to do it with or without the use of a gun.

You say "a gun is a tool to force their criminal activity". Criminals are criminals. They use whatever they need to use to achieve their goals. Guns are not the problem. Crime and criminals is the problem.



>Well, the subject here in itself was not about crime in general, but gun-murders. My question was about gun-murder rates rather than crime rates, which in itself is a related, but different issue.

Gun murders are a subset of crimes in general. The one is inextricably linked to the other. Poverty, poor education, lack of oppurtuinity, circumstance, environment, etc lead to crime. Gun, knife, axe, whatever, are just tools used in the crime. Crime and its root cause is the problem, not guns per se. Next we will need to outlaw knifes, axes, hammers, pointy things, ...


>>To prove this point imagine a society which has only law abiding and intelligent people. Give them all guns. There will be no increase or decrease in crime (they are law abiding), no one will use their guns for criminal purposes. There might be an increase in gun related accidents but accidents happen in millions of ways and gun related accidents are not the major cause of gun related deaths.
>
>If they all are law abiding, why do we need guns in the first place?

Maybe people want them for recreation, hunting, sport, whatever. The scenario illustrates that law abiding people do not commit violent crimes normally whether or not they posses a gun (or other weapons). Possession of the weapon is not the cause of the crime.


>>Law abiding people do not commit crimes per se regardless of whether they have access to a particular weapon or not. To argue that guns are the problem is to argue that we are all potential murderers just waiting to get a gun. It’s ridiculous.
>
>I don't think that is ridiculous. WE ALL ARE POTENTIAL MURDERS. I don't have a clue what would happen if my son was abused and murdered and I came accross the murderer, but I do know that some will go nuts and will draw a gun when they had one with them. If I don't have a gun, I would not only not killed the guy, but only molested, I also did not have to go to prison for a number of years, my carreer in ruin and a deep scar on my soul for the rest of my life.

If you lost your temper to that degree and wanted the murderer/abuser dead then you would use whatever weapon was around, including that carving knife. Even in your scenario the possesion of the weapon is not the problem. The problem was the initial crime and the effect it had on the victim and victims families, the mental states of those involved.



>Guns are an additional problem. Not only for crimes, but also for 'accidents'.

Crime is commited using tools. Guns are tools. Solve the crime problem and the gun issue becomes moot. Solve the gun problem and the crime will continue.



>I agree with your assesment. Poverty is a great cause of crime. However gun related crime is easier created with guns beeing freely available. Hmmm, a man buys a gun on the corner, enters the bank and robs it. Yeah great.

(1) The "guy on the corner" is either a criminal or not. The fact that he could get a gun does not make him commit the crime. (2) Eliminating guns from the public will not remove guns from the criminals.


>Well, what are you going to tell the moms and dads who lost their son, because he was shot by a fellow student who took the guns of mom and dad and went to school to kill? Those 'accidents' do happen.

What will you tell the moms and dads about the boy who drank too much at a school prom and drove his car with 4 teenage passengers into a brick wall at high speed killing them all (true story here a few years ago)? Will you ban alcohol, proms, cars, or all three?

Make a seperate argument for accidents involving guns and crime involving guns.


>The question is however, why do you need a gun anyways??? You may not kill. The chance that you survive a gun related crime because of a gun is outrun by the chance that you will be killed because of the gun law.

This is without substance as you have not done the research. I know many people who saved themselves because they were armed and could protect themselves. People need guns for a variety of possible reasons and that is another debate in any case.


>Anyways, my question still is. Why is the gun-murder rate in the US about 10 times as high as in Holland ?

Probably for a variety of reasons including a population that is 20 times larger, a much greater spread between rich and poor, between haves and have nots, for historical reasons, cultural reasons, etc. But ultimately the US have a higher gun murder rate becuase they have a higher crime rate. Investigate and solve the causes of the higher crime rate, not politically correct, knee-jerk reactions to ban guns.