<snip>
>>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.
>
>You entirely miss the point. First of all, I'd rather see criminals enforce their criminal activity with intimidations, baseball bats or even knives. The chance the victim survives is simply higher.

This is incredibly naive Walter and puts the cart before the horse. Gun control will not remove guns from the criminals. Do you think the mafia (of all types and persuasions) will hand in their guns just because its illegal to have one? Dont you suspect that possibly the guns they have right now are already illegal and they dont give a hoot?


> Second, If I'm robbed and the criminal discovers I have a gun, I'm more likely to be hurt than when I don't, because then I'm more of a threat to him.

This assumes a lot including that the gun carrying victim does not know how to use it. Which then begs the question why he bothered to get one in the first place.


>Again, I'm better of when they don't fire a gun at me, I still have a higher chance of surviving.

The criminals will still have guns. Why can you not get this? The law abiding person who has a gun, or many guns, is not threatening you. Its the criminal who has a weapon, any weapon, that is your problem.


>>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.
>
>Exactly.

Exactly? If you lose your mind you lose your mind. What difference does it make whether you can get one weapon or the other? You are going to do the deed regardless. Why blame the weapon? Its you who will do the deed.


>>Even in your scenario the possesion of the weapon is not the problem.
>
>Yes it is. If I did not posses a weapon, I simply cannot use it.

Naive. You will find another weapon. You will still do the dirty deed.


>>The problem was the initial crime and the effect it had on the victim and victims families, the mental states of those involved.
>
>Those are problems you cannot prevent anyways. It just happens. Circumstances could make potential killers out of anyone. If those condition are there, you simply don't want anyone to have a gun at their hands. It is asking for trouble in the first place. It won't surprise me that this is accounting for the high murder rates in the US.

You must present statistics to back that up. JohnH will be the most knowledgable in this area. I say its crime in general and the root causes of crime - not the weapon.


>>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.
>
>Guns are deadly tools. You simply want to get rid of those tools as they seem to have no other compelling application for normal citizens aside from criminal activity.

I agree that they are deadly and unforgiving tools. But one must first solve the criminal problem otherwise you will not achieve the goal imo.


>In all respect, the situation in south africa might be different in some respects as poverty and corruption might exceed the levels in many other developped countries. However you still did not answer my question.

I did answer the question. The answer is crime and its root causes.


>Did you see the link Jean came up with. Seems at least an indication it works.

I rarely follow internet links provided as arguments for or against anything. You can find links to support any position. If one is really interested in it then one should do in depth research.


>I'm taking rates. The population numbers in itself are irrelivant.

The population sizes are not irrelevant imo. Managing a country of 300 million people is, I suspect, more complex than managing 15 million people. Plus all the other aspects of a country, population makeup, economic diversity, etc.