>>I can't believe your stance. So arguing that the numbers of non-gun deaths is substantial is a legitimate reason to ignore the gun deaths?? If half of those gun death did not happen because there was no gun at hand, we could have prevented about 6,000 homocides each year, and reduced the number of homicides by a a 4th to a 3rd.
>>
>>Don't you see the point ????

>No. It is illogical to assume that simply by eliminating a particular instrument that homicide rates will automagically decrease. You are dismissing too many influencing variables and focusing solely on the tool used to perform the homicide, which I find unrealistic.

Guns are the most deadly tools out there specifically made for killing. If you ban guns entirely to the level like here in holland (very, very, very strict). you'll see a shifting in how crime categories. And of course the gun lobby and the gun control lobby will their own quirky math to support their arguments (as seen in australia). But since guns are less deadly than other tools, you'll see a decrease in gun-homocides by definition. You'll of course other crime types increase.

>Pick any homicide case. WHY was murder committed? An act of passion, a bungled burglary, gang warfare? Who was it performed by - male, female, black, white, poor, rich, young, old, someone with a criminal background? By looking only at the weapon, you - and other gun-control advocates - are taking the easy way out. Blame the gun, not the person. SOMEBODY STILL HAD TO PULL THE TRIGGER.

Sure those are all cases that have to be examined, but if two men were fighting with guns and you want to end the fight what do you do ?

a. Investigate why this happened and try to improve the situation.
b. Take off the guns and Investigate why this happened and try to improve the situation.

No matter what you are going to say, you can't tell me that guns improve security. It is one of the most obvious things that have to be regulated. Step two is to take a look at other environmental causes.

The gun lobby is taking the easy route, by just blaming anything else, but the guns. A rather hypocritical stance, or better, a commercial stance. The weapon lobby will do anything to cause confusion and tell you in all ways: it is not the gun. Not because they are right, but just they have an awfull lot to lose.


>What's happening in Toronto bears this out. Why is there a sudden spike in homicides there? Simply because guns are easier to get, all of a sudden? Bzzt, wrong answer. There are societal reasons in play there that if the Canadian government doesn't address simply will not get fixed.

Bzzz. wrong answer. The right answer is that it is a combination of factors. Easier access to guns certainly is one of the factors.

Walter,