>>>>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 ????
>>
>
>
>You also don’t seem to get the point Walter. There are two mistakes that you make imo:
>
>1) Gun related accidents. These represent a minority of gun-related incidents as has been explained.

So what is the mistake here? Minor or not might depend on country. See http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti198.pdf where accidents make up about half of all gun related deaths in australia. Again I don't see where I fail to see the point. If we can prevent half of those deaths because of gun control, that would be a major accomplishment. If only a tiny fraction, this is also something we gained.

I guess I'm on the standpoint where I totally do not believe that the right to carry a gun is preventing gun-deaths at all. Despite the gun lobby tries to tell you this is simply not a fact that can be supported by any statistics I have seen.

>2) You attribute the lower gun-related incidents in Holland to the strict gun laws.

Yes,

>You are attributing a cause to an effect, but you have not proven this relationship. I think the low gun-related incidents in Holland is due to a low crime rate in general, which is due to the fact that Holland, and several other European countries, have by and large managed to satisfy Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for the vast majority of the population which therefore makes crime a much less attractive alternative (or requirement) compared to simply abiding by the law.

You surely have a point in here that the economical factors in the US will stimulate crime. However no-one is going to convince me that legal guns lower crime rates. Get strict gun-control and let the statistics do its work. That is, of course, if you're willing to do something about crime rates. That of course is the point: There is no public nor political will to reduce crimerates at all by taking the the neccesary steps to do so.

>It’s the crime rate, not the weapon used in crime. Solve the right problem. People want a crime free society. Gun availability (or a lack thereof) becomes much less relevant if the society is law abiding and free of crime.

Ehhh, how long have you been away from holland, jos? A lot has changed in holland the last few years. We have major problems with criminal marrocan and antillian youth. The latter already have a high percentage of guns. We surely don't want every young person to lay their hands on a gun on every occasion. You still might know the expression "Gelegenheid maakt de dief" (Availability makes the thief). This certainly also applies to those groups of minority. I really hate to see that every person in the named groups could carry a gun without any legal consequences. It is asking for problems. If you make it easier to get a gun at your hand it will have inmediate consequences in gun-deaths.

Walter,