>>>>The more guns are avialable, the more gun deaths. There is not much to deny here.
>>>
>>>The argument is a false one confusing correlation with causation. It takes the form of X happened and then Y happened. Therefore X was the cause of Y.
>>>
>>>Death by gun is obviously a gun related death (tautology) but the reason there was a crime committed, regardless of the weapon used, has another cause. You say the cause is gun availability. I say the crime has socio-economic causes.
>>
>>That abslolutely is a very important factor. But your overlooking the following.
>>1. Using the argument that guns make things safer, in the least is an argument not to do anything about socio-economic causes. Which in the end will cause things to get even worse.
>
>I don't recall a post stating that "guns make things safer".

Then you did not read them all. They are certainly there. There are even published papers (of course promoted by the gun lobby) saying this. There were noumerous post up here indicating that. e.g. refering to a fabricated document about gun control in australia which was to prove that gun control made thing less safe.

>This is a generalization of yours.

Not at all

>>2. Gun are far more dangerous than the alternatives. Guns are range weapons. You can kill from a distance. There is no skill or force needed to kill someone.

>You would be surprised.

Now, please give me the facts.

>>If you take away guns, knives will be used more often in crimes. Since knives are non-ranged weapons (unless you throw them) they are far less deadly.
>
>One teenager killed every 10 days in the UK this year.

But London is still twice as safe as NY. NY in itself is regarded to be much safe than it was a couple of years ago. Please don't argue with unquantified events. Please come with facts.

>>Look I can see things in SA, being totally different as it lacks the governmental bodies to secure the security needed for the citizens to feel safe. But how on earth can the most powerfull country in the world claim that they need guns to keep their society safe. so enlighten me, on why the safety of european countries cannot not be reached in the US ?

>Once again this is a twisted version of statements made. No one has said that "the most powerful country in the world claims that they need guns to keep their society safe.".

I don't have the time right now, but there are plenty of papers flying arround at least implying that. There even seems a very well known professor saying that (I forgot the name).

Your anti-Americanism is clouding your thinking. The argument from pro-gun people is first about their belief in their constitutional rights. Secondly about the fact that they can use these weapons for both recreational uses and personal defence. Thirdly, that it is not the gun availability that is the problem but socio-economic problems that give rise to crime and violent crime. You seem to simply not be able, or not willing, to see the difference between the cause of crime in a society and the right to bear arms.

Wrong, the gun availability *IS* a problem that contributes to crime. It is not the only problem, but certainly an important factor.

>>Why is the US incapable of not getting as safe as up here??
>
>This is finally the right question. Why not explore the historical, social, socio-economic, demographic, and other factors that can contribute to crime in the US and Europe. I suspect that the causes are not gun availability.

A typical answer we cannot do anything with and most often used as an argument to stay with the status quo.

>
>>Enlighten me,
>
>That pre-supposes your willingness to give due consideration to alternative points of view.

I have not seen a single argument up here that even attempts to give an answer to the question above. Let alone that a solution is proposed.


>>What use has the human race for guns? To kill eachother .... and that is not proving to have any respect for human life.
>>Great...

>The entire west, i.e. Europe and North America, are where they are now because of the west's historical, (and now mainly America's continuing), ability to invent, develop, and control military power. Europe (and therefore Holland) is where it is now because of centuries of using (and abusing) power derived from superior weapons, starting with the gun. Let's not kid ourselves about where and how we come to be so "civilized".

Right.. and the conclusion is ....


>What "respect this has for human life" is another discussion entirely.

No, it is not. It is the individualism that is a threat to respect to human rights.