http://www.bradycampaign.org/
http://www.peacecoalition.org/facts/firearm_facts.shtml
http://<b>http://pearlyabraham.tripo...guns2.html</b>
"The general correlation between the murder rate and the ownership of guns, especially handguns, is clear. Some might try to muddy this correlation by appealing to differences in gun control laws, but that doesn't help much.
Europeans have far stricter gun regulation than the U.S.. So their lower murder rates are actually an argument in favor of gun control.
The correlation between gun availability and murder begs the question : which causes which?
Before delving into this argument, we should note that the correlation itself is embarrassing to the gun lobby. They would love nothing more than to see the U.S. with both the highest gun ownership and lowest murder rate in the world. But this is not the case, and gun lobbyists are reduced to esoteric, "what-if" types of arguments.
For example, what if the U.S. had even fewer guns than it has now? Then the murder rate would be even higher, they claim. (!!!) It's only because the murder rate is soaring that people are defending themselves by buying more guns.
There are several weaknesses to this argument.
One might ask what kind of a "deterrence" is correlated to the very crime it is supposed to deter. The gun advocate might respond, "Well, firefighters are correlated to forest fires." But in the latter stages of a fire there is a negative correlation, as firefighters increase and fires diminish. A similar negative correlation between guns and murder has yet to be observed, anyplace, anywhere.
Furthermore, when guns are involved in the vast majority of murders -- 70 percent and growing -- it is clear that the "solution" and the "problem" are one and the same.
One might also ask how a nation achieves a high murder rate in the first place without guns. After all, it's not easy to kill by clubbing, stabbing or hanging; these methods lack the super-ability and feasibility that guns provide. This is borne out by the fact that the murder rate is significantly lower in places where these are the primary murder methods. An even stronger rebuttal is the effect of gun control laws.
If the above pro-gun argument were true, we should expect to see the murder rate climb, not fall, after the passage of gun control laws. But the introduction of gun control in Washington D.C., Kansas City, Canada, the Massachusetts 1974 Bartley-Fox Amendment, and the Brady Law shows that the murder rate indeed falls.
But perhaps the greatest weakness of the pro-gun argument is that only I percent of all murders are considered by the FBI to be justifiable homicide by firearm. Self-defense might be the intention of people who buy guns, but when these weapons actually get used, it's almost always for murder. The implications of this are fatal to the pro-gun argument, because people's intentions are irrelevant -- the only thing that matters is how these guns are actually used. If they are used mostly for murder, with little deterrence effect, then the arrow of causality runs from gun availability to murder. Even then, causality wouldn't be the central issue here; guns could be banned simply on the grounds that they are used mostly for murder. "
I am through arguing about this. I am for guns, but I am not for killing ppl or animals. Obviously I cannot contend with so many people who are intent on proving a CCW is valuable to the public. This is what I feel. I will not change. Stated above are FACTS NOT OPINION. You do not have to prove yourselves to me. I am not the Federal Government/State Legislature, and I do not have the power to change any present and future laws. I am not interested in arguing a subject that has no end.