🚀 go-pugleaf

: Anyway, why compare USA states where guns are easily obtained?  Why not
: compare crime rates against other countries where guns are CONTROLLED
: and difficult to obtain?  Like Japan, England and most of Europe.  Then
: compare crime against countries where guns are easily obtained.  Like
: Mexico, Bosnia and Italy.  Its so obvious that only a gun-fanatic
: cannot understand it.

Simple reason really..  The availability of guns is not the motivator
for crime.  Finland with fairly easy access to firearms is no worse than
the more restrictive European countries.  It is CULTURE that causes crime,
not a tool like a gun or a baseball bat.  Our culture is completely UN
homogenous.  We have more active and wild cultural diversity than any
other place on the face of the Earth; and we pay the price.  We are 
more free than any other nation on Earth, and we pay the price for that
too. Personally, I don't see much difference in a mugger holding you up
with a .25acp pistol between and a mugger bashing your brains out with
a baseball bat and then taking your wallet, except you got better odds
recovering from the .25acp. 

Another strange and interesting "stat" is that if you *are* attacked
in Europe the situation is far more likely to become lethal.  I'm not
a sociologist, so I don't know what this means., its just kind of 
interesting.

The final point to understand is that even if tomorrow, HCI got their
wet dream of a complete ban on legal firearms ownership, it wouldn't
do a thing to remove firearms from the criminal elements.  Their price
would go up a bit, but that would be the end of the effect.  Personally,
I *like* knowing that I'm as well armed as most of the folks who might 
attempt to do me harm.  At least this levels the equipment field. 

: On the other hand, what if guns where heavily taxed and controlled?

Then the criminals would not pay the tax and would have an easier time
robbing and killing law abiding civilians who couldn't afford to pay
the tax.

: Less people would have access to them and there would be less crime.
: Sure, big-daddy crime boss will still have one but he is not who
: I am afraid of walking down the street.  It is the common punk who
: I have a far greater chance of meeting.  He is the one I don't want 
: to have a gun.  And the only way to reduce his odds of having one
: is to reduce the supply of guns.

Sorry, but guns will always be cheap, they last nearly forever, and
are relatively easy to manufacture.  The punk will have the gun, and
you will have had yours confescated; he will shoot you and take your
money, and while you are bleading on the ground, you can ask yourself
whether he paid his taxes.

: It boils down to supply/demand.  Simple economics.
Its obvious that you have no idea how easy a gun is to manufacture.