If guns cause gun violence, then every society with lenient gun laws would have high rates of firearm crime, and every society with very strict firearm laws would have very low rates of firearm crime.

This is simply not true. Some states (like pre 1970's Australia, rural areas everywhere, and countries like Switzerland) have very high rates of firearm ownership and very low rates of firearm crime, while South American countries with very strict firearm laws have horrendous homicide rates.

FACT 1. If all of then people murdered in the USA were completely removed from the homicide statistics entirely, the homicide rate of the USA would still be twice that of Australia. Anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that something other than the mere presence of firearms is the main factor in homicide.

FACT 2. The USA has always had a very high rate of firearm ownership compared with the other countries of the world. But massacres and school shootings started happening around 40 years ago. Anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that if your society is going off the rails, then you should be looking at those factors which have changed over the years, not keep blaming a factor which was always present and was not a factor in the past.

What facors are the factors which have changed?

1. Violent movies engineered to appeal to low status, low intelligence young men, the very demographic most at risk of being influenced by the media's message glorifying violence, criminal behaviour, revenge, drug taking, and misogyny. If you don't think the media influences people, then let's put cigarette and alcohol advertisements in children's magazines.

2. The phenomenon of widespread divorce and single parent families, leading to reduced socialisation of today's children compared to any other generation. These kids are the ones most at risk of the entertainment industries constant glorification of anti social behaviour.

More guns mean less crime and the USA is prime proof.

Diver Dan,

"John Howard is responsible for saving thousands of lives, and that my friends, is the only thing that endears him to me."

"The lives saved were mostly women and children. Whole families were massacred by disassociated partners, at the whim of reaching for a gun.

A truly great achievement! Thank you John Howard!"

Care to back those wild statements up with a reference or two?

I support gun restrictions. No one should have an automatic weapon for the purpose of hunting, nor for the purpose of protecting themselves. But in the US, (as I'm sure is true in Australia and anywhere else) there are homes in rural areas that aren't going to be protected by police or helped by an ambulance until long after another incident occurred. For those areas the right to have a gun is worth it's while for protecting themselves. In the vicinity of a city, having trusted individuals have guns to protect themselves and their community is also something worth having (unless there truely is an equal playing field and no one has guns) so I support police to have guns as well and to use them properly. The only time to keep this out is when there are no guns accessible to criminals. With the US's large border on both Mexico's side and Canada's side, access to bring guns to the US is not going to keep criminals from having access to guns. It's sad but true that the Mexican border has more concern in this area due to drug trafficking and drug lords. With this in mind police should have access to guns that will be able to protect themselves and the community, so at least a division of the police should have more powerful guns as well.

(Continued)

(Continued)

To a lesser degree the arguments for personal use of guns can be applied here, but the arguments against having a personal gun are also worth having. Having a population that is armed and can protect itself will also lessen the burden on the police. People who want to do harm will be put in their place and a shallow grave very soon. So crime can be managed if criminals fear the consquences. The other side of personal guns though is the harms done in a household. the only real way out of that is to ban guns all together. And unfortunately for that, that means that people will be defenseless, or they will get a gun illegally and not be trained in gun classes to handle it safely. That issue hits a hard reality with gun violence being strong in areas that have strict gun laws in it,

The Mexican border and the drug cartels is enough reason to not ban guns in the US nation wide. Or it is a reason to support building a wall on that border so the cities that border Mexico can live in safety.