[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They pay for it in other ways, like higher crimes for other weapons and the occasional genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, that's a ludicrous assertion. (the genocide part)

You can make the case that gun control is bad without showing that gun control has negative outcomes for societies (which is empircally tenuous at best)

besides I think if you asked most people to consider if they'd rather live in a society where there were

1) one thousand gun crimes and zero property crimes
or 2) zero gun crimes and two thousand property crimes

they would choose 2

likewise

1) 1000 gun crimes and 0 stabbings
or 2) 0 gun crimes and 2000 stabbings

they would choose 2 as well

--

if you want to make the case that widespread guns actually decrease all crime do so. likewise if you want to make the case that gun crimes and gun ownership are not connected (view Canada) for example then do so

but you don't need to assert that gun control laws make people unsafer when they in fact don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Hitler round up guns before rounding up Jews?

You believe 2000 stabbings is not as bad as 1000 gun crimes? I'd say it's worse. My guess is that getting stabbed in the chest or abdomen is just as deadly as getting shot there (and maybe deadlier). Getting knifed in a major artery might be deadlier than getting shot there, too. My guess is also that 2000 is more than 1000;-) - seriously, I think 2000 stabbings would be a lot worse than 1000 gun crimes.