1st rule: don't base anything off of the US 2nd rule: when you get the chance flee to a country with sensible politics

Remember that guy who [i]decapitated one of your soldiers? [/i] A gun could have stopped him.

Keep at it, but try to stick to U.K stats and you know but use the basic ones like Criminals don't follow laws Self Defense and bring in Concealed Carrying

The arguments are used because the arguments are true, at least here they are. Regardless of strict gun control laws put into place crime is still committed here. The shooting at Santa Monica college comes to mind from a few weeks ago. California has some of the strictest semi-automatic rife laws in the country. The state requires that magazines be fixed, that capacity is set to ten rounds, that it can't have a pistol grip or telescoping stock. Yet the shooter had a rifle with 30 round magazines, not fixed, with a telescopic stock, and pistol grip. It was also a short barreled rifle which is also illegal to posses in California. Despite these laws in place the crime was still committed. Over the past decade the number of guns in the US has steadily grown, all the while crime has fallen and is at a 40 year low. Gun crime really started to become an issue in 1968 after the assassination of Kenedy and the subsequent passage of the 1968 Gun Control act which required all firearm transfers to be done at a licensed dealer. Since then more and more legislation was passed restricting ownership, and crime rose along with them. Then in 2004 when the 1994 crime bill banning Assault Weapons sunsetted, guns began to fly off shelves and crime began to dip again. More and more states are moving towards a shall issue program for conceal weapon permits, and again, crime went going down. Statisically I am more likely to get shot living in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, or Washington DC. All of which have very strict limitations to gun Ownership. Hell, statistically I am more likely to get shot in general in California. This brings into question the effectiveness of the laws. Either they are not effective at all in reducing gun crime, or they have made thing worse as a whole. When we saw the Heller decision in 2008 in regards to handgun ownership in Washington DC we saw a reduction in crime there. Same goes for McDonald in Chicago. We saw a reduction in crime there as well. I am not one to cry Correlation equals causation, but I am one to say the data agrees with the claim.

because you still have criminals with guns in the UK. and if they wanted to, they could make them, like the australian criminals are doing now.

Didn't the crime rate from knives go up in the UK when guns were banned? And isn't Britain trying to get rid of kitchen knives because of the increase of crime? Humans will always try to find a way to kill each other so I propose banning people so it can be avoided altogether.

This is the only statistic that matters.

Wow nobody cares