Simple argument:
If it's a crime to have a gun, only criminals will have guns.
Detailed argument:
The biggest argument people have is fewer guns, fewer gun crimes. The problem is people ignore the full trend. When guns are unavailable, other weapons are used.The states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest violent crime rates.
There are multiple examples of where violent crime sky rocketed when more restrictions were put on guns. Not just in the US either. Better yet, there's multiple examples of when gun restrictions were lifted, violent crime dropped.
Still need more?
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.
It's worth noting that the review panel, which was set up during the Clinton
Administration, was composed almost entirely of scholars who, to the extent
their views were publicly known before their appointments, favored gun control.
The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then-extant studies.
(quoted from links below)
How about this:
- In Europe, Norway has both the highest rate of gun ownership and the lowest homicide rate.
- Russia managed to greatly eliminate gun ownership, yet it's homicide rate is 4 times that of the U.S. and 20 times that of Norway.
- Many European nations with high gun ownership have low homicide, including Norway, Finland, France, and Germany
- Handguns are completely banned in Luxembourg, and gun ownership of any kind is minimal. They have a homicide rate 9 times that of Germany.
But does the weapon matter, or the crime itself?
Harvard did an exhaustive study on gun ownership, gun control laws, and violent crime rates in America and Europe.