More guns will probably not decrease the crime rate as far as street crime is concerned. Unless a "law biding" citizen is walking around with a gun in his hand, he is still subject to a mugging. However, more guns will probably increase gun deaths for the simple fact there will be more guns in households. A greater chance of accidents, or domestic rage.
Fact every state that has passed a right to carry concealed has a minimum of a 10% drop in there violent crime rate immediately after the passing of that bill. Sorry you are wrong the right to carry does in fact reduce violent crime.
The problem is that they don't take into account firearm accidents. The more guns, the more accidents. Down here in Texas, they have very liberal open carry and concealed laws, but yet there is a shooting every week in Dallas.
What makes you think they were accidental. If you really want to look at a death rate look at the number of beating deaths more than gun shots, look at vehicle accidents 20 x more than gun deaths yet no one wants to take away all the cars. Or look at Heart attacks kills more than the three listed above. I live in Texas so I know the laws I serviced in Houston as a Police officer for 28 years I have seen the victims who have been unable to defend themselves against those who would take not only your property, but your life.
Very few, really, want to ban all weapons. You want to own a handgun for protection at home, then fine. But be aware you have just added a dangerous factor into your home. As a police officer I am sure you treat your guns very safely. But not every household will be like that. My point is that the more households with guns, the more deaths and injuries will occur from them being there. As far as open carry of handguns, it is just begging for shootouts on the street. Suppose it was kids with hoodies or gang colors walking down the street with rifles and walking into stores. What would the reaction be?
"vehicle accidents 20 x more than gun deaths"
wrong, in the US there are almost as many gun deaths as death caused by vehicle accidents.
"yet no one wants to take away all the cars."
1) Car use is restricted. (You need a License, this can be taken away ...). Why (at least) introduce required gun Licence to all states.
2) The negative impact on society is much less if you restrict guns. A modern society can work well with very strict Gun legislation. (As proven by most European countries, including Germany.) Modern society without cars on the other hand does not work.
Even if that were true and you had a non-partisan source to cite it, you have no reason to make that claim confidently unless you can control for dozens of variables which virtually no one does.
More guns = more gun-related deaths, but are there less deaths over all? In other words, in countries where gun ownership is severely restricted, are there actually less murders per capita, or do more people just stab, strangle, bludgeon, or poison each other to make up the difference? It's hard to imagine that any other weapons would have as poor a record for accidental killings.
For those of you who say that cars kill more people or almost as many people as guns, but no one wants to limit them, you may be right. Maybe we should invest in more buses and trains to decrease the number of accidental deaths, and decrease our pollution and energy use.
Next study, more cars equals more car deaths. So given that cars kill as many people as guns, and hasn't the left said time and time again, "It's worth it if it saves ONE life." then by that logic shouldn't we ban cars?
This happens, if there are to many guns out there:
So, you'd feel better if he just beat her to death or ran over her with a car? How he killed her doesn't really matter, what matters is he killed her.
No, but it is so much quicker and easier to pull a trigger. Especially for a 11 year old who might not be fully aware of the consequences. There were several witnesses around, somebody would have been able to step in. Also, I don't know many 11 year old who own a car.
How many 11 year olds do you know that own a gun? They could just take a car
We have seen children beat people to death
So does it really matter how a child kills someone? Why do you want to blame the object?
A study by Kleck and Gertz and a study released by the CDC
"Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence,
although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996;
Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive
gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to
more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about
300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the
other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only
108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization
Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a
controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per
year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken
from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is
difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically
about defensive gun use"
Of course criminal will follow any new law, right?
And I really hate to tell the gun control people this, but any gun law is becoming mute, we can now 3d print guns, and some have shot over 500 rounds in semi-automatic mode. With 3d printers getting better and better, soon anyone with a few HUNDRED dollars could print a gun. You can download the plans for a fully automatic sten gun and pick up all the tools you need at harbor freight for well under 2k less if you are willing to accept a rougher finish.