No-nonsense gun control in the US. It really does exist.

[DanTex]

71. OK, one by one.

Re: Vermont.

Vermont is one of the most rural states in the nation. Everyone knows that population density is highly correlated with crime rate. Conversely, the UK has high population and many major cities. And yet, the UK still has a lower overall homicide rate than Vermont does (1.0 for UK vs 1.6 for Vermont), which shows just how significant the effect of guns is. Based on the demographics, Vermont should have a far lower homicide rate than the UK.

What's even more remarkable than that is the the City of London actually has a lower homicide rate than Vermont. And this is Vermont, a state that you cherry picked because it came closest statistically (and yet fell short) of the point you wanted to make. If you look at the US as a whole, you will find that London, a huge, diverse, densely populated city with gangs and crime and poverty and everything else, has a lower homicide rate than every single city in the US with a population of greater than 250,000. This is simply a staggering illustration of the drastic difference that tight gun laws make.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2840855

Re: Canada and England. The reason that they had lower homicide rates is that they managed to put in place effective gun laws before massive handgun proliferation occurred like what happened in the US. The situation in London 100 years ago is hardly relevant when discussion gun policy in wealthy modern nations. The simple fact is that the rest of the world decided some time back to adopt reasonable gun laws, and so they never arrived at the place where we are now. We could have done this too in 1934 with the NFA if only they had included handguns. If we had done that, hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved, and we would not be in the position we are in now where our homicide rates are far higher than in the rest of the world.

Re: "guns vs lives". Yes, that is the basic decision we face. It's not that I can't accept any other "X versus lives" argument: on the contrary, I believe that there are many factors that affect rates of gun violence and homicide. For example, like I said, being a rural state reduces the crime rate. But we're not going to be able to change the rurality of the nation. Gun control is something we can change.

The "consistency" argument you make is patently ludicrous. I also have a consistent set of principles that govern my beliefs, the only difference between you and I is that you place a lot more value on guns, whereas I place a lot more value on saving lives. My set of principles implies respect for same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, etc. It's not a question of consistency, it's a question of priorities.