[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

He posits that areas of the US with looser gun laws (what are these, btw, concealed firearms?)

As an aside, i'll explain it a bit more. The gun laws are split into two groups. The laxer states which only require a federal background check and registration. The stricter states require an actual license. The CCW (Carry Concealed Weapons) permit is a license you need to have training to recieve, no matter where you are, as it is federal. Some particular weapons and accessories need extreme control. A friend of mine wanted to have a silencer for a gun he had, and he had to get the Sheriff for his county, no less (Not just any deputy, but the actual elected Sheriff, similiar to a Chief Superintendent in the UK) to personally sign off on it, to show that he is happy with the transfer. Needless to say it is not that easy to get or common.

A few other points:

1. Gun control doesn't prevent gun crime. I think honestly, if it did, then everyone who shoots worldwide (yes, there is another function to having a gun, like with archery. And don't forget how big gun hunting is in the US too), would just probably accept it.

2. I wasn't trying to link gun crime with knife crime, but it is a force of habit nowadays, as the media seems to. Certainly is true that if someone wants to kill someone, then if they can't get a gun, they'll do it some other way, and knives seem like the next logcal weapon. I remember one person attacked a school with a Samurai sword? Gun control doesn't prevent crime, it just pushes it on to other weapons. That isn't conclusive of course, as gun crime still goes up, not down.

3. We talk about gun control, but I think the whole idea behind the Sky article isn't gun control, but is trying to further taint the NRA (National Rifle Association). The NRA has been villified for over a century as being a bunch of savages. Rednecks and cowboys, that eat babies and kittens. NRA bashing is probably more prevalent than US bashing. Like with any and all organisations there are distasteful, moronic and otherwise desirable individuals. I certainly won't defend them, but i'll point out that are kinds of people in there, like police officers, judges, doctors, mayors, etc. Some members are actually quite smart and avoid shooting everyone they meet.

Given the choice between waiting for less stupid humans to evolve and banning guns,

I never said there was only two options. But neither one on their own works. People murdering other people will never cease, regardless how much we evolve, and neither will banning guns I'd ban guns - as you seem to have said in your post.

Which confuses me about...

it clearly works

One other thing. The vagueness of the term: gun control. People who shoot, and want a form of self defense aren't bulletproof. We want guns out of the hands of the irresponsible too, but not out of the responsible's hands too. We all want control, but not complete and outright bans, because that causes problems and steps backwards. Anywho, doesn't Jefferson's infamous quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

fit the gun control argument well? Especially as he made sure the right to bear arms as a constituional right.